Posted on 01/28/2010 12:16:12 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Seems as though the jury was not impressed with the discussion on this thread. :-)
“I need to think about this.”
Apparently, it only took a jury 37 minutes to think about it and find Mr. Roeder Guilty.
You wrote:
We are a representative republic, with laws written by for and of the people.
I'm only quoting you. Still don't understand the process do you?
I asked you to name the people who wrote the law legalizing abortion and name the USSC which was ever Constitutionally authorized to write the law. You can't.
Clue to you: USSC is vested with interpretation of law only, it does not write law, and if it attempts to, it does so without any authoity to do so in the US Constitution.
“Guilty on all counts, jury took only 40 minutes!”
minutes.”
Actually, it only took them 39 minutes.
It took five minutes to order lunch.
It took ten minutes for the lunch to be delivered.
It took twenty minutes to eat lunch.
and took them three minutes to find Roeder Guilty.
But if you wish, you can attend Roeder’s first Parole hearing sometime in March of 2035.
This Just in....
When Scott Roeder leaves prison, the presence of his human life will no longer be discernible.
It is sort of a trick question, since the child continues to buil=d their own body even years after birth. But the essence is supportive of your assertion on the worngness of killing at one month of gestation just as much as at eight months of gestation because it is the newly conceive individual who builds their own body, including the first organ for survival, the placenta.
Good parallel to many of us reading along ont his thread.
I try to address the root moral issue (Would you assinate hitler in the 1930’s?), without being offensive.
Unfortunately, I am not good at it.
It should be noted that every thing Hitler did, was legal under German law.
And every thing Tiller did, was legal under US law (Actually, that may not be true).
But in any case, both were mass murderers.
Why does the pro-life movement exist?
We all know who and what you are.
“We all know who and what you are.”
Yes, I am opposed to abortion at all stages of pregnancy and am opposed to murdering a man in his church.
On the other hand, you have said that you do not oppose abortion in the first trimester and favor the murdering of human beings who perform late term abortions.
However, you do not favor murdering those who perform first trimester abortions or those who feed women abortion pills.
Ultimately though the rancor being shown here by both sides is just a microcosm of the massive divisiveness inflicted on this country by the truly evil Roe v Wade decision.
Courts decide cases. Sometimes those cases establish binding precedent, which is frequently the case with the Supreme Court. That is making law. If you aren't smart enough to understand the incredibly simple and elementary concept, I can't help you.
Among other things you are a habitual liar!
Amazing that a person who is pro-life would sit back and just pray that people come around. Did not work out for 6M Jews, did it? 40M dead babies is Genocide. At some point you will either fight or watch and hope... The time is coming to choose sides....
" We are a nation of laws and NOT a nation of theocrats . "
So you want to deny your own words? Roeder was genuinely acting to save innocent life that could not defend itself , that transcends religon..
As reprehensible and disgusting as Tiller is, he was operating inside the laws of this country, at least with respect to performing abortions.
*******************************************************
Once again you’re ignoring the facts that Tiller was murdering babies outside the law ,, he was not getting a second opinion from a financially uninterested second doctor that murdering the baby was the best medical decision.
prior to roe v wade,when did the supremes act/perform as the legislative branch of our gov’t ?
******************************************************
It started long ago ,, at least as far back as the 1920’s/Wilson and grew brazen during FDR’s tenure .. I believe the biggest/boldest example in the near history prior to Roe would be bussing schoolchildren... We need an efficient way to remove justices for gross misconduct like that.
That was his twisted argument, and apparently yours as well. The jury took all of 37 minutes to reject it.
To qualify for an affirmative defense, the defendant must prove - yes, in an affirmative defense, the burden shifts to the defendant - that he was acting to save either himself or someone else from immediate danger. Roeder didn't kill someone who was holding a gun (or a scalpel) in his hand. He murdered someone in cold blood who was sitting in his place of worship. That's murder, not self defense. The jury agreed with me, not you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.