I’d be happy to sit and happy to convict. We are a nation of laws and NOT a nation of theocrats. Right now, abortion is legal in this country. If you don’t like the law, then work within the law to change the law. But, your moral beliefs aren’t license to murder someone with whom you disagree. If we go down that road - and endorse it, as you seem to be doing - then we might as well start dressing in bedsheets with diapers on our heads, because we will have become just like the Jihadists so many hate.
"...a time to obey man, a time to obey God...."
Not postulating that this condones the murder, but, on the other hand, it sort of vaporizes your argument.
Wasn't against Germany's laws to kill Jews either.
Sounds like a good argument...for the defense at Nuremberg.
Kansas Statutes Amended:
Chapter 21: Crimes And Punishments
PART I.--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 32: Principles Of Criminal Liability
Statute 21-3211: Use of force in defense of a person; no duty to retreat.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force.
(b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person.
(c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person or a third person.
A well crafted defense would establish that Roeder believed that abortions cause death or great bodily harm to a third person, after which the definition of "imminent" will be put to the test. IMHO, if Tiller had an abortion appointment scheduled for the following day, I'd call that imminent. You're right. We are a nation of laws...it will be interesting to see how this one is applied.
************************************************
If you have ever read Roe you would know that you are completely wrong in that statement; Roe contains explicit language that , with todays medical knowledge , nullifies it's own arguments in favor of abortion on demand and calls for itself to be struck down. It would be far more accurate to say that abortion is explicitly legal only in certain states such as California and NY that have their own laws on the subject.
P.S. Your "theocrat" attack stance you immediately took shows you to be the liberal hack lawyer you have shown yourself to be in so many threads ... Do you really think that if we had no religon we wouldn't have laws against murder?
He didn’t murder someone with whom he disagreed. He murdered in defense of others, or at least that is his defense. I’m not sure this was a good idea, but the question is now out there in court, as it hasn’t been before.
Insanity at it's finest. The same type of insanity that allowed the Nazis to take over Germany and kill millions of people(not just jews)because it was legal.