Skip to comments.Jury Finds Man Guilty of Murder in Kansas Abortion Providerís Death
Posted on 01/29/2010 9:49:10 AM PST by FutureRocketMan
WICHITA, Kan. A man who said he killed prominent Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller in order to save the lives of unborn children was convicted Friday of murder.
The jury deliberated for just 37 minutes before finding Scott Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Mo., guilty of premeditated, first-degree murder in the May 31 shooting death.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Premeditated murder should have gotten this nut case the death penalty.
“Unfortunately a fetus is currently afforded no such protection. Until the laws are changed (and fat chance of that happening), fetuses will not be recognized as living persons.”
It sounds like you consider fetuses to be living persons. If so, do you believe he was morally justified though legally guilty of the crime?
All murderers should fry. But given that we usually only execute the most heinous of murderers, there is no reason why Roeder should be treated any differently than the average, run-of-the-mill murderer.
Er, the guy shot a man down in cold blood in front of dozens of witnesses, and admitted it later. Not sure how he could "prove his innocence" in this case....
Let's face it - Roeder committed murder, and was not "pro-life." Sure, the man he killed was a disgusting, reprehensible piece of human garbage, but that doesn't give Roeder the right to kill him.
Well, when the guy gets on the stand and admits he pulled the trigger, it kind of cuts down on deliberation time.
While many elements of this situation may remain in dispute for years to come, there is one thing of which we can be completely assured: George Tiller will not suck the brains out of another child or harvest their organs for profit any more.
It’s not the approach I would take, but if you saw a man with an ax in a baby nursery, would you kill him to stop him from chopping up babies? I sure would.
So... if the babies were still in thw womb 3 days earlier, what is the differece?
I can see other options- since the ma with an ax is n IMMEDIATE threat but the oborion nurdered is only planning future murders of babies. Block accss to the building, buldoze it down, but don’t kill him.
The only thing about this trial on the other hand is that they asked him why he did it but then would not let him answer.
If he said he did it because the voices from mars told him to then that would be acceptable- but the prosecuton objected to any statements about abortion procedures
This man saved baby lives, but shold not have done it this way.
Voluntary manslaughter would have been an alternate finding that the jury could have settled on.
Except for the glaring fact that Roeder’s own testimony demonstrated premeditation. Voluntary manslaughter is, if I understand correctly, killing with no premeditation.
How could a jury possibly find him guilty of the lesser charge, given his testimony? The self defense angle in voluntary manslaughter still requires no premeditation to kill. And clearly, there was plenty of premeditation.
And that’s why you wouldn’t be let within 10 miles of any jury.
Do you think all murderers should be put to death? It's outrageous to compare what Roeder did to the type of murders that have resulted in the death penalty in recent decades.
Legally guilty, but morally justified.
Gee, since "fetus" is just the Latin word for "infant", does that make it okay for me to kill you as long as I say, "Well, it was only a homo hominus after all."?
Huh? He confessed.
Premeditated murder doesn't get 99.9% of those that commit it the death penalty so it surely shouldn't get someone that killed someone infanticide the death penalty.
Your argument is only valid if you favor all murderers getting the death penalty.
On the witness stand (and later on national TV) the guy confessed to every detail of the murder he committed including where in the head he shot Tiller. There is no defending premeditated murder.
“... there is one thing of which we can be completely assured: George Tiller will not suck the brains out of another child or harvest their organs for profit any more.”
This may be relevant in an academic environment: however, in real life it has no practical impact.
Technically correct verdict. By the law, he was guilty.
Of course, Claus von Stauffenberg was also guilty of attempting to murder Adolf Hitler.
Playing devil's advocate here - If Roeder had shot a perp who was going to kill another person, one who was lucky enough to have made it out of the womb alive, would he have been found guilty of murder?
It didn't seem to harm Lon Horiuchi.
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.