Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I shot US abortion doctor to protect children, Scott Roeder tells court
Guardian ^ | 28 January 2010 | Ed Pilkington

Posted on 01/28/2010 12:16:12 PM PST by Ben Mugged

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-421 next last
To: Ben Mugged

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.


101 posted on 01/28/2010 1:29:18 PM PST by JSDude1 (www.wethepeopleindiana.org (Tea Party Member-Proud), www.travishankins.com (R- IN 09 2010!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
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.)
102 posted on 01/28/2010 1:31:09 PM PST by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand; Invincibly Ignorant
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!


103 posted on 01/28/2010 1:31:14 PM PST by Agamemnon (Intelligent Design is to evolution what the Swift Boat Vets were to the Kerry campaign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Ben Mugged

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


104 posted on 01/28/2010 1:33:50 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: azcap

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.


105 posted on 01/28/2010 1:34:02 PM PST by LussaO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Ben Mugged

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.


106 posted on 01/28/2010 1:35:32 PM PST by Antoninus (The RNC's dream ticket: Romney / Scozzafava 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon
"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.

107 posted on 01/28/2010 1:36:31 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand; All

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?

Hitler_w_youngmen


108 posted on 01/28/2010 1:37:01 PM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: dila813; Ben Mugged
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!


109 posted on 01/28/2010 1:37:07 PM PST by Agamemnon (Intelligent Design is to evolution what the Swift Boat Vets were to the Kerry campaign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
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.
110 posted on 01/28/2010 1:37:40 PM PST by Antoninus (The RNC's dream ticket: Romney / Scozzafava 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

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


111 posted on 01/28/2010 1:38:00 PM PST by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: CaribouCrossing
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.

112 posted on 01/28/2010 1:38:50 PM PST by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Ben Mugged
.
"The prosecution wouldn't want me on this jury."

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

113 posted on 01/28/2010 1:39:45 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Democracy, the vilest form of government, pits the greed of an angry mob vs. the rights of a man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
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.
114 posted on 01/28/2010 1:40:12 PM PST by Antoninus (The RNC's dream ticket: Romney / Scozzafava 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
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?

115 posted on 01/28/2010 1:40:23 PM PST by latina4dubya ( self-proclaimed tequila snob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool
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.
116 posted on 01/28/2010 1:41:09 PM PST by Antoninus (The RNC's dream ticket: Romney / Scozzafava 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BP2

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!”


117 posted on 01/28/2010 1:41:17 PM PST by LussaO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
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.
118 posted on 01/28/2010 1:41:26 PM PST by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
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?

119 posted on 01/28/2010 1:42:28 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus; trumandogz
> 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?

120 posted on 01/28/2010 1:43:10 PM PST by TChris ("Hello", the politician lied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

He didn’t murder someone with whom he disagreed. He murdered in defense of others, or at least that is his defense. I’m not sure this was a good idea, but the question is now out there in court, as it hasn’t been before.


121 posted on 01/28/2010 1:44:06 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

.
You’re a sick puppy as usual!

You’re not even part of the “pro life movement,” what do you care what he did to it?

He deserves a medal for lifesaving.
.


122 posted on 01/28/2010 1:44:15 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Democracy, the vilest form of government, pits the greed of an angry mob vs. the rights of a man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz; imahawk; Joe 6-pack; Ben Mugged
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.

Hey Truman'sApologist. Seems you missed this:

Kansas Statutes Amended:

Chapter 21: Crimes And Punishments PART I.--GENERAL PROVISIONS Article 32: Principles Of Criminal Liability Statute 21-3211: Use of force in defense of a person; no duty to retreat. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force.

(b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person.


123 posted on 01/28/2010 1:45:27 PM PST by Agamemnon (Intelligent Design is to evolution what the Swift Boat Vets were to the Kerry campaign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: firebrand

He murdered in defense of others, or at least that is his defense.

* * * * * * *

Tim McVeigh had a “necessity defense”, too.


124 posted on 01/28/2010 1:46:06 PM PST by LussaO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: latina4dubya
"no matter what the law is?"

We aren't talking about any law, and we aren't talking about any kind of civil disobedience. We are talking about a single man making a decision devoid of any kind of due process and murdering someone because he disproves of the fully legal if also morally reprehensible actions his victim is engaging in.

Where does it end? Are we then going to endorse the murder of the pharmaceutical executives and researches who've created the morning after pill?

Are we going to advocate and celebrate the murder of the pharmacist who dispenses the birth control pill - after all, depending on what particular philosophical or theological principles you adhere to, birth control is a kind of abortion?

This country has endured this long precisely because we don't allow people to take matters into their own hands, no matter how right they believe they are, or how wrong they believe their opponents are.

125 posted on 01/28/2010 1:48:16 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
.
"If you're arguing for jury nullification, you're no different than the idiotic racists who acquitted OJ Simpson."

Statist strawman!

Roeder saved lives, Simpson took lives out of personal pride.

Jury nullification is valid.
.

126 posted on 01/28/2010 1:49:41 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Democracy, the vilest form of government, pits the greed of an angry mob vs. the rights of a man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LussaO

Are we dipping into the past now to make our point?

I can only look into the past to see the evil of other men who kill the innocent.

I'm unable to see into the future, other than to see that there will be a day — hopefully soon — that Roe v. Wade will be overturned.


127 posted on 01/28/2010 1:51:44 PM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: LussaO

I am interested in reading the defense and prosecution arguments. I’m not sure this is a good idea, as I said, but am very interested in how it turns out. May whatever the result is help save babies’ lives. If it does, it was a good idea. If it doesn’t, it wasn’t.


128 posted on 01/28/2010 1:54:39 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

So then, based on your logic, it would have been wrong (circa 1943) to defend the Jews in Germany from extermination. After all, genocide was the law of the land in Germany.


129 posted on 01/28/2010 1:55:08 PM PST by nysuperdoodle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Tim McVeigh had a necessity defense too, the “feds needed to learn a lesson.” And when the Montana Freeman standoff ended without a Waco fire, McVeigh felt vindicated in his bombing - wow, sounds a lot like the freepers saying the shooting saved a lot of babies!

Except it didn’t stop the late term ones - Dr. Carhart is doing them now. Anyone here calling for killing HIM?

First degree murder will never sit well with me.


130 posted on 01/28/2010 1:55:21 PM PST by LussaO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

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

Apparently, that is the position of many here. Although, I'm sure that they would claim it's not cold-blooded murder, but killing in defense of others. The flexibility one needs to engage in such moral gymnastics is quite rare.

131 posted on 01/28/2010 1:57:20 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Utopian
.
"Sorry. Men with conviction are not afraid to go to prison forever, or even die, for what they believe in."

And he has already proven that he is.

"If you really think what you did was right despite the law, you would stop trying to weasel-out and would go to prison like a man."

Argumentum ad absurdum!
.

132 posted on 01/28/2010 1:58:38 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Democracy, the vilest form of government, pits the greed of an angry mob vs. the rights of a man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: nysuperdoodle
"So then, based on your logic, it would have been wrong (circa 1943) to defend the Jews in Germany from extermination. "

No, but apparently that would be your straw man argument. Good luck with that.

133 posted on 01/28/2010 1:58:50 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Jury nullification is valid.

Not if you actually believe the Constitution.

I've read and read, but can't seem to find any provision in the Constitution for jury nullification. It certainly could have been included, had the Fathers so desired.

The Constitutional provision for changing the law is via the legislature. Period.

Jury nullification is an end-run around the Constitution which is absolutely no different than judicial activism. It's just that the perpetrators sit in a different place in the courtroom when they commit the act.

If you are in favor of jury nullification, but against judicial activism, then you, FRiend, are a hypocrite.

134 posted on 01/28/2010 1:59:43 PM PST by TChris ("Hello", the politician lied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Bump.


135 posted on 01/28/2010 2:00:10 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (Free Republic. The BEST place anywhere to PIMP YOUR BLOG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Ben Mugged

A Heisman Trophy winner might thank him in about 20 years!


136 posted on 01/28/2010 2:01:12 PM PST by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LussaO
Tim McVeigh had a “necessity defense”, too.

Good point. If Terry Nichols had taken out McVeigh before he blew up the Murrah Building, should he have been prosecuted for 1st degree murder?
137 posted on 01/28/2010 2:01:14 PM PST by Antoninus (The RNC's dream ticket: Romney / Scozzafava 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: greatplains

Seek counseling soon!


138 posted on 01/28/2010 2:01:23 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Democracy, the vilest form of government, pits the greed of an angry mob vs. the rights of a man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Apparently, that is the position of many here. Although, I'm sure that they would claim it's not cold-blooded murder, but killing in defense of others. The flexibility one needs to engage in such moral gymnastics is quite rare.

At least it should be rare among so-called conservatives. This sort of situational ethics is the playground of leftist "progressives".

139 posted on 01/28/2010 2:01:53 PM PST by TChris ("Hello", the politician lied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
This country has endured this long precisely because we don't allow people to take matters into their own hands, no matter how right they believe they are, or how wrong they believe their opponents are.

As politically astute as your observations are, they seem to be ignorant of the magnitude (in the eyes of many) of this issue.

This is not merely a dispute over who should be taxed more, or whether we need to require seatbelts. This issue is so fundamental that the Declaration lists it as a raison d'etre for government - which is why the pro-death camp denies this has anything whatsoever to do with life.

When the democratic process we value so highly fails to achieve a resolution - or worse, when the democratic process is prohibited from resolving our differences - people will indeed take matters into their own hands (a la the Civil War.)

The only greater failure than the failure to protect life is the failure to permit our nation's pressure valve - the democratic process - to attempt a resolution of this dispute.
140 posted on 01/28/2010 2:02:45 PM PST by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
"Jury nullification is valid."

Interesting. So, you'd fully support the decision of any Muslims who may be sitting on the jury for KSM to vote against conviction because they're sympathetic to KSM's position? That is a most curious statement - jury nullification is valid - if also intellectually obtuse..

141 posted on 01/28/2010 2:02:49 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

Good point. If Terry Nichols had taken out McVeigh before he blew up the Murrah Building, should he have been prosecuted for 1st degree murder?

* * * * * * *

If Nichols committed the elements of first degree murder, lying in wait, premeditation, planning and malice aforethought, absolutely.


142 posted on 01/28/2010 2:04:15 PM PST by LussaO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

If taking out murderers, genocidists and criminals against humanity are justified, then they wouldn’t be only the province of nutcase hit men off their meds. What service is Antonius and his gun planning on in defense of the unborn?


143 posted on 01/28/2010 2:07:07 PM PST by LussaO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Don’t be too sure about that.


144 posted on 01/28/2010 2:07:07 PM PST by proudpapa (Obama - Worst One Ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz; All

In Fort Hood, 14 people were killed — 13 adults and one unborn child. Both Federal Law and the UCMJ allow for a murder charge when a person causes the death of an unborn child.


You speak all high and mighty with your basic understanding of law & morality.

Please tell me how something like this is moral?


145 posted on 01/28/2010 2:07:14 PM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: BunnySlippers
"What a moron this guy is. Nut case!"

The prosecutor? I agree.

146 posted on 01/28/2010 2:11:08 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Democracy, the vilest form of government, pits the greed of an angry mob vs. the rights of a man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: TChris
I've read and read, but can't seem to find any provision in the Constitution for jury nullification.

Jury nullification is inherent in jury trial.

Is there any other reason for having twelve of one's peers - one's PEERS, in "the State or district wherein the crime shall have been committed" - on a jury? Can't a judge judge the facts just as well?

Trial by jury has, since its inception, taken judgment out of the hands of political authorities and placed it squarely in those of the community - where it by rights ought to be and, in the final analysis, will be. Authority for jury nullification is the very essence of trial by jury.
147 posted on 01/28/2010 2:11:48 PM PST by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: BP2
"What would you do if you had the chance in the 1920s?"

Silly rabbit, Third Reich Germany wasn't a nation of laws, but a nation beholden to the musings of one psychopathic murder. We are a nation of laws - laws written for, of and by the people and interpreted by a Judiciary, per their Constitutional responsibilities. We don't get to start murdering people when those decisions don't go the way we think that they should.

148 posted on 01/28/2010 2:11:54 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Ben Mugged

This isn’t the way to stop abortion. We can’t descend into moral relativism and situational ethics.

The sonograms were a boon to OUR side, not the prochoicers’.
They’re losing the battle to keep babies inhuman blobs of tissue.


149 posted on 01/28/2010 2:12:32 PM PST by LussaO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town

Interesting arguments on all sides, that’s for sure. I doubt they’ll get an acquittal either, and unless they can prove an insanity defense (highly unlikely I think since it was clearly premeditated), he’ll be convicted.

Any juror who cannot put aside their prejudices and follow the law in any court proceeding should excuse themselves.


150 posted on 01/28/2010 2:17:35 PM PST by CaribouCrossing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-421 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson