Skip to comments.I shot US abortion doctor to protect children, Scott Roeder tells court
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 ...
Anyone that condemns this man for believing his faith 100% isn’t a believer.
That said, the state will impose it’s will through it’s laws.
He is guilty of going outside the law, but he and others have observed that political appointees have systematically ensured the law doesn’t work to protect children even when it appears the law is clear.
I think if I was on the jury, the difference between a not guilty and me wanting the death penalty for this guy would hinge on whether it is true that the system of laws had indeed broken down and the system had become a political tool.
If the system of laws had become a political tool, violence may be the only avenue left against political oppression of the judiciary.
Anyways, this is where I draw the line. I don’t know what is true in this case, but if on the jury I would have to discover the truth.
I would have to have a lot of evidence that a reasonable person could reach the same conclusion before I would let this guy get a pass though.
Sounds like the most idiotic statement I've read in a while. Congratulations.
I see. Its better when more than one person gives it the stamp of approval.
righto. I think the very concept of "law" -- and certainly as it was understood by the founders -- was not rooted in pantheism or moral equivalence.
There was a particular God who inspired the Judeo-Christian structure of western civilization, and you apparently are content to ignore or deny that fact, even as you benefit from it.
I guess you’re not paying attention.
“I wouldn’t ever murder anyone but who’s to say he didn’t save many lives?”
I really do not think we want to introduce “I killed a guy because I thought that my doing so would may save other lives” into our legal system as an accepted defense.
Wow. Imagine being the accused being able to state his case in an American court of law!
After watching Congress last year dealing with healthcare do you really believe your statement?
I think a reflection on Just War Theory might add something to the analysis.
i love it when intelligent people show up.
If you have ever read Roe you would know that you are completely wrong in that statement; Roe contains explicit language that , with todays medical knowledge , nullifies it's own arguments in favor of abortion on demand and calls for itself to be struck down. It would be far more accurate to say that abortion is explicitly legal only in certain states such as California and NY that have their own laws on the subject.
P.S. Your "theocrat" attack stance you immediately took shows you to be the liberal hack lawyer you have shown yourself to be in so many threads ... Do you really think that if we had no religon we wouldn't have laws against murder?
Hardly. What I'm not willing to do is accept your, or anyone else's, perceived right to ignore the law when you think you're acting out of a position of moral equivalence.
The people who murder 3,000 American on 9/11 also thought they were morally superior. Does that give them a right to murder at will, because they believe their God approves? If you had any intellectual honesty, you'd have to say yes.
Correct. They guy killed somebody. He should be prosecuted. Just saying, and for clarity's sake I'll add the following to my original statement, "in my eyes" he's no more or less guilty than the abortionists.
I'd appreciate it if you allow me to author my own posts. I said no such thing. Put your straw-man up against someone else. I'm not engaging your idiotic argument.
Above URL has both video and text of several parts of the trial.
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.