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 ...
When a government becomes evil, to such an extent that it not only neglects its fundamental duty to protect life but becomes in fact the very destroyer of it, it has relinquished its authority to sit in judgment. Law has lost its force. And those who continue to proclaim, “But we’re a nation of laws!” have put their faith in an illegitimate source of authority.
Really? Who gets to decide that?
What a moron this guy is. Nut case!
Based on the Kansas law quoted above, I’d say that the question of whether or not Roeder was outside the law is very debatable. I guess that’s why they’ll have the trial. On it’s face, it appears to me like he was defending those who cannot defend themselves. Where I come from that’s not criminal, it’s laudable. How is this any different than if he’d popped a cap in Ted Bundy as Bundy forced a coed into his van?
Well there ya go. Perhaps we should consider a government that's allowed 1.5 murders per year to be evil.
You're confusing yourself once again with moral equivalence - the fallacy that what you think might motivate a psychopathic Muslim can somehow be equated to what you think might motivate a genuine Christian.
You're projecting this intellectual fog all over the discussion, and making it fruitless. Well, I gather it makes you feel better, somehow.
Why, "them," of course. Anyone, anywhere, but you.
You must live in the one state in the union where kidnapping and rape is legal. You'll have to share with us which state that is precisely.
Right now, abortion is legal in this country. As reprehensible and disgusting as Tiller is, he was operating inside the laws of this country, at least with respect to performing abortions. Ted Bundy wasn't. That's the difference you've failed to see or acknowledge.
If you don't like the law, then change it. But, you don't get to murder people who are following the law just because you don't like the law.
Actually, Lear is completely different, in that the OJ trial was nullified by ignorant racists who supported their co-ethnic irrespective of compelling facts, whereas this nullification would be motivated by deeply held, Biblical-based values that have been in effect for over a thousand years.
So yeah, I think it's a tad different.
I don't think the guy up in Harlem wanted to introduce the act of having done so into his otherwise peaceful life when he blew away two of the four thugs that tried to hold him up. But he had no choice -- the "law," which we are all subject to, could not help him in that situation.
I doubt that it was Mr. Roeder's ambition to grow up and shoot an abortionist dead. I doubt he enjoys the situation he's in.
I don't think soldiers enjoy blowing people away. They are under law, too.
So, lest anyone accuse me of being a sympathizer, I'm not. Yet, I haven't read a single argument against Roeder's actions on this thread that persuades me. I'm surprised by that.
This is a lively discussion. I'm surprised at how weak the arguments against Roeder are. Very surprised.
I’d convict him. I’d be a hypocrite if I claimed to be pro-life but yet condoned cold-blooded murder when it suited me.
Ah. I see. So long as someone bases their murder on deeply held Biblical value, then it's just fine with you. That's an interesting, if also incredibly disturbing view of American justice.
Interesting. Consider the following scenario:
A group of school children are sitting together in a theater, all strapped into their chairs watching a movie or play. In walks a lone gunman who, one by one, begins shooting the children. One of the adults present, who happens to be carrying a weapon of his own (it is a right-to-carry state :-) ), shoots the gunman dead.
My view is that the adult who shot the gunman not only would not be prosecuted (as it would be considered justifiable homicide in the name of protecting human life, per your comment), he would be celebrated and regarded as a community hero.
Now, this question remains. If we as pro-lifers REALLY believe that unborn children are fully human and thus deserving of the same rights and legal status as born children - what is the MORAL difference between the two scenarios (I understand the legal difference)?
Granted, if we do not consider the unborn to be fully human, but rather a fetus or some other euphamism - it is an easy distinction to make. But most pro-lifers say they do not believe that.
It always strikes me as a contradiction that pro-lifers quickly condemn those who commit violence against abortionists, yet in the scenario I described above, they would be the first to cheer the person who killed the individual killing children.
Again - if we truly believe babies in the womb are just as alive as babies out of the womb and deserving the same protection - what is the moral difference?
“I say his actions have saved lives.”
Exactly.
Exactly right - if these freepers are saying “in this case, murder is okay with me,” they are justifying murder with the best of them - all the moral relativists (Hitler, Stalin,
Mao, Pol Pot) who had no problem with it either.
It's decided by those who have the will to act. Examples: the founding fathers and the original Republicans.
He committed murder and BROKE THE LAW! Are you the law? Do you think your views are divine? Are you god?
As of now, in the post Roe era, with nine of the last 12 Justices of the SCOTUS being appointed by Republican Presidents, abortion is still legal, while walking into a movie theater and killing people is illegal.
However, once abortion is made legal again, we will prosecute the doctors who perform and the woman who have abortions.
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.