Certainly, but he was making a specific theological argument, not a criminal law argument.
Actually, it was a natural-law argument.
We know she has voted--and done so where it counts--to have the State take resources away from people in group A and give them instead to people in group B. It's reasonable to argue--heck, lots of people here made this very argument--that without those resources, people on the margins in group A will die. It is not clear--again, lots of people here made this argument--that those resources will save anyone in group B; as a matter of fact, it's more likely that as a result of the nationalization of health care, more people in both group A and group B will die.
We know that she voted to use federal tax money, extorted from people who are passionately opposed to abortion, to pay for abortions.
We know that she voted to greatly expand the powers of the FDA, which will significantly raise the price of food, putting it further out of the reach of people on the margin and undoubtedly killing some of them.
We know that she voted to have the State extort more money from responsible, successful people and use it to bail out irresponsible, unsuccessful people.
We know that she voted for an expansion of the definition of employer discrimination, trampling the property rights of small business owners.
There's much, much more. She's been a federal politician for four years.
She is not innocent. She has used the coercive power of the state to hurt many, many people, undoubtedly killing some of them; and her legacy will live on after her, hurting and killing more.
As for John Roll, it's anybody's guess--which means I don't feel like doing the research--how many people he's sent to prison over his lifetime for actions that didn't hurt anybody but of which the State disapproved. 63 is a decent-sized lifetime. My guess is that there were at least hundreds. If he hadn't been a minion of the State, every single one of those would count as a felony kidnapping. He's not innocent either.
The thing that makes politicians and other criminals different from regular folks in my mind is that they deliberately pursue a compulsion to coercively control other people rather than minding their own business.
But yes, for all those keeping score, even though Giffords and Roll were politicians, it was not OK for some guy to walk up and shoot them.
But, by your own words, you believe it to be less wrong; for their injuries or death to be less tragic, than if it happened to someone who was not a politician or judge? And, you think that they chose those careers because they were corrupt and because God might have forgotten to put something important in them?
Those are your words, Ed, and clearly evidence as to why you need help.
