I shot US abortion doctor to protect children, Scott Roeder tells court

Guardian ^ | 28 January 2010 | Ed Pilkington

[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.

[firebrand]

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.

[editor-surveyor]

.
You’re a sick puppy as usual!

You’re not even part of the “pro life movement,” what do you care what he did to it?

He deserves a medal for lifesaving.
.

[Agamemnon]

I really do not think we want to introduce “I killed a guy because I thought that my doing so would may save other lives” into our legal system as an accepted defense.

Hey Truman'sApologist. Seems you missed this:

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.

[LussaO]

He murdered in defense of others, or at least that is his defense.

* * * * * * *

Tim McVeigh had a “necessity defense”, too.

[OldDeckHand]

"no matter what the law is?"

We aren't talking about any law, and we aren't talking about any kind of civil disobedience. We are talking about a single man making a decision devoid of any kind of due process and murdering someone because he disproves of the fully legal if also morally reprehensible actions his victim is engaging in.

Where does it end? Are we then going to endorse the murder of the pharmaceutical executives and researches who've created the morning after pill?

Are we going to advocate and celebrate the murder of the pharmacist who dispenses the birth control pill - after all, depending on what particular philosophical or theological principles you adhere to, birth control is a kind of abortion?

This country has endured this long precisely because we don't allow people to take matters into their own hands, no matter how right they believe they are, or how wrong they believe their opponents are.

[editor-surveyor]

.
"If you're arguing for jury nullification, you're no different than the idiotic racists who acquitted OJ Simpson."

Statist strawman!

Roeder saved lives, Simpson took lives out of personal pride.

Jury nullification is valid.
.

[BP2]

Are we dipping into the past now to make our point?

I can only look into the past to see the evil of other men who kill the innocent.

I'm unable to see into the future, other than to see that there will be a day — hopefully soon — that Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

[firebrand]

I am interested in reading the defense and prosecution arguments. I’m not sure this is a good idea, as I said, but am very interested in how it turns out. May whatever the result is help save babies’ lives. If it does, it was a good idea. If it doesn’t, it wasn’t.

[nysuperdoodle]

So then, based on your logic, it would have been wrong (circa 1943) to defend the Jews in Germany from extermination. After all, genocide was the law of the land in Germany.

[LussaO]

Tim McVeigh had a necessity defense too, the “feds needed to learn a lesson.” And when the Montana Freeman standoff ended without a Waco fire, McVeigh felt vindicated in his bombing - wow, sounds a lot like the freepers saying the shooting saved a lot of babies!

Except it didn’t stop the late term ones - Dr. Carhart is doing them now. Anyone here calling for killing HIM?

First degree murder will never sit well with me.

[OldDeckHand]

"So, it's your position that one is not truly pro-life unless he supports murder?"

Apparently, that is the position of many here. Although, I'm sure that they would claim it's not cold-blooded murder, but killing in defense of others. The flexibility one needs to engage in such moral gymnastics is quite rare.

[editor-surveyor]

.
"Sorry. Men with conviction are not afraid to go to prison forever, or even die, for what they believe in."

And he has already proven that he is.

"If you really think what you did was right despite the law, you would stop trying to weasel-out and would go to prison like a man."

Argumentum ad absurdum!
.

[OldDeckHand]

"So then, based on your logic, it would have been wrong (circa 1943) to defend the Jews in Germany from extermination. "

No, but apparently that would be your straw man argument. Good luck with that.

[TChris]

Jury nullification is valid.

Not if you actually believe the Constitution.

I've read and read, but can't seem to find any provision in the Constitution for jury nullification. It certainly could have been included, had the Fathers so desired.

The Constitutional provision for changing the law is via the legislature. Period.

Jury nullification is an end-run around the Constitution which is absolutely no different than judicial activism. It's just that the perpetrators sit in a different place in the courtroom when they commit the act.

If you are in favor of jury nullification, but against judicial activism, then you, FRiend, are a hypocrite.

[Responsibility2nd]

Bump.

[Oldpuppymax]

A Heisman Trophy winner might thank him in about 20 years!

[Antoninus]

Tim McVeigh had a “necessity defense”, too.

Good point. If Terry Nichols had taken out McVeigh before he blew up the Murrah Building, should he have been prosecuted for 1st degree murder?

[editor-surveyor]

Seek counseling soon!

[TChris]

Apparently, that is the position of many here. Although, I'm sure that they would claim it's not cold-blooded murder, but killing in defense of others. The flexibility one needs to engage in such moral gymnastics is quite rare.

At least it should be rare among so-called conservatives. This sort of situational ethics is the playground of leftist "progressives".

[LearsFool]

This country has endured this long precisely because we don't allow people to take matters into their own hands, no matter how right they believe they are, or how wrong they believe their opponents are.

As politically astute as your observations are, they seem to be ignorant of the magnitude (in the eyes of many) of this issue.

This is not merely a dispute over who should be taxed more, or whether we need to require seatbelts. This issue is so fundamental that the Declaration lists it as a raison d'etre for government - which is why the pro-death camp denies this has anything whatsoever to do with life.

When the democratic process we value so highly fails to achieve a resolution - or worse, when the democratic process is prohibited from resolving our differences - people will indeed take matters into their own hands (a la the Civil War.)

The only greater failure than the failure to protect life is the failure to permit our nation's pressure valve - the democratic process - to attempt a resolution of this dispute.