Jump to content

Talk:James Charles Kopp

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


KK

[edit]

Kopp killed, in cold blood, in order to make doctors who might perform abortions fear for their lives. Thus, he fits the classic definition of "terrorist." Thus, rather than using non-encyclopedic phrasing such as "Kopp was convicted of the murder of Dr..." in the first line, I reverted it to "Kopp is a Christian terrorist who was convicted..." I don't see why anyone would find that POV. He is what he is--a terrorist, pure and simple.--RattBoy 13:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And when Dr. Slepian was murdering unborn babies, did he do that with warm, sweet, and tender blood??? I don't think so! Dr. Slepian is a baby-murderer and he got exactly what he deserved. James Kopp did the world a favor. God bless the two people, who helped him stay on the run. --TripleH1976 21:53 p.m., 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Rattboy, I dispute the "terrorist" label. It's not that I find it POV, it's that I find it unsubstantiated. Has Kopp admitted to this motive in killing Slepian? From what I've read, he stated he was trying to wound him to prevent him from performing abortions in the future. That is not terrorism.

And TripleH, you're an idiot. That's not POV.Thedukeofno 17:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Thedukeofno that the claim that Kopp did what he did "in order to make doctors who might perform abortions fear for their lives" is, given the information presently in the article, unsubstantiated. For all we know, Kopp was acting out of sheer hatred, or with revenge in mind, or because he thought he had commands from God. If you want to call him a "Christian terrorist" in the article you're going to have to meet a very high standard of proof, because both words in that title are so vague and emotionally laden that it will be hard to avoid POV problems. Drake Dun 05:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on all of this discussion, with no rebuttal in half a year, I am removing the word "terrorist" PStrait 22:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inmate info

[edit]

Can anyone find his official inmate page? I can't. Tim Long 23:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intent, malice, premeditation

[edit]

The article fails to say anything coherent about the legal issue of intentionality, which is central here. I'm not complaining about the previous editors - the lack of legal perspective simply reflects the fact that the press has no clue about these things, either.

Intentionality in the law usually runs to the act, not its results. In other words, if you try to inflict bodily harm upon a person, and accidentally go too far and kill them, it is a murder. I know that much. Saying "I only meant to hurt him!" to the police is the classic way of convicting yourself of murder, because it admits both the act and the intent to harm. However, what we are looking at here is slightly different because:

1) Kopp appears to be using the "I didn't mean to kill him!" defense not with respect to intentionality per se, but with respect to the additional element of premeditation (which is what distinguishes second degree murder from first degree murder in most jurisdictions). I do not know whether this makes any difference, but I doubt it. Either way it's a question that would be nice to address.

2) Something is also funny with regard to the premeditation issue, because if you read the article, it sounds like the only crime with which Kopp is charged is violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances. But the Act, while it does provide for potential life imprisonment in case of the victim's death, does not require malice or premeditation as an element in order to impose this sentence. Nor does it delineate a separate, more severe form of the crime where premeditation is involved. There is no mention of premeditation or malice anywhere in the Act.

I suspect that what is happening here is that since Kopp is defending himself, he has no idea what he is doing and is shooting himself in the foot. He is conflating "premeditation" with "intent", and then mistaking what "intent" means under the law.

So my question is, if I were to dig around in the statutes and case law and be able to establish definitely that this is the case, and write something identifying the relevant points of law while sticking very close to the textual sources, that would be okay, right? Not original research? The implications (Kopp's defense is a bunch of BS) are extremely obvious, but I would not draw those implications in the article. I would only identify raw legal facts.

The reason I ask is that these facts, while easily sourced, do not appear to be known by the public at large (due to the media's unsophisticated approach to legal issues), and might be thought surprising.

Drake Dun 06:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Terrorism

[edit]

I was instructed to look at this talk page to find out why a link to Christian terrorism is innapropriate for this page, and I find that rationale entirely lacking. Where is the discussion on this? Finding none, I will give my reasons why I am going to reinsert the link:

  1. 1.) Kopp is a Christian terrorist (an assertion I make brazenly on the talk page). He killed someone because he was motivated by his interperetation of the Christian faith to do so. His murder was meant to frighten (read: terrorize) others from involvement in abortion.
  1. 1b.) I see one nut job above claiming that Kopp was justified in killing Slepian; this does not prevent Kopp from being a terrorist. There are millions of nut jobs who think Osama bin Laden's actions are just. There is another person who claims that becuase Kopp claims his intent was to maim (read: terrorize) Slepian instead of kill him that he is not a terrorist. What of all the suicide bombers whose bombs go off prematurely, killing only themselves? Does their incompetence keep them from the terrorist label? His intent was to draw blood from an unsuspecting and unarmed person for political reasons. That makes him a terrorist.
  1. 2.) Drake Dun claims that there is a high burden of proof to label Kopp a Christian terrorist, and I agree. This label gets into motives, a subject in which Kopp proves ever mercurial as suits his need for self-preservation. However, I simply want to see a link in the "See also" section. While it may be debatable as to whether or not Kopp is a bona fide Christian terrorist, his activities are certainly similar to theirs, which merits a link in the "See also" section. --Cjs56 00:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is simply zero evidence that Kopp was motivated by a desire to cause fear. The fact that some people kill abortionists for this reason does not mean Kopp did. Please find some evidence that Kopp is a terrorist. I will not revert your re-addition of the link until the discussion is over, but if you do not find evidence that Kopp's actions were terroristic, the link cannot stay. There is no functional difference between explicitly calling Kopp a terrorist and associated his bio with terrorism. We should be especially sensitive to this because Kopp is a living person. PStrait 01:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Kopp is alive, unlike Dr. Slepian, but that doesn't change the fact that he is labled as a terrorist by an authority no less than the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism which receives Department of Homeland Security money to study terrorism [1]. Additionally, Kopp is mentioned on the Christian terrorism article. It seems to me that some degree of reciprocity is in order. Also if you look up terrorism on wikipedia you'll see that it is defined as "Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or the perception or threat of imminent violence." Violence? Check! Threat of violence? Online postings, and multiple shootings fitting a pattern, Check! Kopp is a terrorist. Now if you want to quibble over whether or not he is a Christian, I'll be happy to indulge and only post a link to Terrorism on the Kopp article. --Cjs56 03:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's be serious for a moment-- I hope you don't truly think all violence is terrorism. If that is true, then the word "terrorism" doesn't mean much. Kopp is not mentioned in the Christian terrorism article, although in fairness that was because I deleted the entry a few days ago. Kopp hasn't been convicted of multiple shootings to my knowledge. In any event, I would be okay keeping the link in the article if a sentence gets added to the article somewhere along the lines of "He is considered to be a terrorist by the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism." PStrait 10:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he wasn't convicted of multiple shootings has nothing to do with whether or not he is a "terrorist", as indicated by suicide bombers, a "terrorist" can be considered anyone who commits a act or acts of violence in which to encourage or repel a change politically or socially. It's fairly easy to find that he didn't kill because of personal motives, such as jealousy, money, or some dispute with the person he killed. He killed him because he was a doctor who performed abortions, nothing else. Now there is a larger issue of whom is a terrorist and whom is another person's freedom fighter, and I think thats a better reason for leaving the tag out but I think using the term isn't too far from the truth. SiberioS (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be an ongoing discussion but for what it is worth I agree that Koop fits the definition of terrorist. I think that if people who disagree were to actually look at the definition of terrorism they might change their tunes, or perhaps their ideology won't let them. Ninahexan (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for a rationale how about these: punishment of murderers? prevention of further murders? That was easy. Any other arguments from ignorance? As for your snarky cracks about "ideology", what do you call a person who already knows what those that disagree with him are thinking? Answer: a bigot. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.135.196 (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of antisemitism

[edit]

Soon after his death, the anti-Defamation League released a statement expressing concern about the likelihood that Slepian's murder had an antisemitic element to it, given the fact that Slepian was also Jewish. [1] ADM (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ ADL investigation reveals strain of anti-semitism in extreme factions of the anti-abortion movement

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:James Charles Kopp/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Earlier life is almost completely neglected. John Carter 21:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 21:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 19:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James Charles Kopp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on James Charles Kopp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Charles_Kopp&oldid=1252292806"