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 ...
Projecting again?
And besides, my statement was technically correct; a civil action by the govt against an individual is not a prosecution.
You're wrong again.
The last doctor killing was over 10 years ago, and some 12 million abortions followed it. It’s a shitty tactic.
Hell, don’t these freepers even want to abandon the idea of doctor killing on the grounds that it’s wildly UNsuccessful?
You have a brain (I assume)
Use it!
Not at all, but I understand that a baby at 24 hours gestation is just as much as a baby at 8 months gestation.
And with that understanding, abortion is wrong at any stage of gestation.
Pardon, I was being laconic. Obama announced his intent to rule by executive fiat yesterday, and you mention how Hitler ruled by executive fiat.
I thought the comparison was obvious to the casual observer.
Precisely like the Executive Order that George Bush issued preventing the federal funding of research labs engaged in embryonic stem cell research. That order, like Obama's order, could have been negated AT ANY TIME with Congressional action or a judicial decision, such is the magnificence of checks & balances in our system of government.
Are you so incredibly obtuse that you're comparing Executive Orders issued in a Constitutional Republic with the edicts of a Dictator in a totalitarian regime? Are you completely unfamiliar with the US Constitution?
Quo video? Did I say something to annoy you?
Yes, we agree. I thought the comparison was obvious - obviously idiotic.
Looks like high gloss to me!
The difference in effort required between the two is where the brutality comes in.
No, the ping was just out of courtesy.
“Are you so incredibly obtuse that you’re comparing Executive Orders issued in a Constitutional Republic with the edicts of a Dictator in a totalitarian regime?”
Yes, I am.
Oh, sorry. These things can be hard to interpret...
Could you please cite where I condemned James O’Keefe for his work against ACORN?
And while you are at it, please cite where I have been snarky regarding the birth certificate controversy?
This isn’t now a totalitarian regime?
With an autocratic non-citizen in the oval office appointing officials without senate confirmation that are writing regulations that will be enforced by US forces?
Why? Hitler assumed dictatorial powers - Obama has announced that he intends to do the same.
You mentioned Bush NOT spending money by executive order - but, that is a world of difference.
The Executive has always had the authority to NOT spend the money.
Obama has announced an intent to spend money not authorized.
And that is illegal.
“The difference in effort required between the two is where the brutality comes in.”
So, according to you, the killing of a human being is acceptable if the process by which that human being is killed is not brutal?
> 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.
The 10 Commandments are the basis of our legal system.
Murder is wrong in both the 10 Commandments and US Code,
yet the SCOTUS has never stopped state execution on the
basis execution is illegal or immoral. It wasn’t until 1973
that Abortion was universally legal — in ALL 50 states,
including the states who didn’t want it.
Again, Murder is wrong, yet juries have let off or reduced
the sentences for “vigilantes” who carried out an
“execution”, e.g., a father who kills another man for
killing his teenage daughter. IOW, in these rare cases,
juries see that “murder” for what it is — a man carrying
out the justice of God.
That may sound odd, but state execution carries out the
same sentence, too, inflected when the judge slams down the
gavel and scowls, “may God have mercy on your soul.”
I don’t Bible-thump here, but you have to ask yourself WHY
Abortion was it illegal in the first place? Was it only a
matter of public health ... or was it something more?
Before you answer that, please keep in mind that up until
1833, even the now-Liberal state of Massachusetts had a
state-religion — as the US Constitution STILL allows.
cut them into pieces.... it is the only way to be sure baby killers are dead.....
The very presence of the human is not even discernable at first, while its termination in the third trimester is often literally combat.
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.