Be very careful which way you sneeze if you’re in the vicinity of an anti-abortion demonstration: you could be charged with attempted assault. We’re sure to be seeing a lot of this as anti-choicers try to prove that, in spite of the impressive body count they’re racking up, it’s pro-choicers who are the violent ones. This story is bound to become typical.
Following in the footsteps of the infamous Ed Snell, a couple of days ago in Chico California yet another old fetus fetishizing fart, writhing in the throes of an indignance high in front of the local Planned Parenthood he was harassing, was uninjured but shaken after an SUV passed in his general vicinity:
A man who allegedly used an SUV in an attempted to run over an anti-abortion protester Wednesday outside of the Planned Parenthood office, has been charged with assault with a deadly weapon.
Matthew R. Haver, 40, was arrested by Chico police for allegedly trying to hit James Cantfield, 69, of Chico. [...]
Witnesses said a man driving a 1991 GMC sport utility vehicle had attempted to strike a protester, according the release.
Canfield moved out of the way and was not seriously injured during the incident, but clearly shaken by the experience, Chico Police Lt. John Carrillo said.
It’s not too hard to imagine what happened here. Close your eyes and visualize the scencario…
For the fetus fetishists, it’s business as usual: just another day of hanging around in the street outside Planned Parenthood, screaming, yelling, threatening, praying, crying, menacing, scolding and slut-shaming anyone who enters the clinic (probably in direct contravention of the FACE Act, but never mind that.) Along comes Haver in his SUV, attempting to make his way down the street and instead being confronted with a frothing, foaming, shrieking little wankfest. He leans on the horn, screams “Comin’ through!” and walks the vehicle slowly forward, scattering the zygote zealots like so much brainless flotsam. Canfield however has a sign:
Carrillo said Canfield is a regular demonstrator at Planned Parenthood and also at the Women’s Health Center on Fir Street. He has a large sign with a graphic photo of an aborted fetus.
…and he intends to use it:
The investigation revealed Haver had a child with him in the vehicle, and as they drove by the demonstration, the child asked what was on the sign.
Carrillo said it appears Haver became enraged over the picture of the aborted fetus, lost control of his emotions and tried to strike Canfield with his vehicle.
Right, but there are clearly a few missing details: like the part where Canfield shoves his sign up against Haver’s vehicle, because that’s what these people do, right in the kid’s face, prompting the kid to say “Whaddafuck!!?” and his father to hit the gas, leaving Canfield behind, unhurt but “shaken”, and screaming for the cops, and fetusbloggers screaming about “pro-choice violence”. (The fact is, we don’t know what Haver’s position on abortion is — we only know he’s opposed to being obstructed by idiots while driving.)
In related news, being “shaken” is now considered the same as having the side of your face blown off at close range in a hail of bullets.
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/tny_ag_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
sweet fartin’ jeeziz. those people sound like adolescent siblings in the back of the car. “he’s looking at me. make him stop looking at me. if you don’t stop looking at me i’m gonna tell. mawwwwwm, he won’t stop looking at me.” i expect splatrick will be along shortly to weep into his lite beer about mike threatening him and how violent the sane people are.
Once the dust settles, the cops will sort through the hyperventilating witness accounts from the insane zygote zealots and will determine there’s no legal grounds to lay charges.
Unless of course Canfield gets his for obstructing traffic. That should generate another round of shrieeekkking.
Yeah, totally the same as being murdered in one’s church. Totally.
And SUZY is trying to spin it that we pro-choicers are responsible coz like we’re always shrieeeking ‘run down the stoooopid clinic harassers’.
Where does ‘Teh stupid, it burns’ come from? (spelling and punctuation vary)
Whatever. It burns.
psa –
“He’s looking at me! Make him stop looking at me!!!” 
This is more like — “They’re saying things about me! So I’m gonna say things about them right back, that’ll show them, damn right!”
Patrick has been rather quiet since early last week
At least I haven’t seen him around commenting anywhere — I would have expected him to show up with his 2 cents worth in Gordie’s latest pontification about late abortion. Maybe he’s taking a break.
deBeauxOs – By the sounds of it, I think the cops are interested in this guy for other things. Ultimately, it sounds like he’ll get charged for the license plate thing, driving while suspended, and related charges, but the assault charge won’t stick. Nobody was injured, how can there be an assault? (And “shaken” doesn’t make the cut.) At best he might be looking at a dangerous driving beef, and even that is questionable given the circumstances.
fern hill
That’s some pretty desperate spin happening over there. These people find it necessary to lie so much to defend their position.
It reminds me of breaking up with someone and they start saying “You did this that & the other”, and it’s all stuff that they actually did to you, not the other way around. The ultimate defense from a losing standpoint — turn everything on its head.
Projection. Was that Freud or Adler or? Projection splains everything, Lucy.
Sociopaths like SoWrongOrNuts, Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh will always twist things around to their advantage. They never do anything wrong because in their belief system, it’s never their responsibility and always someone else’s fault.
Ah, those wacky rightwingnutz and their twin disorders: religious zealotry & persecution complex.
We’ve seen this before. Just goes to show how much effort they have to put into playing the victim card.
Bruce – Indeed… it never fails to amaze me how they try to spin the slightest little hint of anger in their direction as “pro-abortion violence”… like it excuses what their loony fringe has done.
deBeauxOs – They enjoy the persecution high, it’s crack for them.
fern hill – It was Freud who came up with the projection theory. I’m sure a lot of fetus fetishizing behaviours could be explained by various Freudian theories.
I don’t know why it is that you won’t apply the same arguments that you applied to others to yourself.
Anybody remember the shameless cheerleading for Nathan Richardson on this dank little online porta-potty? You don’t think that someone like Matthew Reid Harver wouldn’t be encouraged by something like that?
No less than anyone seeking the approval of the “abortion is murder” crowd.
It’s too bad you lack the honesty to apply your own arguments to yourselves.
Precisely. Something you seem to have never clued into.
Your argument has been that the anti-abortion movement is responsible for Dr Tiller’s death because they encouraged it through their “abortion is murder” rhetoric.
Yet when a 23-year-old man pushed a 69-year-old man off the roof of a car, you and many of your cohorts cheered him for it. Do you really think that someone like Matthew Reid Harver wouldn’t have been encouraged by something like that?
I’ve long stopped expecting you to answer these questions honestly.
But what I will give you is this. Even if the anti-abortion movement did applaud the assassination of Dr Tiller — and that’s a big “if” — at least they did it quietly. You sure as hell didn’t.
splatrick did show up at Blob Blogging Wingnut’s combox. He said, among other things: ” I recall that … Canadian Cynic [bloggers], Mike from (ir)Rational Reasons and JJ from Unrepentant Old Hippie forming quite the cheer-leading section for Ed Snell’s assailant.”
To which I replied: Quite the cheer-leading section, Patrick?
Let me explain to you why that claim is a bald-faced lie.
The bloggers you named tried to extricate the FACTS – you know what those are, right? – from the Lifeshite hyperbole to set the record straight about what ACTUALLY happened to Ed Snell.
Really, DeB?
Was Lindsay Stewart only stating the facts when he suggested that Snell had wandered off the edge of his platform and “sucked pavement”?
As it turned out, that wasn’t a fact. It was about as far from the facts as one could get.
Only Lindsay Stewart, by the way, would even dare make an argument like that. No one else but him. And apparently, only DeB would accept it as if it were a fact.
Patrick, when it’s proven that the driver of this SUV has not been a long time member of the nasty, sneaky pro-choice army, will you retract any of this fucking nonsense?
No of course not, you’ll lie some more.
Because that’s what you are, an attention seeking liar.
Cameron, Cameron, Cameron.
At that point, it wouldn’t actually matter. At that point, we’ll still have had people such as, for example, JJ saying that this clear-cut case of vehicular assault, which has turned out to be credible enough for charges to be laid, suggesting that this was merely a case of “a car passing too close to a protester”, as if there’s something innocent about the entire affair.
We’ll still have various members of the pro-abortion movement embracing this violence, applauding it, and making it their own after the fact.
Just as what happened with the Nathan Richardson affair — Richardson had no links to the pro-abortion movement. But various members of the pro-abortion movement were so keen to embrace it, applaud it and celebrate it that it didn’t make much of a difference.
You embrace it, you take it home, you make it yours. You own it, now you have to wear it.
And splatrick, we remind you that it’s abortion criminalizers & zygote zealots who are the ones who have a DOCUMENTED history of supporting embracing, applauding and celebrating hate and violence against abortion providers.
Patrick – No, this isn’t the same thing as Richardson. Richardson was bringing his girlfriend to the clinic and got pissed off at being harassed, so there was an actual connection (to abortion) in that case.
This Haver guy wasn’t going to the clinic, he just happened to be passing by and it sounds like he had road rage (probably due to other problems he was worried about, no license etc). Nobody knows anything about his opinion on abortion, yet lifesite etc were quick to call this a “pro-abortion” attack
That was the point of my post. In the wake of yet another doctor assassination, they’re jumping on every little thing to make it look like there’s just as much violence coming from our side, when you know as well as I do that this isn’t the case.
DeB, are you really going to pretend that this particular incident isn’t being documented? Are you really going to pretend that the Ed Snell incident wasn’t documented?
I hate to have to be the one to tell you this, but if you want to ride a high horse every time an abortion provider is murdered you have to denounce violence against anti-abortion activists. If you fail to, you fall into the same trap as the anti-abortion activists you want to make wear every single incidence of violence against an abortion provider.
To top it off, it isn’t as if your admission is necessary — another little detail that continues to escape your grasp.
As for you, JJ, you can continue trying to sell that tired old line of specious bullshit to your heart’s content.
We don’t accept the argument defense you tried to raise for Richardson from six year olds on the playground. So, no, we don’t accept it from grown adults, and we never have.
PR – I’m not sure I get what you’re trying to say. I’m not defending Richardson, just stating his situation as it relates to the abortion issue, as opposed to Haver’s situation, which seems to be more out of the blue and unrelated. That was basically the point of my post. If you think it’s bullshit, well, okay.
Oh, please, JJ.
You’ve defended Richardson often enough in the past, and you damn well know it.
As I was just explaining to DeB, your denial of this immaterial.
I guess my question of the Richardson expert isn’t going to get answered. Did the vicious criminal get his just desserts, Patrick? Are you following this terribly important story? Or just bloviating on it?
PR – What does that have to do with my last comment? Come to think of it, what does it have to do with this post?
Do try to stay on topic, okay?
fern hill – Patrick’s got Dem Ol Kozmic Ed Snell Blues Again, Mama
A very questionable decision was handed down regarding one count of felony aggravated assault. However, what many individuals — including both JJ and Lulu from Robert Peter John Day’s blog — forgot to take into account is that the simple assault and reckless endangerment charges stood.
It doesn’t change the fact that Richardson was more than 40 years younger than Snell at the time of the assault. Nor does it change the fact that this was a serious assault that caused serious injury to its victim.
Most of all, it doesn’t change the fact that numerous Canadian pro-abortion bloggers applauded the act.
Nor does this really address some of the numerous hypocrisies surrounding the Snell case or the Canfield case.
I’d like to hear JJ make an honest attempt to justify her “SUV passed in his general vicinity” fallacy.
Let’s face it, Fern et al: you simply don’t take abortion-centered violence seriously. In fact, you seem to rather enjoy it when it’s directed at your opponents.
I’d honestly like to be able to say otherwise honestly. But the predominant attitude around these parts speaks for itself, regardless of whether or not you like what it has to say.
JJ, if you can’t figure out what your shameful behaviour in regards to the Ed Snell affair has to do with this, then quite frankly you’re just too obtuse to have it explained to you.
Then again, I recall that you didn’t know how concurrent and consecutive sentencing works. Then you got offended when this was pointed out to you.
So it isn’t as if being hopelessly obtuse is anything new to you.
Patrick, we didn’t applaud the incident. We giggled at it. That’s what we do. Giggle at you people trying to argue moral equivalency between knocking somebody down and NINE murders, hundreds of incidents of arson, vandalism, death threats, bombings, stalking and on and on.
Fern, there isn’t a very big distinction at all between “giggling” at these incidents and applauding them.
If someone knocked down your grandfather, regardless of what he was saying or what he was doing, you wouldn’t be laughing. It wouldn’t be a laughing matter.
Beyond that, no one’s suggesting that there’s a solid equivalency between the assault on Ed Snell and the murder of abortion providers.
It is, however, incredibly hypocritical to denounce violence against your particular “side” of the abortion debate, casting a finger of blame at everyone who disagrees with you for that violence, and “giggling” at violence against the other side of the debate as if there’s nothing at all wrong with it.
If you want to claim moral superiority, you are obligated to act in a matter befitting it. If you don’t, you surrender that superiority whether you like it or not, and whether you admit it or not.
PR
Jesus, get a grip, will ya?? You sound like my Grade 2 teacher, Mrs. Pellazzari.
JJ,
If I were you I’d be concerned that, at your age, you’re apparently still in need of the kind of knowledge and wisdom that a Grade 2 teacher imparts.
Jesus what a scold. Go comb your mullet, Francis.
Giggle…..
When will medical science find a cure for the Common Scold!!???
splatrick with his one note nyaah-nyaah-nyaah-nyaah-nyaah-nyaah-nyaah-nyaah-nyaah repeated ad nauseam is more like the Energizer Bunny of Dumbassitude.
Of course you realize, DeB, that you basically just conceded defeat.
Too bad, so sad, kids.
And one last thing, Prole: you do realize it’s bad form to laugh at your own jokes, right?
I’m not laughing at my joke, I’m laughing at you, Patrick the Common Scold.
Huh. So you didn’t follow up your own joke with a “*Giiggle*”, then.
Hoooookay.
Here’s a fun one, though:
Anybody ever educate you about the logical fallacy of the Donkey’s Laugh?
Just asking.
Anybody ever educate you about a good haircut? Just asking.
splatrick, just because you like to proclaim your tedious little observations in the manner of “the moon is made of green cheese” doesn’t actually make it true.
Well, perhaps true for you, but not for sane people.
Huh.
And this coming from the people who applaud assaults on elderly people?
Yeah, I guess I forgot that it’s only the “sane people” who do that.
I’ll hazard a guess that Twitrick must have been feeling a bit like the Maytag Repairdude over at the Nexus of Nonreadership tonight.
Hope he’s still working out that method of identifying “sane people”. Won’t hold my breath though as it may take a while. After all, he’s still trying to sort out the difference between octagons and triangles. That was what? Two summers ago?
Huh. And looky here. We have lil’ Franky Frinky, crawling out of his cesspool for a look around.
Somehow, I suppose you think I should feel belittled. And yet oddly enough, I really don’t. Does that frustrate you?
Attention readers of this blog.
Notice what splatrick just said?
If you deconstruct “… the people who applaud assaults on elderly people.” you will note that he persists in using the word ‘applaud’ because that is a lie that he will not stop spreading, even when those he claims did so, have demonstrated that their actions were in fact neither applause nor support for an act of aggression.
And then, in that miraculous propagandizing way splatrick has, he makes that act plural even though there was only one event (Ed Snell) under discussion.
An excellent deconstruction, deBeauxOs. Very well done indeed.
The Mullet King lie!!?? Say it ain’t so!
I AM THE MULLET KING
I CAN DO ANYTHING
Good heavens, such mulletude!
The plenitude of his mulletude?
After reading this, my diagnosis is mullet-induced Asperger’s Syndrome…wow.
But, of course, not a surprise. He went off on the old “threatened me with a gun” nonsense a few weeks ago. I invited him to post a link to where I allegedly did this. He did, with much smugness convinced he had me dead to rights. Except every reader that actually read the comments told him I had not threaten him with a gun, but had expressed that I would defend my family.
He then spammed my blog for a few days.
Apparently all this makes me a fascist. Or something…
So, now that I have commented here, I fully expect more spamming and more threats of libel suits and all that normally comes from one of these threads. We should start a pool or something…
Mikey, Mikey, Mikey.
When are you going to stop lying about this? You did it. You know you did.
I even addressed the extremely weak excuse you made for your actions — in which, oddly enough, you almost seem to admit that you made the threat. You clammed up awfully quick once the logical inconsistencies in your excuse was pointed out to you.
But seeing as how I’m a sporting individual, and would like to hear what further defense you’d like to offer, I’ll reproduce those comments here, and let you respond:
“You claim that you were merely telling someone how you’d respond to someone telling your wife or daughter what they could do with their bodies.
Yet you refuse to explain precisely why it is that you issued that threat to someone who in no way had suggested they had any right or privilege to tell your wife or daughter what they can or cannot do with their body.
Moreover, you issued that threat to someone who had simply stated a fact — that there very much is a debate regarding abortion. And there is. You cannot deny this fact — at least not while attempting to enjoy any amount of credibility on this topic.
Why’d you do it, Mike? If the reason really were as you insist it is, anyone capable of logic will immediately recognize that this threat was better saved for someone who claimed such right or privilege, or at least had indicated that they intend to claim such right or privilege.
Merely stating that there’s a debate on abortion is not tantamount to that statement. One can debate from either side of the issue. One can even debate from a position that is the middle between two extremes — something that, factually, I have done, arguing against those with extreme anti-abortion views, like SUZANNE, and arguing against those with extreme pro-abortion views, like yourself.”
I’m also interested in your answer to the other question I asked of you there — you know, the questions you refuse to answer, probably because you’re a coward.
Yawn…and yet, every other commenter on my blog how followed the link you yourself provided, knew exactly what I meant.
I stand by my original comment, which is not a threat to anyone. It is a promise to defend my wife and daughter from enslavement. Unless you are planning to enslave my wife and daughter, you have nothing to worry about because obviously the remarks were not pointed to you. If you are, then you deserve every worry you might have.
Every single person who has ever read that comment has agreed with JJ and I. None thinks my remarks were a threat of any kind. Except you. Why do you think that is?
Which “other question” is that Patsy? You babble so much its hard to keep things straight.
I see supporters of abortion continue to use lies to advance their agenda. It shows the philosophical shallowness of their position. If the truth doesn’t matter then nothing does.
In classical psychology projection is always seen as a defense mechanism which occurs when a person’s own unacceptable or threatening feelings are repressed and then attributed to someone else.[1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Average Joe – Shot any doctors lately?
Dr.Prole – You said it. Projection of the highest order.
Speaking of threatened violence, real and imagined, did anyone see that Sammy the Senator Slapper was wondering why no one had strung up Chris Dodd yet?
“Unless you are planning to enslave my wife and daughter, you have nothing to worry about because obviously the remarks were not pointed to you.”
First off, Mike, we’ve addressed the irony of you, of all people, trying to saddle someone else with charges of slavery, considering that you justify your extreme pro-abortion views with a slaver’s mentality.
Beyond that, Mike, you’re lying. Again. Let’s take a good look at what you actually said:
“Scroll down to the bottom of JJ’s blog roll there on the right to see how you or anyone else will be greeted if the ever try to tell my daughter or my wife what they can do with with their own body.”
Now, anyone with a shred of understanding of the English language would understand full well that those comments are directed at myself. Mostly because you direct them to me.
But no matter.
Mike, what I still want to know is the question that you, in your intellectual cowardice, continue refusing to answer:
All I had said at the point when you made this threat is that there is a debate on abortion. Again, this is a fact.
There is nothing in that statement that implies any claim to any right or privilege to tell your wife, your daughter, or anyone else what they may or may not do with their body — merely that there is, in fact, a debate on abortion. Once again: fact.
As such, even according to your own explanation here, there was no need for you to make the comment you made. So why did you make it?
The answer is simple, and you know it: because it was a threat.
It’s remarkable that a comment like this, clearly designed to intimidate, followed me telling JJ that she cannot claim there is no debate on abortion en lieu of some ability to silence people on the pro-abortion lobby’s behalf.
Then, to top things off, let’s take a look at how you concluded your comments:
“There is NO debate.”
But even JJ seemed to understand that you were making a threat. Let’s take a look at how she followed up your comments:
“Patrick – He’s serious. Don’t fuck with him. He already put the run to christian government last year, and they ran away whimpering and licking their nuts.”
JJ decided to follow up your comments with advice that I be afraid of you — and I know it must frustrate the living daylights out of you that you cannot make me afraid of you.
And you expect me to believe that because a group of people so ideologically invested in their own dishonesty insists you didn’t make a threat, that it was so.
That’s absolutely hilarious.
Mike, you responded to a simple comment that the pro-abortion lobby cannot halt debate on abortion without silencing their opponents by directing someone to an image of a gun pointed at them.
You know full well this was a threat. Your admission isn’t necessary — and it amuses me that you remain perpetually too stupid to recognize this.
You’d go a long way towards redeeming yourself if you just admitted it and apologized. Then again, Mike, it isn’t necessary for my purposes that you redeem yourself.
As a matter of fact, Mike, your refusal to admit to your thuggery only confirms everything I have ever said about you: that you are simply too irredeemably dishonest to own up to your own conduct and correct it.
Patrick
This was a pretty obvious joke, Patrick. (Although Mike did put the run to them and they did run away whimpering and licking their nuts.)
I don’t see how you could interpret what Mike said as a threat to you personally. He was saying he would protect his wife and daughter by any means necessary, which is about what I’d expect from any good husband & father, wouldn’t you?
That said, thanks for taking the time to add your comments. You’re an enjoyable commenter on those rare occasions when you show a little respect for people. (I’m waiting…)
JAB – OMG, Joe the Dumber is still around!?? They need to unload that guy, he’s not helpful to the GOP brand.
JJ, you enjoy being patronized, called obtuse, immature, and shameful by the most disingenuous, intellectually dishonest troll on the internet?
He’s all yours.
Dr.Prole – Key phrases: “on those rare occasions…” and “I’m waiting”.
Ok, you scared me for a second there.
JAB – OMG, Joe the Dumber is still around!?? They need to unload that guy, he’s not helpful to the GOP brand.
JJ, I’m not sure there’s anything that might possibly be helpful to the GOP brand anymore.
Pew has the hot stink.
Dr.Prole
FF – Good! Just what I wanted to see! We can only hope they put SaWah on the ticket in 2012.
FF – Glenn Beck and Michael Scheuer would beg to differ with you.
JAB,
Sadly, yeah.
JAB – That sounds like a good plan. Scheuer is kind of a nutcase. Didn’t he get the boot from the CIA? (I have 2 of his books and thought they were pretty good, though.)
Amazing how you spin the story. I think when the man drove his SUV at the pro-lifer the second time his intent was pretty clear. Especially when he shouted that he was going to drive around a third time to run him down. But it’s good he wanted to protect his child from that bad man holding up a picture of an aborted baby. Better the child should see his father commit murder.
Catherine – I’m not spinning the story, I’m idly speculating on how it might have gone down. The clue that I was using my imagination should have been the part where I said “he leans on the horn and screams ‘Comin through!’”
But speaking of spin, where are you getting that he drove around and tried to run over the fetus fetishist twice, and then shouted that he was going to do it a third time? Got a link to back that up? Because it’s not in the story I linked to.
OTOH, what am I thinking: you people lie so incessantly that by now it’s probably an unconscious kneejerk response.