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.

[trumandogz]

“Whoever gave the pill should get the death penalty.”

Okay, if the phamacist should get the death penalty, should we also give the death penalty to the woman who takes the abortion pills?

[LearsFool]

Okay, if the phamacist should get the death penalty, should we also give the death penalty to the woman who takes the abortion pills?

Of course.

In fact, if we define a "chain of culpability", she holds the top spot. She decided she wanted the child murdered, and acted with malice aforethought.

If she chooses to hire a hitman, it is the abortionist who does the actual killing. Or if she chooses to poison the child herself, it is the pharmacist who willingly and with full knowledge of her murderous intent sells her the poison.

Now as in every murder case, there may be mitigating circumstances. (For instance, a 13-year-old girl carrying her father's child, and whose father gets the death pill from the pharmacist and tells the girl to take it.) But the above legal framework is analogous to murder as we've always known it, and simplifies the case so that the culprits may be punished according to existing law.

[sentient]

I see you can only ask questions, not respond to them. You are a dishonest conversationalist if you cannot answer questions put to you. Conversation over Trumandogz the enabler.....

[sentient]

I will let you take this from here.... Trumandogz does not like being questioned.... And you are so right in your response...

[trumandogz]

“I see you can only ask questions, not respond to them. You are a dishonest conversationalist if you cannot answer questions put to you. Conversation over Trumandogz the enabler.....”

Exactly, what question would you like me to answer?

In these threads, I have stated that I believe life begins at conception and that abortion at any stage of pregnancy is the killing a baby.

I have also said that it is wrong to murder an abortion doctor and that those who do murder abortion doctors should receive the same fate as Paul Hill or Scott Roeder.

You on the other hand have said that abortion doctors should be cut up into pieces, but you have refused to state if you also believe that pharmacists who dispense abortion pills should also be cut up into pieces.

So again, what question would you like me to answer?

[trumandogz]

Suppose, Person A, Person B and Person C all conspire to murder a child.

Person A drives the car to the playground, Person B lures a six year-old child into a car and Person C shoots the child in the head.

Do you believe that each person is guilty of murder, or do you believe that only Person C in guilty of murder?

Now, Suppose Person A, Person B and Person C all conspire to murder a child.

Person A decides that she wants to murder her unborn child, Person B is a friend of Person A and drives Person A to the abortion clinic, Person C is an abortion doctor and conducts the abortion procedure.

Do you believe that only each person is guilty of murder, or do you believe that only Person C in guilty of murder?

Finally, Suppose Person A, Person B and Person C all conspire to murder a child.

Person A discovers she is pregnant and realizes that she is only two weeks into the pregnancy, Person B writes a prescription for RU-486, Person C works as a pharmacist and fills Person A’s Prescription for the RU-486 otherwise known as the abortion pill.

Do you believe that only each person is guilty of murder or do you believe that only Person C in guilty of murder?

Now, would your hero, Scott Roeder be justified in killing each of the above nine people prior to their committing the actions detailed in these three scenarios?

[sentient]

David Shuster is that you? You sure do sound like one of those whiny apoligists from Liberal Mentalville....

[sentient]

What is person D told the idiot asking the questions to answer original questions posed to them??

[trumandogz]

So, does that mean you are unable or unwilling to answer my questions regarding these three scenarios where a child is killed?

[trumandogz]

Again, what was your original question?

[LearsFool]

Suppose, Person A, Person B and Person C all conspire to murder a child...

Sometimes an accomplice is guilty of a lesser crime than first degree murder. That caveat aside, all nine persons are complicit in and therefore guilty of murder.

Now, would your hero, Scott Roeder be justified in killing each of the above nine people prior to their committing the actions detailed in these three scenarios?

I never claimed he was justified - only that a jury could and, in my opinion, should find him not guilty.

Justice is not what our nation wants. If it were, Roeder would've had no cause to kill Tiller, since Tiller would've either stopped murdering children or he would've been executed for his crimes.

The best a people can do is come as close to justice as they're able. Roeder's act, though against the law, comes closer to justice than the Supreme Court - and every other governmental power in our country.

Of course "closer" won't justify it. But it'll sure hold up a mirror to America, so we can see just how little we really care about justice.

[editor-surveyor]

You joyfully lied in the post to which I replied.

You know it, why deflect?

[trumandogz]

I was only re-stating what you had already written.

In post 320 you wrote:

“The very presence of the human is not even discernable [sic] at first...

And, in post 153 you wrote:

“[Scott Roeder] committed a justifiable act of homicide out of necessity. He should be lauded for his courage.”

And that is why I said:

...you have said that you do not oppose abortion in the first trimester and favor the murdering of human beings who perform late term abortions.

Now, please tell us where I lied about your posts.

[sentient]

Again what is the difference between Hitler and Tiller? They both were responsible for Genocide. Would it have been okay to shoot Hitler? And in my simple mind, evil is evil and it should be exterminated..... For those who just want to co-exist with evil, good luck....

[trumandogz]

I never claimed he was justified - only that a jury could and, in my opinion, should find him not guilty.

Fair enough.

Roeder was justified in killing Tiller because as a Christian, Roeder believed that abortion is the taking of a human life and that by killing Tiller he would prevent Tiller from killing additional babies.

Okay, how about this one:

Kumar is a Hindu and believes as his religion teaches that cows are sacred and should never be killed.

Kumar discovers that name and location of the church where the man who runs the local slaughterhouse attends. Kumar, being very adherent to his religion walks into that church and shoots the man who runs the local slaughterhouse, so that he will not kill any more cows.

At his trial, Kumar's attorney argues that his client was justified in shooting the slaughterhouse guy so that he would never kill again.

Now remember, under our Constitution, Christianity, Hinduism and all religions have equal protection and the people are free to practice either religion.

If you are going to find Roeder not guilty, won't you also have to find Kumar not guilty?

[trumandogz]

“Again what is the difference between Hitler and Tiller? They both were responsible for Genocide. Would it have been okay to shoot Hitler? “

If I had been a German living in Germany in 1939 I have no idea how I would have reacted to Hitler and I imagine that you do not know how you would have reacted either.

However, we can look at something that is more relevant to the US over the last 20 years.

In 2000 the FDA under President Clinton approved RU-486 (the Abortion Pill) for use by American women and in the year 2000 1% of all abortions in the US were done by pregnant women ingesting RU-486.

Should Bill Clinton be held responsible for the killing of all the babies via RU-486 in the year 2000?

In 2001 George W. Bush became president and had control of the FDA. President Bush had the option to direct the FDA to pull the approval of RU-486, but he elected not to do so. By 2005, 10% of all abortions in the US were done by pregnant women ingesting RU-486.

Should George W. Bush be held responsible for the killing of all the babies via RU-486 from 2001 to 2009?

And, Barack Obama has had control of the FDA for the last 12 months and has had the option to direct the FDA to pull the approval of RU-486, but he has elected not to do so.

Should Barack Obama be held responsible for the killing of all the babies via RU-486 over the last 12 months?

[sentient]

Yes, Yes, Yes..... All three are giving the green light for Genocide. Hitler killed millions by decree. These three kill over 1M each year by decree. Disgusting.... History repeats itself over and over. That is why evil must be defeated......

[LearsFool]

Roeder was justified in killing Tiller because...

Those are your words, not mine. Again, I never claimed he was justified.

As I've argued earlier, Roe was a seed of anarchy. It permits some murders while others are prohibited. It protects some murderers while others go to prison. It prohibits the prosecution of one killer, while another is tried and sentenced. If a jury had refused to convict Roeder for killing a protected murderer, that would've signalled that (at least some) Americans refuse to tolerate this injustice, that if the law won't protect our children from murderers, we'll do it ourselves.

This is not about religious beliefs. It's about the whole reason for the existence of governments and laws. When a government becomes so corrupt that it permits - and even promotes - the murder of a certain class of people, after defining them as non-persons, it has abdicated its fundamental duty, and with it, all rightful authority to judge those who take up that duty. The duty rightly devolves again to the people - who gave the government its authority in the first place.

Such a situation is, of course, anarchy. That's what you can expect when unjust laws made without their consent push the people past their breaking point.

Kumar is a Hindu and believes as his religion teaches that...

Right and wrong are not dictated by one's beliefs. Rather, one's beliefs must be dictated by right and wrong. Slaughtering a cow is not murder, but slaughtering a baby is. Since this is true, Hindus ought to square their religion with it.

Now it's very convenient to shrug off the murder of a baby by saying, "Oh, that's just your religion talking." But it won't do. Life is life, and murder is murder.

While some religions (i.e. humanism) may encourage the murder of unwanted babies, this aspect of their religion is given no more protection by the Constitution than Mormon polygamy or Muslim mass murder. In other words, you're free to practice your religion...right up to the point at which it conflicts with our civil society.

If Roeder was justified in his killing of Tiller, it wasn't on the grounds of religious freedom. If he was justified, it was on the grounds that, since the law has been corrupted and perverted into a protection for murderers, its authority is abdicated and its edicts null and void, and that therefore the people must take back from government the authority they delegated to it, and do themselves the job the law is no longer capable of doing.

We the people might say, in other words, "We ourselves will judge whether Tiller was guilty and deserving of death, and whether Roeder acted on our behalf and with our authority."

[editor-surveyor]

You know full well that you lied when you said that I “do not oppose abortion in the first trimester and favor the murdering of human beings who perform late term abortions.”

I oppose all abortions period. - Also what Roeder did was not murder by the definition in God’s word; it was obedience with the commandment: “He who sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.”

You tell yourself that you are pro-life, but you have deceived yourself. You lack the most basic understanding of the issues.

The differentiation that I made, that you are incapable of understanding is that there is a divide of brutality between the beginning of human life, and the end of the third trimester. On the first day, the woman doesn’t even know whether she is pregnant, while the action of the “doctor” in aborting the partially born child is an incomprehensible act of brutality.

[trumandogz]

On the first day, the woman doesn’t even know whether she is pregnant...

Does God know a woman is pregnant on the first day?

And if so, how is it that you can advocate the killing of a baby that God has created?