Oh really. And under the mercies of which dictatorship have you chosen to live?
FReegards!
Anyone that condemns this man for believing his faith 100% isn’t a believer.
That said, the state will impose it’s will through it’s laws.
He is guilty of going outside the law, but he and others have observed that political appointees have systematically ensured the law doesn’t work to protect children even when it appears the law is clear.
I think if I was on the jury, the difference between a not guilty and me wanting the death penalty for this guy would hinge on whether it is true that the system of laws had indeed broken down and the system had become a political tool.
If the system of laws had become a political tool, violence may be the only avenue left against political oppression of the judiciary.
Anyways, this is where I draw the line. I don’t know what is true in this case, but if on the jury I would have to discover the truth.
I would have to have a lot of evidence that a reasonable person could reach the same conclusion before I would let this guy get a pass though.
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?
Oh really. And under the mercies of which dictatorship have you chosen to live?
FReegards!