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 ...
They hung John Brown.
Suuuuuuure.
You were just pretending to get it so wrong.
“Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans,” Obama said.
Just like you pretend to breathe air!
At least be consistent and find Tiller’s murders of tens of thousands of the most innocent heinous and immoral.
* * * * * * *
We do. But selective outrage about first degree murder kinda defeats the purpose of affirming life, doesn’t it.
> 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.
Between two contrarians, I recommend you go with Option B
... and then take a look in the mirror.
I see. So basically your point is that if something was ever illegal and it’s legal now, you can still kill someone for doing it.
If you want to win an argument that you knew all along, you’re going to have to get a lot of your posts deleted.
Otherwise, you’re just pathetically spouting off about what you seem to know nothing about, then insisting that you meant something else.
That’s no different than Chris Matthews saying “no, I didn’t mean I forgot he was black for a moment, I meant YOU forgot it....” Sure Chris. Whatever you say.
Sure editor-surveyor, whatever you say.
There are several on this thread advocating just the opposite. In fact, they are lauding him for his achievement, almost to the level of beatification.
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.
It may have - in fact, let's stipulate that it has. But, in this country, we give the accused, and the guilty, due process. Vigilantism strips due process from the sentence of death making the act just as immoral as the crime you're trying to prevent. It's cliche, but two wrongs really don't make a right.
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"
Where have I said otherwise. I'm glad Tiller's dead and I'm sure he's rotting in hell as we speak. But, I would have preferred he had died in a horrific accident, or of natural causes and not at the hands of a vigilante who set back the pro-life movement and gave ammunition to the supporters of abortion. Tiller died a martyr thanks to Roeder.
Selective?
Luke: 22
35: And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
36: Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
37: For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. 38: And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
Let me guess: when you posted that, you were just pretending to be an idiot, right?
But it also beyond reasonable dispute that his act saved the lives of innocent children
* * * * * *
You really want to defend 1st degree murder as a tactic in the pro-life arsenal? Are you mad?
You blithering idiot!
Go back and see what the issue really was!
He was trying to invoke the idea that a jury was in some way unique to a criminal trial because the constitution didn’t specify a jury for other trials.
And besides, my statement was technically correct; a civil action by the govt against an individual is not a prosecution. (irrelevent)
I agree with you, vigilante murder is not something that is consistent with the pro-life movement, IMHO. In fact, it sets us back.
You're going to have to enlighten me with respect to what the relevance of Obama's issuance of an Executive Order is to the cold-blooded murder of an abortionist.
Obama issued an Executive Order, as his well-established prerogative as the Executive. If that order is in not in conflict with an existing law, and is within the scope of his Constitutional authority or authority ceded to him by the Congress, then that Executive Order will have the full force of law.
If it's not, and someone sues and a court finds for the plaintiff in that suit, then the Executive Order will be struck from the Federal Register.
If Congress doesn't like that Executive Order, they can pass legislation countermanding or correcting the deficiency of that Order. If that legislation is vetoed, then Congress has the capacity to override such a veto if the will is present to support such an override.
You see where I'm going here - this is the process of government - legal government, to include checks and balances on the three branches of government. What it isn't, is a man operating extra-legally and taking justice into his own hands by murdering someone in cold blood.
The constitution intended the jury to be unbiased, and their judgment reliable. - An ‘instructed’ jury is neither, but is a tool of tyranny.
“Wasn’t against Germany’s laws to kill Jews either. “
German was a totalitarian dictatorship devoid of law except those dictated by the Fuhrer. We are a representative republic, with laws written by for and of the people.
a totalitarian dictatorship devoid of law except those dictated by the Fuhrer
the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse
Are you drawing a comparison between the dictatorial edicts issued in a totalitarian state with the Executive Orders that are issued by a President of the United States. Is that what you seem to be arguing, in your surprisingly brief and esoteric re-posting of my words?
You have a keyboard, use it.
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.