Posted on 05/31/2009 12:15:41 PM PDT by Crazieman
“To make it clear, I DO NOT support the killing of abortionists.”
+++++++++++
Right, sorry, I should have said ‘wagglebee TO rudman’
P-Marlowe: “Would you vote to acquit or convict?”
+++++++++++++
Bruce: “he should have been sentenced to the electric chair” - i.e. convict.
You project your personal insanities on others when they say nothing of the sort and then complain when someone reflects your own insanity back at you. You sidestep P-Marlowe's question with a non-answer and then accuse others of not saying anything.
You are nutty as a fruitcake.
Rich...
Huh? That is past tense.
Are you talking about Tiller or the guy who shot him?
If the law is “catastropic threat to the health of the mother”, and I heard on TV today those very words describing Kansas law, then I could never convict Roeder of capital murder. I could convict him of taking the law into his own hands, but I don’t know the law enough to say if that’s murder, manslaughter, some kind of homicide, etc.
Do you know what the levels are?
I think she was talking to SeattleBruce, who sidestepped the question with a non-answer. It was his post she responded to and his ‘Yes’ in her post.
From his actions, we can assume that he would vote ‘guilty’.
No surprise there...
If the prosecutor does not give the jury the opportunity to find the defendant guilty of a lesser offense, such as voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, or cruelty to animals, then if the jury does not believe he is guilty of the crime for which he was charged, i.e., first degree murder, then the jury is obligated to vote to acquit.
Not guilty
I would have a very hard time finding him guilty even if none of those conditions were met.
The courts have ruled on abortion like they ruled on Dred Scott. The courts have decided that the unborn are property that can be treated as the owner sees fit. I don't want to cross the line and take the law into my own hands not because the laws are just (they aren't) but because the anarchy that will follow will be worse. All that being said I don't think I could convict a man who did cross the line.
It will be interesting to see if the prosecutor asks for lesser offenses, because I doubt the defense will request it.
However, it occurred to me today that Roeder MIGHT plead guilty. Or he will try to make some militia-type argument that the court has no jurisdiction over him.
“sidestep ... question with a non-answer”
Something you know quite well, so then your judgment
“You are nutty as a fruitcake.”
is really a self indictment.
Something you are an expert at, accusing others of that which you commit yourself.
"is really a self indictment."
Here's the real self-indictment, "And you’re calling me nutty?" Again, accusing others of that which you commit in full view.
Well, I'm no lawyer; but I understand homocide is the general category covering persons who die as a result of an act by another person(s). Manslaughter generally refers to a deadly act that is either unpremeditated or accidental. Murder is a deliberate, purposeful, premeditated act. So the fact that Roeder has been charged with first-degree murder tells you that the D.A. believes Roeder's act was deliberate, purposeful, and premeditated. In all probability, it was.
Perhaps Roeder may have felt that his murderous act could be justified on the basis of protecting the lives of countless others. Most likely "the law" will not see it that way. But Roeder may have said to himself, "to hell with the law — where is the JUSTICE? How can the innocent be protected if the law will not help?"
So perhaps in his own mind he saw his act as dispensing the necessary justice, since all other avenues had failed. But he himself will be judged according to the law.
It will be very interesting to see what happens, if the defense presents a detailed argument alleging that Roeder's motive was to save innocent lives. It will be the jury, not the judge or the D.A., which will have to evaluate the merits of this argument and decide accordingly.
Juries determine two basic things: the facts of the case, and the relevance and sufficiency of the law to the facts of the case. Of course, in my state (Massachusetts), prospective jurors are all regaled with an "instructional videotape" that tells them they determine only the first, and the judge will instruct them as to what to do about the second.
Which is gravely to mislead as to what a constitutional juror is — a sovereign conscience with plenary power to determine the legal fate of a peer, a "neighbor." A juror may decide that the facts of the case indicate the defendant is guilty as sin, and yet may still within the scope of his legitimate authority refuse to apply the law to the defendant so as to find him "guilty" under the law. No juror can be required to explain the reasons for his verdict, nor may it be appealed to any higher authority — for the simple reason that there is no higher authority than the juror himself to appeal to under our constitutional system. His verdict absolutely stands, inviolable by any other power judicial, executive, or legislative, federal or state.
So let's assume for the sake of argument that I'm on the Roeder jury, and am persuaded that the facts of the case as presented in court are sufficient to find the defendant guilty under law; but I have a nagging doubt whether to convict him under law serves that purpose which law is supposed to serve, that is, justice. So I may say to myself, in matters of justice, leave it to God to judge. (At least God would get it absolutely right, while I do not trust my own poor powers to do so.) And thus during balloting, I consistently vote "no" for conviction.
At that point, one of two things must happen. Either I cast the sole or minority "no" vote; in which case there would be a hung jury, leading to a mistrial. In such cases, any further prosecution of Roeder could commence only by means of a brand-new trial (with all the expense and bother of that). Or if I could get the rest of the jury to go along with me, such that all twelve vote "no," we'd have a bona fide jury nullification on our hands. And if that were to occur, Roeder could never be retried on the charge of murdering Dr. Tiller ever again.
But I will not be on that jury, and I don't know what will happen. I pray God that justice will be done — in all things, on earth as it is in heaven.
Sorry - I did misread post 457 initially. You were asking about Roeder and not Tiller. Sometimes, I actually have to work and do other things - I read that one too quickly. I apologize.
As to post 457, I don’t accept your hypothetical premise:
“it all came down to your vote;”
It isn’t all down to Roeder (to be the vigilante), nor is it all down to me, to be the one holding Roeder’s fate in my hands. And that is the way it *should* be.
But to address your hypothetical: I symphathize with Roeder in that he may have felt that he should have murdered the murderer, because society had broken down, and no longer effectively supports the natural law that would protect the unborn, nor even third trimester babies that could live outside the womb. In that sense I would be inclined to vote guilty for a lesser crime than 1st degree murder, but acquit for 1st degree murder.
However, Roeder shouldn’t have put any of us in this tortured position. We should keep the tortured positions for the pro-aborts to try to defend. Whatever Roeder felt, thought and believed, to support further societal breakdown, because society is broken in this area - will not help.
Roeder has harmed the very cause that he was empassioned about. To stop abortion, we must change society’s mind. Murdering abortionists now and again, outside the law will not stop abortion. Terrorism will not work, unless death is your end game.
La la la la la......
Why don't you just address the hypothetical?
Convict on those facts, or acquit.
Take a stand.
A one word answer will suffice.
“Why don’t you just address the hypothetical?...Take a stand...A one word answer will suffice.”
++++++++++++
Goodness gracious man - must you be so abrasive? I sure hope you don’t share the Four Spiritual Laws like that. In any case, you didn’t state what the charge was - but in my last post, I considered both 1st degree murder and a lesser charge.
I said, if the charge were first degree murder I’d acquit and if a lesser charge convict.
What Roeder did was wrong - wrong for pro-life, wrong morally, and wrong Biblically. I also said I had some sympathy for Roeder’s fury over heinous abortion killing. Hiller should have been executed by society as a murderer, if we had enough respect for life (and God). Vigilante executions will not bring such to society, nor will it drop the number of abortions. Certainly the case could be made that Roeder just increased support for pro-aborts, because he’s made pro-lifers look lawless to the general public.
Roeder used the tactics of a terrorist without considering the implications. No, he left that to all the rest of us for the next 20 years, thank you very little. And he condemned more of the very little ones he’d hoped to save this way. How much more can we accomplish on the positive education side of this - and people were responding! - than by going around gunning down these abortionists? For crying out loud, we need examples of good fathers that teach their children moral fiber, not some penne ante hero in their own minds.
People that think like Roeder and some on this Board are thinking short term vs. long term. They’re thinking now, VS. now, tomorrow, 5 years, 10 years, 100 years from now. If you do not look at the long term as well as the short term, you will be broadsided. You need both perspectives.
Do you think terrorism should be adopted by our movement? A one word answer will do. Please, take a stand..
But if someone says they would not convict a guy who kills a person who has performed 60,000 abortions..... well then the world falls apart. Sometimes we should just stick by the simple statement..... the guy got what he deserved. Call it providence, call it a crime, call it justice, or call it wrong.... either way.... the guy got what he deserved.
Fortunately, by God's grace, we don't all get what we always deserve. This guy did.
Defense of others is NOT a lesser crime. Defense of others is a complete defense to a charge of unlawful homicide.
The question was whether, if given the opportunity to acquit this guy, you would do it.
The fact that you would bypass that opportunity, if given the chance suggests to me that you really do not believe that late term abortions are murder. You don't like them, for sure, but your rhetoric and your responses on this thread suggest that deep down, you don't think Abortion is Murder.
If you truly believed that Abortion was murder, then you would believe that the "defense of others" defense, if presented at trial, would be a viable and legitimate defense.
So quit pretending to be holier than guys like Gourmet Dan. His rhetoric matches your stated belief that abortion is murder. Your rhetoric belies that belief.
FWIW, there were no Partial Birth Abortions in Wichita today.
LOL
What an awesome post, sister. You might not be a lawyer, but perhaps you should consider taking it up as a hobby.
When the law does not satisfy justice, then the law must be nullified. That makes perfect sense in terms of a juror.
What about in terms of the perpetrator? Is it not his task to believe he can convince at least one juror prior to acting on the premise that the law does not satisfy justice?
Thank you so very much for your insights, dear brother in Christ!
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.