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
click here to read article
Don’t get carried away, dogz, the posited silliness is based upon the faulty notion that the perp establishes the legality. Ain’t that way, as you know. A murderer murdered a murderer might sound right, but the law was protecting Tiller the killer so he was not leaglly a murderer, unfortunately for our twisted American society.
No, murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent. Big difference. And Roeder's actions were obviously and clearly unlawful.
Well then our entire society is whacko for allowing abortion and Roeder is just one of the many. Welcome to the club.
Not in this lifetime.
You understand that Roeder elected to engage an affirmative defense, right? Do you understand the principle of an affirmative defense? When you employ an affirmative defense, the burden of proof shifts from prosecution to defense. It then becomes the defense's burden to prove their case.
As for, "this case shouldn't have been confined to the state either", I have no idea what you mean.
Do you want me to answer that philosophically?
Here’s a direct quote from editor-surveyor on another thread: “He should be lauded for his courage.”
Try as we might, me and some others just couldn’t convince this guy that selective outrage about 1st degree murder works against prolifers.
I’ve read the entire thread and see that others have already corrected you as to the evidence and confession of Roeder.
I agree with the jury’s findings and was not surprised at the guilty verdict.
There is one question that I’d be interested in knowing the answer to from those who feel that Roeder was justified in murdering the abortion doctor and/or that he should not have been found guilty. The question is: Would you murder an abortion doctor? If not, why not?
I'd be very much surprised if any FReepers said it was applicable in a 1st degree murder case. I knew, personally, such a murdrer once (Jim Kopp). My best guess is that he would attract a measure of conflicted pity here, but no applause.
So if a sniper shoots an unarmed enemy general while he is reviewing the troops, is the sniper guilty of murder?
By using the term 'enemy general', can I assume I am at war with this general? Of course, then, the answer is quite simple. Obviously, no, there is no murder that has taken place. The sniper is operating within the law.
How about an executioner that flips the switch that kills a man strapped down to a table?
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human with intent. The executioner is carrying out a lawful order.
...those who feel that Roeder was justified in murdering the abortion doctor and/or that he should not have been found guilty. The question is: Would you murder an abortion doctor? If not, why not?
* * * * * *
I was trying to ask a few of them that myself last night. I asked them what was I to surmise from their inaction - that either they agree murder is morally reprehensibile, or that they just don’t have the “guts.” They didn’t answer me, just called me a buncha names and ran away.
So you don’t dispute the facts that I posted? You just want to add some to the discussion.
I’m good with that.
However, premeditated murder, which Roeder admitted on the stand is still premeditated murder even with what you have added. Hence, guilty of 1st degree murder.
One can only wonder if Roeder had made it to another country like Polanski, would these pro-1st-degree murder freepers aid and abet him in his flight from justice? Ah, we’ll never know, but going by what they’ve said already ....
It wouldn't affect this case. Ex post facto law.
I'm not getting carried away at all.
People here are justifying the murder of Dr. Tiller based on his late term abortion business.
These same people believe that life begins at conception.
That being the case, they must also advocate the killing of those who participate in abortion at any state of gestation.
However, they seem to be unwilling to justify the murder of the pharmacist who dispenses abortion pills.
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 is a very big deal, and possible cause for an appeal, because his blocked explanation could be argued to have affected the invocation of jury nullification. In fact, that's probably why he was silenced, to prevent the application of the murder law to be thrown out, under the circumstances, in favor of justifiable homicide.
Of course, the judge no doubt refused to inform the jury of their right to nullify the application of the law anyway. But even so, the entry of his explanation into the court proceedings would have made it subject to consideration on appeal.
To rule the reasoning for the premeditation as irrelevent is, I think, not something that would survive appeal, since it could obviously effect the application of the law against him.
“...but abortion does indeed drive some people “nuts,” and Roeder evidently wasn’t able to explain that the tens of thousands of babies that Tiller killed, may have done just that to him. It was grossly unfair that he did not get to state his case in that regard.”
Just like the terrorists don’t get to explain that the treatment of Palestinians drives them “nuts.” Some things the law is just not going to recognize as an excuse.
I think “unjustifiable” killing is a more appropriate def’n of “murder” than “unlawful.”
Would you agree that Cain’s killing of his brother Abel, before there were written statutes, was “murder”?
Would you further agree that Mengele’s fatal experimentation on human beings was likewise “murder”? — even though it might have been permissible under existing Nazi law.
I think one of the founding principles of our country is that, yes, there is a higher law, which is what “inalienable” rights are derived from.
The problem is that the charge does not fit the crime.
When when some guy is running the streets killing people, and somebody decides to kill him to prevent more mayhem - that is not premeditated murder.
The Judge allowed only that charge. I see that as flawed. Therefore the whole trial is flawed.
“I was trying to ask a few of them that myself last night. I asked them what was I to surmise from their inaction - that either they agree murder is morally reprehensibile, or that they just dont have the guts. They didnt answer me, just called me a buncha names and ran away.”
I missed that. I believe it is an excellent question that deserves an honest answer. Perhaps someone will answer my question today. If not, their silence will speak for itself.
For those that missed it, my question is, “Would you murder an abortion doctor? If not, why not?”
There is a higher law
* * * * *
Tell it to the higher judge.
I figure I should let people know where I stand on the issue of abortion so that my question can be viewed for what it is. A simple question. I am pro-life.
“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.”
Are you saying that you support an international court to deal with war crimes, and that U.S. military personnel should be subject to it?
I believe Late Term Tiller was an abominable Dr. Mengele but unfortunately he also was "legal" in the opinion of Kansas lawmakers...that makes Roeder a murderer in the eyes of the law. He deserves the harshest sentence the law can mete out.
Thank heavens! Guilty of first degree murder.
From the original poster’s profile page, “I support, defend, and thank Scott Roeder for his saving of unborn children by killing George Tiller”
So there you go.
Rational does not describe murder.
We could present a less-loaded question for them, if they’d like. “What if you knew Scott Roeder, and he came up to you saying “I just killed Dr. Tiller, the police are after me, help me,” — would they do it, or turn him in?
What makes Dr. Tiller’s actions worse than an abortionist who performs first trimester abortions or worse than a pharmacist that dispenses “morning after pills?”
Chuckling. Of course you do, as it enables you cover Roeder's butt, which you are quite inclined to do, as you see Tiller's murder as justified.
Most of us have accepted the ongoing genocide of the unborn in our midst as business as usual, obviously a few people are deeply troubled by it and feel at this point and time after 37 years of it something drastic has to be done to stop it.
“When when some guy is running the streets killing people, and somebody decides to kill him to prevent more mayhem...”
So, according to you, Roeder would have also been justified in killing a pharmacist or killing random women since one in four American women of child bearing age will have an abortion?
What makes Dr. Tillers actions worse than an abortionist who performs first trimester abortions or worse than a pharmacist that dispenses morning after pills?
I think the wording and intent of my question is a simple and honest one. It was offered in that spirit and it is definitely not a “loaded” question.
Your question is an interesting one (re: would they turn him Roeder in, or help him?)
But, there aren't. No one has stepped up to take his place, at least no one that wasn't performing late-term abortions already. The number of abortionists and clinics are dwindling.
Quite the fanciful picture you paint above, just a shame that it does not, in any way, correspond to Roeder's premeditated murder of Tiller.
Which means that there are more little humans alive today than would have been if Tiller continued his practice.
Unless it in self-defense.
I never stated what Roeder did was justified, just that it is absurd to claim his act of murder equates to the acts committed by those on death row. Those calling for the death penalty for Roeder are pro-deathers trying to exploit the incident.
It’s possible that there are babies alive today who would have otherwise have been aborted but not for . . . However, Dr. Tiller’s murder did not end the practice of abortion. If we are to make any strides in ending this barbaric practice it will require changing people’s attitudes towards abortion and not the commission of murder of those who practice this procedure.
The number of abortionists and clinics are dwindling.
* * * * * *
I would rather attribute that to the sonograms slowly changing hearts and minds. I am loathe to credit that to a nutcase who killed an abortionist in cold blood.
Thank you for your honest and insightful response, whatisthetruth.
Preaching to the choir.
It may seem “fanciful” in your mind, but I gave provided for you a generous picture of the beastly actions of Tiller.
Killing people in the streets is one thing as horrible as that is, but ripping them apart from within and outside their mothers’ wombs is another.
Yes, too bad for that Human Baby at 14 weeks gestation which you believe is some how inferior to a baby at 20 weeks gestation or a child in a kindergarden class.
People can say whatever they like, but one fact remains! Dr Tiller will never perform another abortion, this is a fact that can not be disputed by anybody.
I am not calling for the death penalty in this case, but I'm not sure how his act of murder is different from some others who believed they were justified in killing their victims.
This is an inexcusable act at every level, and those on this forum and on this thread who are cheering on the murder of abortion doctors by anyone should take some time to think about what they're really advocating.
You said you’re “not there yet”. May I ask, “why”? I know that’s probably a difficult question, but I’m just wondering if what prevents most people from Roeder-style justice is that they believe that committing murder is a sin no matter who does it, or is it a fear of going to prison, or something else altogether.