He got in my face, was hitting me, and choked me

[marietta]

Marietta,

Suppose the workers at the abortion clinic thought one of the protesters outside the clinic had a warrant outstanding. Would it be wrong of the clinic workers to take that persons photograph in order to further investigate whether their tip was true?

The point is, I am sure there have been plenty of cameras on the protesters and you don’t here them complaining.

If anything, the protesters complain because there aren’t enough cameras on them. If they simply wanted to pray for the souls of all involved they could do that at home, in their cars, at the supermarket, or in church. The reason they show up is to draw attention to the fact that they believe abortion is immoral. The many, many posts on this forum which I’ve read since I joined in December, 2007 have strongly lead me to conclude that the protesters are trying to bring their position to the attention of the local or regional populace. How else can they do it but protest and pray that God will be good enough to send Channel 5 their way before they all head home?

If a worker at an abortion facility came to understand that a protester had a warrant out for his or her arrest, so what? As long as that person was not violating state and county law with regard to peaceful demonstrations, I see no problem. And why would a staff member take time out of the procedure schedule to photograph a “suspected” criminal? What kind of warrant are you talking about? Parking ticket? Aiding and abetting?

Unless a worker sees someone leave a suspicious parcel outside the building, observes behaviors on the part of the protesters which are hindering entering and exiting the building, observes harassment of the clients, etc., he or she will go about the business of the day. Every occasion of harassment is logged in and reported periodically, sometimes to the FBI, sometimes to Homeland Security, when the situation is very dangerous and involves a federal investigation (such as a bombing).

marietta

 

[Ray_Scheel]

So Tim Nissen needed a picture of the doctor so that he could take a picture of the doctor so that he could determine the status of his medical license?? Weak.

Not “just” for that, but I’m not going to go repeat every other reason already given for why a photo would be useful. That you refuse to address a series of reasons on their merits as a whole indicates that you know you position as a whole is “weak”, which is why you keep sniping at the edges and pretending to not see clarifications and reasons already given repeatedly.

A photograph of a person walking in or out of the building is proof of nothing.

I have no trouble grasping that, if the doctor that day had not been licensed, the photo could very easily be used by the regulatory agency to ask the patients that day if that was the attending physician. Repeatedly pretending to not notice obvious progressions is not helping your credibility at all.

The doctor’s attempt to cover his face is an act that anyone might do when confronted with a stranger with a camera. There are reasons people conceal their identities that go beyond the world of abortion. The patients and staff could also have concluded that Nissen was going to reveal their identities as well.

The doctor getting out of his car and attacking the photographer blows the first sentence out of the water. The second has nothing to do with the first or third, and again, anyone with such an interest in concealing their identity to the point of attacking anyone taking their picture shouldn’t be walking on public streets in broad daylight without so much as wearing a pair of sunglasses or a hat. As for the third, the photographer wasn’t taking pictures of the patients and staff, so that’s a red herring.

Do you understand that the doctor on duty on the day in question was not practicing without a license?

Yes, just as I understand that there was no way to know that without identifying the doctor after the fact, just as I recognize that this particular clinic had a track record of using unlicensed or phony doctors sufficient to warrant additional scrutiny whenever they brought in someone new.

Since you are again asking me questions here that you obviously want answered, I also recognize that you have been carefully avoiding answering particular questions about your position for which answers are long overdue:

Do you have a problem with attempting to catch proof of a possible criminal activity (i.e. the clinic’s undisputed history of using unlicensed or phony doctors when a licensed doctor was not available) on film in general (e.g. by security cameras or bystanders who happen to have a camera)?

Also, please explain - exactly - why would it be immoral (your claim) to receive accolades for anticipating and catching proof of a criminal activity (yet another unlicensed/suspended “doctor” serving the “clinic”) on film. Yes I understand that the doctor photograph was later determined to be properly licensed, but if he had not been, why exactly would it have been immoral for the photographer to have received accolades for documenting him leaving the clinic.

Tell me exactly how the patients were put “at risk” at the Clinica Medica Para La Mujer in Santa Ana on Saturday, August 2, 2008. I don’t want to hear how the manager is facing 20 years in jail; I don’t want to hear how some of the doctors have been accused of perfoming incomplete procedures. I don’t want to hear about how the possibility existed that the patients that day *might have been *in some kind of jeopardy.

In other words, you just don’t want to “hear”. On that note, why don’t you tell us exactly how you can guarantee that the mothers going there today and tomorrow would not be put at risk (by a clinic with a history so bad you have to declare its past criminal and malpractice actions off-limits for discussion) if that clinic was not kept under tight and continuing scrutiny?

 

[marietta]

Ray_Scheel:

That you refuse to address a series of reasons on their merits as a whole indicates that you know you position as a whole is “weak”, which is why you keep sniping at the edges and pretending to not see clarifications and reasons already given repeatedly.

“Repeatedly pretending to not notice obvious progressions is not helping your credibility at all.”

This isn’t GE College Bowl. I think it’s perfectly fine if you don’t agree with me. It has nothing to do with credibility, but if it did I do believe I have the upper hand.

“The doctor getting out of his car and attacking the photographer blows the first sentence out of the water. The second has nothing to do with the first or third, and again, anyone with such an interest in concealing their identity to the point of attacking anyone taking their picture shouldn’t be walking on public streets in broad daylight without so much as wearing a pair of sunglasses or a hat. As for the third, the photographer wasn’t taking pictures of the patients and staff, so that’s a red herring.”

It’s unfortunate that you cannot find a thread of continuity among my thoughts; however, I am not compelled to reiterate them because the argument will continue unabated regardless. I will say, however, that it is my opinion that the doctor was ambushed by the photographer, that history is what happened* yesterday*, and the doctor was not “walking the streets”, he was on clinic property.

*"Yes, just as I understand that there was **no way to know that *without identifying the doctor after the fact, just as I recognize that this particular clinic had a track record of using unlicensed or phony doctors sufficient to warrant additional scrutiny whenever they brought in someone new."

No way to find out who was performing procedures that day? Aren’t you totally minimizing the importance of the “tip” the photographer received?? If someone wanted to know who the doctor would be that day, all that need to have been done was call the clinic. There is a chance the staff would not reveal the identity of the doctor, but that’s where the true “journalist” becomes creative. I think your Mr. Nissen just didn’t have enough imagination to investigate the situation on his own before making a nuisance of himself.

*“Also, please explain - exactly - why would it be immoral (your claim) to receive accolades for anticipating and catching proof of a criminal activity (yet another unlicensed/suspended “doctor” serving the “clinic”) on film.” *

Immoral - my claim.

Criminal activity - your claim.

**The immorality is in the assumption that something illegal or criminal was transpiring. **

“In other words, you just don’t want to ‘hear’. On that note, why don’t you tell us exactly how you can guarantee that the mothers going there today and tomorrow would not be put at risk (by a clinic with a history so bad you have to declare its past criminal and malpractice actions off-limits for discussion) if that clinic was not kept under tight and continuing scrutiny?”

I am fast approaching the point where I do not care to hear anything you have to offer, no sir.

I do not guarantee anything. The mothers take their chances, just the same as mothers who opt for childbirth. Life is risk. Why should I guarantee anyone’s safety or a happy outcome in this or any situation? Not my place. Not your place. And not Tim Nissen’s.

marietta

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I will say, however, that it is my opinion that the doctor was ambushed by the photographer, that history is what happened* yesterday*, and the doctor was not “walking the streets”, he was on clinic property.

The photographs showed the doctor on a sidewalk coming around a solid brick wall with a public street parallel to the sidewalk he’d been coming down before turning the corner (post 65, second photo). Others show the abortionist’s car next to a street lamp and the abortionist on another portion of the sidewalk (and more yet showing more of the same are available if you follow the links provided). The assault descriptions mentioned that the photographer was on a public sidewalk and that he fell into a parking meter during the assault.

Calling something an “opinion” in no way justifies the deliberate introduction of a claim you knew to be false when you put it forth. Even if this “isn’t GE College Bowl”, getting caught making a deliberately false claim has everything to do with credibility. Irregardless of what you “believe”, getting caught making a false claim is certainly not the way to get the “upper hand”.

**The immorality is in the assumption that something illegal or criminal was transpiring. **

Just like there would be no way to dispute your claim about the doctor being on clinic property without photographs of the incident, it would be possible to prove the presence of an unlicensed doctor on that day if the photographs were not taken at that time for later analysis. It is looking a lot more like you are aware of how hard it is to credibly invent unsubstantiated (and flat out false) “details” in the face of film evidence to the contrary and are looking for a way to discredit someone for collecting the type of evidence that has just proven its value.

Further, from other parallels readily available, there is nothing inherently immoral about recognizing and acting to scrutinize an organization with an established history of behaving criminally. The presumption that some individuals need additional scrutiny after criminal convictions is the basis for the probation and parole systems, just as the IRS and SEC have procedures to direct additional scrutiny towards taxpayers and businesses that they have previously had to cite for significant violations. Law enforcement agencies entourage the formation of “Neighborhood Watch” programs for private citizens to maintain vigilance against criminal activity.

I am fast approaching the point where I do not care to hear anything you have to offer, no sir.

You are perfectly free to bow out, but as long as you continue making false claims and ignoring the obvious, simply declaring you are not listening won’t keep other readers from seeing the relevance of the factual details you want to disregard and where the speculations you put forth are repeatedly contradicted by what is known. From what I can tell, you just can’t handle a “Tough audience” are threatening to go if you are not allowed to get your way, but no one here in grown-up land has a use for a playmate like that. We’d much rather you start considering all the facts instead of trying to edit out the parts that are inconvenient to your preconceptions, but you ultimately have to decide for yourself whether truth is more important than propaganda.

 

[LutheranDK]

RachelsAlumni:
God is in my life, but not on the terms outlined by the Roman Catholic Church. I have been called a Cafeteria Catholic, but I’ve certainly been called a lot worse, even here. God and I have a private understanding, since He is the only one who gets me. I am growing increasingly weary of explaining myself.
…
marietta

Your own little self-invented “god” who believes everything that you think is ok, also is, so you can “pray”, and go to church, etc, and still support infanticide, and call those heroes who oppose this modern day holocaust all manner of ugly things…

I’m going to say nothing more than what the Archangel supposedly told satan while struggling with him over the body of Moses…look it up.

 

[marietta]

Your own little self-invented “god” who believes everything that you think is ok, also is, so you can “pray”, and go to church, etc, and still support infanticide, and call those heroes who oppose this modern day holocaust all manner of ugly things…

I’m going to say nothing more than what the Archangel supposedly told satan while struggling with him over the body of Moses…look it up.

I did not invent God, LutheranDK. Prayer does not have to be uttered by a Catholic to be heard. And you have made an incorrect assumption. I do not attend church. I support a woman’s legal right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term or not. You consider Tim Nissen a hero? What did he do that was heroic?

If you haven’t the time to write the words that the Archangel supposedly (I love that!) told Satan while struggling with him over the body of Moses, then I haven’t the time to look it up. It’s your point to make, it’s your responsibility to make it.

marietta

 

[marietta]

Ray_Scheel:

I have read this article many times and find no reference to the scuffle having taken place on public property. The only thing I see that remotely refers to public property is the parking meter pole which the photographer admitted he back into in an attempt to get away from the doctor, who had not as yet made any physical contact with him. When I look at the pictures I see a parking lot which, to my mind, logically provided parking spaces for the patients. Same with the lamppost providing illumination for the doctors and staff if they leave the building late. So if you think I have presented some sort of falsehood you are wrong. You and I see this differently in more ways than we can count. But really, I’d appreciate it if you would refrain from suggesting that I am a liar.

The photographer did this to himself. If he had such strong convictions he should have stayed his ground and been a man about it.

“Just like there would be no way to dispute your claim about the doctor being on clinic property without photographs of the incident, it would be possible to prove the presence of an unlicensed doctor on that day if the photographs were not taken at that time for later analysis.”

Too many double negatives; would you please state your position again?

" . . . film evidence to the contrary . . . "

This is not film evidence. These pictures prove absolutely nothing except the doctor was sick of being harassed. The pictures do not show a lapsed medical license, they do not show the doctor engaging in dangerous medical practices, they do not show the doctor grabbing money out of the purses of the clients who were there for procedures that day. What do the pictures prove? NOTHING.

*"The presumption that some individuals need additional scrutiny after criminal convictions is the basis for the probation and parole systems . . . " * After criminal convictions. This doctor had not been convicted of anything. So why did Nissen pursue the issue with a doctor who had not broken the law? Just to get a doctor who legally performs abortion procedures “off the streets” for a day or so? How well did that work for him?

I am not ignoring the obvious. You, however, seem unable or unwilling to admit that this doctor had a clean record and was working as contract labor on the day in question. Your position is rather like opening Capone’s vault. Totally empty.

It would be delightful if you could respond to my posts without the namecalling and the patriarchal tone (and that combination in itself is worth investigating, as the approaches are polar opposites). Give it a try, or we’re done here.

marietta

 

[ChrisWRIT]

Yes, the doctor should be charged with the crime he was cited for on the scene; assault & battery.

Simply taking photographs of a business & it’s personnel due to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity as was noted in the article is not harassment. Whether the possible criminal activity (of unlicensed personnel performing abortions) actually occurred or not is irrelevant. Since it was suspected, with reason, the protesters chose to watch & document who went in and out of the mill.

Annoyance at the peaceful actions of another does not make assaulting them an act of self defense.

Funny how some people insist that if pro-life protesters assault abortionists, they should be convicted of a crime, but if an abortionist assaults a pro-life protester it is “self-defense.”

Then again, I think I saw someone insist near the beginning of this thread, that the protester who was assaulted (this person is usually called the “victim”) should be convicted of a crime???

Brother,
:nope:

Chris

 

[marietta]

ChrisWRIT:

I agree, the doctor’s behavior was regrettable, and yes, he should have been charged. The criminal activity I have been referring to all along, which did not take place on the day in question, was performance of abortion procedures by an unlicensed or suspended doctor, which I believe is not only not irrelevant, it is crucial to the entire premise of innocent *until proven guilty. *

"“Funny how some people insist that if pro-life protesters assault abortionists, they should be convicted of a crime,” you write, *“but if an abortionist assaults a pro-life protester it is ‘self-defense.’” *

Anyone on either side of this issue who assumes guilt by association and acts on flimsy disinformation, or who lashes out in a physical attack on another person, or who violates the FACE Act, should be held accountable and face the consequences of their actions.

marietta

 

[Ray_Scheel]

When I look at the pictures I see a parking lot which, to my mind, logically provided parking spaces for the patients.

None so blind as those that will not see.

You’ll be happy to know I’ve done some research using the satellite view of the area of the clinic in Google maps, though unfortunately what I found corroborates the description given in the article rather than the claim of yours:

Based on the tree and the buildings behind him in this picture
the doctor was parked on the west side of N Sycamore (between W 4th and W 5th) on the north edge of the tree at the front edge of the “Fallas” store. If you zoom in on that building, you can even see the step down of the false front visible in the photo. The distinctive relief of tall building visible in the background in the photo is due west (still between W 4th and W 5th, but edged by Broadway and Ross)

Likewise, the the second picture in post 65 (the one showing a crosswalk with a truck rolling across it that I pointed out earlier) looks like it would have been taken on the east side of N Sycamore facing north, as the doctor rounded the corner from W 5th.

But really, I’d appreciate it if you would refrain from suggesting that I am a liar.

Since it is obvious we are onto you, you might want to try different tack rather than complaining about what others might surmise you are based on how you keep presenting provably false claims (never mind how you’ve made it quite clear that your demand that others provide “research and corroboration” is now an undeniably flagrant double standard on your part) .

After criminal convictions. This doctor had not been convicted of anything. So why did Nissen pursue the issue with a doctor who had not broken the law?

Though I know you don’t want to “hear” it, the clinic had, and that is a sufficient reason to pursue whether the clinic was continuing to hire unlicensed or phony docs. If you want an weak-minded audience, one willing to comply with your wish that the clinic’s history not be factored into the justifications continuing to scrutinize it, then you’ve picked the wrong place.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

I agree, the doctor’s behavior was regrettable, and yes, he should have been charged. The criminal activity I have been referring to all along, which did not take place on the day in question, was performance of abortion procedures by an unlicensed or suspended doctor, which I believe is not only not irrelevant, it is crucial to the entire premise of innocent *until proven guilty. *

The criminal activity you “have been referring to all along” is not yet proven, (the mill manager is facing trial), but enough evidence exists for the person accused to be brought to trial.

The same evidence which is enough to justify a criminal trial is also enough to justify suspicion that more criminal activity might be occurring, which is the reason the protesters were attempting to document whatever activity they could see.

Anyone on either side of this issue who assumes guilt by association and acts on flimsy disinformation, or who lashes out in a physical attack on another person, or who violates the FACE Act, should be held accountable and face the consequences of their actions.

marietta

Nice try at painting the protesters as guilty. Not that you can rationally claim that the protesters did anything wrong other than to personally annoy the abortionist.

The only evidence that anyone broke the law points to the physical attack of the abortionist against Nissen.

Unless you claim to be a mind reader, there is no way you can even attempt to claim that the protesters violated the “Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances” act. Besides, any claimed "intent to intimidate” is impossible to prove (to all but the thought police anyway), but even if the abortionist was intimidated, why didn’t he bother to call the police to come & arrest the protesters that were supposedly doing so?

Not only did Nissen attempt to explain what he was doing & why (both when the abortionist arrived & when he left), the abortionist had plenty of time to call the police if he believed they were in violation of the law, or felt threatened in any way.

Perhaps you aren’t aware that “suspicion” is not “assumption of guilt”.

But I certainly agree with your insistence that people who “lash out in a physical attack on another person, or who violate the FACE Act,” should be held accountable and face the consequences of their actions.

Unfortunately for the mill, the only evidence that anyone broke the law points to the assault & battery committed by the abortionist.

Cheers,

Chris

 

[marietta]

ChrisWRIT:

If you had a dangerous roommate, and he fired a semiauto into the window of the house across the street, do you believe the law would be justified in arresting you for being in the house at the time? Wouldn’t that give law enforcement, armed with a warrant, reason to toss your house, looking for more weapons, drugs, stolen property? You might have been on the phone with your girlfriend or frying bacon when the gun went off - would you think it would be reasonable for the police to arrest you for collusion?

**I did not **“try at painting the protesters as guilty”. My beef is with Nissen only.

I did not say that anyone violated the FACE Act. I only referred to it in explaining what I believe is behavior that’s over the line.

" . . . but even if the abortionist was intimidated, why didn’t he bother to call the police to come & arrest the protesters that were supposedly doing so?" Since I do not claim to be a mind-reader, I don’t have an answer for you. Perhaps Ray_Scheel can accommodate you there.

If Tim Nissen is the kind of man you admire, the kind of guy you think is brimming with personal integrity, lofty goals and righteousness, then I’m truly sorry for you. And I’m abundantly aware that my opinion makes absolutely no difference in your world whatever.

Bemusedly yours,

marietta

 

[marietta]

Ray_Scheel:

"Since it is obvious we are onto you . . . " You are not onto me, Mr. Scheel. And you do not speak for everyone on this forum. You speak for yourself. There may be some who agree with you, that much is true; but please don’t continue with the belief that you are spearheading a movement.

I thank God today that I am not obsessive. If you want points for going through satellite to convict me and label me as a filthy liar, okay. Perhaps it might interest you to know that I tried five times to contact the publication which originally published this story and got this thread going. Five times. No response. I did make a sincere effort to do my end of the legwork. I’m most certain that this result with fill you with contempt. And that’s okay, too.

If I have been mistaken about the tree and the building across the street and the lines in the parking lot, my sincere apologies to you, sir. Please try to remember that one’s mistake is not one’s intentional falsehood.

I stand by my interpretation of the events. Tim Nissen was not acting in good faith with his little Brownie. I find it appalling that anyone would raise him up and cheer him as a hero when he is so obviously without substance.

marietta

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I thank God today that I am not obsessive. If you want points for going through satellite to convict me and label me as a filthy liar, okay.

Somehow I’m not surprised that you would find fault with me doing some “research and corroboration”, but what you feel when your public claims repeatedly turn out to be provably false could be avoided if you would actually stick to things that can be corroborated yourself.

Perhaps it might interest you to know that I tried five times to contact the publication which originally published this story and got this thread going.
…
If I have been mistaken about the tree and the building across the street and the lines in the parking lot, my sincere apologies to you, sir. Please try to remember that one’s mistake is not one’s intentional falsehood.

I’m not sure why exactly the lack of response by the publication is significant. Saying the article contained false statements is what you did when you announced your “opinion” (lacking any “proof” other than that the claim sounded good to you at the time) that the photographer and the doctor were on clinic property when the photos where taken instead of on a public street and sidewalk as described in the article and the most obvious interpretation of the photographs. By your demand that I provide “research and corroboration” when I was just stating the obvious means you knew better than to make unlikely claims on the hopes no one could prove them wrong…

I stand by my interpretation of the events. Tim Nissen was not acting in good faith with his little Brownie. I find it appalling that anyone would raise him up and cheer him as a hero when he is so obviously without substance.

Considering all the provably incorrect details you kept inventing about how the scenario unfolded piled on top of your unilateral refusal to factor in that clinic’s history into your interpretation, why should anyone care about an interpretation obviously crafted in the style of a Chinese government press release?

 

[marietta]

O, Ray_Scheel,
I am heartily sorry for
having offended thee,
and I detest all my sins
because of thy just criticism;
but most of all because they offend
thee, o Ray_Scheel, who art
all knowing and deserving of
all my respect.
I firmly resolve, with the help
of God’s grace, to
lie no more and to avoid
the near occasion of having
to respond to you again.

marietta

 

[marietta]

Ray_Scheel:

Opinions are neither correct nor incorrect; they are based on interpretation of facts presented. If you have corroborated the facts by intense investigation, I applaud you. That you are singularly focused on the correctness of your position is commendable.

These things, however noble, do not sway me from my position and so we will never come to a meeting of the minds on this situation. I find it sad that you have allowed yourself to minimize my thoughts in such a vitriolic manner in order to advance your agenda. My opinion is not an “opinion”; I believe I deserve the same respect for my attempts to corroborate the details of the events by numerous attempts to contact California Catholic Daily as you have demanded for your satellite search. I find it telling that California Catholic Daily did not respond to my requests. But that’s another matter.

I reiterate that I do not consider the history of the clinic in question to be significant with regard to what transpired on the date in question. If Tim Nissen wanted to counsel the women entering the building, he should have stuck to counseling. If he wanted to be a cub reporter, he should have put his ducks in a row and then proceeded with the facts instead of spontaneously and, to my mind, recklessly, assuming the role of the master of expose. How helpful was he in furthering the cause of abolishing abortion?

" . . . why should anyone care about an interpretation obviously crafted in the style of a Chinese government press release?" I don’t suppose you have a responsibility or even a desire to try to understand that other opinions exist besides your own. But there are many people in this country who would understand my position, who would be appalled at the behaviors of both parties involved in the scuffle, who would question the motives of Tim Nissen; and these people vote, Mr. Scheel. Ultimately they will join me in bringing the power and the voice to the preservation of the Right to Choose. We shall see how it all goes down in November, shall we not?

marietta

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Opinions are neither correct nor incorrect; they are based on interpretation of facts presented.

When claiming that the presented facts are not true, it is not sufficient to simply hang “My opinion is …” as the sole justification for for implying others are making false factual statements, as by doing so one has left the realm of merely interpreting facts.

I find it sad that you have allowed yourself to minimize my thoughts in such a vitriolic manner in order to advance your agenda. My opinion is not an “opinion”; I believe I deserve the same respect for my attempts to corroborate the details of the events by numerous attempts to contact California Catholic Daily as you have demanded for your satellite search. I find it telling that California Catholic Daily did not respond to my requests.

Your expressed thoughts have been “minimized” only to the extent that I and others have rejected your minimization of the stated intent/justification of the photographer and anyone who pointed out where your “opinions” directly contradicted (rather than interpret) the presented facts. That the California Catholic Daily did not respond to you in no way creates a justification to declare that an alternate retelling of your own construction in contradiction to the presented facts was what actually took place. Entering the realm of broken records myself, what you felt when your claims turned out to be false and your double standards laid bare could have easily been avoided if you’d held your own claims to the standards you demanded of others.

As far as your closing salvo regarding how the elections go in regard to who is “right” on the abortion debate, legal access to abortion has never been the desire of the majority and is only possible by a court decision. Its not difficult to follow how that logic plays out if one ties justification to popularity…