Posted on 05/31/2009 12:15:41 PM PDT by Crazieman
Your explanation of jury nullification is illuminating, especially concerning this case.
I suspect the judge has considerable control over what is or is not allowed to be presented to the jury and that may affect the outcome, e.g. jury nullification.
For instance, the defense attorney might want to help the jury understand the defendant's frame-of-mind by presenting photos of victims of partial birth abortions. But the judge may not allow such photographs.
Or he may have been extremely selfish, attention seeking or just plain nutty.
If the judge would not allow the pictures in court, then maybe people should stand outside the courthouse with pictures when the jury goes in and out of the building.
I'm not too optimistic that there will be any such public display of support for this guy as it seems unlikely that anyone in the "pro-life" movement is going to take a stand in support of Tiller's executioner.
I don't think we are going to see the pro-life equivalent of "Free Mumia."
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
Your task and mine; our task P-Marlowe and everyone that you copied on this thread (even though you call me ‘holier than thou’ - not quite sure of your reasoning on that, but perhaps you'll elaborate - as we all know that *you're* not being holier than thou - lol!) is to convince an unbelieving, apathetic and ignorant society of the goodness of our cause. Even more importantly, we are tasked to show those who come behind us (our kids and grand-kids - how to be faithful, honor life and fight for what is ‘right, honorable and noble’ even as the Scripture says. I maintain that defending and encouraging ‘pro-life’ terrorism is not the way to do that, if you're looking at the long term; at the bigger picture. You apparently disagree.
You ‘charge’ me with not really believing that late term abortions are murder (I certainly do.) I charge you with defending and encouraging terrorists in the name of pro-life and even in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and thereby setting back the pro-life movement and our ultimate mission - to win hearts and minds not only through the fear of this moment of dying by a gun - but of the fear of Almighty God - His will and ways. That is a much greater fear, much more noble, much more lasting than your defense and encouragement of some vigilante squad taking out murderers.
We must reform our courts, not take the law in our hands as ravenous ‘warriors of God.’ There is a reason I bring up Islamo-terrorists in this light. I do not wish to be like them in any way.
Do you? I'll take that ‘one word’ answer that you seem so fond of baiting...
Are all other pro-lifers (including Operation Rescue et al) simply deluded, while you've got a corner on the truth?
We should have taken Tiller down as a prophetic community. We should take down abortion and abortionists as a prophetic community. We need to transform the courts as the people of God. If we really believe and have faith in God and not ourselves, we need to pray and seek God for repentance and revival (2 Chronicles 7:14) not take vengeance away from our God when it is His to mete out (Romans 12:19).
“Fortunately, by God’s grace, we don’t all get what we always deserve. This guy did. “
+++++++++++++
Romans 12:19 - “Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.”
Would you support the systematic killing of all abortionists? Why or why not?
Here you go, projecting your insanities onto others again. The same thing I've warned you about multiple times, you simply accuse other of doing what you do in the open.
Apparently you will never get the point. I'm not the only one who sees through your nonsense and insanity but you'll never see it.
The discussion here involves legal defense, justice, evidence, jury nullification, etc. Unless the accused enters a guilty plea, this case will come to trial.
Because of the injustice of abortion in general and partial birth abortion in particular, the defense mounted in his behalf might result in jury nullification (think O.J. Simpson.)
Or the jury could acquit if the defense makes a case that the accused was defending others. As P-Marlowe said, it is a “complete defense.”
There is also the issue of the charge itself. If the prosecutor goes after “murder one” like they did with O.J. – not giving the jury the option of a lesser offense such as voluntary manslaughter – they may also provoke a jury nullification.
And there’s the judge – what he will allow or disallow as evidence. And whatever is going on in the streets and over the news while the trial is going on. This case could be anything from a blip to a media circus. And considering the emotional impact of realizing what partial birth abortion “is” – it could have an affect on the outcome.
I doubt you would find much disagreement concerning murder under God’s Law.
The issue here has to do with this case and the laws of this country which sadly do not “hang” on God’s Laws for if they did, the court would have never made abortion the law of the land by judicial fiat.
Yes Dan, you are the final arbiter of all wisdom - laugh out loud! You are a legend in your own mind.
“I’m not the only one who sees...”
Right...you *would* say that about yourself...
You already agreed to as much when you concluded you were doing a 'fine job' back in post 438 based on my comment.
Even when someone warns you and then you see it coming from other sources, you still deny the truth. It's clear that you think yourself the 'legend in your own mind'.
Projecting again, as I've said many, many times.
After seeing others tell you that you have a problem just like I did, I'm not saying that about myself. It was documented in the post, you know, the part you cut out so you could twist the truth again.
It's quite obvious, except to you.
Good grief, SeattleBruce, you're sounding like a mouthpiece for the Obama administration. Who is endorsing "'pro-life' terrorism" here? P-Marlowe? You've got to be kidding! How you could read that into anything P-M wrote is totally beyond me.
More to the point, why do you describe Mr. Roeder as a "terrorist?" Are you carrying water for Janet Napolitano? You're playing into the hands of people who want to politicize these events for partisan gain, who understand that to "define" things in ways that shape the way people think about events in ways favorable to one's cause is critical to actually winning it. They believe that to control the rhetoric is ultimately to control the reality.
Yet to designate this a terrorist act is to draw a conclusion from (so far) non-existent evidence. Though it sure helps to get public opinion "whupped up" against Mr. Roeder, the Domestic Pro-Life Terrorist, and all the nefarious Right-Wing Pro-Life Hate Groups who supposedly "defend and encourage" terrorism. You take a complete fiction and imbue it with a semblance of reality. Shame on you!
The fact, the reality is the prosecution is not charging Mr. Roeder as a terrorist, but as a first-degree murderer. Let's be clear about that.
Mr. Roeder is definitely being kept under close wraps — we know nothing about him (except that he allegedly killed one of the few doctors in the nation who perform partial-birth abortions). We know nothing of his state of mind, of what triggered him to act as he allegedly did. The authorities are trying to tie him to "right-wing pro-life groups."
So far, they've come up empty: They allow that Mr. Roeder seems to have acted alone.
The events of this past Sunday morning were tragic. I hope and pray that this doesn't wind up being a socially-divisive three-ring circus — another nasty smokescreen for the people who hate America to hide behind while they do their dirty work of poisoning and undermining our very system of justice.
May God have mercy — and may His Justice be done.
You're doing it Bruce, ...again. More psychotic projection onto others, ...again. And it's not me pointing it out to you, ...again.
When are you going to learn, Bruce? Ever?
One wonders how on earth the judge could keep the partial-birth abortion issue out of his court, even if he wanted to. (The judge probably would recognize that this is a flammable emotional issue of a power to sway juries in uncontrollable ways; e.g., a hung jury or — heaven forfend! — a jury nullification.) And yet presumably, partial-birth abortion goes straight to Mr. Roeder's motive — and the prosecution would have to prove motive and act beyond a reasonable doubt to convict Mr. Roeder. And so you'd think not only the defense, but also the prosecution would have a strong interest in raising the issue, putting it on the public stage for all to see.
In a certain way, Mr. Roeder's trial puts partial-birth abortion on trial.
So I think there's going to be a "media circus," not just a "blip."
Dearest sister in Christ, I so agree with your words here:
The issue here has to do with this case and the laws of this country which sadly do not “hang” on God’s Laws for if they did, the court would have never made abortion the law of the land by judicial fiat.Amen to that!
Thank you ever so much for your wise and beautiful essay/post!
More to the point, why do you describe Mr. Roeder as a "terrorist?" Are you carrying water for Janet Napolitano? You're playing into the hands of people who want to politicize these events for partisan gain, who understand that to "define" things in ways that shape the way people think about events in ways favorable to one's cause is critical to actually winning it. They believe that to control the rhetoric is ultimately to control the reality.
Yet to designate this a terrorist act is to draw a conclusion from (so far) non-existent evidence. Though it sure helps to get public opinion "whupped up" against Mr. Roeder, the Domestic Pro-Life Terrorist, and all the nefarious Right-Wing Pro-Life Hate Groups who supposedly "defend and encourage" terrorism. You take a complete fiction and imbue it with a semblance of reality. Shame on you!
So I think there's going to be a "media circus," not just a "blip."
Thank you so very much for your encouragements, dearest sister in Christ!
“Good grief, SeattleBruce, you’re sounding like a mouthpiece for the Obama administration. Who is endorsing “’pro-life’ terrorism” here?”
+++++++++++++++++++
Those who fully defend Roeder’s act, vs. the notion of working toward more just laws - which is the task of the entire pro-life movement. When you head down the path of defending personal vigilante violence, it will be hard to extract from that.
When P-M says “FWIW, there were no Partial Birth Abortions in Wichita today” and other make comments on how this is basically a good thing - even though they themselves my not do it - that is an implicit endorsement, or perhaps a passive endorsement of what Roeder did.
Then there are quite a few that are explicity endorsing Roeder’s act.
I’m addressing all of that. (And I detest Obama and Napolitano...)
++++++++++++++++++++++++
“You’re playing into the hands of people who want to politicize these events for partisan gain”
Oh no betty boop, I didn’t start this tortured maze, Roeder did. He’s the one that put the pro-life movement squarely in the cross hairs of critique by the whole world. Now the question is, how will we respond?
I say we respond as we always have - honoring life and God and working toward a more life honoring society in millions of big and small ways.
That should include vigilante hit squads on abortionists. We should take them out politically, legally, socially and most importantly on the demand side of the curve.
+++++++++++++++++++
“They believe that to control the rhetoric is ultimately to control the reality. “
This is why we need to denounce Roeder *and* Tiller. To praise or even passively or silently ‘allow’ Roeder his act, we cede our moral authority to the pro-aborts.
We don’t need to do that. The power of truth is on our side.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Though it sure helps to get public opinion “whupped up” against Mr. Roeder, the Domestic Pro-Life Terrorist, and all the nefarious Right-Wing Pro-Life Hate Groups”
So far all pro-life groups directly involved that I’ve heard about, have denounced Roeder. By doing so they remove the sting of his potentially damaging act. It’s the people that tacitly and expressly defend Roeder that keep that sting in place. If you defend Roeder, you’re your own worst enemy on this matter.
That said - I think the media is infested with bigotry. But I wish to stand with the truth.
++++++++++++++++
“We know nothing of his state of mind, of what triggered him to act as he allegedly did.”
We know more now, then we did 48 hours ago. His wife has made comments, his son has made comments, etc. The media cannot tie him in with legit pro-life groups unless we allow it. Let’s not allow it by defending him implicitly or explicitly. What he did was wrong. Wrong morally, legally, and even tactically (strategically).
++++++++++++++++++
“another nasty smokescreen for the people who hate America to hide behind while they do their dirty work of poisoning and undermining our very system of justice.”
Right - let’s not give them any fuel.
++++++++++++++
“May God have mercy — and may His Justice be done.”
I completely agree with you.
What an idiotic thing to say, SeattleBruce?
You think establishing a "precise" moral equivalency between Tiller and Roeder somehow serves the interests of justice and truth?
Is there something blowing in the air around Seattle that prevents people there from thinking clearly? Whatta bunch of weak-kneed, sanctimonious mush!
Kum-bah-yah!
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.