I posted this a few minutes ago on a thread that was removed by the Moderator as duplicate, which linked to CNN instead of Fox.
Unintentional, I’m sure, but I find it ironic that this linked website has a large red title: CNN JUSTICE.
Yes, this is CNN-style justice all right. I think perhaps his lawyer failed in the jury selection process.
One quotation from Roeder that I think sums up his position: “There was nothing being done, and the legal process had been exhausted, and these babies were dying every day,” Roeder said. “I felt that if someone did not do something, he was going to continue.”
One can provide two justifications for what he did: 1) The right of self defense also may be expanded to include defense of your “neighbor.” In this case, the defense of the innocent babies who would have been slaughtered by Tiller in the future.
2) Failure of the law to act. Tiller’s operation would have been closed down for numerous violations of Kansas law if he had not bribed the politicians, including Kathleen Sebelius, and if he had not used his dirty money to oust an honest prosecutor and elect a Democrat (who subsequently resigned in disgrace).
Voluntary manslaughter would have been an alternate finding that the jury could have settled on. But evidently they didn’t even bother to really deliberate the case. I’d say that the prosecutor did a good job picking this jury, perhaps with the judge’s help.
Voluntary manslaughter would have been an alternate finding that the jury could have settled on.
<><><><><><<
Except for the glaring fact that Roeder’s own testimony demonstrated premeditation. Voluntary manslaughter is, if I understand correctly, killing with no premeditation.
How could a jury possibly find him guilty of the lesser charge, given his testimony? The self defense angle in voluntary manslaughter still requires no premeditation to kill. And clearly, there was plenty of premeditation.
That is not relevant to the failure of justice in this case; a different jury would have been equally unable to give him the death penalty under Kansas' soft-on-crime regime.
[Voluntary manslaughter would have been an alternate finding that the jury could have settled on. But evidently they didn’t even bother to really deliberate the case.]
The judge threw out consideration of the lesser charge. The only charge he could be convicted on was 1st degree murder.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584194,00.html
IF the judge had allowed it. He ruled out VM and 2nd Degree.
It was a kangaroo court starting way back before the shooting, from Sibelius on down to and including the public defender.
“Voluntary manslaughter would have been an alternate finding that the jury could have settled on.”
The news story yesterday said the judge considered and denied the defense team’s attempt to put in a jury instruction to consider a lesser crime. The jury did not have that option.
The could and likely will be a point of an appeal.