This is what the entire defense case attempts to establish. Is it Coldblooded murder, or was it a justified homicide?
If Roeder and his defense team is able to convince the jury that an unborn child, late in term, are actually people, or have attained person hood, then the jury would be bound by law to acquit the defendant on the grounds of justifiable homicide in the defense of a third party in immanent danger of death.
It is not cold blooded murder if it is justifiable homicide.
This is an interesting case. It is difficult to believe that they will not convict, however, it is not difficult to believe that many on the jury would like to acquit.
“This is what the entire defense case attempts to establish. Is it Coldblooded murder, or was it a justified homicide?
If Roeder and his defense team is able to convince the jury that an unborn child, late in term, are actually people, or have attained person hood, then the jury would be bound by law to acquit the defendant on the grounds of justifiable homicide in the defense of a third party in immanent danger of death.
It is not cold blooded murder if it is justifiable homicide.
This is an interesting case. It is difficult to believe that they will not convict, however, it is not difficult to believe that many on the jury would like to acquit.”
Aside from the fact that at this time abortion is legal and therefore murdering an abortion doctor is illegal too, one has to consider the fact that Roeder killed the man in church. Roeder didn’t storm into the clinic while the doctor was preparing to perform an abortion and kill him to protect someone from imminent danger. In my opinion, that would negate the “imminent danger” defense, and justifiable homicide as well.