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.

[Agamemnon]

So, according to you,...

Forget me. My opinion has no bearing upon what is or isn't Kansas law.

I didn't write the law. I don't live in Kansas. You can take up your beef with the State of Kansas if you don't like the way they wrote the law.

You are at heart probably as much a pretender to your support for pro-life issues, as you are a pretender to conservatism in general.

In fact whether its your defense of Truman and FDR, your snarky birth certificate controversy commentaries, or your rush to judgment to condemn James O'Keefe vs. ACORN, you are one of the sorriest excuses for a conservative that anyone will ever read here at FR.

[editor-surveyor]

Nothing about this case requires a belief in God.

Kansas law addresses this issue that the Roeder case presents, and you seem to keep glossing over that fact.

[TChris]

"We the people of the United States..."

(Not the legislators, the executives, the judges - to whom you appeal as supreme authority. This they are not.)

Really? You seem to have skipped the rest of the Constitution. Do you support all of it? ...or personal, edited version?

It is the Constitution which establishes legislators, executives and judges.

It is the Constitution which grants them authority, not, as you claim, my appeal alone.

The quotes you post are interesting but irrelevant, as they are not part of the Constitution. They may very well be the firm beliefs of the individuals quoted, but Article III vests no nullification authority with a jury.

As much as you, or individual founders, might have wished that the Constitution provide for jury nullification, it does not.

Your beliefs are anti-Constitutional. They do violence to the founding principles of representative government, equal protection and the very rule of law.

I pray these ideas remain isolated in the minds of few.

[trumandogz]

Please explain to me why a third trimester abortion is somehow worse than an abortion pill.

[dennisw]

I am not overy pro-life. It’s not near the top of my list...But I certainly don’t care if a demon_on_earth like KillerTiller gets plugged.

[LussaO]

That’s not what I want to hear from you. I asked you before, where’s YOUR courage - Dr. Carhart is performing the late term abortions that Tiller can’t do anymore. Every bit the monster Tiller was, right?

What are you doing about that? I would bet your inaction re: Dr. Carhart lies in some understanding that the ends don’t justify the means, that murder is not justifiable and you can’t do just ANYTHING.

Or am I to believe you’re a spineless weasel who doesn’t have the “guts” and is just chickenshit. Until you clear that up, don’t talk to me anymore.

[BP2]

> 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.

>> 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?

Before 1973, abortion was for the most part illegal. The first Abortion laws began to appear in the US in the 1820s; before then, such laws were considered unnecessary because it was so dangerous for the mother. Through the efforts primarily of physicians, the AMA, and legislators, most abortions except for medical necessity in the US had been outlawed by 1900. Even early feminists, like Susan B. Anthony, wrote against abortion.

However — regarding any religious defense Hassan could invoke in his killing of 14 Americans at Fort Hood — I can't think of a time between 1789 and now when Holy Jihad was the law of the land.

[editor-surveyor]

"Please explain to me why a third trimester abortion is somehow worse than an abortion pill."

Are you deliberately glossing over the brutality of latr term abortions, or is it just not visible to your clouded mind?

[OldDeckHand]

"Nothing about this case requires a belief in God."

Keep your straw men out of this. I never said that this case requires a belief in God, just an adherence to US law.

"Kansas law addresses this issue that the Roeder case presents, and you seem to keep glossing over that fact."

You're going to have to show me where Kansas law, to include supporting case law, empowers a citizen to kill a doctor who is practicing medicine in accordance with US law.

It is well settled law that a self-defense defense requires exigent circumstances - IOW, you must prove that your life or the lives of others were in IMMEDIATE jeopardy. Was Tiller murdered at his clinic with his implements of death in his hand? Nope. He was murdered at his church, sitting in a pew far from any patients or babies. Where's the exigency in those circumstances?

[editor-surveyor]

You’ve made it clear that you’re just a disgusting agitator.

Point accomplished - Next?

[wagglebee]

I’m glad that Tiller the Killer is no longer slaughtering innocent human beings and I believe he is burning in Hell. However, it was wrong to murder him and his murder did not help the pro-life movement.

[editor-surveyor]

You keep on twisting and turning like a dervish - in one thread you’re wailing about jihad, and in the next you call answering your nonsequitur a strawman.

You’re on the wrong end of this argument, and none of your babbling or contortions will change that fact.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"You and Bin Laden"

LussaO

Since Oct 15, 2009

Forgive me, I didn't see your sign-up date before responding to you initially. I mistook you for a member of FR in good standing, not a trolling n00b. Since you've invoked a de facto Godwin's Law response, I will consider this discussion concluded. Have a nice day and God bless you.

[verity]

The prosecution wouldn't want me on this jury.

The defense would not want me on the jury.

[LussaO]

I think they’ll convict him of 1st, maybe 2nd degree murder, but will give him life in prison. He’ll go in the general population and WISH he was dead.

[fieldmarshaldj]

They’re quite amusing, bless their hearts.

[OldDeckHand]

"You’re on the wrong end of this argument, and none of your babbling or contortions will change that fact."

When the law's on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When neither is on your side, pound the table.

You sir, pound the table with tremendous fervor and frequency.

[TChris]

Words mean things.

Superior court has a definite meaning, that you cannot just fluff off.

Yes it does. But in this case it makes no difference, since all those "Superior Courts" are referred to as "inferior courts" in Article III.

So I used the wrong word. Big deal.

Your claim remains false. Juries do not judge the law.

Civil trials are not prosecuted by a government lawyer Einstein.

Big deal.

The bigger issue is the Constitution taken as a whole.

Three of the fundamental principles established in the Constitution are directly attacked by the principle of jury nullification:

1) Elected, representative government Those in power are there because a majority of the people PUT them in power, or they were appointed by those who were, in accordance with the Constitution. The people can REMOVE them from power. By contrast, the people have NO control over who sits on a jury, and at least one side of the court responsible for selecting a jury is unelected.

2) Equal Protection The law should be applied equally to everyone, regardless of their circumstances. It should be applied based on the proven facts of the case and the established law, not the proclivities of the jury. This is, of course, an ideal that is not always reached, but jury nullification explicitly violates it. The law and the facts are irrelevant to that jury.

3) The Rule of Law This is what made the US different from every other country at its founding. The Law is supreme, not any person or group of people. Every person, of any station or position, should be held to the same written law.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

That pretty much nails this guy,NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!

[LussaO]

What is this crap about sign up dates - Does seniority count for something around here like it was a damn union or something? Does that mean in 10 years I can lord it over someone like it was some great triumph - whoopee.

I’ve heard that before- Where someone tries to make “God Bless You” sound as much like “F*ck you” as they can.