Posted on 08/31/2009 9:58:19 PM PDT by GL of Sector 2814
The suspect in the killing of abortion provider George Tiller is in talks with a prominent attorney who represents anti-abortion protesters and has long advocated justifiable homicide as a legal defense in such cases.
Scott Roeder, 51, has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and aggravated assault charges in the May 31 shooting death of Tiller in the foyer of his Wichita church. The Kansas City, Mo., man has refused to discuss his case, but he has told The Associated Press that Tiller's killing was justified to save "the lives of unborn children."
...But Hirsh discounted the suggestion that if a jury acquitted Roeder of murder based on such a defense, it would lead to an open season on abortion doctors.
"It has been open season on unborn children for over 30 years. I think on abortionists there will be a bag limit," Hirsh said in a phone interview this week from his Kennesaw, Ga., office.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
What other defense could there be?
“It has been open season on unborn children for over 30 years. I think on abortionists there will be a bag limit,...
An attorney worth something? Wow!! what a great quote!
The guy was in the wholesale murdering of innocent life his death was sad as apparently he died unrepentant but something HAD to be done.
I would never find the defendant guilty some laws should be broken when they are unconstitutional which make them null and void as far as I am concerned.
Hirsh did such a great job in defending Paul Hill, that today Hill is a free man walking the streets of H3ll.
This just might work. Whether or not it actually results in an acquittal, it will absolutely put the fear of God in many “medical†practitioners.
Well, I’m leaning toward agreeing with this defense...
I’ve often thought (for instance) that a that a drug dealer selling drugs to one’s kids should justify the killing of the dealer by the parents... (It would have for me)
ANYONE who puts your kids at risk of dyeing Ie; a Homo, should also meet with the same fate.
Just my opinion...
I thought trial judges routinely did not allow this type of defense in such cases?
“I thought trial judges routinely did not allow this type of defense in such cases?”
So then it gets appealed....
I don’t think anyone has won on appeal. I find it shocking that the trial judge gets to tell the accused what defenses they may not use, but that is what I understand.
How many babies weren’t aborted because of Paul Hill?
I would guess a lot...
Not to mention the many doctors who don’t go into this “business” because of such threats and incidents. I doubt I’d vote to convict Hill were I on the jury.
This is a defense to make a statement not win an acquittal.
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.