24-week abortion
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 ...
So if a sniper shoots an unarmed enemy general while he is reviewing the troops, is the sniper guilty of murder?
By using the term 'enemy general', can I assume I am at war with this general? Of course, then, the answer is quite simple. Obviously, no, there is no murder that has taken place. The sniper is operating within the law.
How about an executioner that flips the switch that kills a man strapped down to a table?
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human with intent. The executioner is carrying out a lawful order.
...those who feel that Roeder was justified in murdering the abortion doctor and/or that he should not have been found guilty. The question is: Would you murder an abortion doctor? If not, why not?
* * * * * *
I was trying to ask a few of them that myself last night. I asked them what was I to surmise from their inaction - that either they agree murder is morally reprehensibile, or that they just don’t have the “guts.” They didn’t answer me, just called me a buncha names and ran away.
So you don’t dispute the facts that I posted? You just want to add some to the discussion.
I’m good with that.
However, premeditated murder, which Roeder admitted on the stand is still premeditated murder even with what you have added. Hence, guilty of 1st degree murder.
One can only wonder if Roeder had made it to another country like Polanski, would these pro-1st-degree murder freepers aid and abet him in his flight from justice? Ah, we’ll never know, but going by what they’ve said already ....
It wouldn't affect this case. Ex post facto law.
I'm not getting carried away at all.
People here are justifying the murder of Dr. Tiller based on his late term abortion business.
These same people believe that life begins at conception.
That being the case, they must also advocate the killing of those who participate in abortion at any state of gestation.
However, they seem to be unwilling to justify the murder of the pharmacist who dispenses abortion pills.
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.
“...but abortion does indeed drive some people “nuts,” and Roeder evidently wasn’t able to explain that the tens of thousands of babies that Tiller killed, may have done just that to him. It was grossly unfair that he did not get to state his case in that regard.”
Just like the terrorists don’t get to explain that the treatment of Palestinians drives them “nuts.” Some things the law is just not going to recognize as an excuse.
I think “unjustifiable” killing is a more appropriate def’n of “murder” than “unlawful.”
2 illustrations:
Would you agree that Cain’s killing of his brother Abel, before there were written statutes, was “murder”?
Would you further agree that Mengele’s fatal experimentation on human beings was likewise “murder”? — even though it might have been permissible under existing Nazi law.
I think one of the founding principles of our country is that, yes, there is a higher law, which is what “inalienable” rights are derived from.
The problem is that the charge does not fit the crime.
When when some guy is running the streets killing people, and somebody decides to kill him to prevent more mayhem - that is not premeditated murder.
The Judge allowed only that charge. I see that as flawed. Therefore the whole trial is flawed.
“I was trying to ask a few of them that myself last night. I asked them what was I to surmise from their inaction - that either they agree murder is morally reprehensibile, or that they just don’t have the “guts.” They didn’t answer me, just called me a buncha names and ran away.”
I missed that. I believe it is an excellent question that deserves an honest answer. Perhaps someone will answer my question today. If not, their silence will speak for itself.
For those that missed it, my question is, “Would you murder an abortion doctor? If not, why not?”
There is a higher law
* * * * *
Tell it to the higher judge.
I figure I should let people know where I stand on the issue of abortion so that my question can be viewed for what it is. A simple question. I am pro-life.
“The Nuremberg Nazi trials were all about holding people accountable for inhuman atrocities that can never be morally justified by claiming the atrocities were legal under governmental laws and required by the orders of leaders.
We humans MUST prevent atrocities and murders that violate fundamental moral law.”
Are you saying that you support an international court to deal with war crimes, and that U.S. military personnel should be subject to it?
I believe Late Term Tiller was an abominable Dr. Mengele but unfortunately he also was "legal" in the opinion of Kansas lawmakers...that makes Roeder a murderer in the eyes of the law. He deserves the harshest sentence the law can mete out.
Thank heavens! Guilty of first degree murder.
From the original poster’s profile page, “I support, defend, and thank Scott Roeder for his saving of unborn children by killing George Tiller”
So there you go.
Rational does not describe murder.
We could present a less-loaded question for them, if they’d like. “What if you knew Scott Roeder, and he came up to you saying “I just killed Dr. Tiller, the police are after me, help me,” — would they do it, or turn him in?
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.