Posted on 01/29/2010 9:49:10 AM PST by FutureRocketMan
WICHITA, Kan. — A man who said he killed prominent Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller in order to save the lives of unborn children was convicted Friday of murder.
The jury deliberated for just 37 minutes before finding Scott Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Mo., guilty of premeditated, first-degree murder in the May 31 shooting death.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I myself am a supporter in principle of jury nullification, which has had an honorable place in our history since the pre-1776 John Peter Zenger case. However, I would disagree with editor-surveyor's position, as I understand it. The pre-meditated and intentional killing of a man is something that no one, on any account, can choose to do on his own: no one has this on his personal authority, either under Natural Law or God's law, as I understand it.
(Use of force to prevent an imminent slaying, which may unintentionally result in death, is a separate question.)
As far as I could see from a fairly quick scan, editor-surveyor is exceptional, if not solitary, in taking this stand in the Free Republic forum.
“Exactly. What kind of a church willfully harbors a bloodthirsty monster in their midst.”
Funny thing that. All those women (and men, of course) tolerating a man who ends lives in the wombs of their fellow churchgoers. And yet, that raises another question. Why do so many mothers choose to go to a doctor to have their unborn children’s lives terminated? I guess they are at least as guilty as the doctor, don’t you think? They should suffer the same fate, wouldn’t you agree?
But I have to ask myself, what is it that makes so many women so agreeable to terminating a pregnancy, when mothers so rarely kill their born children? It’s like they see it as an entirely different thing. There is no creature as ferocious in protecting its young as a mother, but somehow, so many women don’t see a seed growing within them as being the same. Is there some obvious explanation that I am overlooking?
Is that a relevent fact?
I consider this supply-side management.
Let’s see if he responds to you this time. This should be a good one (gets out popcorn)
I never denied that. Read the Ten Commandments, “Thou shalt not kill”. He murdered, he pays the penalty. End of story. Tiller will reap his reward for all the evil he has committed.
In God’s eyes this Doctor is a murderer.
Scott has saved lives and has more guts then me.
Will see him in Heaven.
So you believe that terrorists should be tried under civil law? Because otherwise your example doesn't apply. And under civil law, if you try a person for premeditated murder, you have to address the "premeditated" part too, not just the "murder" part. So where do you limit premeditation? That the murderer decided to kill at the moment of pulling the trigger? When he got in the car to go do the murder? When he woke up that morning and loaded the gun? When he bought the gun? And will all of this be done without addressing WHY he did it?
You talk about excuses, but if he did everything in exactly the same way, but instead of killing an abortionist he was a gay man who killed a straight businessman wearing a Brooks Borthers suit because he had determined that they cause global warming, his murder charge would have been mitigated as mentally unbalanced even if he showed every sign of sanity and insisted upon his sanity. And there would have been a HUGE part of the trial dedicated to his thinking and reasoning process, and his explanations, and the presentation of evidence to support his thinking, etc.
The ONLY reason he wasn't allowed to explain why he did it, was because the prosecution, and the judge, knew his explanation would mitigate the murder charge or bring it into exposure, if not doubt, by allowing evidence to be presented about the horrors of late-term abortion, and thereby harm one of the bastions of the Democrat platform. After all, if it wasn't going to have any legal or political effect, why not let him speak?
This was a political whitewash. If he had had a fair trial, and been allowed to speak, he would have been jailed - but the crime would have been mitigated by the exposure of the murders of late-term babies, and the legitimacy of their lives would have been forced to have been acknowledged by the court. That they weren't so acknowledged, and granted legal consideration, is a tremendous failure of the law.
Remember, the same people who demand we extend "religious sensitivity" to the mass-murdering Muslim terrorists you mentioned, have succeeded in completely suppressing any religious sensitivity to this Christian man who stopped what he considered to be a mass-murderer. To equate these opposing scenarios and intentions is obscene. And to defend a process that was twisted into denying him his right to declare his reason for acting is, I believe, an undermining of civil law itself.
Ditto!
In God’s eyes? You know what’s in God’s eyes? You know who will be in Heaven? Holy crap!
If the people of that Church shared Dr Tiller`s values (we know they did) then the Spirit of Christ was not in that Church.
My personal opinion on this is that many people are very dishonest when it comes to this subject. They know that if they say as I am saying they will be savagely ripped to pieces, so they hold back.
When Herod died, Joseph and Mary and all with them, gave thanks to God and returned to their home.
Somewhere sometime, we will hear the testimony of someone that was to be aborted by Dr Tiller the following week, perhaps on a Christian television show etc. The death of Dr Tiller was a serious blow to the pro abortion movement.
You can be sure he will not be greeted as Dr when he reaches his final destination.
What if it had been a guy shooting children in a hospital nursery or a daycare? The place would have been surrounded, probably police snipers would take the guy out.
What do you suppose Jesus would have said or done had he came across an abortion clinic? We all know the answer, he would have done something!
I am not going to condemn this poor man, he forfeited his life, and like him or not, crazy or not, he saved lives.
“If you ask me, this is a disgusting breach of “innocent until proven guilty.” Roeder had to prove his innocence in this case, and this case shouldn’t have been confined to the state either.”
He entered a room with his target known. He pointed a loaded firearm at that target and pulled the trigger. I would have convicted him as well.
You said it better than I did.
Ditto
There's a certain symmetry to it.
I mourn for the slaughtered innocent unborn, not for Tiller.
I am happy that this man is no longer working
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.