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 ...
You keep glossing over the fact that the law is on the side I’m arguing, and its in plain english.
So keep on wailing, and pounding!
You are a principled person.
> I’ve heard that before - Where someone tries to make “God
> Bless You” sound as much like “F*ck you” as they can.
“God Bless You”
No, you misunderstand. Jury trial presumes the authority of the jurors to judge the law. This was plainly understood by the founders, as it’s clear as day. Judges, legislators and executives may not like it. But of course that’s the nature of power, isn’t it?
Now you might want this principle to be anti-Constitutional. And you might call it anti-Constitutional. But I’ll wait until you point me to the article and section which denies juries the authority to judge the law before I’ll concede the point.
It’s not there, of course, and I suspect you know it. But what you don’t know is how self-government works. You’ve got a blueprint by which a people can govern themselves (drawn up by somebody else), but you don’t know how it accomplishes its task. You put great confidence in it, but it’s mere blind confidence since you don’t understand how self-government works.
The founders understood what self-government requires of a people. They understood the conditions of freedom. These goods don’t arise from constitutions. They arise from we the people, or not at all. The sooner we realize this and begin to look around at ourselves and our fellow citizens (on juries and elsewhere), the sooner we’ll start to comprehend why our nation is on a course to destruction.
Blame Obama, blame McCain, blame Ginsburg, sure. But realize they’re merely seizing the opportunities we the people have given them. It’s the O.J. Simpson trial on a grand scale.
Were there any real ‘rule of law’ Roe would be just another defeated case.
Save the conivances for your own halelulia chorus.
Way-to-drain the phrase of all meaning! Now I’m gonna be a skeptic - wondering if whenever I hear it, it’s said out of sincerity to a fellow Child of God, or it’s because you’re an asshole doing what you do best.
It's a question of when a fetus becomes human. We know a baby aborted after the 22nd-24th weeks can live on it's own. IOW, the baby is human. Is the zygote capable of living on it's own, no. Is the zygote human life? I think so, but there is debate about that.
It's a question of when a fetus becomes human. We know a baby aborted after the 22nd-24th weeks can live on it's own. IOW, the baby is human. Is the zygote capable of living on it's own, no. Is the zygote human life? I think so, but there is debate about that.
No sweetie, you're the only one in histrionics.
One can almost hear the Moral-Relativist-Murder is OK-Freepers chortling to themselves “This is even better than the OJ trial - one can spot a black person and keep them off the jury, but in this trial, how are they gonna tell a stealth pro-murder juror just by looking?”
You shouldn't mock the intelligence of another unless you know you're right...which you aren't.
You’re better than Vaudeville!
If I understand you correctly, your complaint is not against jury nullification, but jury selection...not against the supreme authority resting in we the people, but resting in only some of the people.
I’ll certainly side with you on those complaints.
Blow out Einstein II!
It’s good advice. You should take it, and cut your losses.
Thankfully, it's not up to you. Or anybody else.
A culture of life acknowledges life. A culture of death plays with the devil in the shadows of speculation.
And people like Tiller and Roeder will meet.
You’re the biggest loss we have here; consider yourself cut!
Who is “we?” Do you have a gerbil in your pants?
What freaking rock did you drag this screed out from under?
Back to projection I see...
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.