|
|
Post by Rev Don Spitz on Jul 13, 2003 12:42:51 GMT -6
I was at both Paul Hill's federal and state trials. There were some
serious errors in Paul Hill's trial. Mainly, he was forbidden to say why he shot
the two people. Because he was unable to give his defense for the shootings, he
could say nothing during the trials. Since he was not allowed to say why he
shot the two, but admitted doing it, what was he to do? He could either lie
(which he would not do) or just sit there, which is what he was forced into
doing.
At the state trial, which is the one which imposed the death penalty; the jurors
came out and asked if he was incarcerated with life, would he ever be allowed
out. The judge refused to answer this question. This question indicated they
wanted to give him life, and would have done so, if they were sure he would not
be released. Because the judge refuse to answer this question; they believed
they had to impose the death penalty. Florida does have life without parole.
Paul Hill was denied the lawyers of his choice; e.g. Michael Hirsh and Vince Heuser.
I could never ascertain why he was denied his lawyers, I believe at least one, if not both
were license to practice in Florida at the time. Paul Hill was forced to choose either a
lawyer who did not agree with his defense, or to defend himself. The only choice he
actually had then, was to defend himself.
I am really looking to get legal help. I think this is the only way to save
his life. I don't want September 3rd to arrive and we have not done all we could
and they execute Paul Hill.
I've decided to do what I can to stop Paul Hill from being executed. I know Paul
will do nothing in his defense, but I believe he is an innocent man, (not because
he didn't do what he was convicted of, but because his actions were
justified and moral and he should not be punished for doing what is right.) Even
though Paul will resist being helped, I believe we must do whatever we can to
save his life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jul 13, 2003 16:06:20 GMT -6
Its a sad case of a man obsessed with what he believes is right.
But he has committed premeditated murder in pursuit of that obsession. When you take the law into your own hands, you must be prepared to pay the consequences. It looks as though by not appealing, Paul Hill accepts those consequences. The other issues you mention are quite frankly technicalities that can't save him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirk on Jul 13, 2003 16:11:35 GMT -6
I was at both Paul Hill's federal and state trials. There were some serious errors in Paul Hill's trial. Mainly, he was forbidden to say why he shot the two people. Because he was unable to give his defense for the shootings, he could say nothing during the trials. Since he was not allowed to say why he shot the two, but admitted doing it, what was he to do? He could either lie (which he would not do) or just sit there, which is what he was forced into doing. At the state trial, which is the one which imposed the death penalty; the jurors came out and asked if he was incarcerated with life, would he ever be allowed out. The judge refused to answer this question. This question indicated they wanted to give him life, and would have done so, if they were sure he would not be released. Because the judge refuse to answer this question; they believed they had to impose the death penalty. Florida does have life without parole. Paul Hill was denied the lawyers of his choice; e.g. Michael Hirsh and Vince Heuser. I could never ascertain why he was denied his lawyers, I believe at least one, if not both were license to practice in Florida at the time. Paul Hill was forced to choose either a lawyer who did not agree with his defense, or to defend himself. The only choice he actually had then, was to defend himself. I am really looking to get legal help. I think this is the only way to save his life. I don't want September 3rd to arrive and we have not done all we could and they execute Paul Hill. I've decided to do what I can to stop Paul Hill from being executed. I know Paul will do nothing in his defense, but I believe he is an innocent man, (not because he didn't do what he was convicted of, but because his actions were justified and moral and he should not be punished for doing what is right.) Even though Paul will resist being helped, I believe we must do whatever we can to save his life. Why are you raising an issue about this just now, you have had a long time to bring up these issues and a few months before his execution date it all comes up. |
|
|
|
Post by jamie on Jul 13, 2003 17:23:44 GMT -6
Rev. Paul Hill should NOT have killed these people. He did get what is deemed punishment here on this mortal world.
If this gets him to into heaven on Judgement day well that is between God and him.
Here though he committed a crime. The two men he killed were within the laws of giving abortions to women who want them. He had no right to do this.
He is were he put himself.
Jamie
PS: First, it's pretty darn obvious why he shot them. I really don't think if he said why he killed them it would have made any difference in his fate.
|
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Jul 13, 2003 20:35:07 GMT -6
Well it seems the good Rev. should have read the part of the bible that says "Do not murder" or in the KJV "Thou shall not Kill".
If he had read that part and done what it said he would not be on DR today and 2 people would likely be alive today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jul 13, 2003 21:14:53 GMT -6
Mainly, he was forbidden to say why he shot the two people. You are no "Rev." THe above statement is a simple lie. Also, there is no acceptable reason for shooting them, other than self-defense or immediate prevention of them from killing or harming others. If the "Rev." Paul Hill has a shred of anything that would make him worth of being called "Rev", he should be welcoming his execution. You don't know what the jurors wanted. There may have been only one juror who wanted an answer to that question and the answer may not have been the deciding factor in the deliberations. Even in a state with LWOP, the answer is always, "It is possible that he may be allowed out, once execution is eliminated, nobody has complete control over his time in prison." |
|
AntiDeath Penalty Advocate
Guest
|
Post by AntiDeath Penalty Advocate on Jul 15, 2003 21:27:17 GMT -6
Be advised that Donald Spitz's group "The Army Of God" has ties to White Supremacist groups. Plus it is hypocritical that AOG has in the past been staunchly pro-DP. Of course, now that one of their own is facing execution they are crying "foul"..these are the same people that probably celebrated when a Ted Bundy got executed.
I am against the DP, preferring LWOP for somebody like Hill. It seems that Spitz really wants Hill to die so he can have another martyr for his cause. He believes that John Salvi was murdered in his cell by NARAL operatives as well...Spitz is also a staunch supporter of fellow neo-Nazi Eric Rudolph. Surprised at this fact?
|
|
|
|
Post by felix on Jul 16, 2003 5:37:31 GMT -6
just reading the various posts on this. The commandmants say do not kill, pity the abortionists were not following this at the time?
Someone also noted you are only entitled to kill when there is an immediate threat to life, agreed, so why kill people on DR. Americans need to stop treating human beings as they would commodities. Same with Guatanamo bay, if you cant kill under existing rules then you make them up or use a means for avoiding any due process. I think it will all catch up with you in the end. The British will kick your *%#*@* over your criminal attempts to murder people in hidden kangaroo courts,- hypocrites!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jul 16, 2003 10:48:49 GMT -6
Rules are not being made up "as the US goes along" Felix. Military Court Martials have been around to deal with crimes in wartime as long as states have existed.
And don't be so naive. The British have used them as well. After WWII, Britain executed a number of war criminals. The same occured in 1916 in Ireland. Indeed, scarcely has there been a country with a more bloody history when it comes to executions. Visit the Tower of London sometime! Last executions at the Tower by the way were of German sabateurs during WWII!
Britain isn't going to kick anybody's ass over anything. What nonsense! The UK has already given up asking for the transfer of the "Guantanmo Two" to the UK because they have no law to try them under.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2003 11:38:53 GMT -6
You just don`t kill people because you don`t agree with what they are doing, he does need to die for what he did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2003 18:01:27 GMT -6
Paul Hill ( I can't even bring myself to call him a Rev.) deserves the DP. Not only did he take 2 innocent lives but he did it under the guise of Christianity. As a Pro- Life Christian myself I find his claim of "doing what was right for God" completely offensive. Paul Hill knows that God did not support his act, otherwise he would not be fighting his execution so hard. He would look at it as a chance to finally be with his maker.
|
|
|
|
Post by Felix on Jul 17, 2003 7:12:35 GMT -6
Noni, you say Paul Hill killed two "innocent" people, -these people were engaged in the taking of countless innocent lives.
I agree they should never have been killed, but I dont view them, their profession or the acts they were engaged in as "innocent", legal yes, but that goes to show how what is legal does not always coincide with what is moral.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2003 10:40:04 GMT -6
Felix,
I completely agree that the people he killed were not "innocent" on a moral ground, but they were innocent in the eyes of the law. Abortion is still legal in this country and whether that is right is not the question at hand. The question is was Paul Hill justified in killing 2 people and the answer is a firm NO!!! The court and jury affirmed this with his death sentance. I saw good riddance
|
|
|
|
Post by Felix on Jul 18, 2003 0:56:31 GMT -6
Fair enough Noni, it seems that we agree except on whether the DP ought to be used, I accept your view is different on that point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Walsh on Aug 28, 2003 15:55:10 GMT -6
Fry the bastard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boj on Aug 29, 2003 11:06:47 GMT -6
Paul Hill might as well be Osama bin Laden. Both claim religion and their judgement of who is evil as a basis to kill.
May he rot in Hell
|
|
|
|
Post by john2 on Sept 3, 2003 13:00:43 GMT -6
Paul Hill might as well be Osama bin Laden. Both claim religion and their judgement of who is evil as a basis to kill. May he rot in Hell If he's like Bin Laden, does that mean you get to kill him twice and he still appears on TV? :-) |
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Sept 3, 2003 14:56:45 GMT -6
The federal charges stemmed from a federal clinic-protection law, which Hill violated when he murdered Dr. Britton and Mr. Barrett and attempted to murder Mrs. Barrett. That's totally separate from the state murder and attempted murder charges. The claims that Hill wasn't permitted to raise a defense are misleading. Hill wanted to turn the trial into a circus and to raise the defense of necessity/justification. This was properly not permitted because abortion is a lawful act, not an illegal act. Hill's decision to murder three people (he intended to kill Mrs. Barrett, as well) that day was based on his moral disagreement with a legal act and he was not justified in doing so. For more information about Paul Hill and the state case (the federal case was apparently not appealed), go to: www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/84838/84838.html |
|
|
|
Post by halfpint on Sept 5, 2003 18:52:48 GMT -6
Noni, you say Paul Hill killed two "innocent" people, -these people were engaged in the taking of countless innocent lives. I agree they should never have been killed, but I dont view them, their profession or the acts they were engaged in as "innocent", legal yes, but that goes to show how what is legal does not always coincide with what is moral. But who are you to determine what is moral Felix? What might be moral for you is not so for someone else. Just because your heart says what they did for a living is immoral, does not mean that it is. At the end of the day, two living breathing people who had families and loved ones were robbed of their lives. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2003 20:17:38 GMT -6
Moral or not, if someone is not in IMMEDIATE danger, no one has the right to kill them. Our opinions on the abortion issue is totally irrelevant. The fact is, it's illegal to murder someone, innocent or not.
|
|
