to Christian Gallery News Service,
The Michigan Court of Appeals recently reversed the Kalamazoo County Circuit Court's conviction of this woman and ordered a new trial because Judge Richard Ryan Lamb had not instructed the jury about the "defense of others" theory and they considered it applicable to the case.† The pregnant woman has the right to use deadly force to protect her fetus (that's Latin for "baby) from attack even if her own life is not in danger!
appeals court did not directly address a key issue in abortion cases: when a
fetus becomes a "person" (legal-speak to differentiate between
innocent human beings our government protects--persons--and innocent human
beings our government destroys and allows to be destroyed--non-persons).
"This issue ... is not raised by the parties, is not pertinent to the
resolution of the ... case, and does not drive our ruling today," the
court said in its 3-0 decision last week.†
The court said the issue was whether an unborn fetus was
"entitled to the protection of the laws of the state of
Nevertheless, as the case justifies the mother's use of lethal force to protect her fetus it very much implicates the boyfriend for "murder" of a living human being in his attempt to kill the fetus; that the human fetus is an innocent, living human being is implied in the decision.† The "defense of others" or "justifiable homicide" defense against murder doesn't apply to using lethal force to protect animals or trees or rocks or "blobs of non-living tissue". Only living human beings. I cannot employ lethal force against someone who wants to cut my grass without my permission. However, I can employ lethal force against someone who wants to kill my preborn baby without permission, and this case lends credence to natural right of self-defense and defense of others. Although the court doesn't admit it, clearly this is a defense of the humanity and innocence of the preborn child.
who respect the God-given right to life appreciate the Michigan Court of
Appeals refusal to discriminate against the preborn human being in this case.
This pregnant woman did not commit "murder" when she employed
lethal force to stop her boyfriend from killing her preborn baby, but rather,
God's law wouldn't condemn her as a criminal, but praise her as a
hero, and man's laws should be based upon God's laws.† "Justifiable homicide" is already
a good defense in our society when employing lethal force to stop
already-born humans from being killed, and the juries should be allowed to
hear that defense from those charged with using lethal force to stop preborn
human beings from being killed.† Let
the jury decide if the "defense of others" argument justifies the
actions of Michael Griffin, Paul Hill, or Shelly
EDITORíS NOTE:† This note will put the justifiable homicide defense in context.† One of the most bizarre situations in the history of American jurisprudence was created during the trial of Paul Hill, accused of the first degree murder of an abortionist in Pensacola, Fl.† The trial judge refused to allow Paul Hill to submit a justifiable homicide defense to the jury, saying the defense was ďfrivolousĒ and therefore not applicable in Paul Hillís case.†† Paul Hill then refused to offer any defense at all, effectively allowing the trial judge to give the jury no alternative but to convict him of a first degree murder and give him the death penalty.† In effect, Paul Hill chose to become a martyr rather than have his attorneys present any other defense than the justifiable homicide defense.
Why did Paul Hill do that?† Paul Hill claimed the justifiable homicide defense was the only ground of defense available to him that had any chance at all of being accepted as a logical and reasonable and valid justification for his killing the abortionist.
The precedent established in Paul Hillís trial is one of the most threatening precedents imaginable.† Paul Hillís judge ruled that in a trial for his life, a citizen of the United States of America could not present to the jury trying his case the ground of defense perceived best by the person on trial for his life.† In other words, the Judge presumed to take the choice of how best to defend himself away from a defendant on trial for his life and substitute in place of the defendantís choice, the decree of the judge.† In Paul Hillís case, the judge effectively nullified the jury and put Paul Hill on death row without ever allowing the jury the right to hear the defense chosen by Paul Hill.
Paul Hill is now awaiting the death penalty to be executed on him in Florida, a State whose governor is Jeb Bush, the brother of the sitting President of the United States.† If reports are true, Paul Hill is willing to be killed soon.† Paul Hill believes that his death will bring the wrath of God closer to be executed against the United States of America.
Be that as it may, one thing is clear to me: When he is executed, Paul Hillís body will merge with the growth of cadavers that has been cancerously spreading over this nation ever since the Supreme Court declared War on the least of Godís children.