84-Year-Old Michigan Woman Handing Out Pro-Life Pamphlets Shot in the Back
The man who did it claimed it was an accident.
Thank you, @Polimath, for tweeting the story. To no one’s surprise, it’s not gaining traction.
I know this story hasn't really made national news, but an 83-year-old woman was shot in the back for the crime of being pro-life https://t.co/PU61LF7yzc
— PoliMath (@politicalmath) September 28, 2022
Someone shot an 84-year-old woman (cops say she’s 83, the pro-life org says 84) in the back as she handed out pro-life pamphlets:
According to Anna Visser, the Director of Communications and Education with Right to Life Of Michigan, the volunteer is in good spirits after being shot in the back shoulder, and wants to remain anonymous while the criminal investigation continues.
“Obviously, no one should be threatened like this or shot at or potentially killed for exercising their freedom of speech,” said Visser.
The volunteer was going door-to-door on Bippley Road in Lake Odessa passing out materials about Proposal 3, which is the abortion ballot initiative and was encouraging people to vote ‘No.’
Visser explained: “One of the ladies that lived at the house got upset and started screaming at her. This volunteer walked away, was walking back to her car, and a man from the house came out and shot her in the back.”
The volunteer drove herself to the police station. She was then taken to the hospital, where doctors treated and released her.
The dispatcher said: “Lady on her property that won’t leave. No idea who she is. She drove on her grass. Wants her to sign some type of petition. Now it sounds like the caller’s husband shot at her and nicked her with a bullet and she’s bleeding. We’ll be starting medical.”
Visser disputed the dispatcher’s story because the volunteer did not have a gun or threatened anyone.
“No one should be shot at for just sharing what they believe in and just trying to educate the community,” said Visser. “Luckily this won’t deter us from continuing to educate people on Proposal 3 and why it’s so dangerous. We’ll continue to have our volunteers go out safely and peacefully.”
The man who shot the volunteer claimed it was an accident:
The man who fired the shot that struck an anti-abortion rights canvasser in the shoulder last week called it an accident but also said the volunteer had been arguing with his wife, who supports abortion rights, and refused to leave their property.
“I came out and she (the volunteer) is screaming and having a great old time, and being told, I’m sure I heard at least a dozen times, ‘You’re trespassing, get off the property,’” 74-year-old Richard Harvey, wearing a “Facts Matter” baseball cap, told News 8 on Tuesday.
The volunteer argued with his wife, Sharon Harvey, over abortion rights.
Sharon dropped contradicting evidence, admitting the volunteer “finally did step off her porch.”
But Harvey heard the argument from the barn.
Harvey grabbed a gun and aimed it at the pine tree: “She (the volunteer) is still ranting and raving and she’s got this clipboard. She’s waving it around. I’m thinking she’s going to smack Sharon with it. So without thinking, I went to club it away with the rifle and my finger was still in the trigger guard. It went off and hit her about in here [right shoulder].”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Now you know, if the petition had been FOR murdering babies, this man would be in jail for shooting the woman.
And it would be all over the news.
Ironclaw, you have no evidence for that, and no, I don’t know it.
But Antifu is correct that it would be all over the news. There would be demands for him to be in jail. But I don’t believe the Sheriff or the Prosecuting Attorney would act on those demands.
I guess you’re just a Pollyanna, aren’t you?
Open your eyes, man. Don’t even try to pretend that there isn’t that bias.
By law enforcement? I am not pretending, I absolutely deny that there is any bias in this case, and I challenge you to show otherwise. This is deep Republican territory.
I don’t care what kind of neighborhood it is. The bias exists and it’s visible everywhere. Had she been handing out pamphlets for an abortion clinic and been attacked in this manner, that man would have been arrested because his bullet ended up in her body, doesn’t matter his excuse. This is not my imagination, this is what I have observed over and over. If you value life, don’t ever expect justice in this world, because this world is a bad, evil place where they do things like put a pedophile in the white house.
You are just wrong. You’re making things up that are not happening. This is deep Republican territory. The sheriff and the prosecuting attorney are Republicans. Any bias in law enforcement would be for Republicans, not against them. So no, if she had been pro-abortion the outcome would have been exactly the same. And if you imagine otherwise you are delusional.
They don’t seem to be anywhere as conservative as you are saying. Otherwise this man would have at least been charged. The fact is, his bullet ended up in the back of her shoulder and unless he can claim self defense then that is a crime. Whether it is through malice or negligence, you are always responsible for every bullet. Even if you have an accidental discharge and it kills someone, you are still responsible.
I’m not surprised to see it any more than I wasn’t surprised to see rioters in communist enclaves night after night with no consequences, because that’s just how it works now. I wasn’t even surprised when they attacked the White House gates and injured secret service agents and still had no consequences. Facts are, they don’t go after the lefties the same way.
Tell me, how can he claim self defense when the woman was shot in the back? If he can’t claim that, then he SHOULD be in jail.
Did you even bother reading the article before commenting?! He’s not claiming self defense, he’s claiming accident. According to his own account he violated basic safety rules, but he didn’t mean to shoot her.
(But as a general statement, not in this case, a shot in the back does not rule out self defense. It has happened that the person turned as the shot was fired, so that the bullet hit them in the back.)
If it were, he would have been arrested for assault with a deadly weapon. Negligence is no defense here, you are always responsible for every bullet.
It’s more than an accident. He tried to hit her with the rifle and shot her instead. Even if you believe him it’s still assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder.
Ah, he failed to do his basic duty while wielding a weapon. So it’s just Depraved Indifference to Life, instead of Attempted Murder.
Would be nice if there were video of this.
(Petitioners: Please wear a body camera!)
Let’s say we believe him — isn’t clubbing someone with a rifle still considered deadly force?
He’s not claiming to have clubbed her. If his account is true, he didn’t use deadly force, he was just a blithering idiot who should never be allowed to be in charge of a weapon again.
Goes to show the abortionists have no care for a life.
They subscribe to the Pro-Choice ethical religion, which embraces wicked solutions including the Diversity [dogma] (e.g. racism, sexism, ageism), Inequity, and Exclusion (DIE) doctrine. Let us bray.
I’m sure those fine, upstanding agents at the FBI will get right on this just like they did Mark Houck. Anytime now, guys.
Why would they? What federal law is involved? Houck assaulted someone who was escorting people to an abortion clinic. There’s a specific and not at all obscure federal law specifically protecting abortion clinics, and Houck violated it. The only laws this guy broke were the basic rules of firearm safety, and the feds don’t enforce those.
What does violating federal law have to do with who the FBI goes after?
Milhouse, you should know that Verbal Assault actually is a thing. The escort volunteer was “in the facing” and screaming insults at a child. Within spittle range apparently. Not knowing the exact language I don’t know if it was legally a “threat”, but it was certainly threatening behavior – and without provocation other than legal protesting. There’s no indication the protestors violated the law – which prohibits blocking access – NOT protest in general.
Given that the “victim” dropped his lawsuit – and that’s it easier to sue than to prosecute – off the cuff it appears the “victim” – who wasn’t harmed when he lost his balance when the parent pushed him away from his kid – realized he had no case. Which means the FBI is going for a “Ham sandwich” indictment here.
Put yourself in the parents shoes – some crazy nutcase (yes, I realize you might believe pro-life folks are also crazy nutcases) is spraying spittle in your kids face and -at the least – trying to incite escalation with actual “fighting words”. No jury outside of one taken from a Planned parenthood company picnic would awards damages over a $1 -,if any.
Bob, the definition of assault is putting someone in reasonable fear of an imminent battery. Yelling insults at someone can never be assault. There are no reports that he made any threats; not even Houck claims he did.
Houck pushed an escort whose job it was to get customers past the protesters and to the clinic door; by definition assaulting him for doing that job blocked access.
Putting myself in Houck’s shoes, I’d like to think I’d pull the kid back, not shove the escort. But if I lost my temper and did attack the escort I’d expect to be charged.
by definition assaulting him for doing that job blocked access
Malarkey. He didn’t “assault” him “for doing that job.” He was protecting his kid.
Also, yelling at someone most certainly can be assault without any specific threats being issued. To think otherwise is to defy the “rational man” test and the peculiarities of any particular incident and the people involved. And one of those particularities is it was a child being yelled at and whose face the man was in.
Milhouse – the right-to-lifers were not blocking access. They’re there at least once a week and know the law – else they’d have been arrested long before. Or since. Therefore the “victim” was definitely NOT “just doing his job”. His job was to escort folks past the protestors. Theoretically to bolster their confidence and prevent actual harassment – like someone invading the visitor’s personal space and calling them names. Instead he invaded a CHILD’s personal space and called HIM names.
He did the very deed he was supposed to prevent. That’s like a cop assaulting a citizen – it’s the opposite of “just doing his job”.
So you don’t think assault with a deadly weapon is a thing? Because the man has no claim on self defense as he shot the woman in the back.. In fact, according to the statement he made, if he said that to a cop they’d also have him for giving a false statement.
No. Milhouse said that federal law does not cover this particular case.
And if you believe he was only trying to hit her with the rifle itself and not to shoot her, that’s still the use of deadly force. But if he was going to use the rifle as a club, it’s odd that he held it by the stock (and with his finger on the trigger) and not by the barrel, which would make it easier to swing. I’m also curious whether he normally stores it loaded, and with no trigger lock.
He says he wasn’t trying to hit her, he was trying to knock the clipboard, which she was using as a weapon, out of her hand. With the rifle tip, while his finger was inside the trigger guard. If he’s telling the truth he should never be allowed to hold a weapon again. Or at least he should be ordered to do twenty hours of lessons with Eddie Eagle.
Your lack of a
funnyirony bone is one of your weakest points, Milhouse.On top of that, Mark Houck did not violate a federal law.
(Then, of course, there is the lack of constitutional jurisdiction for that law, with Roe having been struck down.)
Yes, he did violate a federal law, by his own account. And that law is perfectly constitutional; the supreme court has explicitly said so, and it has nothing to do with Roe.
Again, please reference where it has been shown that he violated that law or that he admitted to doing so. His claim has always been that he was defending his son.
BTW, pushing someone away from your minor child who is screaming at them in a rather ugly fashion is not, in and of itself, a criminal offense. Heck, in common law, punching them in the schnozz is a rational response under “fighting words”.
Your pedantry is overwhelming at times.
He admitted assaulting the guy; that is a violation of federal law. He was not defending his son, because his son was not being attacked.
Yes, it is, and you will be arrested for it in any jurisdiction.
You have completely misunderstood the “fighting words” doctrine. There is no such concept in the common law as “fighting words”. And there is no law, anywhere in the USA, that entitles you to punch someone for uttering “fighting words”. There never has been such a law.
Gotta watch out for those octogenarians. They can be quite contrarian. and sectarian. Just ask any antiquarian librarian.
Your summary so clarion of old proletarians ’tis plain to the most abecedarian.
Human rites are performed for social, redistributive, clinical, political, and fair weather beliefs.
The evolution of human life from conception is not a belief. There is no mystery in sex and conception, and people… persons… women and men should not find comfort in secular religious (“ethical”) sanction.
They don’t want people to have guns, because they think other people are as sloppy and reactive as they are.
Exactly. They are exercising liberal license to indulge diversity [dogma] (“color judgments”), and have developed a bad habit of speaking truth through projection. We know that armed offenses are a minority outside of police (e.g. Capitol Hill), criminal demographics, and self-abortions a.k.a. “suicide”. They try, try, and try again to paint the population as liberal and irresponsible but the proof, as it were, is not in the pudding.
Who is “they” in this sentence?
Progressives, Milhouse.
Do try to keep up.
There was nothing in the context to indicate that “they” were progressives. it wasn’t progressives who decided (so far) not to arrest him.
Lemmie crib from the example of The One:
There are those who don’t want people to have guns, because they think other people are as sloppy and reactive as they are.
Why? Well, if the jackboot fits.
Open season on conservatives
Planned Parent/hood.
Well, whoever called the cops as quoted above, clearly was establishing their story, first.
Call the cops. Call the cops first. Call the cops and set the narrative. “I was just shot in the back, while departing from . I’m driving myself to to get medical help.”
Have a video record, every time.
Have a partner observer. They can hang back at the car and just observe.
*Where is the activist, and protest training for these people?*
Have a partner observer.
ALWAYS go out in twos.
BTW, “shot in the back” is a sure no-no in self defense. Especially since it was an old lady so how fast was she retreating? She isn’t Usain Bolt.
This is Leftist Michigan and the woman was pro-Life. Under their interpretation of the law the shooting would be justified even if she was hundreds of yards away off of the property. The way to bet is probably “no charges”.
Subotai Bahadur
Leftist Michigan?! Not even close. Do you have any idea where this took place, and the politics of the area? Obviously not. This is solid Republican territory.
If this were a conservative area, the man would have been arrested for shooting someone in the back, clearly not self defense.
It is a solidly conservative area.
And the man is not claiming self defense, he’s claiming accident.
I, myself, look forward to the incitement charges on Der BiddenGafffer from this incident. Can we work retroactively to Mr. Get In Their Faces, or is there some kind of time limit on these things?
You have a long, long wait.
There is no case against Biden for incitement. If you think there is, you don’t understand what incitement is.
Articles of impeachment, then
Impeachment is a political decision, not a legal one. If the GOP retakes the House the majority will have to decide whether it’s in their interest to impeach Biden, given that if they do he is guaranteed to be acquitted. If they decide it is in their interest then you can be sure they will bring articles of impeachment. If they don’t do that it will be because they decided doing so would help Biden more than it would hurt him, in which case you shouldn’t want him impeached either.
There’s as much cause here for the charge that there is for Trump on J6, and that was the point he was making.
And Trump has not been charged with incitement, and never will be, because the elements clearly aren’t there.
Tell that to the illegitimate J6 committee.
The illegitimate J6 committee can’t charge anyone with anything. Therefore what it thinks is irrelevant. The elements of incitement are clearly not there in Trump’s case, or in Biden’s. Therefore neither of them can be charged, no matter what the committee says.
Evidently Biden’s Regime does not consider the ‘accidental’ shooting of an
Untermenschdeplorablesemi-fascistabortion protester a crime.However, if an abortion protester shoves an abortion supporter who is harassing his young son, ‘Beria’ Garland will send a 30 person heavily armed and armored team, but-not-a-‘SWAT’-team, to your door to arrest you at gunpoint in front of your wife and seven frightened kids 11 months after the incident — on a misdemeanor charge that was tossed out of a local court many months before.
Is there any doubt that we are now living in a radical leftwing ruled police state? Is there any doubt that GOPe ‘leadership’ is doing nothing about it beyond an occasional harshly worded letter?
Why isn’t the GOPe leadership — McConnell and McCarthy — at least speaking out and condemning, in the strongest possible words, Biden’s Gestapo tactics several times a week, every week?
Asking for an independent voter friend.
This has nothing to do with the Biden regime. It has no authority to act here, even if it wanted to. Even if this were deliberate murder no federal law would have been broken. So any comparison to Houck is invalid and dishonest. Houck admittedly and deliberately violated a federal law.
How can you deliberately violate a law that you don’t even know exists?
He knew very well that the law exists. It’s not an obscure law at all, and every single person who engages in protests outside abortion clinics is keenly aware of it and its exact limits. They know exactly how far they can legally go and are usually careful not to go an inch beyond it. It’s impossible to believe that Houck was so negligent with his own safety as to lead such a protest without familiarizing himself with the relevant law.
Defending your 12 year old son from profane abuse is deliberately violating a federal law.
Is preventing child abuse a Federal crime?
The man did not seek out an abortion proponent to attack. He was preventing a verbal assault against his minor child.
“Defending” someone from “profane abuse” is always a crime. Usually not a federal one, but it’s always a state crime of assault. Yelling insults at someone is not and cannot be a “verbal assault”. And it never justifies a physical response.
Even the “fighting words” doctrine, which is probably no longer valid law, never justified the fighting that resulted from such words; it merely said that the state could ban people from saying such words. Anyone reacting to the words would still be charged.
You’ve got that backwards, Milhouse. “Fighting words” was a defense against otherwise criminal action. It was a “reasonable man” issue with the judge or jury deciding, “Yeah, I probably couldn’t have stopped myself from punching him, either.”
Look man, you get in my kid’s face and consequence be damned, I AM breaking your f*cking nose at the minimum. Refuse to back off that that point and I’ll break something else.
No, it was not. There has never been a time when it was a defense.
So Ironclaw, you admit that you are a damned criminal, no better than Antifa or BLM. Nice to know. Try it and you will be arrested, if you survive your victim’s legitimate right to self-defense.
What are you talking about?: Who do you think the FBI Gestapo works for if not the pedophile-in-chief?
The FBI is irrelevant here. The law enforcement agency in question is 100% Republican and has no connection to Biden.
Can you provide a reference to him having admitted he violated the FACE Act?
I haven’t seen that information anywhere.
He admitted that he shoved the escort, and that he did not do so in legitimate defense of others. By definition that violates the Act. The escort was “providing reproductive health services”, as the Act so delicately puts it, and Houck assaulted him because he was doing so, or in order to intimidate him “or any other person or any class of persons from” doing so.
Holy cow! You have an absurd definition of a bunch of these words!
Particularly “because”. He assaulted him because he was verbally attacking his son and getting inside his personal space.
Also, reference, please, for the “admitted not in legitimate defense of others” because* I’m pretty positive you’re conjuring that out of your own mind.
(* I’m using ‘because’ correctly here, showing a causal relationship from the latter to the former.)
The escort came over and approached his son and verbally abused him. The contact was initiated by the escort. Houck did not approach the escort until he abused his son.
If an adult approaches a minor child and at close range verbally and profanely abuses them any parent or responsible adult would push or prevent the abuser from terrorizing the kid.
I suspect the reason that the local authorities would not prosecute despite the pressure from the escort and abortion proponents is that no sane jury would ever convict the father. Only a jury full of leftist zealots who want to punish their political enemies would ever convict.
There’s a reason that the person he supposedly assaulted dropped the case in the first place. But, when you have a Gestapo and Garland thinking he’s Himmler, then the FBI becomes all about harassment of opponents and settling scores.
“This has nothing to do with the Biden regime.”
If Presidential speeches mean nothing, why make them?
Since this was about abortion policy so important to The Child Sniffer, his administration, and party, does The BackShooter count as deputized by The Regime?
Why not? Make the case.
Finger on the booger picker waving the gun around like it was a brick and shot an old lady having an argument with your wife. Go to jail, jackass.
Do you mean “booger hook on the bang switch”?
I would not want to pick boogers with a trigger.
That might be a new way to clear your sinuses.
This is another attack on Conservatives just as Sundowner and his followers want
The modern Mother Teresa standing up for the babies without a voice to protest, without arms to raise in self-defense, without the foreknowledge that they may be mere “burden” bumps along the path to social progress.
and this a$$hole isn’t even contrite!
He should be in jail
He literally shot her in the back!
One can only imagine the terror he must have been feeling at the site of an 84-year-old woman armed with a clipboard.
If she had been wearing a MAGA hat his ‘accidental’ aim might have been better.
And instead of just not arresting him, they’d probably be giving him a civic award.
This shooting rests squarely on Obama and Biden’s shoulders. And they couldn’t be happier about it.
“The man who did it claimed it was an accident.”
I always marveled at how a woman who had never handled a gun could shoot an errant husband straight through the heart on her first try, with one shot. And a trained policeman, trying to shoot an armed bank robber, only ends up hitting a elderly woman waiting for a bus two blocks away.
— H.L. Mencken, “Newspaper Days”
Just wait. Hunting season will start soon, and I swear every tree stand “accidental shooting” will have a shot dead center in the chest. Statistically, random errant shots should impact anywhere and everywhere on the body. My SWAG on this for 30 years has been that the guy in the tree stand was schtupping someone’s wife, and said cuck decided that hunting season was a convenient time for “an accident” to happen.
The man’s explanation doesn’t make sense. Generally, you confront people face to face. How does he try to whack the clipboard and shoot her in the back?
If true he would most likely have to have approached her from behind without warning, as she almost certainly would have turned to face someone she sees or hears approaching her.
How does he aim the rifle at a tree, or so he says, and use it as a club? You cannot do both, does not compute.
Hmm, add a charge of lying to a police officer, or making a false statement. That’s also a crime in most places.
By all means door knock, assuming their aren’t no trespass or no soliciting signs. Entering onto property with those signs which clearly indicate they property owner doesn’t want uninvited visitors
Either way don’t confront folks on their property. When asked or told to exit then do so. Defuse the situation by leaving. Lingering to argue invites escalation.
That doesn’t mean the person trespassing deserves to be shot but it does make it more likely. The property owner is already at home, they have no obligation to retreat inside and hide.
To the people saying that the old lady should have been more careful, should have had a partner, should have been filming, etc, she had no reason to think she was taking any risks. This is a solid Republican area. Probably the vast majority of people she encountered were supportive, and signed her petition or accepted her flyers, or whatever. She probably never expected to come across someone who is actually pro-abortion, just as the earnest young lefties who knock on my door to ask me to sign petitions for some leftist cause are always astonished when I tell them I’m against whatever cause it is. They’re used to people not wanting to get involved, or reluctant to sign for some personal reason, but not to people who support whatever it is they’re opposing.
she had no reason to think she was taking any risks
Fine. But that doesn’t strike down any of those bits of advice. (And they are advice.) None of us live in Mayberry any more.
Two people is ALWAYS a good idea:
Something as simple as an emergency, your buddy can call 911.
You have a witness – something as unreasonable as “I saw this guy going through my backyard so he must have been a peeping tom.”
Jesus sent his disciples out in pairs, partly to establish everything by the testimony of two witnesses.
Boy Scouts and various other youth organizations and counseling organizations encourage private interactions to always have two adults present to protect against bad actions and against false accusations.
Recording your interactions (modified per local recording laws):
Always proves what you’re saying (if you’re being honest).
Provides you with extra incentive to act properly at all times.
Provides others with incentive to always interact judiciously with you.
“…she had no reason to think she was taking any risks.”
She got shot. Whatever “reasoning” concludes she wasn’t taking any risks is demonstrably wrong: she got shot.
So, go look for where the “reasoning” might fall down. Plenty of material there. Rest of that paragraph is running about 1 assertion of fact, and 2 inferences per sentence.
“They’re used to people not wanting to get involved, or…”
What was that, she was “bitterly clinging?” *This* smear by speculation and projection has exactly the same form as Obama’s “bitterly clinging” campaign comment in PA.
That’s a multi-level smear, masquerading as “analysis.” It’s a dirty kind of rhetoric, with the bonus of pissing off the people it’s thrown at, making them stop thinking or start reacting. Then, you get to smear them again.
BTW, why was Bad Gun Handler armed? “Bitterly clinging”, perhaps?
What the hell are you talking about now? Are you on drugs? You’re incoherent.
Sorry you can’t follow your own rhetoric.
The Lightbringer’s tenure installed into the culture a lot of tropes, and worse knee-jerk rhetoric. He is in the main a figurehead, but as President Good Talker he enabled a lot of traction in a hurry.
Examples include; Calumnies by presupposition. Psychologizing inconvenient people, so you can dismiss them; their wants and interests, analysis, experiences, conclusions and solutions. Convenient classes and categories to reason from vs. individuals. The sweep of history and trends vs. events and individual experiences.
“What the hell are you talking about now? Are you on drugs? You’re incoherent.”
Well, there it is: a more blatant ad hominem than the “arguments by smearing” embedded in your comments above about the anti-abortion canvasser. When sliming on the sly doesn’t shut people up, do it more directly n see if that backs them off.
That tactic only works if the targets fold without calling it out. So, it’s good for going after — just to make up a random example — an 84-year-old who doesn’t hang around here, and is recovering from a GSW besides.
Did they have a no soliciting sign? Violating that is where my “get out the bang stick” comes into play. It is posted for their safety. 😉
Even assuming that the Harveys’ narrative were true — that the volunteer continued to stay on the property after being told to leave, that she argued loudly with Ms. Harvey, and that she waved her clipboard around while arguing — everything from the warning shot onward is a violation of the laws of self-defense.
Find Mr. Harvey guilty of the appropriate felony, suspend the prison sentence, and strip him of his gun rights.
He’s not asserting self-defense, so the laws on that are irrelevant. And there was no warning shot.
milhouse
like you, am not a lawyer–to a layman, self-defense won’t fly as the lady was obviously leaving the property– withouth even considering that (unarmed) given her age and physical stature, is rather a stretch that she presented a “lethal force” threat
the shooter is very, very lucky that he didn’t kill her by “accident”