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 ...
And if you ask me, he should fry for premeditated murder.
He was ‘pro-life’ ??
There a some nuts here that see this guy as a hero.
First: Don’t change the title of the article. The proper title is “Jury Finds Man Guilty of Murder in Kansas Abortion Provider’s Death”. Use it - those are the rules.
Second: Roeder admitted he did it. He claimed that he did it to save more babies from being slaughtered, but he admitted he did it.
Roeder did the crime, he’ll do the time.
My opinion: A killer killed a killer. If we were to have people kill in disregard for the law - as bad as the law is - we’d have anarchy that would dwarf even the horror of abortion.
Of course. I can’t wait to see some of the idiot replies on this thread.
Good call, murder is murder.
The only disgusting breach of justice I see here is Kansas’s failure to apply the death penalty.
Give him the needle.
I don’t understand what you mean...the prosecution had the biggest part of the case and proved it overwhelmingly.
Roeder confessed, but that isn’t enough for a conviction....there was eyewitness, DNA, blood evidence etc.
Yes, he had to prove himself innocent. That’s what happens when you put on an affirmative defense - the burden is on the defense not the prosecutor, which is as it should be in such cases.
By the way, the man is guilty as sin of murder in the first degree. You cannot use murder to justify the stopping of murder unless your life or the lives of other people is in imminent danger (a person according to the definition in the law is someone who has been born and taken a breath, and, in many jurisdictions, are no longer attached to the mother by the umbilical cord). 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.
I agree with you. See #3.
Doesn't qualify. Absent one of the aggravating circumstances outlined in the law, killing a single person doesn't warrant the death penalty in Kansas. The minimum he can get is life, eligible for parole in 2035.
This was the correct verdict.
The only question here is how much time he should get.
I would go for the very minimum amount allowed under the law if on the jury, but there is no question he was guilty.
I posted this a few minutes ago on a thread that was removed by the Moderator as duplicate, which linked to CNN instead of Fox.
Unintentional, I’m sure, but I find it ironic that this linked website has a large red title: CNN JUSTICE.
Yes, this is CNN-style justice all right. I think perhaps his lawyer failed in the jury selection process.
One quotation from Roeder that I think sums up his position: “There was nothing being done, and the legal process had been exhausted, and these babies were dying every day,” Roeder said. “I felt that if someone did not do something, he was going to continue.”
One can provide two justifications for what he did: 1) The right of self defense also may be expanded to include defense of your “neighbor.” In this case, the defense of the innocent babies who would have been slaughtered by Tiller in the future.
2) Failure of the law to act. Tiller’s operation would have been closed down for numerous violations of Kansas law if he had not bribed the politicians, including Kathleen Sebelius, and if he had not used his dirty money to oust an honest prosecutor and elect a Democrat (who subsequently resigned in disgrace).
Voluntary manslaughter would have been an alternate finding that the jury could have settled on. But evidently they didn’t even bother to really deliberate the case. I’d say that the prosecutor did a good job picking this jury, perhaps with the judge’s help.
This was entirely pre-meditated and therefore first degree murder.
The legal what if is what if he was killed in during the act of performing a late stage abortion? Would that protection or intense at the moment rage that wasn’t pre-meditated be 2nd degree murder?
I’m not defending him or saying he should have done it a different way than he did but wondering under what conditions this wouldn’t have been first degree murder.
I’ll likely be banned for saying this, but....
If I had been on that jury, I’d voted Roeder “not guilty” because he stopped an arrogant mass murderer dead in his tracks.
In my humble opinion, Roeder’s was tantamount to the actions of those heroic Czech freedom fighters in 1942 who gunned down the monster Reinhard Heyrich, the head of the dread RHSA, the driving force behind the Holocaust and “The Hangman of Prague.”
The wrong man was on trial here. I can think of a long list of Leftist pro-abortion activists, judges and politicians who should be facing capital punishment for their role in the American Holocaust that has claimed over 30 million innocent lives since 1971.
What kills me(pardon the pun)is that the murder took place in a church.I’m anti-abortion but what he did was wrong,in every sense of the word.Tiller was scum,however,for performing late-term abortions,which is outright murder. I think a doctor would have to be sick and cold-hearted to perform such an abortion.In my mind the mother is no better,since she’s allowing her infant to be murdered.It’s not even up for debate;a partial-birth abortion is murder, plain and simple.
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.
And that’s why it wasn’t a fair trial.
Tell us how your reasoning would apply in this ongoing case:
"The two women, Patricia Imani and Brianna Herrera, admit that they lay in the offramp from Interstate 5 in an effort to block the Strykers.
Both women said they should be found not guilty because they had to protest and although it was illegal, it prevented a greater harm.
We have an obligation to resist, not just a right to resist. That is what these protests have been about since we started to do the human blockades against the Strykers, Imani said."
How are you different than these two women? I can't see anny difference.
“Reinhard Tristan Eugen Heydrich (7 March 1904 4 June 1942) was a high German Nazi official. He was SS-Obergruppenführer (General) and General der Polizei, chief of the Reich Main Security Office (including the Gestapo, SD and Kripo Nazi police agencies) and Stellvertretender Reichsprotektor (Deputy Reich-Protector) of Bohemia and Moravia. When the Nazis moved the headquarters of Interpol to Berlin in 1942, he was appointed and served as President of that international law enforcement agency. Heydrich chaired the 1942 Wannsee Conference, which discussed plans for the deportation and extermination of all Jews in German-occupied territory. He was attacked by Czech agents on 27 May 1942 sent to assassinate him in Prague. He died slightly over a week later from complications arising from his injuries.”
I say the “good” abortionist was in the Heydrich league. He will not be missed. Justice has been served. I look forward to the day when the other abortionist monsters are tried by judge and jury.
That is not relevant to the failure of justice in this case; a different jury would have been equally unable to give him the death penalty under Kansas' soft-on-crime regime.
I know what the law says but the law does not recognize what the abortion doctor was doing was clearly and scientifically proven to be the murder of helpless innocents.
The law allowing abortion of these innocents is an inhuman atrocity of monumental proportions.
There have been laws throughout history that are not moral. The Nuremberg Nazi trials were all about holding people accountable for inhuman atrocities that can never be morally justified by claiming the atrocities were legal under governmental laws and required by the orders of leaders.
We humans MUST prevent atrocities and murders that violate fundamental moral law.
We are a morally bankrupt society to allow the murder of innocents.
May 31 was a happy day for many many children.
If the object was to prevent abortions on Monday, taking a baseball bat and breaking the doctor's hands would have prevented abortions in the immediate future and, depending on the injuries inflicted, may have prevented the doctor from ever performing an abortion again, without killing the doctor.
Premeditated killing him like this guy did would be making myself: judge, jury and executioner. Furthermore, the term ‘murder’ used so freely to justify murder is a legal technical term. What if Code-Pink or ANSWER started killing US soldiers because they are convinced that innocent Iraqi's were being murdered by americans(as some elected democrats irresponsibly claimed on TV) ??? They could claim the same bogus defense.
Is pro-life just a PR term? How does this look?
He should have tried temporary insanity or insanity.
Now this is more truth than the American people can stand.
And the fact that you and your ilk “rejoice” in Tiller’s death tells more about you than you’re willing to admit, and it’s not a pretty picture. Tiller was a vile human being, but make no mistake—he was performing a LEGAL procedure, and the fact that you celebrate someone who went outside the law and murdered him in a house of God tells me your motives are not God’s motives. Deal with that little tidbit. You have done the pro-life movement no favors.
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.