It’s not the approach I would take, but if you saw a man with an ax in a baby nursery, would you kill him to stop him from chopping up babies? I sure would.
So... if the babies were still in thw womb 3 days earlier, what is the differece?
I can see other options- since the ma with an ax is n IMMEDIATE threat but the oborion nurdered is only planning future murders of babies. Block accss to the building, buldoze it down, but don’t kill him.
The only thing about this trial on the other hand is that they asked him why he did it but then would not let him answer.
If he said he did it because the voices from mars told him to then that would be acceptable- but the prosecuton objected to any statements about abortion procedures
This man saved baby lives, but shold not have done it this way.
Premeditated killing him like this guy did would be making myself: judge, jury and executioner. Furthermore, the term ‘murder’ used so freely to justify murder is a legal technical term. What if Code-Pink or ANSWER started killing US soldiers because they are convinced that innocent Iraqi's were being murdered by americans(as some elected democrats irresponsibly claimed on TV) ??? They could claim the same bogus defense.
Is pro-life just a PR term? How does this look?
He should have tried temporary insanity or insanity.
If he said he did it because the voices from mars told him to then that would be acceptable- but the prosecuton objected to any statements about abortion procedures
This is a very big deal, and possible cause for an appeal, because his blocked explanation could be argued to have affected the invocation of jury nullification. In fact, that's probably why he was silenced, to prevent the application of the murder law to be thrown out, under the circumstances, in favor of justifiable homicide.
Of course, the judge no doubt refused to inform the jury of their right to nullify the application of the law anyway. But even so, the entry of his explanation into the court proceedings would have made it subject to consideration on appeal.
To rule the reasoning for the premeditation as irrelevent is, I think, not something that would survive appeal, since it could obviously effect the application of the law against him.
Not admitting discussion of abortion procedures was a call by the judge in this case.