A dramatic day in court for domestic terrorist Robert Lewis Dear, who leapt to his feet during his arraignment hearing today to confirm his motives for his murderous assault on the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs late last month. AP reports:
In court Wednesday, Robert Dear said the state public defender’s office wants to seal documents and limit discussion of his case to hide what he saw inside the clinic.
Dear shouted, “You’ll never know what I saw in that clinic. Atrocities. The babies. That’s what they want to seal.”
Dear noted that his attorney also represented Colorado theater shooter James Holmes. He says attorney Daniel King “drugged” Holmes, and “he wants to do that to me.”
…The man accused of killing three people at a Planned Parenthood clinic says he’s guilty and that he’s a “warrior for the babies.” [Pols emphasis]
In the immediate aftermath of the attack on Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs on November 27th, abortion opponents flailed wildly trying to distance themselves and their summerlong campaign of lies about the organization from the shooter’s actions. Conservative media, followed by local social media voices and Republican elected officials all the way up to Ted Cruz, clung to any unsourced rumor about the shooter’s motives: that he was a “transgender leftist,” that he was a bank robber “gone wild,” and various other deflections. Even after news reports surfaced that Robert Dear had used the words “no more baby parts” when explaining his actions to police, investigators in ultra-conservative Colorado Springs were unusually slow to “speculate” about Dear’s motive.
After today’s outburst in court, we’d say it’s time to stop speculating.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: QuBase
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: The realist
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: kwtree
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: SSG_Dan
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Weekend Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
I predict a competency hearing in Mr. Dear's future, followed by a very long stint in various state (or possibly Federal) institutions. Seems like a reasonable wish to grant — no need for a lengthy trial.
That doesn't make him any less insane. Sorry, your guilt by association isn't going to work.
So, by your reasoning, ISIS has no culpability for the deaths in San Bernardino, either?
Spreading hate and lies about an "enemy" has no consequences, in your book?
Only when he disagrees with the terrorists.
Wasn't Moddy yapping recently (I know it's been in the last week) about saving babies by keeping the investigation of PP an ongoing concern?
Yes, as he was cheering on Kevin Lundborg's witch-hunt of an investigation.
I never advocated violence. So much guilt by association today.
You're quite feisty today.
Why don't you just blame people for their own actions instead of everyone else's?
Probably got an "NI" on his Shill Performance Evaluation from House, and he's feeling some heat . . .
You didn't advocate violence, but you spread lies, and because of those same lies that YOUR party was spreading, innocent people are dead.
That's okay?
When they do it:
– Radical Islamists, When has a Muslim ever condemned these attacks?, Islam is violent.
When we do it:
– Dude crazy.
Just like Modster's idiotic comments don't reflect the worst aspects of the GOP either (cough, cough)
So, he shouldn't have been allowed to possess firearms??
Dio, let me play devil's advocate here and make the argument that the ammosexuals would like to make:
Where, I ask you, is there an exception in the Second Amendment allowing the Big Gummint to abridge the God-given rights of the insane and/or terrorists to bear arms?
Where? That would be question 11f of ATF form 4473 – "have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective"
Charged with rape, domestic abuse, threatening neighbors, convicted of stalking, and a bunch of minor offenses, clearly unstable and paranoid….
Modster, Negev, AC,do Mr. Dear's second amendment privileges take higher priority than his victim's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Would you sell an AK to this guy with a clear conscience?
Charged but not convicted. Unfortunately, makes a difference.
His ex-wife had a restraining order on him. That would have prevented him from buying a gun in Colorado, thanks to Evie Hudak, who paid the price for protecting victims.
Still, the question to our "gunnies" stands: Would you sell a gun to this nut with a clear conscience? Not that any of them will answer that question, of course.
If he had a restraining order in place he would have been prevented from buying a gun anywhere in the country. Evie Hudak had nothing to do with that. (see Form 4473 question 11(h)).
Yup. You're right – Hudak sponsored a bill , SB197, that would mandate that domestic abusers relinquish their guns. As you noted, 19 other states have laws on the books which would prevent someone named in a restraining order from purchasing a gun. So I'm inferring that you would support those state laws, and also Hudak's bill, by your quote:
"He should not have a gun".
Women are most likely to be killed by a gun wielded by their spouses and partners.
Senator Hudak resigned in order to keep gun laws in place that saved lives. Thank you, Senator.
All 50 states have laws preventing someone named in a restraining order from purchasing a gun. My point is he should not have a gun, but he did. Most likely he broke the law. Perhaps two, or maybe 10 laws, making it clear that criminals do not obey laws. Adding a misdemeanor possession charge to 3 counts of murder does not seem to deter a nutjob, Agreed? Did not appear to save lives.
Hudak resigned in order for her party to stay in power. The recall group did not even have enough signatures to start the recall.
Perhaps your point is that a question on some silly "instacheck" form, only at the same time of a few retail purchases, is fairly meaningless, and that what is really needed is thorough, intense investigation and background checks, which may take a good deal of time — maybe upwards of a month, for all gun owners, as well as mandatory database reporting by all parties (law enforcement, mental health, social workers, and physicians) — including periodic reevaluation and investigation — an effective gun-owner licensure, much as is required in Israel, and most other civilized countries???
… or, maybe not???
Maybe not. Point is there are more guns than people in America. Think about that. Take all time in the world, anal probe and DNA test whoever you want, if someone wants a gun, they can get a gun. Legally, illegally, stolen, made, borrowed, whatever. Robert Dear was not a law abiding citizen, why are you surprised he did not follow the law?
Do you know how he got or what type of gun he had? I can't seem to find that answer…
Would I sell him an AK? No. Appears I didn't have to.
Solid shot at weaseling your way out of the question.
It’s his super power.
What part of "NO" did you not understand?
Oh, we all saw that. We also saw that the implied reason was that he already had one.
So, what if he wanted another? Would you sell it to him? If not, why not?
No. I would not sell him another gun. Why? Because he is a nutjob. Period. He should not have a gun.
Yet he did. You should make a law against that, because, you know, murder being illegal just seems so… ineffective….
Re-reading this morning, I apologize. It didn't read that way when I looked at it yesterday, but I accept your 'No' as-is.
This why I can’t help but enjoy Negev, even though he only shows up when his one issue, gun rights, is on the table and that seems kind of trollish. Despite that it's possible to have a civil discussion.
Thank you, I think? Civil troll I suppose is not so bad.
On another note, what is your take on Kermit Gosnell? Would it be unreasonable to correlate, for example, an Adam Lanza in the gun debate to a Kermit Gosnell in the abortion debate? Would the actions of Mr Gosnell warrant more restrictions on every women's right to choose?
Anti-abortionists are morally vacuous. If they actually believed one-tenth of their overheated rhetoric, they should all be "warriors for the babies."
Exactly. If they really think a holocaust is going on then they all should be taking up arms against it. If they aren't it's either because they know their rhetoric is just that or they're cowards unwilling to do anything but bitch about the holocaust while letting it go on.
One sure test for whether you really believe a bundle of cells matters just as much as a baby that's been born is this classic. You have the chance to save one or two babies from a fire or load up with all the test tubes containing fetilized eggs that have divided into a small bundle of cells that you can carry, many, many more than one or two. Which do you choose?
If your answer is the one or two babies (and God help you if it's not) you don't really believe that every ferilized egg has the same value and the same degree of right to life as a born baby does. Your holocaust rhetoric is therefore fundamentally dishonest. As it is if you aren't just as keen on shutting down fertility clinics where "leftovers" are routinely disposed of and just as hysterical over the holocaust taking place in that sphere as you are about closing down Planned Paenthood clinics that include abortion services as a small percentage of services offered.
So I don't say to anti-choicers exactly put up or shut up. They have the right to express their personal opposition to abortion. But I do say drop the baby killing/holocaust rhetoric because, when push comes to shove, even you anti-choicers don't believe it. That is except for the Dears of your world.
Nice logical argument, BC. For the Dears of the world,logic does not apply.
If he believes abortion is a holocaust then his decision is consistent with his logic. The rigties who also say it's a holocaust but insist he's just a luatic, nothing to do with them and their rhetoric, are the ones who's logic is faulty.
You'd still have a hard sell proving he didn't know what he was doing was wrong. He might think it was justifiable (thanks to Republican rhetoric he was following), but he still knew it was wrong. Otherwise, why didn't he slaughter everyone, and die in a hail of bullets?
No argument. A wrong act may conform to logic. It's hard to see how he could be found to meet the legal definition of insanity.
Dude, put your heart into it. I get it must suck, day after day, defending the indefensible. But there are probably others that would take your place if you are no longer up to the job.
Does this mean the Denver Post's team of crack reporters who wrote that Dear was recent marijuana migrant might have been spreading unfounded and worthless speculation???
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29214166/planned-parenthood-gunman-was-marijuana-newcomer-say-rural
This is terrorism and should be treated as such. Period. What's crazier about a Christian killing to save babies than a Muslim couple with a child throwing it all away to kill for jihad? You might call them both crazy. Maybe not. Certainly in both cases an act of terror was committed. There should also be federal prosecution. As for guilt by association, that's just one of the phrases modster spits out. I don't think he knows what it means.
Written to my Facebook page:
+ 10 Phoenix
and how…
Agree
And BTW, wacky as he may be the legal definition of insanity is not knowing right from wrong. If Holmes was judged legally sane after blowing away strangers he had nothing against for no religious or political reason but just on the basis of some personal point accumulaing system, Dear is, if anything, less insane. After all, he had a reason. Stop the baby killing. In fact, all those anti-choice advocates who swear up and down that abortion is more than merely murder but represents a holocaust should not find it insane that someone should determine that killing in order to stop it is a rational response. Especially those anti-choicers, almost all of them, who are for the death penalty and not conscientious objectors. They might think he made a wrong choice for a variety of reasons but why would they find his choice insane?
So here's our chance to avoid another lengthy expensive trip to a destination we could reach in short order. He pleads guilty at state level and also to charges of domesic terrorism at the federal level and gets put away for life with no chance of parole. Everybody's happy.
Yep. Dear knows what he did is wrong – he justifies it by saying it's less wrong than all the "babies dying" at PP. He knows he's guilty, and has admitted it in court. The same public defender tried to get Holmes a plea with a life sentence and was rebuffed; perhaps the El Paso DA would be willing to settle for the deal. What are the chances?
The local media and the national media are really starting to piss me off. Last night both Lester Holt and the guy on Channel 9 both made statements like it seems abortion may be the cause. Come on guys. The shooter said it straight out. It doesn't seem like the cause, it is the cause and his motivation for shooting three innocent people, including a police officer who moonlights as a pastor. Quit with this mealy mouthed BS. He admitted his motive was to stop abortion. So stop mincing words. You're taking the Republican line in this case.
The thing that scares me most is that I'm not sure you could seat a jury of 12 in Colorado Springs that would convict this guy, let alone give him the death penalty.
Let me say first that I agree with your points, and totally agree that they should be able to say "His motive was x, based on what he has said."
But let me tell you, that's exactly the sort of statement that will get a Journalist — not a talking head, or a columnist, or anyone on Fox News, but a real, live, big-J Journalist — canned in a newsroom.
Until there's a trial or conviction, everything is "alleged" this and "probable/possible" that. And I know because I got in trouble for running a soundbyte once — not even me speaking, a police officer saying — "he did it, and we got him."
It's not the Republican line. It's the unfortunate blurred line between Journalist and opinion-haver.
The current standard of journalism is:
It is not required that what A says is true.
It only has to be true that A said it.
+1
out right flipping it now. accusing Dems of being "warriors for baby killing," then shut up and skulk away when confronted a second time… domestic HOMEGROWN terrorist. Conservatives in Colo Spgs want to quash the whole affair.
Some liberals, not all but some, would proudly consider themselves "warrior for baby killing." Anyone who would allow a doctor to kill a baby born alive supports baby killing
Who would?
Name one.
You mean liberals, like in Israel? The country that feasts on the largess of the American taxpayer, yet has one of the most liberal abortion policies in the world?
Have no idea what the official religious view is but the folk tradition was always that abortion is OK until quickening. That's when you can first feel movement. But righties also give Israel a pass on being a socialist country with a top down controlled economy, government controlled prices, universal healthcare and all that other evil socialist stuff. Meantime they call center right Dems socialists and Obama, who has never proposed anything anywhere near so far left, a lefty Satan. Go figure.
They need Israel for Armageddon, so it's all cool.
After which, every Jew who doesn't accept Jesus can go to hell. Yeah, I know.