Posted on 05/31/2009 12:15:41 PM PDT by Crazieman
No article link, just headline
I wouldn't be surprised if no discussion of partial birth abortion is permitted at his trial.
Sad that this ghoulish business is profitable.
They may be restricted to words and no pictures (though I would be surprised if they couldn't use what Tiller had posted to his own website.) And there may be some pro-lifers with signs and such that the jurors will have to walk or drive by on their way to and from court.
Actually AG, the prosecution does not have to establish motive. All they need to show is that Roeder was the perpetrator and present some evidence that it was a deliberate act.
If a defense of insanity or "defense of others" is offered, then the state of mind of the perpetrator will come into play. If the judge refuses to allow the defendant to bring in evidence of his state of mind, i.e., that he was trying to stop these murders of unborn babies, then Roeder will not, IMHO, have been given a fair trial.
The judge does generally have discretion to preclude evidence where the prejudicial impact of the evidence outweighs it's evidenciary value. But when it involves excluding evidence relevant to a legitimate defense in a capital case, it will be closely monitored by the reviewing courts.
Wouldn't it be ironic if evidence is excluded from his trial and the ACLU ends up filing a brief or an appeal on his behalf?
The judge is going to be walking a tightrope on this one.
I am reminded of the chant of the Israelites: "Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands." David was so much more effective a leader than was Saul.
To twist that which was positive toward King David:
"Roeder has slain his ONE, and Tiller his SIXTY-THOUSANDS."
Roeder is bush league compared to Tiller. There is no moral equivalency that can be drawn.
I can’t.
I have the same problem. I see one killing for profit and the other killing to stop it.
As the left likes to cry "what is the root cause"? In this case it jumps out at me. Our govt has moved from being motivated by a desire for justice to being a govt without God and seeking total control over the governed. In the first it's a govt that serves, in the second it's a govt that controls.
The absence of a fair trial will only serve to justify what Roeder did. If the courts decide to restrict his ability to defend what he did they will lay the seed for the next extremist.
The explicit guarantee of the constitution is "to secure the Blessings of Liberty to... our posterity." And yet, since 1973 our government has been involved in a systematic effort (call it a conspiracy) to ensure that 50 million members of that group never saw the light of day, much less enjoyed the Blessings of Liberty.
Tiller was just another one of Blackmun's abortions.
The United States Constitution was aborted in 1973. We can see the fruits of that abortion all around us today. We have sacrificed 50 million of our precious posterity on the stainless steel altars of Molech and now we wonder why America is going to hell.
I fear that the current world crises are just the tip of the iceberg.
I saw an old bumper sticker back in the 70's that has stuck in my mind ever since:
“To denounce both is effectively to make them morally equivalent.
No, it is not. You and I both know that a run of the mill ‘murderer’ is much different from Hitler. Our statements can EASILY reflect such, while still denouncing the actions of both.
++++++++++++++++
“Can you not recognize that there may be important moral differences between them, which motivated their respective actions for different ends, or reasons?...You appear to want to say, Let’s cut through all the B.S. and simply say that both men deserve(d) the electric chair (or whatever) because each man killed. No possible extenuating circumstances. No consideration of motive or scale of alleged depravity. The two are just the same; a pox on both their houses; so off with their heads!”
Betty, I have clearly said that I supported the electric chair for Tiller, if our laws were just, and that I wouldn’t convict on 1st degree murder for Roeder, as I believe that his religious duties led him to a place that society was not willing to take up for him - and should have. I still believe however, that he made the wrong choice.
“Roeder is bush league compared to Tiller. There is no moral equivalency that can be drawn.”
Does God rank sin or consequences to sin? You do not have to draw moral equivalency to understand that both are sinful acts. What we *should* have done as a society, as a Christian Church, as a local Wichita community (many tried vigorously) was STOP TILLER legally. So the judgment of what happened is partly upon us for not caring, not praying, not sacrificing more for what is ‘good and right and noble.’ I will take some of that blame, just like I take my blame for sending Jesus to the cross.
However, this does not make what Roeder did ‘right.’ And saying *that* does not mean we make an equivalency between Roeder and Tiller.
If anything, this is a clarion call, for us to re-double our efforts, to triple our efforts and to wear marks on our floors and rugs where we’re kneeling to pray for this nation, and then rising up and speaking and sharing the truth in love. We can stop the abortion holocaust in this nation. (and what about the holocaust in Russia, etc. etc...?)
May we be about our Father’s business!
I stand corrected, P-Marlowe! Thank you. Still, it seems to me the jury might want to know about motive.
If I were a juror, certainly I'd want to know "why" Mr. Roeder "did it." And would take a dim view of the prosecution's case if I thought it was trying to bottle up this information. To me, knowledge of state of mind (including reason for acting) would be essential to my decision in this matter.
Mr. Roeder is not a robot, and I would not judge him as if he were one.
P-Marlowe, you wrote: "If a defense of insanity or 'defense of others' is offered, then the state of mind of the perpetrator will come into play. If the judge refuses to allow the defendant to bring in evidence of his state of mind, i.e., that he was trying to stop these murders of unborn babies, then Roeder will not, IMHO, have been given a fair trial."
In which case the jury ought to find him "not guilty." No jury should stand for the abuse of a fellow citizen like that: A fair trial is a constitutional right.
Thank you so very much, P-Marlowe, for your informative and insightful essay/post!
Yes, God does rank sin.
There are sins of ignorance, there are sins that are “abominations”, there are sins of “uncleanness”, and there are sins that are ceremonial violations.
Jesus said it would be better for Sodom and Gomorrah than for Jerusalem.
Bruce, you and I both know that the speculation is that Roeder killed Tiller because Tiller was a baby killer. Even if you were to consider their motivation similar, you’d still have the issue of ONE versus 60 THOUSAND.
Their motivation, however, was not similar. Our speculation says that Roeder killed for principle and that Tiller killed for cash.
There simply is no moral equivalence that can be drawn.
Well, duh!!!! "He made the wrong choice." Are you under any illusion that I disagree with that assessment?
The problem is: What do people committed to the sanctity of Life do about Roeder's choice now?
Tell you what, I'll make a deal with you: You stop throwing around the "T-word," and I'll stop nit-picking you! :^)
God's Grace be with you, dear brother in Christ!
I think the root cause of the present tyranny boils down to: By our loss of faith, we have ceased being a people under God, and so must become a people under man.
All our unalienable rights are direct gifts of God, not grants of government. "What the government gives, the government can take away." But what God imbues in us is part of our sovereign nature, and cannot lawfully or justly be taken away.
The Constitution clearly envisions a sovereign people; under God we would be sovereign — there being no government "above" us (other than God Himself), but only "below" us. But in a government under man (i.e., secular government) we are not self-determining free men (i.e., citizens), but "subjects"; and seem to be heading towards total serfdom at the speed of light. Meanwhile the government under man tramples our inalienable rights with impunity, a fact most transparently obvious in its refusal to protect innocent human life.
As P-Marlowe has already pointed out, the Framers' definition of We the People in the Preamble includes the yet-unborn generations — "our posterity." The Constitution was made just as much for them as the then-living generation. The people who ordained and established the Constitution of the United States clearly stated their commitment to the sanctity of life, and imposed a duty on government to protect and defend it, along with all other unalienable rights. Yet the people's authority to do that depends entirely on their being a "people under God." It is only by being a "people under God" that the American people can be a "people over Government."
I think the Framers understood all this clearly enough. And evidently worried about it a good deal. Many of their statements acknowledge that the constitutional republic they created could only be maintained by people of virtue. I.e., by people under God.
If we have become a godless people, then the American order as we know it cannot long stand. As to what is in store for us, I'd call the following the "worst-case scenario":
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:This party's only just getting started people. JMHO FWIWAnd that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. — Revelation 13:16–18
Thank you ever so much wmfights, for all your excellent posts on this thread!
Bruce: “Does God rank sin or consequences to sin?”
xzins: “Yes, God does rank sin.
There are sins of ignorance, there are sins that are “abominations”, there are sins of “uncleanness”, and there are sins that are ceremonial violations...There simply is no moral equivalence that can be drawn.”
Bruce:
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.
Romans 6:23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[a] Christ Jesus our Lord.
My Biblical point here is that all have sinned and the wages of sin is death. It is through Jesus Christ that we avoid this.
My other point about “Does God rank sin or consequences to sin?”, is that different sins have different *consequences* - clearly. In the course of this discussion, I’ve always maintained that the consequences of Tiller’s sins were far, far greater than Roeder’s sin. I’ve never drawn moral equivalence. Tiller was far more heinous than Roeder - but that doesn’t mean what Roeder did was right.
We shouldn’t passively or explicity supported sinful actions like Roeder’s - when other courses of action are available to us all. It’s certainly time we all re-double our efforts.
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.