Does anyone here believe this is a valid defense?
I do. In fact if one truly believe that abortion is murder, it becomes ones moral imperative to act in a similar manner.
Now personally I'm opposed to shooting abortionists but I certainly don't want to impose my morality on anyone else.
In Virginia we send murderers off on final gurney rides with some degree of frequency so it's pretty much a life and death issue for the defendant.
That applies, BTW, whether or not the defendant admits to murder ~ after all, he's not a jury, he's not a judge. As Illinois' officials can tell you just because they got a confession out of somebody that doesn't mean their guilty.
Nope, not a valid defence at all.
Just for the sake of argument, let’s look at an impossible scenario.
Let’s say that you were sent back in time to 1910 where you met a young struggling artist in Linz named Adolf Hitler. You knew what a monster he would become and how many millions would suffer and die at his hand.
You also knew that killing him would be cold-blooded murder. Would you do it knowing that this would not be a valid defence?
Roeder murdered him. He should suffer the consequences of that murder. What he prevented and what he caused is not at issue here. If he truly believes that he saved thousands of lives with his actions, then death is not that much of a penalty for him. No punishment would be if he held that conviction in his heart.
Shooting one of them, most of us would recognize as an heroic act.
If the government won't act to protect the innocent, then individuals must.
We know that a homicide took place because we have the dead guy and it seems that this fellow admits that he was indeed the one who committed the act of killing the other guy. Whether it’s a “murder” or not is a matter for the court to decide. I see no problem with allowing the man to put on whatever defense he and his attorney choose to. I would see a much larger problem if the courts refused to allow his chosen defense. As to whether it’s an effective or valid defense, that’s up to the jury, isn’t it?
All Roeder should have to prove is that Tiller intended to continue performing late term/partial birth abortions. The fact that Tiller was acquitted of an earlier abortion related crime is not relevant to this case.
Roeder has a statutory defense, especially since no one can honestly argue a partial birth abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the mother.
Because he has a statutory defense, the principle of lenity applies. This means that any ambiguity in the law must be construe in his favor.
This judge is simply applying the law that the legislature enacted regardless of his personal feelings.
“I had to kill that SUV salesman, he was going to kill thousands through global warming!”
“I had to kill that Republican candidate, he was a warmonger who would have killed thousands!”
To some it only matters whose ox is getting gored, not the insane precedent of allowing some cold blooded murders as being justified due to political considerations.
I can imagine getting a 5 vote majority to bring back the Code Duello in fact, and that'd just muddy the waters further.
Still, I don't believe Tiller is dead, or if he's dead he wasn't killed at that location. You'd have to first believe one of these partial birth abortionists actually ever went to a church of any kind.
I don't believe in fairy tales, so whatever really happened is probably far different than the prosecutor's presentation or the shooter's admission. Doesn't mean the abortionists won't get their shot at executing another adult.