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 ...
My side? What side do you think I am on, dear FReind? I'll give you a hint. I'm on the side that stands for upholding the rule of law - the rule not evaluated by a single man who advocates taking matters into his own hand and dispensing justice as he sees fit - but, the side that places the responsibility of dispensing that justice in manner fully in accordance with the principles of due process and Constitutional rights.
For a society to make it past 200 years, you not only have to protect the rights of the people with whom you agree, but the people with whom you disagree as well.
When did I say otherwise?
The last prolifer to kill a doctor was executed. If this is such a winning tactic and it’s “justified,” why isn’t the name of Paul Hill venerated among Freepers?
No, we cannot have selective outrage when it comes to murder. Roeder committed first degree murder, the worst crime on the books, and he needs to pay the penalty.
prior to roe v wade,when did the supremes act/perform as the legislative branch of our gov’t ?
And you sir seem to be using the law as an rationale to murder the unborn. Despots have over the millinea used the law as an excuse for murder. Who has the moral high ground here? Some of the abortions this doctor performed resulted in the live birth of a child who was then left on a table to die. He has previously been charged in the death of these children. He injected saline solutions into the brain of children as they exited the birth canal and called it an "abortion".
According to many people here, Roeder was justified in killer Tiller because he might perform more abortions.
That being the case, Roeder would have also been justified in randomly killing three women under the age of 30 since at least 33% of women in that age group will in the future have an abortion.
If you don't get it, read the Bible. You may not agree, but at least then you would understand the origins of that which you oppose.
Old Deck Hand thinks the laws are the ‘end all, be all’
If his town passed a law that everyone that lived there was gay, he’d be the first on his knees.
This is what the entire defense case attempts to establish. Is it Coldblooded murder, or was it a justified homicide?
If Roeder and his defense team is able to convince the jury that an unborn child, late in term, are actually people, or have attained person hood, then the jury would be bound by law to acquit the defendant on the grounds of justifiable homicide in the defense of a third party in immanent danger of death.
It is not cold blooded murder if it is justifiable homicide.
This is an interesting case. It is difficult to believe that they will not convict, however, it is not difficult to believe that many on the jury would like to acquit.
What if Roeder had shot a woman who was going into the clinic? That would’ve truly been a case of “saving a baby about to be murdered,” and unlike killing Tiller, there’s really an element of “imminent danger” there.
I wonder if these moral relativist freepers would want to defend Roeder then.
However, once abortion is made legal again, we will prosecute the doctors who perform and the woman who have abortions.
Every word you write is true. It also does not answer the question I put forth.
I absolutely recognize the legal distinction, and stated so in the original post.
The question, again - if we believe children in the womb are fully human and thus have full basic human rights, what is the MORAL difference?
If you do not consider yourself pro-life or believe life begins at conception, go ahead and state so and I will close my inquiry.
Oh my gosh, dozens, perhaps hundreds, of times since Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review.
Roe was an incorrectly decided judicial case, but it's still the decision, as such, it's the supreme law of the land until such a time as the Supreme Court overturn itself, or a Constitutional Amendment is passed. Until such a time, we must respect - and by respect, I mean NOT MURDER - people who are following the established law.
That’s a stupid post.
Well, we've established that if nothing else, you have intellect and maturity of a 12 year-old. You should be glad that there's not a law against that, or someone would lock you up. Maybe they should do it anyway. You'd be OK with that, right?
He killed a guy. He committed a homicide. Whether it was a “murder” or not is a matter for the court to decide, OK?
Ted Bundy is an amateur compared to George Tiller. Tiller killed 60,000 children. Even Osama Bin Laden looks like a piker compared to that number. The only flaw in the shooters defense is the “immenent” threat to harm another. Tiller was at church. Perhaps in the operating room that defense would fly but not in church on Sunday. Depends on the jury. The law has wiggle room and that is what juries are for.
If it’s a law, you’d follow it. That’s all I’m saying. You have to independent thought and no independent morals.
“This is what the entire defense case attempts to establish. Is it Coldblooded murder, or was it a justified homicide?
If Roeder and his defense team is able to convince the jury that an unborn child, late in term, are actually people, or have attained person hood, then the jury would be bound by law to acquit the defendant on the grounds of justifiable homicide in the defense of a third party in immanent danger of death.
It is not cold blooded murder if it is justifiable homicide.
This is an interesting case. It is difficult to believe that they will not convict, however, it is not difficult to believe that many on the jury would like to acquit.”
Aside from the fact that at this time abortion is legal and therefore murdering an abortion doctor is illegal too, one has to consider the fact that Roeder killed the man in church. Roeder didn’t storm into the clinic while the doctor was preparing to perform an abortion and kill him to protect someone from imminent danger. In my opinion, that would negate the “imminent danger” defense, and justifiable homicide as well.
Who gets to make that distinction, sir? And, what Bible will we be using - the St. Joseph's Bible? The King James Bible? The New Word Bible? Are you the Bible police?
We have all have a 1st Amendment right to practice our respective religions? But we don't get to either murder or kill people in practicing our religions. I'm stunned that such a basic and fundamental principle is lost on so many. It's disturbing.
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.