I shot US abortion doctor to protect children, Scott Roeder tells court

Guardian ^ | 28 January 2010 | Ed Pilkington

[Ben Mugged]

A self-proclaimed born-again Christian who believes all abortions are a sin told his trial for murder today that he shot dead an abortion doctor in Wichita, Kansas, to protect unborn children.

Scott Roeder said he had bought a .22-calibre Taurus gun and ammunition on 30 May 2009, the day before he shot George Tiller, and practised target shooting with his brother. Then he checked into a motel in Wichita, and the next day followed Tiller to the church in the town where the doctor was an usher.

His defence lawyer asked: "Did you go and shoot Dr Tiller?"

Roeder replied: "Yes."

His confession is part of his defence that he felt forced to kill in order to save the lives of unborn children. He has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder.

It is the first time in US legal history that a violent anti-abortionist has been allowed to present the jury with his justification for murder.

The judge in the case, Warren Wilbert, caused dismay among pro-abortionists and doctors this month when he ruled that Roeder would be allowed to present his justification to the court. Wilbert will decide later in the trial in Kansas whether the jury will be permitted to find the defendant guilty of the lesser crime of manslaughter.

Tiller was killed in the Reformation Lutheran church with one shot to the head. He had long been a target for anti-abortionists as he was one of few doctors prepared to perform legal late abortions, after 21 weeks of gestation.

[JSDude1]

I am 100% pro life, and if it were law (abortion were illigal and Doctors who performed them could be prosecuted): I would, however if I were on the Jury this guy would be guilty, we CAN NOT stand up for life, and then say ‘the ends justify the means’ and that (Dr -I say that loosly) Tiller’s life is worth less than the Tens of Thousands of Babies he murdered while alive!~ Just my 2, J.S.

[LearsFool]

I'm on the side that stands for upholding the rule of law - the rule not evaluated by a single man who advocates taking matters into his own hand and dispensing justice as he sees fit - but, the side that places the responsibility of dispensing that justice in manner fully in accordance with the principles of due process and Constitutional rights.

One could make a very strong argument, under the claims of the Declaration, that our form of government is no longer fit to exist. It has utterly failed its fundamental purpose.

The rule of law which you uphold has likewise failed. It has reneged its duty and thus abdicated its authority. All that remains is to appeal to superior authority for direction. (This is why I say Roe was a seed of anarchy.)

If that superior authority is "taking matters into our own hands and dispensing judgment as we see fit", then more's the blame on our government's shoulders and more's the blood on their hands! For, this is not about "disagreements". This is about the barbaric butchering of babies.

Any "LAW" that permits that is a law without any force except tyrannical fear. And all such "LAW" is legitimately subject to resistance by equal force.

If a murderous regime cannot be reasoned with, it's a fit target for rebellion. (That, in my humble opinion, is the Declaration in a nutshell.)

[Agamemnon]

German was a totalitarian dictatorship devoid of law except those dictated by the Fuhrer. We are a representative republic, with laws written by for and of the people.

Can you point to one example of a law where the people actually voted to uphold one abortion statute?

According to the Constitution, people do not vote for the USSC judiciary. We vote for Congressional reps to make laws. According to the Constitution the judiciary is not to make law. How then is Roe v. Wade is "law"?

Just curious, would you prosecute someone who killed jailers in a prison riot, whose intent in killing the jailers was to free Christians who were to be fed to the lions?

FReegards!

[Non-Sequitur]

Unfortunately “The sumbitch had it coming” defense doesn’t work very well.

[LussaO]

The law has wiggle room.

* * * * * * *

If the past is anything to go by, juries are not kind to these doctor shooters. Not one has gotten off. They’re been punished pretty harshly.

[Antoninus]

This guy committed murder and should be punished for it. But I have real difficulty saying his action wasn’t justifiable. I’d put him in the same category of someone who took out a death camp commandant.

[OldDeckHand]

"How then is Roe v. Wade is "law"?"

If you are so removed from reality that you don't understand how that Supreme Court decision, or any Supreme Court decision is law, I can't help you. It would require a far longer post than I'm willing to write. I suggest you enroll in a local adult education civics class, because you've got a real project ahead of you.

[BP2]

I'll give you a hint. I'm on the side that stands for upholding the rule of law - the rule not evaluated by a single man who advocates taking matters into his own hand and dispensing justice as he sees fit

Oh really?

What would you do if you had the chance in the 1920s?

[Agamemnon]

That said, the state will impose it’s will through it’s laws.

Oh really. And under the mercies of which dictatorship have you chosen to live?

FReegards!

[Antoninus]

We are a nation of laws and NOT a nation of theocrats.

We are also not a nation of legalists.

And what does theocracy have to do with a man being driven to kill by the idea of innocent babies being *legally* dismembered and tossed in a dumpster?

The theocrats aren't the problem here. The law is.

[Lower55]

He needed killin’. probably won’t hold up either.

[Jim from C-Town]

Not necessarily true. If they can establish that he had appointments scheduled to perform late term abortions during that week and that Tiller had in the past performed late term abortions , easy enough, than they MAY be able to establish immanent danger of death of a third party.

Like I said, I doubt they will be able to get an acquittal, but I am more than certain that at least one, and probably several of the jurors would like to acquit. Jury nullification is certainly not out of the question. A hung jury is absolutely a good chance.

[editor-surveyor]

.
"The prosecution wouldn't want me on this jury."

Me either, I'd give the guy a medal for lifesaving!
.

[Antoninus]

Again, I am Pro Life.

LOL. You are a parody of a pro-lifer. You aren't one, but you do play one on FR.

[latina4dubya]

I'll give you a hint. I'm on the side that stands for upholding the rule of law - the rule not evaluated by a single man who advocates taking matters into his own hand and dispensing justice as he sees fit - but, the side that places the responsibility of dispensing that justice in manner fully in accordance with the principles of due process and Constitutional rights.

no matter what the law is?

[Antoninus]

Sounds like a good argument...for the defense at Nuremberg.

Precisely the opposite. It would be the defense mounted by someone on trial for killing Dr. Mengele.

[LussaO]

Are we dipping into the past now to make our point? If that’s the case, I can see some of these moral relativist Freepers saying, “Nothing wrong with slavery if it makes Tiller a slave,” or “Nothing wrong with crematoriums if Tiller’s in one of them!”

[LearsFool]

I’d put him in the same category of someone who took out a death camp commandant.

That is the unfortunate position we're put in by death camp commandants - and by the "LAW" that enables them.

I'm not unsympathetic with those who appeal to the rule of law. It's a wonderful political advancement - right up to the point at which it fails to do its job. I'm arguing that viz. babies' lives, it has utterly and completely failed. And that being the case, (with all respect to my opponents here) our blind faith in it is foolish.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Whose God are you talking about?

Whose God were our forefathers speaking of when they wrote "endowed by the Creator" into the documents upon which our laws are based?

[TChris]

> Again, I am Pro Life.

LOL. You are a parody of a pro-lifer. You aren't one, but you do play one on FR.

So, it's your position that one is not truly pro-life unless he supports murder?

Is that your position?