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 think a reflection on Just War Theory might add something to the analysis.


51 posted on 01/28/2010 12:44:06 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (governance is not sovereignty [paraphrasing Bishop Fulton Sheen].)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
I would say a better defense than temporary insanity.
52 posted on 01/28/2010 12:44:23 PM PST by Wahoo82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

i love it when intelligent people show up.


53 posted on 01/28/2010 12:45:38 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (governance is not sovereignty [paraphrasing Bishop Fulton Sheen].)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand
I think a reflection on Just War Theory might add something to the analysis.

Or a refresher on the whole purpose of government, as stated in the Declaration - "to secure these rights" of life, etc.
54 posted on 01/28/2010 12:46:11 PM PST by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
We are a nation of laws and NOT a nation of theocrats . Right now, abortion is legal in this country.

************************************************

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?

55 posted on 01/28/2010 12:46:11 PM PST by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand
"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. "

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.

56 posted on 01/28/2010 12:46:25 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
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.

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.

57 posted on 01/28/2010 12:46:26 PM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer
" Do you really think that if we had no religon we wouldn't have laws against murder? "

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.

58 posted on 01/28/2010 12:48:14 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Ben Mugged
http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/

Above URL has both video and text of several parts of the trial.

59 posted on 01/28/2010 12:48:23 PM PST by HuntsvilleTxVeteran ((B.?) Hussein (Obama?Soetoro?Dunham?) Change America Will Die From.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheetahcat
Well the Lefty's and Atheists have Killed 40 Million

It's now estimated at 52 million.

60 posted on 01/28/2010 12:50:56 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (governance is not sovereignty [paraphrasing Bishop Fulton Sheen].)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant

When a government becomes evil, to such an extent that it not only neglects its fundamental duty to protect life but becomes in fact the very destroyer of it, it has relinquished its authority to sit in judgment. Law has lost its force. And those who continue to proclaim, “But we’re a nation of laws!” have put their faith in an illegitimate source of authority.


61 posted on 01/28/2010 12:51:20 PM PST by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Wahoo82
"Sometimes justice needs to be supplied from the barrel of a gun. "

Really? Who gets to decide that?

62 posted on 01/28/2010 12:53:01 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Ben Mugged

What a moron this guy is. Nut case!


63 posted on 01/28/2010 12:53:14 PM PST by BunnySlippers (I LOVE BULL MARKETS . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dila813

Based on the Kansas law quoted above, I’d say that the question of whether or not Roeder was outside the law is very debatable. I guess that’s why they’ll have the trial. On it’s face, it appears to me like he was defending those who cannot defend themselves. Where I come from that’s not criminal, it’s laudable. How is this any different than if he’d popped a cap in Ted Bundy as Bundy forced a coed into his van?


64 posted on 01/28/2010 12:54:04 PM PST by nysuperdoodle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool
When a government becomes evil, to such an extent that it not only neglects its fundamental duty to protect life but becomes in fact the very destroyer of it, it has relinquished its authority to sit in judgment. Law has lost its force. And those who continue to proclaim, “But we’re a nation of laws!” have put their faith in an illegitimate source of authority.

Well there ya go. Perhaps we should consider a government that's allowed 1.5 murders per year to be evil.

65 posted on 01/28/2010 12:54:10 PM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
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.

You're confusing yourself once again with moral equivalence - the fallacy that what you think might motivate a psychopathic Muslim can somehow be equated to what you think might motivate a genuine Christian.

You're projecting this intellectual fog all over the discussion, and making it fruitless. Well, I gather it makes you feel better, somehow.

66 posted on 01/28/2010 12:54:58 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (governance is not sovereignty [paraphrasing Bishop Fulton Sheen].)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Really? Who gets to decide that?

Why, "them," of course. Anyone, anywhere, but you.

67 posted on 01/28/2010 12:56:15 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (governance is not sovereignty [paraphrasing Bishop Fulton Sheen].)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
Perhaps we should consider a government that's allowed 1.5 murders per year to be evil.

There's no doubt about that.

Roe was a seed of anarchy. The fact that we've had no more than a handful of vigilantes take up arms in defense of helpless babies says a great deal about the patience of pro-life people.
68 posted on 01/28/2010 12:58:50 PM PST by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: nysuperdoodle
"How is this any different than if he’d popped a cap in Ted Bundy as Bundy forced a coed into his van?"

You must live in the one state in the union where kidnapping and rape is legal. You'll have to share with us which state that is precisely.

Right now, abortion is legal in this country. As reprehensible and disgusting as Tiller is, he was operating inside the laws of this country, at least with respect to performing abortions. Ted Bundy wasn't. That's the difference you've failed to see or acknowledge.

If you don't like the law, then change it. But, you don't get to murder people who are following the law just because you don't like the law.

69 posted on 01/28/2010 12:58:51 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

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

Actually, Lear is completely different, in that the OJ trial was nullified by ignorant racists who supported their co-ethnic irrespective of compelling facts, whereas this nullification would be motivated by deeply held, Biblical-based values that have been in effect for over a thousand years.

So yeah, I think it's a tad different.

70 posted on 01/28/2010 12:59:58 PM PST by I Buried My Guns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ben Mugged; All
I don't think anyone is really too high on having to pull the trigger on anyone else, despite the mock bravado on sites like this that might indicate otherwise.

I don't think the guy up in Harlem wanted to introduce the act of having done so into his otherwise peaceful life when he blew away two of the four thugs that tried to hold him up. But he had no choice -- the "law," which we are all subject to, could not help him in that situation.

I doubt that it was Mr. Roeder's ambition to grow up and shoot an abortionist dead. I doubt he enjoys the situation he's in.

I don't think soldiers enjoy blowing people away. They are under law, too.

So, lest anyone accuse me of being a sympathizer, I'm not. Yet, I haven't read a single argument against Roeder's actions on this thread that persuades me. I'm surprised by that.

This is a lively discussion. I'm surprised at how weak the arguments against Roeder are. Very surprised.

71 posted on 01/28/2010 1:03:12 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (governance is not sovereignty [paraphrasing Bishop Fulton Sheen].)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ben Mugged

I’d convict him. I’d be a hypocrite if I claimed to be pro-life but yet condoned cold-blooded murder when it suited me.


72 posted on 01/28/2010 1:03:20 PM PST by CaribouCrossing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I Buried My Guns
"whereas this nullification would be motivated by deeply held, Biblical-based values that have been in effect for over a thousand years."

Ah. I see. So long as someone bases their murder on deeply held Biblical value, then it's just fine with you. That's an interesting, if also incredibly disturbing view of American justice.

73 posted on 01/28/2010 1:04:58 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Right now, abortion is legal in this country.

Take comfort in that "law" (such as it is, despotically dictated to our nation by the Court), my FRiend. Because it's all you've got on your side.

My argument is that it ain't nearly enough. Law never is, whether it springs from a despot or from democratic unanimity.
74 posted on 01/28/2010 1:05:09 PM PST by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
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.

Interesting. Consider the following scenario:

A group of school children are sitting together in a theater, all strapped into their chairs watching a movie or play. In walks a lone gunman who, one by one, begins shooting the children. One of the adults present, who happens to be carrying a weapon of his own (it is a right-to-carry state :-) ), shoots the gunman dead.

My view is that the adult who shot the gunman not only would not be prosecuted (as it would be considered justifiable homicide in the name of protecting human life, per your comment), he would be celebrated and regarded as a community hero.

Now, this question remains. If we as pro-lifers REALLY believe that unborn children are fully human and thus deserving of the same rights and legal status as born children - what is the MORAL difference between the two scenarios (I understand the legal difference)?

Granted, if we do not consider the unborn to be fully human, but rather a fetus or some other euphamism - it is an easy distinction to make. But most pro-lifers say they do not believe that.

It always strikes me as a contradiction that pro-lifers quickly condemn those who commit violence against abortionists, yet in the scenario I described above, they would be the first to cheer the person who killed the individual killing children.

Again - if we truly believe babies in the womb are just as alive as babies out of the womb and deserving the same protection - what is the moral difference?

75 posted on 01/28/2010 1:05:21 PM PST by Ogie Oglethorpe (2nd Amendment - the reboot button on the U.S. Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Wahoo82

“I say his actions have saved lives.”

Exactly.


76 posted on 01/28/2010 1:06:07 PM PST by Let's Roll (Stop paying ACORN to destroy America! Cut off their government funding!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Exactly right - if these freepers are saying “in this case, murder is okay with me,” they are justifying murder with the best of them - all the moral relativists (Hitler, Stalin,
Mao, Pol Pot) who had no problem with it either.


77 posted on 01/28/2010 1:06:55 PM PST by LussaO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Really? Who gets to decide that>

It's decided by those who have the will to act. Examples: the founding fathers and the original Republicans.

78 posted on 01/28/2010 1:10:22 PM PST by Diplomat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant

He committed murder and BROKE THE LAW! Are you the law? Do you think your views are divine? Are you god?


79 posted on 01/28/2010 1:11:11 PM PST by mefistofelerevised
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ogie Oglethorpe

As of now, in the post Roe era, with nine of the last 12 Justices of the SCOTUS being appointed by Republican Presidents, abortion is still legal, while walking into a movie theater and killing people is illegal.

However, once abortion is made legal again, we will prosecute the doctors who perform and the woman who have abortions.


80 posted on 01/28/2010 1:11:26 PM PST by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at 100 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool
"Because it's all you've got on your side. "

My side? What side do you think I am on, dear FReind? 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.

For a society to make it past 200 years, you not only have to protect the rights of the people with whom you agree, but the people with whom you disagree as well.

81 posted on 01/28/2010 1:12:10 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: mefistofelerevised
He committed murder and BROKE THE LAW!

When did I say otherwise?

82 posted on 01/28/2010 1:12:27 PM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

The last prolifer to kill a doctor was executed. If this is such a winning tactic and it’s “justified,” why isn’t the name of Paul Hill venerated among Freepers?

No, we cannot have selective outrage when it comes to murder. Roeder committed first degree murder, the worst crime on the books, and he needs to pay the penalty.


83 posted on 01/28/2010 1:12:40 PM PST by LussaO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

prior to roe v wade,when did the supremes act/perform as the legislative branch of our gov’t ?


84 posted on 01/28/2010 1:15:52 PM PST by catroina54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: LussaO
freepers are saying “in this case, murder is okay with me,”

And you sir seem to be using the law as an rationale to murder the unborn. Despots have over the millinea used the law as an excuse for murder. Who has the moral high ground here? Some of the abortions this doctor performed resulted in the live birth of a child who was then left on a table to die. He has previously been charged in the death of these children. He injected saline solutions into the brain of children as they exited the birth canal and called it an "abortion".

85 posted on 01/28/2010 1:15:54 PM PST by Ben Mugged (Unions are the storm troopers of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: I Buried My Guns
No offense, but I'd argue that jury nullification is rooted in not only the right of self-government, but the very fact of it.

We create our society, our communities. Though he may subjugate us, no tyrant is powerful enough to overrule us in this regard. Look at any community, and you'll see what sort of community the people living there want.

So long as trial by jury is permitted, jury nullification is merely one way we determine what will and will not be allowed in our community. And it's one I consider perfectly legitimate, irrespective of whether justice is served. For, not every community even desires justice (though they'll certainly get their own just deserts as a consequence, as we see continually.)
86 posted on 01/28/2010 1:17:01 PM PST by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: LussaO

According to many people here, Roeder was justified in killer Tiller because he might perform more abortions.

That being the case, Roeder would have also been justified in randomly killing three women under the age of 30 since at least 33% of women in that age group will in the future have an abortion.


87 posted on 01/28/2010 1:17:02 PM PST by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at 100 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
There is a big difference between "killing" amd "murder" in the Bible. (which is the underpinning of Western morality and law, BTW).

If you don't get it, read the Bible. You may not agree, but at least then you would understand the origins of that which you oppose.

88 posted on 01/28/2010 1:17:23 PM PST by I Buried My Guns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: LearsFool

Old Deck Hand thinks the laws are the ‘end all, be all’

If his town passed a law that everyone that lived there was gay, he’d be the first on his knees.


89 posted on 01/28/2010 1:18:56 PM PST by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: CaribouCrossing
“I’d convict him. I’d be a hypocrite if I claimed to be pro-life but yet condoned cold-blooded murder when it suited me.”

This is what the entire defense case attempts to establish. Is it Coldblooded murder, or was it a justified homicide?

If Roeder and his defense team is able to convince the jury that an unborn child, late in term, are actually people, or have attained person hood, then the jury would be bound by law to acquit the defendant on the grounds of justifiable homicide in the defense of a third party in immanent danger of death.

It is not cold blooded murder if it is justifiable homicide.

This is an interesting case. It is difficult to believe that they will not convict, however, it is not difficult to believe that many on the jury would like to acquit.

90 posted on 01/28/2010 1:19:27 PM PST by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

What if Roeder had shot a woman who was going into the clinic? That would’ve truly been a case of “saving a baby about to be murdered,” and unlike killing Tiller, there’s really an element of “imminent danger” there.

I wonder if these moral relativist freepers would want to defend Roeder then.


91 posted on 01/28/2010 1:19:28 PM PST by LussaO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
As of now, in the post Roe era, with nine of the last 12 Justices of the SCOTUS being appointed by Republican Presidents, abortion is still legal, while walking into a movie theater and killing people is illegal.

However, once abortion is made legal again, we will prosecute the doctors who perform and the woman who have abortions.

Every word you write is true. It also does not answer the question I put forth.

I absolutely recognize the legal distinction, and stated so in the original post.

The question, again - if we believe children in the womb are fully human and thus have full basic human rights, what is the MORAL difference?

If you do not consider yourself pro-life or believe life begins at conception, go ahead and state so and I will close my inquiry.

92 posted on 01/28/2010 1:19:41 PM PST by Ogie Oglethorpe (2nd Amendment - the reboot button on the U.S. Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: catroina54
"prior to roe v wade,when did the supremes act/perform as the legislative branch of our gov’t ?"

Oh my gosh, dozens, perhaps hundreds, of times since Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review.

Roe was an incorrectly decided judicial case, but it's still the decision, as such, it's the supreme law of the land until such a time as the Supreme Court overturn itself, or a Constitutional Amendment is passed. Until such a time, we must respect - and by respect, I mean NOT MURDER - people who are following the established law.

93 posted on 01/28/2010 1:20:13 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

That’s a stupid post.


94 posted on 01/28/2010 1:22:01 PM PST by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Lower55
"If his town passed a law that everyone that lived there was gay, he’d be the first on his knees."

Well, we've established that if nothing else, you have intellect and maturity of a 12 year-old. You should be glad that there's not a law against that, or someone would lock you up. Maybe they should do it anyway. You'd be OK with that, right?

95 posted on 01/28/2010 1:22:52 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

He killed a guy. He committed a homicide. Whether it was a “murder” or not is a matter for the court to decide, OK?


96 posted on 01/28/2010 1:25:08 PM PST by Emmett McCarthy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nysuperdoodle

Ted Bundy is an amateur compared to George Tiller. Tiller killed 60,000 children. Even Osama Bin Laden looks like a piker compared to that number. The only flaw in the shooters defense is the “immenent” threat to harm another. Tiller was at church. Perhaps in the operating room that defense would fly but not in church on Sunday. Depends on the jury. The law has wiggle room and that is what juries are for.


97 posted on 01/28/2010 1:25:49 PM PST by azcap (Who is John Galt ? www.conservativeshirts.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

If it’s a law, you’d follow it. That’s all I’m saying. You have to independent thought and no independent morals.


98 posted on 01/28/2010 1:26:42 PM PST by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town

“This is what the entire defense case attempts to establish. Is it Coldblooded murder, or was it a justified homicide?

If Roeder and his defense team is able to convince the jury that an unborn child, late in term, are actually people, or have attained person hood, then the jury would be bound by law to acquit the defendant on the grounds of justifiable homicide in the defense of a third party in immanent danger of death.

It is not cold blooded murder if it is justifiable homicide.

This is an interesting case. It is difficult to believe that they will not convict, however, it is not difficult to believe that many on the jury would like to acquit.”

Aside from the fact that at this time abortion is legal and therefore murdering an abortion doctor is illegal too, one has to consider the fact that Roeder killed the man in church. Roeder didn’t storm into the clinic while the doctor was preparing to perform an abortion and kill him to protect someone from imminent danger. In my opinion, that would negate the “imminent danger” defense, and justifiable homicide as well.


99 posted on 01/28/2010 1:27:58 PM PST by CaribouCrossing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: I Buried My Guns
"There is a big difference between "killing" amd "murder" in the Bible."

Who gets to make that distinction, sir? And, what Bible will we be using - the St. Joseph's Bible? The King James Bible? The New Word Bible? Are you the Bible police?

We have all have a 1st Amendment right to practice our respective religions? But we don't get to either murder or kill people in practicing our religions. I'm stunned that such a basic and fundamental principle is lost on so many. It's disturbing.

100 posted on 01/28/2010 1:28:56 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | 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