Would yelling "I am a warrior for the babies" at court perhaps be a bit of a clue as to his motive?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/r ... -1.2460570

I guess that is some evidence that Dear was motivated by anti-abortion views...

danivon wrote:Would yelling "I am a warrior for the babies" at court perhaps be a bit of a clue as to his motive?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/r ... -1.2460570

I don't understand your point. Are you saying this statement ties him to Christianity somehow?

Would only "Christians" support not killing babies? I don't understand where you are going with this other than the murderer is anti-abortion.

I guess all I can do is sort through the evidence provided. An odd (lazy) way to provide it, but okay.

freeman3 wrote:http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/us/robert-dear-planned-parenthood-shooting.html?referer=

From this article:

By January 1993, she had had enough. In a sworn affidavit as part of her divorce case, Ms. Micheau described Mr. Dear as a serial philanderer and a problem gambler, a man who kicked her, beat her head against the floor and fathered two children with other women while they were together. He found excuses for his transgressions, she said, in his idiosyncratic views on Christian eschatology and the nature of salvation.

“He claims to be a Christian and is extremely evangelistic, but does not follow the Bible in his actions,” Ms. Micheau said in the court document. “He says that as long as he believes he will be saved, he can do whatever he pleases. He is obsessed with the world coming to an end.”

Statements from his (now) ex-wife dating back 22 years. Hmm, I wonder if these would be admitted as evidence in the Colorado shooting (not likely--they are prejudicial and not probative).

More:

But another ex-wife, Pamela Ross, said that he did not obsess on the subject of abortion. After his arrest, Mr. Dear said “no more baby parts” to investigators, a law enforcement official said.

One person who spoke with him extensively about his religious views said Mr. Dear, who is 57, had praised people who attacked abortion providers, saying they were doing “God’s work.” In 2009, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of concerns for the privacy of the family, Mr. Dear described as “heroes” members of the Army of God, a loosely organized group of anti-abortion extremists that has claimed responsibility for a number of killings and bombings.

Investigators have only just begun to interview Mr. Dear’s relatives and acquaintances, and are still searching the Internet for his writings. Public information about his early years is limited.

Maybe. We don't know when this conversation took place. If it's as old as the court documents they cite, they (again) are not too illuminating.

This is probably more helpful to your case as it's more current (the article seems to be chronological, which really calls into question the value of the early statements):

The relative said Mr. Dear and Ms. Bragg were “very religious, read the Bible often and are always talking about Scripture.” He had not shown signs of being violent, the relative said.

But, that has to be balanced against the "religious" nature of this:

On SexyAds, a poster using his email address and photo said he was looking for a discreet relationship and was interested in spanking. On the cannabis forum, he said he was looking for women to “party,” and rarely wrote about using the drug.

Instead, he was far more likely to write brief and emphatic messages about Jesus Christ — usually in caps lock, the online equivalent of yelling — or to post sparsely worded solicitations for female companionship in North and South Carolina. “savannah sexy women wanted. i love to party, tall, aries, male,” he wrote in August 2005.

I think this article paints a portrait of a narcissist with one oar in the water. You can attribute whatever you'd like to his "Christianity." It's just not a "Christianity" consistent with anything other than maybe a motorcycle gang that drops acid Monday-Saturday, then PCP on Sunday.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/29/us/30abortion-clinic-violence.html

Not much of this has value.

danivon wrote:Would yelling "I am a warrior for the babies" at court perhaps be a bit of a clue as to his motive?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/r ... -1.2460570

I'd say so, yes.

Let's see the psychologist's reports and the evidence. I think you're going to find out he's a nut. Real shocker.

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:Would yelling "I am a warrior for the babies" at court perhaps be a bit of a clue as to his motive?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/r ... -1.2460570

I don't understand your point. Are you saying this statement ties him to Christianity somehow?

Did I say it did? No. I am not saying something I did not say.

Would only "Christians" support not killing babies? I don't understand where you are going with this other than the murderer is anti-abortion.

Try reading. Below I will try and lay it out for you.

This is what DF wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Again, I just want some evidence. I'll throw in the towel faster than if I had to get in the ring with Floyd Mayweather. To be clear: evidence of Dear's being motivated by some rabid hatred of abortion.

He did not mention in that challenge anything about religion. And so neither did I in presenting the link to Dear's outburst in court. But it is clear evidence of being motivated by a hatred of abortion.

DF's challenge has been met on that score.

Now, DF also wrote this:

Doctor Fate wrote:you have ZERO evidence that PP was related to Christianity and nearly zero that it was anti-abortion.

The second part of that is what I was addressing (nearly zero that it was anti-abortion". It is now becoming very clear that Dear was motivated by opposition to abortion.

Now, does that statement link to religion? No, it does not.

However, there is building a pattern from things people have said about Dear, and his internet usage, that he professed strong Christian views (despite it appearing that his behaviour toward women was not particularly Christ-like), and showed admiration for the Army of God, which is a Christian terrorist group who have killed abortion targets in the past.

So, that (not what he yelled in court) may not "prove" that he was motivated by his religious beliefs as a Christian, but it certainly is evidence towards it.

Is this getting any clearer for you? To summarise:

1) Dear's outburst adds more evidence that he was motivated by anti-abortion views
2) This does not relate to religion, but other evidence suggests that his views have a Christian source and that he professed to strong Christian beliefs.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Would yelling "I am a warrior for the babies" at court perhaps be a bit of a clue as to his motive?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/r ... -1.2460570

I'd say so, yes.

Let's see the psychologist's reports and the evidence. I think you're going to find out he's a nut. Real shocker.

A "nut" who is motivated by opposition to abortion.

And likely to be one whose stance is related to his professed strong Christian beliefs, but yes, that has yet to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But the more I look, the more that looks to be a lot stronger than your bizarre "hazelnut" suggestion.

danivon wrote:A "nut" who is motivated by opposition to abortion.

And likely to be one whose stance is related to his professed strong Christian beliefs, but yes, that has yet to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But the more I look, the more that looks to be a lot stronger than your bizarre "hazelnut" suggestion.

Now, that's funny.

Muslims who kill in the name of "Allah" are not true Muslims, but a "Christian" who has no part in a church, beats women, gambles huge sums, advertises for odd sex, smokes dope by the bale full, and appears to be psychotic has "strong Christian beliefs."

Sure.

“I’m guilty. There’s no trial. I’m a warrior for the babies,” he yelled at one point. “Let it all come out. The truth!” he yelled at another.

As Judge Gilbert A. Martinez discussed a pretrial publicity order, Mr. Dear shouted: “Could you add the babies that were supposed to be aborted that day? Could you add that to the list?”

It was the first in-person appearance in court for Mr. Dear since his arrest on Nov. 27 after the attack on the clinic, which left three people dead and nine wounded. He was arrested by the police after a tense, hourslong, nationally televised standoff.

Mr. Dear, 57, has been described by relatives and neighbors as a loner with an antigovernment worldview, and as a person who has expressed extreme anti-abortion views, according to an ex-wife and others. According to one law-enforcement official, Mr. Dear said “no more baby parts” to investigators after his arrest. But authorities have not publicly ascribed a motive to the shooting.

He's as Christian as the Branch Davidian compound. He's a ding.

That said, he does appear to be rabidly anti-abortion. However, I think there is more "rabid" than anything else. He was a ticking time-bomb and someone along the way missed it. This is not all that much different than the theater shooting in Colorado. Both belong in mental hospitals with no exit. If they are incarcerated, they will only hurt others. They need to be doped and warehoused.

freeman3

So your point regarding the fact that most mass shooters in the United States are Christian is not relevant

It is relevant for this reason. If one realizes that most of the shootings are not Muslim, then the actual risk can be better understood.
You can stop all the Muslims from becoming mass shooters, and there will still be plenty of schools, malls, and theatres shot up.
Diminishing the risk from those Muslims who become radicalized will not significantly diminish the risk that hundreds will certainly die at the hands of mass shooters in public spaces , who are not Muslim. Because nothing is being done to stop them .

By focusing on what the two kinds of terror have in common, you could stop both kinds. And what they have in common is the easy access to guns and ammunition. The San Bernadino terrorists bought their guns through a straw purchase. On the other thread you list 8 things to look for in terrorists. One of them, gun purchase can't be tracked in the US. Most purchases are straw purchases.
There's also no gun registry . There was a law passed in 1986 outlawing gun registries.
Nor are owners responsible for what happens with their guns. So perhaps many don't keep them as secure as they should. Or they sell them to whomever...
It should also be noted that even if all mass shootings were somehow stopped, and if we discount suicides, 11,000 Americans will still be shot to death every year....
There is a threat from Islamic inspired terrorists. But if there was less of a threat from your common every day gun violence because of rationale gun laws, that threat from Islamic terror would be diminished greatly.
Its important to keep things in perspective and understand the real risk that exists. And the real risk of gun death is far greater than that of Islamic terrorists.
But to reiterate: acting with gun measures to limit the opportunities for the deranged young white men shooting the schools will also limit the opportunity for the deranged Muslims.
ISIS videos tell their potential recruits that arming themselves in the US is easy. Al Queda counselled its members to not worry about weapons until they reached the US. Arming themselves was the least of their worries.
That really shouldn't be the case. And politicians who genuinely cared about security would do something about that rather than seeking to demonize Muslims.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:A "nut" who is motivated by opposition to abortion.

And likely to be one whose stance is related to his professed strong Christian beliefs, but yes, that has yet to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But the more I look, the more that looks to be a lot stronger than your bizarre "hazelnut" suggestion.

Now, that's funny.

Muslims who kill in the name of "Allah" are not true Muslims, but a "Christian" who has no part in a church, beats women, gambles huge sums, advertises for odd sex, smokes dope by the bale full, and appears to be psychotic has "strong Christian beliefs."

Wrong.

There is no such thing as a "true" Muslim or a "true" Christian, objectively. Subjectively, every Muslim and every Christian will have a view as to what is "true" faithfulness and what is not, but they will vary - sometimes massively.

Some of the Paris attackers have a history of drugs and drinking (which are barred explicitly in Islam but not so much in Christianity), and regardless of how "true" a Muslim they are, they clearly were motivated by a strand of Islam, whether other Muslims like it or not.

Also, in Christian traditions, it's quite common for people to be very clear that they as Christians are sinners, but that through their faith they will be saved. Their sins don't stop them from being Christians, do they?

Anyway, on page one of this thread, I predicted that the "No True Scotsman" fallacy would come out. You did it once already with that starbucks guy. You're doing it again here.

He's as Christian as the Branch Davidian compound. He's a ding.

We could easily point out that many ISIS/Daesh supporters are ignorant of the Quran and indeed violate it regularly, as well as signing up to a belief in an end-of-the-world scenario not part of any previous Islamic tradition. That does not stop them from believing they are Muslims, and it did not stop the Koresh cult from claiming to be Christian.

And it certainly does not detract from the evidence that Dear professed to be a Christian. When it comes to a person's beliefs, it is what they think and say they are that matters, not what someone else says.

Right, because the "Every Scotsman is a true Scotsman" truism is so helpful in religion.

Rather pointless to argue faith with an atheist, but thanks anyway.

Meanwhile, Mr. Dear said his attorney was drugging him. Oh, and here's some insight:

According to one of his neighbors, “He said he worked with the government, and everybody was out to get him, and he knew the secrets of the U.S.A. He said, ‘Nobody touch me, because I’ve got enough information to put the whole U.S. of A in danger.’ It was very crazy.”

Doctor Fate wrote:Right, because the "Every Scotsman is a true Scotsman" truism is so helpful in religion.

Rather pointless to argue faith with an atheist, but thanks anyway.

Who are you to declare that someone who says they are a Christian is not one? Are you the Pope (not that he would have that power either)?

Regardless of your attempts at psychoanalysis and mindreading, Dear expressed strongly his beliefs. He may well be deluded, but that hardly disqualifies him from religion - after all, would you not agree that all those who follow other gods are suffering from delusion? And perhaps even whole Christian sects like the Catholics with their veneration of the Pope, idolatry of Saints especially Mary?

The issue is not whether Dear is a "true" Christian, but whether he was inspired or motivated by Christianity.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Right, because the "Every Scotsman is a true Scotsman" truism is so helpful in religion.

Rather pointless to argue faith with an atheist, but thanks anyway.

Who are you to declare that someone who says they are a Christian is not one? Are you the Pope (not that he would have that power either)?

Let's see, I could walk through 1 John, which lays out several "tests" for believers. I could point you to the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says that many identify as His followers but are not. I could point you to passages wherein the Gospel is proclaimed and then ask when Mr. Dear ever proclaims it (I'm sure he doesn't know it). I could point to all of his sordid behavior, his lack of belonging to a church, etc.

None of that will convince you. Why? Because to the post-modern mind a person is what he says he is, without regard to what he does or even what he is biologically.

The man could pray to Buddha five times a day while facing the Scientology headquarters in Hollywood, but if he says he's a Christian you will still accept his claim. Why not? You probably believe Bruce Jenner is a woman.

Regardless of your attempts at psychoanalysis and mindreading, Dear expressed strongly his beliefs.

Yes, through his many marriages, through his gambling, and through his paranoid rambling.

He may well be deluded, but that hardly disqualifies him from religion - after all, would you not agree that all those who follow other gods are suffering from delusion?

Not a mental delusion for which they are not accountable, no.

And perhaps even whole Christian sects like the Catholics with their veneration of the Pope, idolatry of Saints especially Mary?

Irrelevant. He does not attend Catholic church or any church. No church of any substance would permit his behavior without exercising Matt 18. I'm sure you, being the expert on all things religious, are familiar with those words of Jesus. You know, the "Christ" in "Christianity?" He said someone like Dear should be treated "like an unbeliever."

The issue is not whether Dear is a "true" Christian, but whether he was inspired or motivated by Christianity.

Maybe that's the issue for you. It's not for me. See what I did there?