| In Fort Hood, 14 people were killed — 13 adults and one unborn child. Both Federal Law and the UCMJ allow for a murder charge when a person causes the death of an unborn child.
Please tell me how something like this is moral?
|
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 ...
Interesting. So, you'd fully support the decision of any Muslims who may be sitting on the jury for KSM to vote against conviction because they're sympathetic to KSM's position? That is a most curious statement - jury nullification is valid - if also intellectually obtuse..
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?
* * * * * * *
If Nichols committed the elements of first degree murder, lying in wait, premeditation, planning and malice aforethought, absolutely.
If taking out murderers, genocidists and criminals against humanity are justified, then they wouldn’t be only the province of nutcase hit men off their meds. What service is Antonius and his gun planning on in defense of the unborn?
Don’t be too sure about that.
| In Fort Hood, 14 people were killed — 13 adults and one unborn child. Both Federal Law and the UCMJ allow for a murder charge when a person causes the death of an unborn child.
Please tell me how something like this is moral?
|
The prosecutor? I agree.
Silly rabbit, Third Reich Germany wasn't a nation of laws, but a nation beholden to the musings of one psychopathic murder. We are a nation of laws - laws written for, of and by the people and interpreted by a Judiciary, per their Constitutional responsibilities. We don't get to start murdering people when those decisions don't go the way we think that they should.
This isn’t the way to stop abortion. We can’t descend into moral relativism and situational ethics.
The sonograms were a boon to OUR side, not the prochoicers’.
They’re losing the battle to keep babies inhuman blobs of tissue.
Interesting arguments on all sides, that’s for sure. I doubt they’ll get an acquittal either, and unless they can prove an insanity defense (highly unlikely I think since it was clearly premeditated), he’ll be convicted.
Any juror who cannot put aside their prejudices and follow the law in any court proceeding should excuse themselves.
Life begins at conception, therefore there is no difference between a first and third trimester abortion.
To paraphrase Plato’s argument for reasoning our way toward moral values:
Do we have a good reason for designating certain acts as moral and others as immoral? Suppose that we were commanded to torture a child. Would that make it all right, or would some other standard give us reasons to resist? And if, on the other hand, we were forced by moral reasons to issue some dictates and not others — if a command to torture a child was never an option — then why not appeal to those reasons directly?
Why not indeed?
The evidence says no.
Under Kansas law, he committed a justifiable act of homicide out of necessity. He should be lauded for his courage.
.
Weasels will always prefer the company of other weasels, as they both stink of the same rotten meat and rancid blood.
So, according to you, Roeder would be justified in killing any doctor who may perform an abortion, any doctor who may implant an IUD, or a pharmacist that might dispense “morning after pills?â€
He should be lauded for his courage.
* * * * * * * *
All the other doctor killers went to prison or were executed. The mainstream prolife groups condemned Roeder and his own family rejected him.
The number of people ridiculous enough to laud him - I daresay you could feed them all with one KFC Variety Bucket.
So, where’s YOUR courage? You’re a Freeper, I know you have a gun, and there’s some 4000 babies out there who are doomed to die today.
Something tells me there’s a reason you don’t go a-shootin’ - because you know on some level it’s morally wrong and unjustifiable. Doctor-killing is for the schizophrenic losers off their meds like Roeder.
And what would you think if Hassan tried to offer, as his defense, that he was killing people who were going off to kill Muslims and therefore he was acting in their defense?
Another of your falsehoods. - McVey had no defense, and he was a puppet anyway.
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.
