It’s becoming increasingly clear that the murder of James Pouillon is not, as anti-choicers hoped, a tit-for-tat murder that will function to excuse their inculcation of terrorists that vandalize, set fires, bomb, and shoot clinic workers in an attempt to force sexually active women to give birth against their will. For those who haven’t been following, James Pouillon and Mike Fuoss of Owosso, Michigan were shot to death late last week. Harlan James Drake was picked up for the murders, and he had the name of a third man he intended to kill on him. Drake appears to have had a vendetta against all three men, though the police aren’t speaking much about what the vendetta was. It’s important to understand that even if it surfaces, it likely won’t make sense. Spree killers tend to have garbled reasons for what they do. One of the best-known examples of a similar killer was Andrew Cunanan, the man who killed 2 friends/acquaintances, a real estate developer that police speculate he was jealous of, a stranger, and then Gianni Versace, who appears to be targeted because of his fame and fortune. Then, as now, the tenuous connection to a sexy political issue caused a lot of undue speculation. I remember how the media tried to make a big deal out of the fact that Cunanan was gay, like his most famous target. But Cunanan wasn’t trying to make some bold political statement, nor was his homosexuality some kind of precursor to murder. (Most mass murderers like this are straight men.) And it seems that Drake’s most coherent political statement is that he didn’t like Pouillon’s tactics. It seems to me that he targeted Pouillon for the same reasons that Cunanan targeted Versace and Lee Miglin, the real estate developer: these men are the sort that would attract a spree killer’s attention mostly because they’re prominent and attract attention, and maybe even jealousy/resentment. I honestly would be surprised in Pouillon had any idea that Drake was obsessed with him.
Obviously, this whole thing is an unmitigated tragedy. Pouillon is an innocent man who had every right to protest where he wanted, as long as he didn’t try to physically interfere with people’s movements. It seems that when he did do this, he went to jail and did his time. That I should even have to say that shooting people in the street is a complete travesty makes me sad. It should be obvious that I don’t think it’s right that fucked-up people run around shooting innocent people on the street. But to avoid the “both sides” narrative, I want to make it clear that I 100% condemn this murder, and I believe 100% that Pouillon was an innocent person who had every right to say the things he did. I want to make it exquisitely clear that I don’t think that Pouillon’s opinions meant anything but that I opposed his opinions. No one should mistake this for behavior like that of the anti-choicers who celebrated Dr. Tiller’s death or claimed he had it coming.
It doesn’t seem like there’s any mainstream media attempts to make this a tit-for-tat thing, so they can say “both sides” are violent, and avoid the responsibility of reporting on the domestic terrorism inculcated in the American right. Obviously, anti-choicers are trying to exploit this tragedy to establish that narrative, because they aren’t hemmed in by truth or conscience. They should not be allowed to set the tone, especially since their end goal is to continue enhancing a media environment where the link between perpetrators of violence and their friends in the anti-choice movement go unexamined. I can’t help but point out that the main reason they don’t want those links being made is so they can continue to encourage violence without being held legally responsible.