It sounds like the guy has his head on straight enough to tell the truth.
The jury sits in judgment of the law, which makes being a juror the single most important civil/political function the ordinary citizen ever performs.
Nope, the prosecution wouldn’t let me on this jury either.
Lock the POS up for life, he committed murder and he hurt the pro-life movement.
in the big picture, the government that allows the untenable practice of abortion is culpable in the slaying of the doctor.
Frankly, one shot to the head sounds a lot more humane than partial-birth abortion. But hey, that’s just me.
I’d be happy to sit and happy to convict. We are a nation of laws and NOT a nation of theocrats. Right now, abortion is legal in this country. If you don’t like the law, then work within the law to change the law. But, your moral beliefs aren’t license to murder someone with whom you disagree. If we go down that road - and endorse it, as you seem to be doing - then we might as well start dressing in bedsheets with diapers on our heads, because we will have become just like the Jihadists so many hate.
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.
The prosecution would not want me on that jury.Ditto.
The prosecutor fought with the judge over letting him put on this defense. I wonder if she is trying to throw the case. Judge said he would be overturned in a heartbeat if he agreed with her.
If the jury decides it is voluntary manslaughter and not first degree murder, the precedent is not good. I don’t want some whacked out lib getting up and convincing a jury he had a right to murder someone because of what that person did. The left has great power to taint jury pools. They could demonize a victim, say a corporte polluter, and get away with first degree murder.
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.
Wow. Imagine being the accused being able to state his case in an American court of law!
I think a reflection on Just War Theory might add something to the analysis.
Above URL has both video and text of several parts of the trial.
What a moron this guy is. Nut case!
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.