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 ...
Every day in America, in courtrooms all across the country, civil trials are ongoing where one of the litigants - and in many cases the plaintiff - is the government - local government, state government and federal government.
In fact, civil litigation is so plentiful in the federal government, the Department of Justice has an entire division - The Civil Division - that does nothing but civil litigation. And, with tremendous frequency, it is in fact the government that is the plaintiff in such litigation, and not the defendant.
Food for thought.
That requires an informed conscience, which doesn't come cheap. It certainly isn't as cheap as all the talk about "law" being bandied about in pitiful naivete on this thread.
You claimed government lawyers don’t prosecute civil cases and you’re wrong.
You should just drop it now before you make it even worse.
Scott Roeder should get the death penalty.
And in those cases, the right to a jury is codified into the law. Back to square one.
Fortunately, you have nothing to say about it, and it will not be happening. - Isn’t this a wonderful world!
Two or three morons on this thread would give Scott Roeder a medal for his murder. They would love a jury to let him off altogether, but of course that’s not gonna happen.
What does that leave - a stealth juror who can at least hang up the jury and result in a mistrial. A juror who believes “the ends justify the means” “babies have died long enough, it’s time to send a chill through every abortion doctor out there.” That’s where I got it.
Maybe you should read the post again before you go all "sanctimonious".
Only where the Gov is one of the parties, and that jumps outside of the original point. - Are you always this slow on the uptake?
Finally you get it.
Are you always this slow on the uptake?
Food for thought...served to an intellectual bulimic.
;O)
I assume that you disagree with any sort of parental consent laws in the case of minors having abortions, then. After all, if your position is that the desire of the pregnant person having the abortion trumps the fact that they're legally incapable of consent in this case, then it must in all cases, right? Or is it just a one-way street?
I believe the considerations are just a bit more complex than that.
I knew you were pro-abort; I could smell you across the country.
And, the Sun sets in the west. See, I can do non sequiturs too.
Let me remind you what you said...
"Civil trials are not prosecuted by a government lawyer Einstein."
I pointed out - rather convincingly, I might add - that you were wrong. Government lawyers frequently litigate - as plaintiffs - cases in civil court.
Roeder did what he thought was morally right. You obviously disagree, but I'm not sure your god (be it human reason or whatever) has a superior claim to morality.
Roeder will surely pay the consequences under the law. But it also beyond reasonable dispute that his act saved the lives of innocent children who would have been butchered in the womb in the most savage manner by Roeder. If you find Roeder's murder heinous and immoral, at least be consistent and find Tiller's murders of tens of thousands of the most innocent heinous and immoral.
read it just fine. that’s why I responded. I don’t know what it is you imagine is “sanctimonious” about that response; probably your inability to grasp the irony.
LOL
Stop already. You're killing me.
I always ‘got it’ but it’s not germane to the particular argument, is it!
“You’re killing me.”
Thrill me!
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.