1 Good post, Gabe. Thanks.

2

Abortion is lawful in Kansas - however, as Phil Kline attempted to point out, there is/was evidence that a number of unlawful abortions were being carried out in Kansas as well.  I can't remember if Tiller was involved with these or not.  So, if Roeder thought he was stopping illegal abortions maybe that's something.

In any instance, I don't think that this guy was justified in killing Dr. Tiller.  I'm not a fan of letting people get off the hook for murder in the name of God.  Seems to me if God wants someone dead the Janeane Garofalo look alike would do it himself (or herself).

 

3 That Malor again and his moral relativism.
My turn now:

"I'm just wondering if Gabe and Drew would would prosecute someone for murder who freed inmates from Guantanamo camp, but killed a few Mariness in the process?
Counsel?

4 If this strategy succeeds, how long will it be until it is used to defend the murderers of military recruiters?

5

I missed this on Monday so went back and read Drew's post. I agree with Drew, this defense is ludicrous.

 

6
Ace is up and posting, Gabe. Why don't you and the other co-bloggers give it a rest until we need a post.

7 ... or until you find another compelling opportunity for your talents, Gabe?

8 In other words, the jury may not even get the option to decide that Roeder committed manslaughter rather than premeditated murder.

To me, this is all sound and fury signifying that the judge is trying to cover his ass for appeal on the not gonna get overturned by letting evidence in theory.  I really have no interest in debating whether or not the manslaughter charge should be given.  Everything I've read about this (which isn't a helluva lot) supports my initial response, this is all kabuki trying to make sure that the judge isn't going to be smacked around by the appellate court.

9 If this strategy succeeds, how long will it be until it is used to defend the murderers of military recruiters?

Posted by: Joe Mama at January 13, 2010 11:27 AM (pRKLf)

And people opposing health care reform, denying global warming . . . .

10 Tiller was acquitted, but what he was doing was *not* lawful.  The government failed to enforce the law.  Anyone who doesn't see that abortion clinics are getting a huge pass in their practices is being a naive, foolish moron.  They falsify records, instruct their patients to lie, fail to report incest and rape, the list is endless.  Tiller was performing late term abortions.  He was committing INFANTICIDE. Even a pro-abortion person would admit when you stab the head of a full-term child in the birth canal a murder is being committed. He would doctor up the records to skirt the law.  If the defense can prove that then I feel they have a case.  I am not saying the guy should get off scott free either.

11 So, if Roeder thought he was stopping illegal abortions maybe that's something.
Posted by: Ben in Kansas at January 13, 2010 11:25 AM (A4YqN)

Yes it is...vigilantism. While it maybe emotionally thrilling, it's also illegal.

Tiller was acquitted on those charges. I'm pretty sure you don't get to kill someone because you disagree with a jury's decision.

12

When, from time to time, women get off after killing their SO--sometimes while he's sleeping--the mitigation or excuse is that he was an abuser.  Not only had he abused her in the past, he was sure to again.

However, there is no imminence in the excuse.  There is presumed inevitability, which seems good enough.

Letter of the law doesn't seem to give Roeder much chance, but it wouldn't the women who get off for killing their SOs, either.

Think the defense will be able to swap inevitable for imminent?

13 Jack, how is that Amish thing working out of you?  I may be interested in that newsletter.

14

Damn dudes.  Troll for controversy much?  Shit.  As if you guys possess the keys to the righteousness of the American legal system.  As if this hasn't been politicized before in history; or as if this is the first politically charged trial in history. 

You want the right answer?  You don't have it and neither to the folks on the other side.  No matter how many obtuse nazi references you make. 

15

Ace is up and posting, Gabe. Why don't you and the other co-bloggers give it a rest until we need a post.

We like Gabe. We like him a lot.

WHO the fuck are YOU?

Just asking...

16 If we are a society based on law, we don't tolerate people like Roeder.

Back in the days of the Old West there was an applied legal standard called "he needed killing" that could be offered as defense at trial for someone accused of killing a notorious horse thief, back-shooter, etc.  Note that law enforcement isn't a radical concept now like it was then, if you are tempted to try to apply that old standard to this case.

17 there's no chance Roeder had a reasonable belief that Tiller's abortions were unlawful Nonsense. Notwithstanding the verdict in his favor, there was overwhelming evidence that Tiller unlawfully killed healthy late-term fetuses, almost always without any evidence of a health threat to the mother an sometimes even without her consent. Phil Kline certainly held that reasonable belief, as did most of the pro-life community. The general notion that "abortion is legal" (most of the time) has no bearing on the nature of Tiller's particular practice. Without the support of Kansas' pro-choice governor (Sebellius) Tiller would have been in jail years ago.

18 If we are a society based on law, we don't tolerate people like Roeder.

Are we, still?

We're supposed to be, but are we?

19 "I'm just wondering if Gabe and Drew would would prosecute someone for murder who freed inmates from Guantanamo camp, but killed a few Mariness in the process?

Let's see...

Are the inmates at Gitmo being legally detained?
Yes.

Would freeing legally detained inmates be illegal?
Yes.

Would killing Mariness in the process of illegally freeing legally detained inmates be illegal?
I'm not sure about Mariness, but if there were Marines there instead I would say, Yes.

Q.E.D.

20 #5 Indeed.  Let us pray that this trial is short and that Tiller is convicted and sentenced quickly.

If this defense works, will the same be used sucessfully by Muslims and anarchists and Moonbats when they kill American Armed Forces? 

These folks all have some deeply and sincerely-held "beliefs", albeit not true in objective reality, regarding the legality of everything from serving this country, to wars, to elections, all  the way to the very existance of the United States.

Hell, to some, every single thing ever done by GWB was illegal and, by extension, so was every single thing done by the military under his command.  The moonbats' beliefs on these things were deeply held, and, in their twisted version of the English language, "sincere".

21 @18

Ace is up and posting, Gabe. Why don't you and the other co-bloggers give it a rest until we need a post.

We like Gabe. We like him a lot.

WHO the fuck are YOU?

Just asking...

Seconded, I like Gabe's posting also. Ace made him a co-blogger for a reason.

22 "Let us pray that this trial is short and that Tiller is convicted and sentenced quickly."

Edit:
"Let us pray that this trial is short and that ROEDER is convicted and sentenced quickly."

Gah.

23 Why did t he kill the mothers of the aborted babies? Nobody put a gun to their heads to get the abortion. Even with Tiller dead, these women can go somewhere else to have it done. It is the fault of the mother more than the performing physician.

24 I think the trial is a great opportunity to expose the gruesome practices of people like Tiller, that alone is worth putting on a defense, even if it ultimately fails.  Some people are getting real legalistic on this and that is fine, we are a nation of laws. 

But we live in a world where laws are now selectively enforced for political purposes.  Illegal immigration, voter fraud, welfare fraud, political corruption of all stripes is being ignored based on liberals being in power who want to keep it.  People are having their property unlawfully ceased with the blessing of government.

The defendant snapped when he saw that his government was unwilling to stop a murderer of children because Tiller had buddies in the right places, including our current HHS secretary.  This outcome is not surprising and all the facts need to come out, whether he gets off or not is secondary at this point.

25

Seems to me Roeder is putting forth a good-faith argument that existing law (assuming arguendo that it is as Gabe says it is) should be changed. 

Nothing wrong with that at all. That's how the common law works, in fact. Good luck and Godspeed, Mr. Roeder.

26

So Prolifer, you overturn  the law. You don't murder people in cold blood.

Oh, and while I'm on the subject. Were any of these mothers dragged screaming and yelling and having their babies ripped out of their wombs?

No, I think not.

If you want to lay blame or guilt, start with the mothers. Until then...

27 As much as I think Tiller was a murdering sociopathic scumbag I don't want Roeder to get off. To me he's more of a vigilante. Sure I want justice for all the Tillers of the world but I want it the right way. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that. As for the actual legalities of the case I don't have a clue but I appreciate someone who does (Gabe) at least attempting to enlighten us morons who don't.

28 The judge has stated over and over in the prelims that he's not going to let the trial become an abortion forum. He's also stated flat-out that, "The only definitive ruling that I have made is that the necessity defense is not allowed."

29 Seems to me Roeder is putting forth a good-faith argument that existing law (assuming arguendo that it is as Gabe says it is) should be changed.
Posted by: J. Moses Browning at January 13, 2010 11:50 AM (3G4di)

Wait, now we want to use courts to change the law? Funny, I seem to remember a time when most conservatives were against that.

30 My body is still amoldering in my grave....and was proven correct, sadly.

31 By my definition, murder is the unjustified taking of a morally innocent life. Tiller was not morally innocent, murder is justified in this case.

However, legally he is in the wrong and should be punished.

If I was on the jury, I'd go the jury nullification...

32 Hmm...this is turning into a really thought-provoking thread.

33

Gabe I understand exactly what you are trying to say. It is a fact though that the law can NEVER be a blanket large enough to cover everything man does...God saw to that.

So this comes down to'If you want to do the crime, make sure you can do the time'.

I don't miss Tiller at all.

34 You know what's going to be fun?

When the KSM trial comes up and he's allowed to put on a similar defense ("the infidels needed killing because they were killing Muslims") and a lot of Roeder's supporters (or at least supporters of his legal claim) are going to be outrageously outraged.

35 Ace is up and posting, Gabe. Why don't you and the other co-bloggers give it a rest until we need a post.

Posted by: Butters at January 13, 2010 11:27 AM (z37MR)

Uh...Gabe and other are CO-BLOGGERS, made so by ACE.  How 'bout you step off.

36 What if it was a death camp for cutie?

37

Drewm - I'm not saying I agree with what Roeder did, I'm not exactly on the kill the abortionists bandwagon - however emotionally thrilling that may be (I doubt it is very thrilling to shoot unarmed elederly men in church).

I was just trying to point out that Gabe said that abortion is lawful in Kansas - well yes, it is, but not all forms of abortion are lawful here - so it isn't "indisputably lawful" because it depends on when and how the abortion was handled.     

In any instance, I don't think Roeder should be able to use a defense that says killing abortionists is "justified" because God says so.  It does open a pandora's box that will allow other religious zealots doing crazy stuff and using the "justified" defense.  I'm sure we're about to see a bunch of this justified by religion defense crap in New York in the not too distant future.

38 By my definition, murder is the unjustified taking of a morally innocent life. Tiller was not morally innocent, murder is justified in this case.

However, legally he is in the wrong and should be punished.

If I was on the jury, I'd go the jury nullification...

Posted by: Mike H at January 13, 2010 11:54 AM (LdYLm)

Some of you people are really, really morally fucked up.

39

Tiller was not morally innocent, murder is justified in this case.

Fucking Horshit. Kill the doctors who do a legal procedure, even if you don't agree with it?

Alright, then what? Are you going to put in jail any women who has ever had an abortion?

Think it through.

40 Well, we've gotten a strong showing from the pro-vigilante crowd.

41 So Prolifer, you overturn  the law. You don't murder people in cold blood. HH, you're a bit confused. First, there was no need to overturn the law, because the law prohibited exactly what Tiller did. Second, in this case, the "law" provides that what Roeder did was not "in cold blood" if he reasonably believed that Tiller was performing illegal abortions. Third, even if Roeder had changed the law to outlaw all abortions (removing any question about the illegality of Tiller's conduct), killing Tiller would still be a crime, just one of a lesser degree .

42

Fucking Horshit. Kill the doctors who do a legal procedure, even if you don't agree with it?

Partial birth abortion - the kind Tiller was infamous for - was/is explicitly illegal in Kansas.

Facts - are sometimes important.

43 By my definition, murder is the unjustified taking of a morally innocent life.

Thank the heavens that this isn't actual law.  Who gets to determine whose life is "morally innocent"?  It's okay to go pop a cap in the local weed dealer?  What about someone who cheated on their taxes?

44 What about someone who cheated on their taxes?

Posted by: Techie at January 13, 2010 12:09 PM (wVPwI)

If he's head of Treasury, then yes.

_{(I keed, I keed)}

45 "When the KSM trial comes up and he's allowed to put on a similar defense ("the infidels needed killing because they were killing Muslims") and a lot of Roeder's supporters (or at least supporters of his legal claim) are going to be outrageously outraged."

I won't be outraged, I fully expect KSM to say that.  If he can make the case that 3000 (mostly civilian) people who were just going to work on 9/11 were directly responsible for Muslims being killed then let them try. 

The guy who killed Tiller knew he was killing innocent children, as the victim himself made no bones about it.  He claimed it was "legal" because he got another doctor to lie for him that the lives of the mothers were in danger. Something that rarely, if ever occurs today given current medical science. If those woman now come forward and deny that (some already have from what I understand) then we have a situation where infanticide was being committed.

But let's cut the nonsense, we know that it was and Tiller's liberal protectors know as well.  They are OK with it.  A society that is not willing to stand up for innocent babies is not worth much is it?  Send the killer to the gas chamber if need be, but we shouldn't let the opportunity to expose what Tiller was doing pass by.

46

Posted by: polynikes at January 13, 2010 12:10 PM (m2CN7)

A reasonable position which with which there can be gentlemanly disagreement.

Unlike "He's a aborshunist Kill Him!!!!1!!"

47 So what if KSM presents that defense which I expect they will.  You don't think you can overcome that defense?  By the way that's one of the stupidest things you've ever posted.
Posted by: polynikes at January 13, 2010 12:05 PM (m2CN7)

I don't think it's a matter of overcoming the defense, I simply don't think trials should be political theater.

The idea that anyone can put on any defense is one that simply exists in your mind. There are limits placed on defense (and the state) everyday in court rooms across the country.

Let me ask you this, should rape defendants be allowed to put on some sort of 'she was asking for it by the way she was dressed defense'?

I eagerly await to see if your answer is one of the stupidest things you've ever posted.

48

For both Hussain and Prolifer...

And this justifies murder? And how complicent are the mothers for going to a doctor to get that abortion?

You both are going down a slippery slope. I just hope you wake up to how far down you have gone.

 

49

I'm suprised you understood what I wrote with all the missing words and resulting caveman language.  

Posted by: polynikes at January 13, 2010 12:15 PM (m2CN7)

I'm fluent in caveman, as well as scrunt.

50 "that allowing Roeder's lawyers to present a whole song and dance about his beliefs is just a way of seeking a hung jury by means of confusion and sympathy."

That privilege, of course, being reserved for presentations to the Supreme Court only...

51 I'm with #38. If Roeder believed he was doing the right thing, then he did it. Fine. Now he pays the penalty. That's the risk and responsibility he took. (Notice, too, he didn't exactly hide what he was doing.)

The problem with "going after the mothers" should be obvious on the face. I do hold the aborting woman fully responsible -- but there is no earthly way to predict which pregnant woman is going to get a late term illegal abortion. There is, however, a very simple way to know who is going to perform a late term illegal abortion. Tiller's "imminent" action wasn't in church on Sunday, but it was sure as shooting going to begin bright and shiny at 8am on Monday. Not exactly a mystery. Please, pro-choice people, don't be intentionally retarded and then pretend it's an awesome GOTCHA.

And, no, I don't agree at all with Roeder's actions.

52

Let me ask you this, should rape defendants be allowed to put on some sort of 'she was asking for it by the way she was dressed defense'?

What makes you think they don't?

53 Posted by: polynikes at January 13, 2010 12:20 PM (m2CN7)

I'm still waiting for an answer to the question I asked.

54 As in, if it's not clear, Roeder is a murderer and should be treated as such. I get what his motivation was; his actions were just very, very, very wrong. Like, murderous, even.

55 Isn't the presumption for the defendant; and as such, just about anything can be presented? (Which I believe is one of our concerns with regards to a civilian trial of KSM and friends.)

56 DrewM, isn't the "she was asking for it by the way she acted" a legitimate defense? I mean, there are a lot of accused rapes where a woman consented at the time, regretted later, and called the copes. So, isn't that a legitimate defense?

I think a better rape analogy would be the defense that she was deserving of rape because of previous sexual experience. As in, how can it be rape if she's a slut? And I think the answer to that is that that is a reprehensible defense.

Just as the fact that Tiller was a baby-slaughtering monster who escaped justice still doesn't give a random Joe the right to kill him. That's still murder and still reprehensible.

57 If he can make the case that 3000 (mostly civilian) people who were just going to work on 9/11 were directly responsible for Muslims being killed then let them try.

They were little Eichmanns supporting the global capitalist hegemony which murders millions of innocent third-worlders each year.

How much does being an expert witness pay, anyway?

58 Well, I'm off to do work (got save or create my own damn job everyday).

I can't wait to get back and see if polynikes personally defends the 'she was dressed provocatively' rape defense.

59

I don't think it's a matter of overcoming the defense, I simply don't think trials should be political theater.

As if that is never the purpose of trials in the first place.  The entire reason for the KSM trial from the time the decision was made to try the terrorists in New York was to leverage the theater aspect for political purposes.

And futher, the incredible contortions of linking KSM to Tiller pretty much hits the mark of what you are asking of polynikes, imo. 

Any minds changed?  Show of hands?  Thought so. 
 

60
Let me ask you this, should rape defendants be allowed to put on some sort of 'she was asking for it by the way she was dressed defense'?

That's a pig in a poke.

Is a defendant allowed a defense claiming the act was consensual?

If so, and the only evidence the defendant has to support that defense is how the victim was dressed, that should be THE FAIL, right there.

I guess us ordinary folk are too damned stupid to see that without intervention from our black-robed masters of the Brooksian educated classes.

61

If the only way to reduce abortions is to make the doctors who perform them afraid for thier lives,I'm all for it!

I happen to believe abortion is murder.I don't give a fuck what the retards who run our government say.They have been ignoring the law(our Constitution)for decades.I may not be willing to serve time in prison for my beliefs,as far as abortion goes,but I have no problem with others ignoring whatever laws they feel like.It's one of the reasons I carry.I don't rely on the government to protect me.

This is what happens when you selectively enforce the law.It should come as no surprise that citizens will selectively follow the law.

Unjust laws,like unjust governments,usually require bloodshed to be defeated.

62 And this justifies murder? And how complicent are the mothers for going to a doctor to get that abortion? Yes, under the existing law Roeder's reasonable beliefs "justify" murder, to the extent of converting it into voluntary manslaughter. It's not a slippery slope argument; it's simply what the law is. I'm surprised that someone who justifies abortion on the ground that it's a "legal procedure" can't accept the existence of a "legal defense." I don't believe women should be prosecuted for abortion because I think it's more practical to shut down the clinics by threatening the doctors with imprisonment and loss of license. Sort of like going after the drug dealers rather than the substance abusers. I don't believe in shooting abortionists or women, however.

63

By my definition, murder is the unjustified taking of a morally innocent life.

 

Thankfully it is not defined that way in most States: Section 16-3-10 of the SC penal codes gives the legal definition of murder.

 

"Murder" is the killing of any person with malice aforethought, either express or implied.

 

The problem with “your” definition is it adds an unwarranted and interpretable caveat “morally innocent”.  Who is without sin that can make this determination of “morally innocent”.

64

Could KSM and the other garbage in Gitmo make the "manslaughter" argument? 

65 Can't a defendant and his attorney present any defense they want in direct testimony?  The judge can prevent other witnesses from testifying, and prevent them from entering evidence, but I don't see how the judge can prevent the defendant from speaking.

66

"Without the support of Kansas' pro-choice governor (Sebellius) Tiller would have been in jail years ago."

Kline attacked Tiller for illegal late term abortions, and for hidding evidence in specific cases of incest, child molestation rape, and abuse. 

He lost due to the decision of the Kansas supreme court which is insanly appointed by the governor from a list supplied by the Kansas bar association. 

We have been trying to change that for years.

 

 

67 Now that I'm Amish and free from the future monetary constraints of state mandated health care.
Posted by: I Am Amish Jack

I guess we will be seeing a lot of religious exemptions, when the POS is enacted.

68 You can't justify killing the doctors without due process; however, cutting their fingers off with an arc welder isn't mentioned in the Bible. If I were on the jury I would convict him and sentence him to 1 day for killing Tiller, and the max for reckless endangerment, etc for firing that weapon in that setting.

69 Wait a minute.  Is the judge allowing the defense to claim the killing was lawful under 21-3211?  Because that is not how the initial reports framed it.

Or is the defense asking to argue for guilt under the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter in 21-3403?

http://tinyurl.com/yfklt3t

This would appear to be a bit of a conundrum - isn't imminence something that has a standard of reasonableness?  And if so, then isn't an unreasonable opinion of an act's imminence grounds for conviction under the lesser charge?

Or, at least isn't the question one for a jury?

70 Some points, if you are a woman who chooses to have an abortion are you legally innocent - yes.

Are you morally innocent - depends (life of the mother...)

There is a difference between Natural Law and implemented law.

Given the opportunity, would I kill someone who had the reputation as an abortion doctor? No. I am not qualified to judge someone and execute.

Would I use reasonable force to stop someone I knew was performing an illegal abortion? - yes. Reasonable force NOT deadly force.

Would I kill a woman who admitted to having an abortion? Of course not, I am not qualified to judge anyone's behaviors.

71 76

"Without the support of Kansas' pro-choice governor (Sebellius) Tiller would have been in jail years ago."

Kline attacked Tiller for illegal late term abortions, and for hidding evidence in specific cases of incest, child molestation rape, and abuse. 

He lost due to the decision of the Kansas supreme court which is insanly appointed by the governor from a list supplied by the Kansas bar association. 

We have been trying to change that for years.

And by logical extension (not legal, obviously) the argument could be made that had the law been enforced restricting Tiller's infamous procedure, he, in all probability, would not have been murdered. 

72 Taking the thought one step further.  Roeder could have waited until Tiller was walking into one of his clinics, thereby rendering the act somewhat closer to imminent (or at least closer to what one might reasonably consider to be imminent.) 

Do we really want to hang the legality of what he did on this standard?

73 I am a "no exceptions" pro-lifer, but I really don't see how this defense is justified.  If he thought a crime was imminent, Roeder had other means at his disposal for stopping it.  Even the police are expected to use restraint when stopping what they think is a violent crime in progress and they, unlike this guy, are appointed by the people (and answerable to them) for their actions. 

I really don't understand the attacks directed at Gabe over this post, even if you disagree with the legal (or moral) opinions he's expressed here. 

74 @82 Taking the thought one step further.  Roeder could have waited until Tiller was walking into one of his clinics, thereby rendering the act somewhat closer to imminent (or at least closer to what one might reasonably consider to be imminent.) 

Do we really want to hang the legality of what he did on this standard?

reductio ad absurdum, If Roeder criminally trespassed onto Tiller's facility and caught him the in act of performing an abortion, and Tiller was a competent enough to judge an illegal abortion, I still think he could not kill Roeder.

He could use reasonable force to stop him but still be guilty of the trespass.

75 I cannot condone killing an abortionist despite being pro-life. I can understand his motivation. I can even accept him working for the manslaughter charge, if in his own mind he truly felt as he did about abortion. However, you do the crime you do the time. If he feels this is civil disobedience on his part; he should do the time graciously and more power to him for living his beliefs, even if we can't agree to them.

76

"I have no problem with others ignoring whatever laws they feel like."

Look at what you just said.  Now, I can see that in this case you fully believe that statement, and that you would not believe that statement in regards to the actions of others of which you are not so copasetic (like say, disregarding drunk driving laws for example).  However, if you make such a statement for one case it is, by its creation, a blanket statement for all.  Do you really want that? (no, you cannot come back with "but the laws have become twisted" -- I'm asking, do you really want that sort of society where people can disregard the law, any law, if they so please?)

77

My initial reaction upon hearing of George Tiller's death was not moral outrage or earnest concern for the rule of law.

With that confession out of the way, it is probably no surprise I think the defendent should be permitted to argue the "imminent danger" defense, though not for the reason you might think.

Oh, I don't claim Tiller wasn't going back to work on Monday to vacuum out more brains, but whether that danger to not-human-til-they-are-safely-out-of-the-birth-canal-and-screaming fetuses was any less imminent on Sunday at the Unitarian Coven Meeting (or whatever handwringing faux "Christian" church that considered this unrepentent douchebag a member in good standing) than it was in the abbatoir at 8:59 AM the next morning is besides the point.

The law, much like politics, is the art of the possible.  Get somebody like me on that jury and offer me the choice of Murder or Nothing and I would be hardpressed to vote the former.  I would like to think I could dispassionately evaluate the cases presented, follow the law and jury instructions, and vote to convict should the evidence be overwhelming (as it is).  Unfortunately, I don't think I could do that.  I know who and what George Tiller was. 

Yeah, an apparent wink-and-a-nod for taking Tiller's life is not much of a law-and-order opinion, and is surely morally reprehensible, but that is where I am at.  If someone like me is on that jury, a manslaughter conviction is the upper limit of what the prosecution can hope to achieve.

I denounce myself.

 

78

Yes, under the existing law Roeder's reasonable beliefs "justify" murder, to the extent of converting it into voluntary manslaughter.

Well, that kind of covers almost anything, doesn't it? That slope is getting more and more slippery for you guys.

Again, this is not some woman being dragged against her will to have an abortion. This is a consensus between a woman and a doctor.

And I would pretty much bet that a woman in that situation has low to none expectations of her child growing up where she is now. Maybe all you do-gooders might want to realize that maybe, maybe, mother knows best.

And if you are THAT concerned, why don't you go down to abortion clinics and adopt the babies that would have been aborted?

Yeah, right...

79 If someone like me is on that jury, a manslaughter conviction is the upper limit of what the prosecution can hope to achieve.

I denounce myself.

Well, at least your honest. 

I trust you would be equally honest during voir dire and recuse yourself from serving on the jury. 

80 It seems a bogus defense to me.  Seems like it would apply equally to someone who killed the guy who was about to throw the switch on an electric chair to execute a serial killer.  I agree with the main post.  It's the unlawful use of force that should be controlling, and sad to say, killing viable unborn babies is perfectly legal in Kansas.

81

Having had the chance to meet Jack Cashill yesterday who has written on this case recently at American Thinker, I quote him from his 1/10/10 article: "In Kansas, an abortion can be performed on a baby capable of living outside the womb only if the pregnancy would cause the mother to die or suffer "a severe and irreversible impairment to a major bodily function." Tiller ignored the law."

Not being able to compete in the rodeo circuit, missing prom or a rock concert were some of the reasons cited as reasons for severe and irreversible impairment to the mother's mental health. I personally believe Tiller was acting outside the law as written and that current Kansas law was not being enforced in not just one but thousands of instances, resulting in needless deaths.

I cannot fault Roeder for acting as he did in the face of such inaction on the part of law enforcement.

82 87

"I have no problem with others ignoring whatever laws they feel like."

Look at what you just said.  Now, I can see that in this case you fully believe that statement, and that you would not believe that statement in regards to the actions of others of which you are not so copasetic (like say, disregarding drunk driving laws for example).


This attitude (ignore the laws you like) seems to be one I find many libertarians espousing... which is why I can never take that movement seriously and why their little plan (which you find discussed at the Cato Institute facebook page and elsewhere) to take over the Republican party and bend it to suit them will not work.

83

88 -- Yes, at least you are honest...how many people would be so honest though, and how many would purposely try to get on the jury in order to nullify it or turn in a not guilty verdict?

And not just with this case, but others where this defense could be used?  This is one of the biggest issues I have with the prolifers on this one: you are not fully taking into consideration  the consequences of supporting Roeder (and you're not acting in such a way with this as to achieve success...seriously, if you want to halt/restrict abortions, then you are going to have to go to the source first: women, and most preferrably in a non-violent, non-judgemental, helpful and understanding way...get women thinking that abortion isn't the "only way" in a nice fashion, and you'll probably get somewhere...might not hurt if you supported birth control counseling then, that would greatly reduce the present need).  The prolife movement has been plagued with too much over the top judementalism and just plain fire and brimstone craziness for far too long; it's been a serious problem for you folks -- you need to purge it.

84 how many would purposely try to get on the jury in order to nullify it or turn in a not guilty verdict?

*raises hand*

85

I cannot fault Roeder for acting as he did in the face of such inaction on the part of law enforcement.

Then anything goes, eh?

Jack Cashill get's really old and tiring. I try to like the guy, but I see him here on TV and listen to him on the  radio and he doesn't hold up that much. Mr. Conspiracy, no matter what the topic.

All I'm seeing here is peoples trying to justify murder. I'm not buying it.

Later...

 

86 Isn't this case the flip side of what recently happened in Virginia, where a woman killed her own newborn, but, because of a peculiarity of VA law and the fact she did it while the cord was still attached, she is not guilty of anything?  Isn't the VA legislature in the process of fixing this?

Kansas law has this rather poorly worded statute (21-3403), that was in effect at the time of the killing.  Because of this Roeder may 'only' be guilty of a lesser offense. I look for the KS legislature to implement a fix also.
 

87 ...and I should add to my o/t rant: you need to pay attention to the message you send to men too; men are still a bit left out of the equation in the whole procreation politics wars -- young men are not really made to feel responsible for the act of creating a child (they get plenty of t and a waved in their faces with social approval, and they get plenty of talk about "no is no" and "take back the night"...but nobody ever really discusses with them the wonderful, frightening, and ultimately supreme responsiblity of fatherhood...I think they need it -- definitely might cut down on the need for so many abortions, no?)

88 93  ... becasue the Republican party has done such a top notch job of representing us these past few years!

89

unknown jane,please read the question you ask me."do you really want that sort of society where people can disregard the law, any law, if they so please"

Do you realise how silly that question is in a free society?Of course,everyone/anyone is free to ignore any law they choose,and if they are caught,it is society's job to punish them,willing or not.While Mr.Tillers death does'nt bother me in the least,I recognise society needs to punish Mr.Roeder as a deterrent to LAW ABIDING citizens.There will always be those,in a free society,who will be willing to take the law into thier own hands.Don't expect the government to be able to protect you from them.

Unfortunately,we have a ruling class that has decided the laws don't pertain to them.Even worse,they have decided to selectively enforce many laws(even some felonies!)depending on what side of the political spectrum you fall under.This will only get worse until we FORCE our government to enforce ALL the laws on the books or get rid of the ones you are going to ignore.

 

 

 

 

90 96 -- Well, then Toby, you do realize that doesn't just happen for cases where you approve of the defendant -- do you really want that?  Because I sure as hell don't want it.

91 This string exemplifies exactly how the "progressives" portray the conservative outlook- a bunch of bloodthirsty Bible-thumping killers willing to ignore the law when it suits your purposes.  Where you clowns get off thinking  the killing is all just a matter of timing ("hey, it's not okay to do an abortion, but it sure is OK to shoot the doctor!") and pat yourselves on the back thinking "you done good", makes me sick to think we exist in the same trenches.

92

101 -- Don't walk back what you said through me -- I quoted you verbatim; accuse me of cherry picking if you will, but that was your exact quote.

 

"I have no problem with others ignoring whatever laws they feel like."

 

93 unknown jane - jury nullification happens all of the time. Many times the most important decision for a case is venue - which determines the jury pool. It is your lawyer's or the prosecutors job to get the best jury, may be more important then their actual understanding of law or the facts of the case.

94

"I know who and what George Tiller was. "

Just put that in context, that is not a blanket statement on abortionists in general, although, to be perfectly honest, I despise the lot.

No, this is about George Tiller specifically.  This is a bad analogy, but George Tiller compared to run-of-the-mill abotionist (see what I did there) is like George Soros compared to the average democrat activist.  He's the King.  The biggest face card in the whole deck.

Now, I would cheerfully punch every average democrat activist or abortionist (I repeat myself) in the face* but George Soros?  If I knew there was an imminent meteor strike on the next Soros Family Picnic**, going to the fridge for a beer and plugging in the popcorn would be all the concern I could muster.

*Internet toughguy talk aside, I could probably take down your average democrat "activist" (which ain't sayin much) though the whole go-to-jail and go-through-life-looking-like-the-most-inept-member-of-Fight-Club (some of those guys can fight, I presume) would impinge on my stable middle-class lifestyle.  I therefore restrain myself to occasional beligerent gesture in an online forum.  Sad, but there you are.

**Some you may be tempted to say "his family, how could you?"  To which my response would be, "Have you seen how many damned Soros there are seeded throughout the matrix of the lunatic left?"  Maybe there is a second cousin or something who avoided the taint, but the immediate family all seems to be accounted for.  Summon the meteor.

95

103 -- I think this is a ridiculous defense that sets bad precedent for future cases.

 

104 -- I don't consider the prolife movement "a bunch of bloodthirsty, bible thumpers" (I've never found Bible thumpers all that particularly bloodthirsty to be honest).  I can tell you as an outside observer that the prolife movement has allowed itself, unwillingly or no, to be tarred as extremist by people like Roeder and by people who without hesitation come forward and say they would love to be able to be on the jury so he could walk; I can tell you as a woman I have had placards thrust in my face by people who didn't know I was going in to get a prenatal exam (I found it a bit much and quite off putting).  And I'm saying, as an outside, prochoice observer that the prolife movement has several good, valid, strong arguements -- they aren't using them as well as they could imho.  Isn't that ironic?

96 104 This string exemplifies exactly how the "progressives" portray the conservative outlook- a bunch of bloodthirsty Bible-thumping killers willing to ignore the law when it suits your purposes.  Where you clowns get off thinking  the killing is all just a matter of timing ("hey, it's not okay to do an abortion, but it sure is OK to shoot the doctor!") and pat yourselves on the back thinking "you done good", makes me sick to think we exist in the same trenches.

Posted by: Bulldog in Kansas at January 13, 2010 01:45 PM (z1C5

What the fuck are you talking about?  Go back to Daily Kos and get another talking-points data dump.  The one you came with is garbled.

97

Posted by: unknown jane at January 13, 2010 01:50 PM (5/yRG)

I note for the record I could cheerfully vote to convict on a manslaughter charge.

98 Where you clowns get off thinking  the killing is all just a matter of timing. . .

I dunno. . . maybe Section X of Blackmun's majority decision from Roe v. Wade?

99 Jean, you know cases where change of venue should have happened due to a biased jury pool, and yet the venue was not changed; how about high profile cases?, and then there's the trouble with the right to a speedy trial vis a vis change of venue/jury selection.  I trust the system, but only to an extent. 

100

unknown,I'm not walking back from anything.I already said I believe abortion to be MURDER.I have no problem with Mr.Roeder ignoring the law to deal with this piece of human garbage.Now he has to "pay the piper" as they say.I just hope the piper does'nt ask for too much.

DrewM(I think) has a post up about a woman who he calls a hero,which I happen to agree with.What was her heroic deed?She broke the law trying to protect innocent people.I know you,and anybody else who supports the mass murder of 40 million innocent children won't see the correlation of these two incidences,but seeing as how this is still a free country,I do.

101 I think that this case stretches the immenent danger clause a bit too far for one (and I'll go on record as stating I have never liked the "burning bed" immenent danger concept in cases of an abused spouse killing their abuser; it's taking immenent danger too far imho); for another I don't think a person has a right to a defense citing their religious/personal beliefs as justification for murder -- that opens the door for justifying just about any murder on the book imho.  No thank you.

102 114 -- the woman you mention broke the law, yes; but I don't believe she committed any murders.

103

110 -- Hey, great; you also realize there are people who would cheerfully let Roeder walk, right?

As I stated in the other thread; Tiller was an odious bastard, and I don't shed any tears for him, but the rule of law has to stand or we devolve into anarchy.  We've already got quite enough of that without adding to the plate.

104 #89"And if you are THAT concerned, why don't you go down to abortion clinics and adopt the babies that would have been aborted?"




and how do you know we haven't?

105 unknown jane, your missing the point. Venue change and jury pool make up are important tools for both the defense and prosecutor. It has nothing to do with trust or bias. It is what it is - when you hear a prosecutor or lawyer whine that the jury was nullified - it isn't the system or the jury's fault - it is that lawyers fault. Pick your battleground. In this case Roeder screwed up by committing his crime in a district with a democratic prosecutor - which means he is also more likely to get a liberal jury.

106

So, based on your ‘unlawful’ argument, a precedent like this would allow a person to murder a politician who advocated a war they considered unlawful (such as President Bush when he was advocating war with Iraq), a prominent commentator – conservative or liberal - who they believed was causing harm to the country unlawfully, a CIA or FBI agent or soldier they believed was acting in an illegal manner, or a scientist working on a weapon for the Defense Department they deemed unlawful as well.

 

There's a word for that - anarchy.

107 I have more respect for some one who kills people directly with a gun than with fallacious and silly legal arguments. The basis of legalized abortion is liars for plaintiffs and idiots for Judges. In other words, they gamed the system to declare something which is absolutely unlawful, to be lawful.

Should we should accept this trickery and grant it respect? I don't think so. The man only did what the government should have done. 

108 27 "Let us pray that this trial is short and that Tiller is convicted and sentenced quickly."

Edit:
"Let us pray that this trial is short and that ROEDER is convicted and sentenced quickly."

Gah.

Posted by: Taqiyyotomist at January 13, 2010 11:46 AM (ltfED)

You had it right the first time.

109 Essentially Gabe is saying that the government gets to decide what a defendant may say in his own defense.  So much for our roots in Common Law.

110 116 114 -- the woman you mention broke the law, yes; but I don't believe she committed any murders.

Posted by: unknown jane at January 13, 2010 02:06 PM (5/yRG)

True, but she sure tried to prevent some.  Which is what this guy claims he was doing.  That most don't agree with that, and in fact find it reprehensible does not nullify the notion that he ought be free to present whatever defense he chooses to.

Especially since this is a capital crime.

111

You really think "He deserved it" should be a defense?

112 32 As much as I think Tiller was a murdering sociopathic scumbag I don't want Roeder to get off. To me he's more of a vigilante. Sure I want justice for all the Tillers of the world but I want it the right way.

Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

As for the actual legalities of the case I don't have a clue but I appreciate someone who does (Gabe) at least attempting to enlighten us morons who don't.

Posted by: Xombozo at January 13, 2010 11:52 AM (7bDII)

Should the family which hid Ann Frank from the Nazis have been prosecuted under the Nazi laws which made this illegal?

There was a time in this country during which the laws of morality and the laws of the state were in basic agreement. That is no longer the case. The law should not be granted respect just because it is the law. It must morally right as well.

113

Some of you people are really, really morally fucked up.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at January 13, 2010 12:04 PM (5aa4z)

I agree, and they are the one's that think what is legal is what is right.

114

Partial birth abortion - the kind Tiller was infamous for - was/is explicitly illegal in Kansas.

Facts - are sometimes important.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at January 13, 2010 12:08 PM (RkRxq)

Slavery was legal in Texas. Do you have some sort of point?

115 120

So, based on your ‘unlawful’ argument, a precedent like this would allow a person to murder a politician who advocated a war they considered unlawful (such as President Bush when he was advocating war with Iraq), a prominent commentator – conservative or liberal - who they believed was causing harm to the country unlawfully, a CIA or FBI agent or soldier they believed was acting in an illegal manner, or a scientist working on a weapon for the Defense Department they deemed unlawful as well.

 

There's a word for that - anarchy.

Posted by: JEA at January 13, 2010 02:16 PM (bWB5j)

Based on your argument, you seem well-acquainted with the erection and maintenance of strawmen.  Your hypothetical murderer of political opponents and inconvenient scientists has every right to present just that defense when on trial.  The argument here is not over whether the defendent should get a free pass, but whether the defendent is legally entitled to present a defense that argues for a lesser charge based on his perception of a threat.  Apparently, the Kansas statute is a bit open to interpretation.

Sorry, but allowing a jury to consider convicting on a lesser charge is hardly

(cue spooky music)

ANARCHY

116 You really think "He deserved it" should be a defense?

Yep.  Most likely an unsuccessful one though.

117 130 You really think "He deserved it" should be a defense?

Yep.  Most likely an unsuccessful one though.

Posted by: toby928 at January 13, 2010 02:33 PM (PD1tk)

I recognise this guy from somewhere.  Patterico or Protein Wisdom's resident logical fallacy generator, IIRC.

118 Not you, toby.  The guy you quoted.

119 63 As in, if it's not clear, Roeder is a murderer and should be treated as such. I get what his motivation was; his actions were just very, very, very wrong. Like, murderous, even.

Posted by: Ella at January 13, 2010 12:21 PM (WPjES)

If the legal people call him a murderer, it is only because of a supreme court decision in 1973. Prior to that time he would have been a Hero.

I personally find it obnoxious to think that 7 liberal judges (the product of 24 years worth of appointments by Roosevelt/Truman) can change what is morally wrong into what is legally right. 

It is like the pigs in "Animal Farm" erasing and re-writing the barn door in the middle of the night.

120

Sorry, but allowing a jury to consider convicting on a lesser charge is hardly

(cue spooky music)

ANARCHY

No, what it amounts to is stalking someone, planning their execution,  and basically getting away with it.

PS. Don't forget, the left has crazies too

121

Unjust laws,like unjust governments,usually require bloodshed to be defeated.

Posted by: vae victus at January 13, 2010 12:38 PM (oi4Yx)

Slavery.

122

And if you are THAT concerned, why don't you go down to abortion clinics and adopt the babies that would have been aborted?

Yeah, right...

Posted by: HH at January 13, 2010 01:22 PM (GkYyh)

Why didn't the North buy all the Slaves?

That's not how morality works. You oppose wrong, you don't cohabitate with it. 

123

Since this arguement is starting to wind down, may I ask this hypothetical?

Would you still feel the same way about Roeder (those who are arguing that he was justified in what he did because of who he did it to) if he had gone into that church and killed not only Tiller but also some other people happenstance during the course of attempting to kill Tiller?  Oh, it could be argued that he deserves a stiff penalty for killing the other people, and little to no penalty for killing Tiller, but it could have happened and this is one of the reasons why he deserves a stiff sentence in the first place -- you don't get to just walk up and shoot somebody because you can't stand what they are doing.  At least I think the law would be well served if it cleaved to that idea in this case.

119 -- I respectfully disagree Jean -- Roeder "screwed up" by committing murder.  And you cannot take the onus of responsibility off the jury or the courts all the time -- the law is not supposed to be simply attorney chess playing.  I think we have enough of that going on as well, sadly.

 

O/t: somebody mentioned carrying concealed to protect and defend their family because the laws cannot be trusted to do so...while being responsible for your own well being is a wonderful thing, which I wholeheartedly support as long as the person doing so is sensible and responsible about it, you do realize that if somebody(bodies) really wanted to kill you or your family no amount of gun ownership would offer enough protection, nor possibly deterrent don't you?  This is the sort of thing that makes anarchy such a dangerous thing for a society to devolve into, and this is why I've got such a problem with some of the comments here.

124 96 how many would purposely try to get on the jury in order to nullify it or turn in a not guilty verdict?

*raises hand*

Posted by: toby928 at January 13, 2010 01:39 PM (PD1tk)

Me too.

125 Balrog -- I don't believe, based on this latest post they are not going to allow for the lesser charge in this case (although it's way up there, and this entire thread is beginning to wear me down, so I could be wrong); this makes it even crazier if you ask me -- the only reason to allow this defense that makes any sense at all is if the reduction to manslaughter is allowed, but apparently it isn't. 

126 99 ...and I should add to my o/t rant: you need to pay attention to the message you send to men too; men are still a bit left out of the equation in the whole procreation politics wars -- young men are not really made to feel responsible for the act of creating a child (they get plenty of t and a waved in their faces with social approval, and they get plenty of talk about "no is no" and "take back the night"...but nobody ever really discusses with them the wonderful, frightening, and ultimately supreme responsiblity of fatherhood...I think they need it -- definitely might cut down on the need for so many abortions, no?)

Posted by: unknown jane at January 13, 2010 01:41 PM (5/yRG)

People today are far too cavalier about Sex. They regard it as a recreational activity that sometimes causes an "accident."(It creates another human life.)

Too often is no one held responsible for doing something they shouldn't have been doing anyway. Too many times have I seen young fathers get off without paying a dime in support to their child, and nothing stops them from making more children and ignoring them as well.

It's wrong. It results in misery and suffering and eventually it will collapse society.  I'm disgusted that the law has been warped so badly as to allow and permit it.

127 104 This string exemplifies exactly how the "progressives" portray the conservative outlook- a bunch of bloodthirsty Bible-thumping killers willing to ignore the law when it suits your purposes.  Where you clowns get off thinking  the killing is all just a matter of timing ("hey, it's not okay to do an abortion, but it sure is OK to shoot the doctor!") and pat yourselves on the back thinking "you done good", makes me sick to think we exist in the same trenches.

Posted by: Bulldog in Kansas at January 13, 2010 01:45 PM (z1C5

Exactly the type of people that Abolished Slavery. As for the people who are so much more progressive? Fuck them.

128

No, this is about George Tiller specifically.  This is a bad analogy, but George Tiller compared to run-of-the-mill abotionist (see what I did there) is like George Soros compared to the average democrat activist.  He's the King.  The biggest face card in the whole deck.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth (now with 100% more smugness!) at January 13, 2010 01:47 PM (wgLRl)

I think a more appropriate analogy would be that George Tiller compares to the run-of-the-mill abortionist like the Gestapo compares to the Waffen SS. Of course Joseph Mengle (Who was also an abortionist) was a Captain in the SS, so maybe they WERE worse than the Gestapo.

129

My Christian $0.02:

If he did the right thing, he will be blessed by God, in the afterlife definitely, and possibly in this life. If he has to go to prison for life or even be executed by the state, fair enough--it's a fallen world; shit happens--like all those consciencous objectors, he'll go happily, providing he's as committed to Christ and the Higher Law as he maintains. The Lord is our example in this life and He, although innocent, was executed.

Personally, I'm glad the doc is dead and that the abortion debate has been revived. The science is not settled. The NAZI references are not immaterial here, either; these are issues that go beyond simple legalism.  All nations are "nations of law", it's the degree of moral legitimacy the law-makers have that's in question. Also, I'm not sure a person who acts outside the law should seek absolution from that same law. If the system is evil, don't expect anything but evil from it.

So, I guess, put simply, if you think God's cool with killing someone, fine, but don't be surprised if you hang for it.

 

 

 

 

 

130 unknown jane - the law is attorney chess playing -- it is not moral. Roemer can be right and illegal, shooting Tiller - Tiller was wrong and illegal, conducting partial-birth abortions - Sebelius was wrong and legal, in willfully ignoring Tiller and appointing judges who ignored the law. In the end Tiller is still dead, hundreds of babies are alive, and Roemer is going to jail.

131 115 I think that this case stretches the immenent danger clause a bit too far for one (and I'll go on record as stating I have never liked the "burning bed" immenent danger concept in cases of an abused spouse killing their abuser; it's taking immenent danger too far imho); for another I don't think a person has a right to a defense citing their religious/personal beliefs as justification for murder -- that opens the door for justifying just about any murder on the book imho.  No thank you.

Posted by: unknown jane at January 13, 2010 02:05 PM (5/yRG)

Since it was a silly and fallacious legal argument that started this whole mess, I see nothing wrong with using a silly and fallacious legal argument if it works to achieve a just result.

132 and we are stuck with Sebelius.

133 116 114 -- the woman you mention broke the law, yes; but I don't believe she committed any murders.

Posted by: unknown jane at January 13, 2010 02:06 PM (5/yRG)

What if she had shot the guards at Auschwitz and opened the gate? Would that make the example more appropriate?

134

"This string exemplifies exactly how the "progressives" portray the conservative outlook-"

Who gives a fuck what those socialist pieces of shit think.Thier policies,and the dictators they supported in the century just passed are responsible for the deaths of tens of millions,yeah,you read that right.That they don't get reminded of this every time they open thier fucking mouths is one of the greatest failures of the Republican party.

If it bothers them that people are willing to lay thier lifes down to protect the unborn then so be it.

135

Wouldn't this defense work for anyone who desired to kill the defendant or his ilk?

They would merely have to prove to be a doctor, nurse, tech. etc.  in fact,uUnder new proposed Obamacare rules his would include almost ALL medical care providers.

 If you might be targeted as one who is complicit to 'baby killing' , you would have a right to preclude your murder at the hands of the 'righteous' by acting in a pre-meditated  self interested (read as self defense) manner. 

Meaning: Shooting up a church full of Pro-Lifers to preclude any of them excercising the right to adjuducate your moral incompetance and sentence you to a premature death would now, also, be acceptible?

Also, this defense would justify almost all Islamic Terrorism  Man Made Disasters, would it not?

136

O/t: somebody mentioned carrying concealed to protect and defend their family because the laws cannot be trusted to do so...while being responsible for your own well being is a wonderful thing, which I wholeheartedly support as long as the person doing so is sensible and responsible about it, you do realize that if somebody(bodies) really wanted to kill you or your family no amount of gun ownership would offer enough protection, nor possibly deterrent don't you?  This is the sort of thing that makes anarchy such a dangerous thing for a society to devolve into, and this is why I've got such a problem with some of the comments here.

Posted by: unknown jane at January 13, 2010 02:52 PM (5/yRG)

The anarchy has been a long time coming. The courts have been it's handmaiden.

137

144 - Jean, don't you mean "Tiller was immoral and legal"?  Although I'm not really sure he was, but that's digression.  And if you believe that the law is merely attorney chess playing, then it's perfectly legal for a celebrity (O.J.?) to warrant the trial he recieved and the sentencing he got because his attorney played better chess than the prosecution (which he did). If that's the case then somebody like KSM will have justice served if he walks, thanks to some wealthy Muslim fronting the cash for a really great attorney on his case who can play better chess than the prosecution.

 

149 -- that's one of the biggest problems I have with it.

138

OK heres the scoop

The proscuter trys for First murder and doesn't get a conviction, the dude walks.The jury cannot choose a lesser crime only guilty as charged or NOT.

Whats brilliant is just introducing "Manslaughter" can sway the jury that the proscution went too far. There will a few on the jury that believes abortion is wrong and will see the logic of manslaughter.

And no, this cannot be used in other trials...the proscuter fucked up...should have read the tealeaves not the PC.

139 You can't prosecute for murder/manslaughter the killing of a fetus and then allow abortion. It's incoherent. Make the law rationalize that Gabe...This is why us laymen have a great difficulty with the 'powers that be'.

140 if there is no certificate of live birth that precludes being elected POTUS

141 ouch

142 if you are not gong to prosecute the women then you shouldn't prosecute the docs and versa vicea or cccea versa on shooting them

143

"there's no chance Roeder had a reasonable belief that Tiller's abortions were unlawful. "

Maybe not. Tiller had been brought before the court many times due to charges of illegal abortions.  Though he was aquitted of these charges, there was a lot of evidence that pointed to him skirting abortion laws with his late term clients.

Roeder could legitimately believe that Tiller was breaking the law when peforming these abortions.

 

144

Again, its not what he believed, its what the proscuter charged him with and what the jury desides if First Degree murder was the correct charge.

If no conviction for First then he walks

145

Something I'm wondering: why would a judge (who I'm guessing is a liberal, since this trial is taking place in a liberal district, correct?) allow for a situation where somebody like Roeder might get the chance of walking?  Call me conspiratorial and paranoid, but doesn't that sound a bit hinkey?  From what I've seen and heard most "liberals" would like to lynch Roeder (which also is unlawful)...why set up a situation where he just might walk (unless there's something else to this that goes beyond just this trial)?

Please school me if I'm way off base here.

146 I also conceived the notion that perhaps the judge doesn't agree with the current law and is perhaps using his position to affect the law. The judge may likewise understand that the case is impossible to conduct a defense against (the fact of the shooting is not in dispute.) unless you allow the defendant to present what is actually his defense.  He felt the shooting was justified because the man was a serial murderer (for hire) who used legal trickery and subterfuge to get away with it.

You either grant the man this defense, or you simply say the court will not hear from the defense. I don't see a third alternative. 

147

I'm absolutely flattered that Gabe thinks I'm cute, or at least trying to be.

My death camp analogy wasn't an attempt to 'Godwin the thread' because actually I had Stalin's death camps in mind when I wrote that, but hey, whatever works. Lots of people had death camps other than the Nazis.

Now on to re-state my larger point that no one else here at the time seemed to have a problem grasping, that actually want to grasp it.

If you have an honest belief that abortion is murder, the moral difference between the two examples gets blurry. Both are illegal acts founded in a moral belief system that I would hope most here would recognize.

Personally, I thought Gabe would have had more issue with my jury nullification post in the same thread.

148 "I'm just wondering if Gabe and Drew would would prosecute someone for murder who freed inmates from a death camp, but killed a few guards in the process?"

Well put.

149 "If you have an honest belief that abortion is murder, the moral difference between the two examples gets blurry. Both are illegal acts founded in a moral belief system that I would hope most here would recognize."

Good point, Jim.

Oh I recognize that killing abortionists is thoroughly illegal by Kansas statutes, and all statutes. I am not persuaded that it is immoral.

That doesn't mean I'll do it: I won't. And my reason for that is self-preservation and to focus on my own life.

I'll fight my battles in the legal and rhetorical arenas for that reason.

It would be like charging single-handedly against southern slavery in 1853. Noble, but reckless.

150

The unspoken reason for the judge allowing the defendant to whine about the "threat" Tiller presented is so that after he is done presenting his case, the judge can rule against him.  If the judge just ruled against him now before he presented his claim, the defendant would be able to raise this on appeal.

One trial.  One conviction.  One execution.  None of this appeal until the heat-death of the universe crap.

151 i can see why he killed the doc but like the german officers who tried to kill hitler you have to pay the price. which ones were wrong morally not legally the german officers, tiller or both or neither.

152 scratch i meant roeder

153

I didn't realize until now what a pro-abortion, pro-infanticide blog this was.

There is more to being conservative than cutting taxes.

Someone upthread said "Some of you people are really, really morally fucked up". It ain't the pro-lifers with the morality problem. Watch a video/sonogram of what this lunatic did to children. But hey, I guess late term abortion is easier to defend in the abstract. You know, fetus, surgical procedure, it's not really a child being ripped apart or having it's skull punctured. that kind of crap.  

It sickens me that a so-called conservative blog condones it.

154

And btw, I've been reading here for months comments posted about how you are all cleaning your guns, stocking up on rations and dragging out the survival gear in case Obama tries to make you buy health insurance. Obamacare will be legal so who are you gonna shoot???

Bunch of fucking bullshit.

155 I think that you're mixing up the law here, Gabe.  You cite a statute regarding "reasonable belief" but the manslaughter instruction explicitly relates to an "unreasonable" belief.

Everyone understands that it's unreasonable to say the harm was imminent at church.  So Roeder can't get an instruction that the killing was justified.

But could he have unreasonably (but honestly) thought the harm was imminent?  If so, a manslaughter instruction is potentially appropriate.  And that question is not as easy to answer.

By way of analogy: sometimes battered women kill their husbands in their sleep.  They don't get a self-defense instruction -- but often, they get a manslaughter instruction.  (Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I don't know how often.  But I wrote about this the other day and linked an example.)

156 Today surfing the web I found a site selling original windows 7 key ， www.windows7key.net at $ 9.99 , the price is very economical . It also has other licenses also very economical. wholesale windows 7 product key free windows 7 download cheap windows 7 product key cheap office 2007 product key cheap office 2010 plus product key cheap windows xp product key Norton 360 product key Windows 7 Ultimate key (32/64 bits) 9.99$ Windows 7 Professional key (32/64 bits) 9.99$ Windows 7 Home Premium key (32/64 bits) 9.99$ Office 2007 Ultimate 24.99$ (32/64 bits) Office 2007 Professional 24.99$(32/64 bits) Adobe Dreamweaver Adobe Photoshop CS4 The key only works with the final retail versions of Windows 7 and office The page URL is: http://www.windows7key.net According to users who have bought works perfectly , and the complete Windows passes validation Windows Genuine Advantage.

157

Wholesale Cheap Microsoft Windows 7 Office 2007 office 2010 Product Key

www.window7key.com

cheap windows 7 product key

cheap office 2007 product key

cheap office 2010 plus product key

cheap windows xp product key

 Norton 360 product key

Windows 7 Ultimate key (32/64 bits)

 Windows 7 Professional key (32/64 bits)

 Windows 7 Home Premium key (32/64 bits)

Office 2007 Ultimate  (32/64 bits)

Office 2007 Professional (32/64 bits)

 

158 thanks!