On September 3, 2003, Rev. Paul Hill was
executed by the State of Florida for killing abortionist John Britton
and his bodyguard James Barrett on July 29, 1994. Hill shot the two men
in the head at point-blank range with a twelve-gauge shotgun on the
parking lot of a Pensacola, Florida abortion clinic where Britton plied
his grisly trade. From the time of the killings until his death by
lethal injection, Reverend Hill staunchly insisted that the shootings
were acts of justifiable homicide in defense of thirty-two unborn human
beings about to be murdered.
Since that fateful September day, Hill's actions have been vigorously
defended by a number of pro-lifers who agree with his application of the
justifiable homicide defense. I am not among that number, though I am
not necessarily comfortable with those who, almost from the moment Hill
pulled the trigger on his shotgun, have simply reduced the whole matter
down to "Murder is murder. Paul Hill is a murderer." The use
of lethal force in defense of unborn human life is a grave matter on
many counts. Emotional appeals to out-of-context legal axioms do not
justify the unrighteous use of force, while understandable but
emotional, knee-jerk revulsion without a basis in law in response to the
use of such force may demean the lives of unborn human beings.
Several months before Mr. Hill killed Britton and Barrett, he called me
on the phone and asked if I would be willing to sign his "Defensive
Action Statement" which essentially made the point that any force
which can rightfully be used in defense of the born can be asserted in
defense of the unborn. I turned down that request. I am glad that I did
so—not because the principle is wrong but because such a principle
must be very firmly defined and hedged about by lawful application. To
not do so is to invite the unlawfully shed blood of the born to join the
blood of the unborn in polluting the land.
I firmly believe that Paul Hill's actions on July 29, 1994 were criminal
in every regard. The Sixth Commandment states, "Thou shalt not
kill." Some Christians would say the translators of the
Authorized Version got it wrong. Those Christians say that the
commandment should state, "Thou shalt not murder,"
just as the modern perversions read. They are wrong. God forbids any
unlawful taking of human life, not just murder.
Homicide, the killing of a human being, fell under three categories
according to the common law, this in faithful reflection of God's law.
The first category is justifiable homicide. This is the unavoidable
taking of human life by the state as punishment in a capital crime, in
war, or by police officers in the line of duty. The second category of
homicide is excusable homicide. Self-defense by citizens and the
necessary defense of others falls under that heading. The last category
of homicide is felonious homicide, a criminal act of which there are two
types. The first is the unjustifiable, inexcusable taking of a human
life—in other words, murder. The second is the unlawful taking of a
human life but with no premeditation or malice and with mitigating
circumstances such as extreme provocation. That is voluntary
manslaughter and differs from involuntary manslaughter in that it is an
intentional act, albeit one done with extreme provocation and in the
heat of the moment.
Those who would justify Paul Hill's shootings have a high legal
threshold to surmount. The taking of human life, even in self-defense or
in the defense of others, can only be done when the person being
defended is clearly in danger of death or great bodily harm, and his
defender has no effective alternative. In Exodus 22:2-3, this principle
is spelled out practically. If an individual was killed while breaking
into a home in the night, that was excusable homicide. The law was
"there shall no blood be shed for him." In other words, the
occupants of the house could have no way of knowing if their lives were
about to be taken by the intruder, and they had a right to use deadly
force if they felt it was necessary to protect themselves and their
loved ones. However, if the thief was breaking into the house in the
daylight, it was deemed murder to kill him. This supposes the thief is
only that—an identifiably unarmed thief which poses no immediate,
deadly threat to anyone, only to property. The point here is that one
cannot take a life even in self-defense unless there is no available
alternative, and the act is absolutely necessary to protect an innocent
life.
Taking a human life is such a serious matter that most states in America
require a person to retreat to a far corner of his house, if he can
reasonably and safely do so, before he turns to deadly force against an
intruder. In Israel, the Lord set up cities of refuge for the
incarceration, so to speak, of individuals who committed involuntary
manslaughter by simple carelessness. God looks at the killing of a human
being, for any reason, as an extremely serious act.
Yes, abortion is murder, but Paul Hill had plenty of viable alternatives
to blowing the heads off of an abortionist and his body guard while also
wounding the wife of the latter. It is reported that his actions on July
29, 1994 saved a sum total of one baby from death. He could have easily
saved one baby had he chosen to pray, picket, and sidewalk counsel that
day instead of turning to deadly violence himself. Since he was willing,
and determined, to violate the law in defense of life, there are many
lesser acts he could have taken to actually close down the death camp
that day. Abortion clinics in America have been shut down for a day or
longer by single individuals through all sorts of creative actions which
carry no danger of injuring, much less killing, anyone. People have
chained themselves up in front of clinic doors in ways that took many
hours to safely remove them. Individuals have squirted harmless but
incredibly strong smelling substances under clinic doors or into
ventilation systems. Several years ago, a Roman Catholic priest in
Rockford, Illinois drove his car through the front door of an abortion
clinic in the early morning hours. I do not point to these methods by
way of encouragement to action but only to highlight that Paul Hill had
absolutely no excuse to shoot two men and one woman on July 29, 1994. It
is also relevant to raise the issue that Paul Hill could have saved many
more preborn babies than the one he reportedly saved on July 29, 1994
had he been out of jail the last nine years, picketing and preaching
against abortion.
Now, regarding Hill's crimes, one could make the argument that he
committed voluntary manslaughter, that he lashed out in such a deadly
way after being severely provoked by the spectacle of the daily,
state-sanctioned mass murder at the abortion clinic where he picketed
and counseled mothers not to murder their children. Certainly the flaw
in that argument is that Hill did not act on the spur of the moment but
premeditated his acts. But even under the voluntary manslaughter
scenario, Mr. Hill would be guilty of violating God's commandment
against unlawful killing. In wounding Barrett's wife, he was also guilty
of attempted murder since his act happened in the commission of a
felony. If convicted of such serious charges, Hill would have
justifiably spent the rest of his life in prison instead of being
executed, but perhaps the humanity of the unborn would have been better
served.
Those who tout Paul Hill as a hero and martyr are bestowing noble status
to a manslayer at best and a murderer at worst. Paul Hill had no right
to gun down two men and callously wound a woman under the guise of
protecting the preborn. In statements given after his shooting spree, Hill
expressed relief that no police officers happened on the scene before he
was able to kill the abortionist because he would have had to kill the
officers as well if necessary to achieve his goal! How can any Christian
justify such a willingness, even eagerness, to kill? Paul Hill never
confided his plans to his wife prior to his shooting spree, and he made
no provision for the care of his wife and children for after it. How can
any Christian commend such a callous desertion of familial
responsibility? Unlike many combat veterans who have expressed regret at
having to legitimately take life in war, to my knowledge, Paul Hill
never expressed regret for his bloody acts with a twelve-gauge shotgun
and, in fact, could smile while talking about the acts shortly after
they were committed.
The taking of unborn human life is murder, yet the whole abortion
situation still does pose unique circumstances from the murder of the
born. Preborn human life is being snuffed out by abortifacient birth
control, by "morning-after pills," and by RU-486. If one is
going to excuse the shooting of abortionists, then he must also excuse
the shooting of pharmacists. The "have no doubt, just rub them
out" crowd says that we who oppose lethal force against
abortionists are inconsistent in our treatment of the unborn, but they
do not emulate Paul Hill's actions. They say they are not
"called" and, in fact, equate it to a missionary calling, thus
making themselves the inconsistent ones. Surely if their own born loved
ones were about to be murdered, they would not want a Christian brother
who could stop it to demur from doing anything because he did not feel
"called."
A pastor I know, who is hypocritically playing both sides of the fence,
has written that Paul Hill is the "sanest and bravest man of our
age" but then stated, "it is legitimate to question whether
Paul used the proper amount of force or too much." The taking of
human life is a deadly serious matter. Every killing is either
justifiable, excusable, or a crime of the highest magnitude. It is
ludicrous to say that Paul Hill is a hero although he may have used just
a wee bit too much force when he scattered the skulls, brains, and blood
of two human beings all over a parking lot in 1994. There is no gray
area with regard to taking human life. There is no error margin or
wiggle room. The killing of human beings is either right, or it is a
grievous sin to be severely punished by the civil government.
I cannot conceive of any instance in this country where the killing of
an abortionist could be justified or excused. Paul Hill violated the
Sixth Commandment of God's law; and unless he repented of his crimes, he
is now in the torments of hell. The story of Paul Hill is the story of
what legalized abortion does to the heart of a nation. Now the killer of
a killer of preborn babies has been killed by the civil government that
allows and facilitates the murder of those babies. Blood does indeed
touch blood, and God does indeed have a controversy with America (Hosea
4:1-2).
Back to top.
