I shot US abortion doctor to protect children, Scott Roeder tells court

Guardian ^ | 28 January 2010 | Ed Pilkington

[Ben Mugged]

A self-proclaimed born-again Christian who believes all abortions are a sin told his trial for murder today that he shot dead an abortion doctor in Wichita, Kansas, to protect unborn children.

Scott Roeder said he had bought a .22-calibre Taurus gun and ammunition on 30 May 2009, the day before he shot George Tiller, and practised target shooting with his brother. Then he checked into a motel in Wichita, and the next day followed Tiller to the church in the town where the doctor was an usher.

His defence lawyer asked: "Did you go and shoot Dr Tiller?"

Roeder replied: "Yes."

His confession is part of his defence that he felt forced to kill in order to save the lives of unborn children. He has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder.

It is the first time in US legal history that a violent anti-abortionist has been allowed to present the jury with his justification for murder.

The judge in the case, Warren Wilbert, caused dismay among pro-abortionists and doctors this month when he ruled that Roeder would be allowed to present his justification to the court. Wilbert will decide later in the trial in Kansas whether the jury will be permitted to find the defendant guilty of the lesser crime of manslaughter.

Tiller was killed in the Reformation Lutheran church with one shot to the head. He had long been a target for anti-abortionists as he was one of few doctors prepared to perform legal late abortions, after 21 weeks of gestation.

[LearsFool]

What do you do?

You can bet OldDeckHand and his "LAW" would be after me, because the life of my child is worth more than my own. It may cost me a few years in prison for kidnapping, but at least my child would've been spared a grisly death.

(At least I hope I'd be man enough at 16 to stand up against OldDeckHand's precious "LAW" when it threatens my child's life.)

[patton]

I think that you are not alone.

[LearsFool]

When Roe is eventually overturned by a different Supreme Court decision...

And just how many kids have to die between now and then? How many little babies will you sacrifice to your almighty "LAW"?

My FRiend, for all your brains you still haven't the slightest clue what the purpose of law is.

[chris_bdba]

They were talking about that earlier on Foxnews with Judge Napalitano. He basically said that if he had killed him while he was preforming an abortion he’d have been in a better place using this law than he was by following him to church to do it.

[patton]

...especially since many of Tiller’s abortions seem to have been illegal.

[editor-surveyor]

The high school girl that takes a pill that the nurse gives her can easily convince herself that she hasn’t done anything at all, but the abortionist that stabs the shears through the skull of a half born child knows for sure what he has done.

[Petronski]

Every abortion is murder.

[wardaddy]

I’m not sure what you two are arguing about and did not look but yes the Supreme Court and the US Constitution do differentiate about how folks are killed in determining justice.

For the record I feel no pain over Tiller’s murder and would love to see a Second Degree jury nullification.

So shoot me...(no pun intended)

[trumandogz]

While the SCOTUS may attempt to decide when life begins, it is clear to the vast majority of those of us in the Pro-Life Movement that Life Begins at Conception.

With that being the case, we should not accept, as some here have proposed, the idea that an abortion during the first trimester is acceptable, while it is not acceptable in the third trimester.

[editor-surveyor]

"With that being the case, we should not accept, as some here have proposed, the idea that an abortion during the first trimester is acceptable, while it is not acceptable in the third trimester."

You keep propping that strawman up, but really nobody here has made that argument.

You're just covering. Your failure to realize that the multiple brutal murders of half born children requires death is your problem. "He who sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed" And that is exactly what Roeder did, is shed that brutal serial killer's blood.

[editor-surveyor]

But that isn’t what was in contention.

You’re always way off to the edge of what is being discussed.

[trumandogz]

You may way to check your Post 320 where you said that human life is not discernible during the first trimester. I on the other hand respect human life from the moment of conception.

[trumandogz]

You may want to check.....

[Petronski]

But that isn’t what was in contention.

Of course it is. Every murder is carnage.

[rwfromkansas]

Good point.

The Nebraska doctor that was going to offer abortions opted not to, so I believe the only place you can get them in Wichita now is Planned Parenthood....and only Tiller did late term.

Many babies were saved by this act, though IT WAS WRONG.

If I was on the jury, I would convict the man. He committed murder regardless of the reason. That said, I would be hard pressed to send him to jail for more than a few years.

[July4]

Killing an abortionist who intends to kill other people’s children is called murder.

Saving your children and killing an intruder in the process is called heroic.

I need to think about this.

[Agamemnon]

I suggest you enroll in a local adult education civics class, because you've got a real project ahead of you.

Hey, let's make it easy for you there "OldDickHand." The US Consitiution spells out the division of labor among the branches of the US governement. Just show us the place in the US Constitution where the USSC is vested with the responsibility for MAKING law.

We are a representative republic, with laws written by for and of the people.

And then while you're at it, re: abortion: just show us what people supposedly made what law. And if they think they did make law, supply us with the Consitutional rationale for their having done so.

We'll wait.

[OldDeckHand]

"Just show us the place in the US Constitution where the USSC is vested with the responsibility for MAKING law."

It is an inherent function of the US legal system that ANY precedential decision by the US Supreme Court becomes law. This is a principle that we inherited from the English through our colonial roots. The principle of judicial review was established in 1803 in a case called Marbury v. Madison, a decision that was based in large part on English legal precedent and Federalist No. 78, authored by Alexander Hamilton. Again, this is basic civics 101.

"And then while you're at it, re: abortion: just show us what people supposedly made what law. And if they think they did make law, supply us with the Constitutional rationale for their having done so."

The people elect the President, the President nominates justices to the Supreme Court, and the Senate - elected by the people - approve those appointment through the process of advice and consent, ergo Supreme Court decisions are a representation of the will of the people.

This is America. We don't enact law through popular vote, but through a process of representative government which is an expression of the people's will. That same expression is seen not only in our Executive and Legislative branches, but our Judicial branch as well.

Again, If you can't understand that very elementary principle of governance, I recommend adult education classes - knowledge is power, empower yourself.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Guilty on all counts, jury took only 40 minutes!

[Ben Mugged]

But after hearing Roeder testify, District Judge Warren Wilbert ruled that his lawyers failed to show that Tiller posed an imminent threat and the jury could not consider such a verdict.

After the Judge's directions there was never another option. After all he confessed.