Posted on 01/28/2010 12:16:12 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
What is your opinion?
Thank you for the voice of reason in what has become an otherwise unreasonable thread.
You seem to be copying and pasting your responses, Lussa. Nonetheless, there are really few individuals in life that could have well earned the moniker of “monster” as Tiller did. Nevermind the monstrosity of his actions in his clinic, but that he also used his wealth and influence to affect political contests in Kansas, often to protect him from prosecution and answering for his crimes.
I’m far less troubled by Roeder’s actions than I am by Tiller’s, or his church. What sort of a church would give comfort, nevermind respect and cover, to such a monster ? A true Christian church would demand he repent of his horrendous crimes and atone, and sin no more. Every parishioner that failed to speak up against him was complicit.
Perhaps Roeder was commanded by God to carry out this action, and to do so under a roof dedicated to worship of Him, in righteous anger at such hypocritical, blasphemous conduct and actions in His temple.
A great leap of illogic.
Under this rationale, could we justify fire-bombing pharmacies that disperse birth control? How about the morning after pill?
Maybe we should blow up the pharmaceutical companies that make the pills?
Or the medical supply companies that make the instruments that allow abortions to take place?
My guess is that you could kill a good million people today in the name of protecting life.
Who said this, McVeigh or Scott Roeder?
“I have great respect for human life. I did not do it for personal gain. I ease my mind in that. I did it for the larger good.”
Spare us these assholes who think murder stops murder. We waste too much valuable time and energy trying to assure people we’re not all like them.
Legally, shmegally!
She wanted her baby.
Her parents were as cruel and inhuman as Tiller!
The SCOTUS is the MOST superior court.
Have you actually READ Article III? It grants the courts authority to judge the law. It does not grant juries that authority. In fact, it only provides for juries in criminal trials, which typically don't even judge the law to begin with.
If the Founders intended for juries to "judge the law", why are they only specified for criminal trials?
Have you ever dealt with truth, or is this your standard operation?
Why the nastiness? Can you find a place in the Constitution where juries are given authority to "judge the law", as you claimed, or not?
You're just wrong.
You should just admit that your ideas are anti-Constitution.
You apparently do not understand what jury nullification is.
One person in disagreement is not nullification; its merely a ‘hung’ jury. Nullification requires a majority large enough to dissuade further prosecution.
You argue with vagaries, and convince only those as statist, mentally lazy as yourself.
That is a bit of rhetoric worthy of Obama -- high sounding and devoid of moral authority.
Don’t forget, the UPS guy sometimes delivers abortion pills to women’s homes. So, they may as well kill the UPS guy or better yet shoot UPS planes out if the sky.
thank gawd people who reason like this are confined to mediocrity.
The doctor doesn’t do anything until the woman gives him permission to. What’s her complicity?
“Perhaps Roeder was commanded by God to carry out this action”
Good grief. You and Bin Laden, employing the “sanctioned by God” strategy.
Love your rubberized strawman!
Come back and play sometime again.
Words mean things.
Superior court has a definite meaning, that you cannot just fluff off.
Civil trials are not prosecuted by a government lawyer Einstein.
I don't believe I have ever met someone as enamored with their own intellectual shortcomings as you seem to be with yours. Congratulations, I'm sure there something to say for that, although I can't for the life of me imagine what it would be.
You have proven my point though. You apparently believe it's perfectly fine for someone to justify their own violation of US law with their own religious or moral beliefs, so long as those beliefs align with your own. That sir, is hypocrisy.
We have had over a dozen US citizens placed on trial for their participation and support of Muslim Jihadists. They are waging Jihad because they believe their God instructs them to to save the life of their fellow Muslims. If they were to be tried under the terms that you seem to advocate, they could be found NOT GUILTY if enough of their jury members were sympathetic to their religious beliefs and dogma. That is the logical outcome when we allow a person or a group to substitute their own philosophical beliefs for the demands of the Republic's laws.
Life begins at conception so therefore, there is no difference between a third trimester abortion.
That being the case there is no difference between the late term abortion doctor and a doctor that implants an IUD into a woman's uterus
The Obama noobies are a real bunch! - You really stink up the place.
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.