Posted on 01/02/2008 5:39:38 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Pro-life activists are calling for an investigation into – and possibly prosecution of – police officers who responded to a severely injured abortion clinic sidewalk counselor, but then allowed his suspected attacker to leave the scene.
"It is unbelievable that an officer would allow an attacker to go free after inflicting life-threatening injuries on an elderly gentleman, then threaten to arrest the witness to the crime," said Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue.
"That was not only unprofessional conduct, but it showed a fundamental lack of respect for Mr. Snell's life and beliefs. She should face serious discipline."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
More of the tolerant left; diversity of opinion honored. < /sarc >
As Rush says, they are pro-choice, as long as the choice is to ABORT!
However, the man suddenly jumped the fence, "leaped on the vehicle with Ed and catapulted him off of the vehicle and onto the ground," he said. Snell landed on his back and head and was knocked unconscious, he said.
That was no man; that was a sperm donor unwilling to pay 18 years for his moments of fun!
Isn’t that because if a woman chooses not to abort, then she isn’t considered pro-choice, but pro-life?
Ed Snell has been at the Planned Parenthood abortuary in my town (York,PA) also.
He and some other friends are deeply committed and have been hassled by the York police when they stand outside the abortion clinic here.
Those Harrisburg cops let the guy walk and later said they didn’t know how badly Snell was hurt. At the time the attacker was charged with simple assault.
It shows you some police are more worried about protecting abortion clinics than protecting those opposed to them.
Word now is that the attacker is charged with aggravated assault, a more serious charge.
If a pro-abortion activist was hurt anywhere NEAR this badly, does anyone think for a SECOND that the police would have let the assailant walk?
Agreed. If you’re going to post from WND, please have the courtesy to use their correct name.
Tell that to the Ron Paul bashers.
Here’s another source — if anyone feels they need one: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1157
And from Operation Rescue:
Pro-lifer Seriously Injured in Violent Attack; OR Says Officer Should Be Disciplined
December 31st, 2007
Harrisburg, PA - Ed Snell, 69, received serious injuries that doctors feared could have cost him his life during an attack on December 22, 2007, outside the Hillcrest Abortion Center in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The responding female officer not only let the attacker go, but threatened to arrest witnesses that identified the perpetrator and demanded his arrest.
Mr. Snell was standing on a sturdy platform he had attached to the top of his vehicle in order to offer help to women over a fence that had been erected to prevent pro-lifers from speaking to them. Witness John McTernan said that a man who was escorting a woman into the abortion clinic, “leaped on the vehicle with Ed and catapulted him off of the vehicle and onto the ground.” Mr. Snell struck the pavement with his head. He was transported by ambulance to the hospital where he was treated for multiple trauma, bleeding in the area between the brain and the tissues that cover the brain, compression fractures of four vertebrae, right scapula fracture, and fracture of the fourth and fifth ribs.
Three officers arrived to investigate but allowed the perpetrator to leave the scene. When Mr. McTernan objected and demanded an arrest, the female officer threatened to arrest him for interfering with a police investigation. (Click here to read the entire story.)
“It is unbelievable that an officer would allow an attacker to go free after inflicting life-threatening injuries on an elderly gentleman, then threaten to arrest the witness to the crime,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “That was not only unprofessional conduct, but it showed a fundamental lack of respect for Mr. Snell’s life and beliefs. She should face serious discipline.”
Mr. Snell was released from the hospital the following day. His recovery is expected to take a full 8 weeks. Meanwhile, upon learning the seriousness of Mr. Snell’s injuries, the police finally arrested and charged the man with felony assault.
This incident adds to a growing list of attacks on pro-lifers in recent months, which have all included unprofessional police conduct. Operation Rescue recommends that pro-lifers establish regular communications with local police supervisors in order to educate them as to the peaceful nature of pro-life activities and their protection under the First Amendment.
Sounds like a true “hate crime” was committed against Mr. Snell.... although I won’t hold my breath waiting for the Harrisburg DA to charge it as such.
I fully expect incidents like this outrageous assault and the cops' obvious bias against pro-lifers to get much worse and much more common as the end of this age of grace approaches. In a way that's encouraging, because the only way this wicked world will ever get any better is for Jesus Christ to return to rule and reign over it with a rod or iron as he promised he would.
He was probably afraid that Ed would talk his ‘girlfriend’ out of the abortion.
Perhaps you should correct the source which appears as “WorldNutDaily” so as to avoid the appearance of an intentional slur.
IF a pro-abort ever got a scratch in a scuffle he started, the MSM would be all over it-claiming prolifers are violent for defending themselves.
bump
This is incorrect. Thre are lots of women who have given birth to children of their own but as still (as they say) "pro-choice," indicatin that the still believe the choice to kill one's children should be legal, as long as one does it before birth.
I even saw, in a video of last year's West Coast Walk for Life, a pregnant, angry feminist counter-demonstrator who exposed her pregnant belly, on which she had written the slogan, "My fetus is pro-choice."
Rather stupid, though, since it is rather unlikelay that the young'un in question actually comunicated this opinion to his mom.
If the woman inside could be asked, I doubt if she would say “kill me”
The man accompanying the woman (spouse? father? friend?), annoyed by this, jumps on the platform, "catapulting" the other guy off. And it's his fault the geezer was injured.
I call this, "Asking for trouble and getting it". If, instead, the geezer was "counselling" gun buyers going into a gun store, I think posters would agree.
“He’s allowed to do this because he has God on his side.”
Also because he has constitutional rights to do so. I wish there had been such annoying old men at the doors of Auschwitz. But they were too busy being good Germans.
Your child's life is worth more than a winning lottery ticket. Moreover, prolifers at abortion clinics are willing to go to impressive lengths to help, support, and empower women --- particularly young and poor women --- to welcome and provide for their babies.
The "geezer" you mention has saved lives from certain, violent death. This in itself distinguishes him in an essential way from any other hypothetic person soliciting the public at any other business establishment.
Well, we don't know what he was doing or saying, do we? So it's hard to say the U.S. Constitution protected that activity.
Not at all. But I think that's a far cry from what happened outside the abortion clinic.
"The "geezer" you mention has saved lives from certain, violent death.'
I'm sure. I don't fault him at all for what he's doing. Actually, I applaud his efforts.
All I'm saying is that he shouldn't be surprised when his actions result in a reaction from people who are in the middle of an emotional event. Placing your 69-year-old body on a shaky plywood platform on top of a car and "counselling" women (accompanied by men) by shouting at them is not a real smart move. In my book.
You seem to be of two minds on this. One the one hand, you insist that the “geezer” was there merely to “taunt, humiliate, and berate.” A few posts later, you say you “applaud his efforts.”
Which is it?
His efforts to stop abortions.
But no, I don't agree with his methods.
Everything we've tried so far exposes us to frustration, personal cost,injury and calumny, and saves only a few babies from the knife.
So, your turn: you see a situation right before your eyes which is going to quickly end up with a woman wounded and a baby dead. Your response is...?
.... climb up on the roof of a car, point my finger at her, and call her a selfish, immoral, murdering whore who will burn in Hell for what she's about to do.
You did say you welcome other ways, right? Excuse me. Really welcome other ways.
I can figure out who is wrong here, I'm surprised you're so easily annoyed.
One question: Does that also apply to other religions, or just yours?
I'll bet anybody $10 she's pro-choice.
She should be fired.
Very poor idea. I might knock you down myself.
And I'd be the first to say I deserved it.
The point being we don't know what the geezer said or did. Perhaps he wasn't as graphic as I illustrated, but graphic enough to set off the woman's companion.
I was not a particularly "good" sidewalk counselsor. If you tallied it up, you might get 3 for-sure saves, 3 maybe-saves, half a dozen angry people, half a hundred troubled people.
If I hadn't said a word, it would be: -0- for-sure saves, -0- maybe saves, half a dozen angry people, half a hundred troubled people.
Rapidly calculating the worth of several live kids and several vocally grateful mothers and fathers, I conclude: worth the cost.
You have bought into a stereotype regarding sidewalk counselors. I did sidewalk counseling for three years, until I had a baby of my own and my husband asked me to stop due to the violence and threats of the “escorts” and some passersby. I knew about 50 sidewalk counselors. Only one was obnoxious. The rest were reasonable people who were easy to talk to and obeyed the law.
You said that (twice) not I, Bobby Paul.
He can say and do what he wants because he's on the side of righteousness?
Again, you, not I. I cited the First Amendment and said I know who is right, not Righteous.
Does that also apply to other religions, or just yours?
First Amendment protects all people regardless of their religion, but I don't suppose you would know that, so, Yes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.