Goodbye Mr. Roeder.
Posted on 11/23/2009 1:09:37 PM PST by Steelfish
'Necessity' Defense In Abortion Doctor Killing? Attorney for accused killer doctor doesn't close door to strategy
WICHITA, Kan. - Seemingly contradicting his own public statements, an attorney for the man accused of gunning down a Kansas abortion provider has argued in court documents that his client has an "absolute right" to present a defense that argues the killing was justified to stop abortion.
A defense motion made public Monday seeks to thwart prosecutors' efforts to ban the so-called necessity defense from Scott Roeder's murder and aggravated assault trial. A hearing on the issue is set for Dec. 22.
"For the Court to grant the State's motion to prohibit `any evidence' in support of the necessity defense would be premature, and contrary to Kansas law," the defense wrote. "In addition, it would be rank speculation on the part of the state (and the Court if it were to grant said Motion) as to the purpose of any and all evidence that the Defendant may seek to introduce."
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Scott Roeder meet Michael F. Griffin.
The atty is a bit confused.
“He needed killin’” is only a valid defense in Texas.
Well, the defense is that this was the only way to stop him from killing. What do you do when the law fails to do its duty? It’s really a martyrdom defense, like the assassin who kills Hitler.
Just use as a defense that he was performing a 180th trimester abortion on the doctor.
I’d be a nullifying sob if I was on that jury.
My post was tongue in cheek.
Yes, the AG and the governor did everything they could to protect the guy from the law.
The citizens of Ks and their legislature made it very clear that they wanted what this guy was doing to be severely restricted or stopped,
and he just ignored those laws with impunity.
When the gov’t makes non-violent resolution of grievances impossible,
violent resolution is inevitable.
I was unaware the law prevented a person from arguing whatever he wants to in his defense. Certainly a lot of trials of black “revolutionaries” have turned into denunciations of the USA, whitey, etc. I fail to see the difference.
Doesn’t mean the jury has to buy it.
Me too. While I may personally disagree with shooting abortionists it would be wrong of me to impose my morality on someone else.
L
An jury made up of Real Americans will not let a Terrorist go free, and Scott Roeder is a Terrorist.
so true
A jury made up of Real Americans will not let a Terrorist go free, and Scott Roeder is a Terrorist.
He has the right to present whatever defense he wants. His “defense” is crap. But, present away.
I have sympathy for the anti-abortion cause ... but, he knew the punishment when he committed the crime.
SnakeDoc
Goodbye Mr. Roeder.
As a matter of fact, I once read an article in First Things which made a case for shooting abortionists as a matter of “self defense” against violence. It is a generally accepted principle of natural law that self defense includes defending your family or your neighbor or innocent victims unable to defend themselves against violence. It is justified if there is no other way to stop an innocent party from being killed.
That article ended up by dismissing the whole argument. But to be frank, I couldn’t see the logic of the dismissal. Everyone from Thomas Aquinas on down argues that defending your neighbor is an act of charity, and that no one is required to obey an evil and immoral law.
It seems to me that it is very dangerous and questionable to take the law into your own hands and go around shooting people. And you are liable to suffer the consequences in jail.
But there IS an argument, and it seems to me that the defendent’s lawyer has a right to make it. If our legal system and our courts refuse to protect the innocent from violent death, then what follows?
I am NOT arguing for shooting abortionists. But I think this guy deserves at least as much of a day in court as the perpetrator of 9/11 who is now due to be tried in New York with all the rights of a citizen, at our expense.
14th Amendment "person" status allows an administrative tribunal that can restrict every aspect of rights into government-shaped "privileges." Accordingly, the prosecutor is requesting the Court restrict the declaration of the actual M.O. by the defendent, under the principle that the defendent has no rights, but only privileges that can be constrained by the Court, and that as this defense would not serve the interests of the government, it should be duly prohibited.
Argh - not “M.O.” but rather “mens rea” or intent to kill, and of course his reasons for intending to kill. Sorry for the confusion.
to read later
It seems to me that if that was his reason, he should be able to make such a plea and let the jury decide. Not to do so would morally deflate any guilty verdict.
The reason the prosecutors don’t want this, is because it is a morally valid common sense defense and they wouldn’t get a conviction...
It also seems to me that if the man killed the baby killer for this reason even if he were in error, where’s the criminal intent?
It is permissible after all to use deadly force if you “think” your life or someone else’s life is being threatened. Then it is up to the prosecution to prove that a reasonable person wouldn’t believe that.
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.