Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, December 29, 2009

’Defense of others’ mulled in abortion case

December 29, 2009

Advertisement

— A Kansas judge will hear further arguments on whether a man who has confessed to shooting a Wichita abortion provider may present evidence on the “use of force in defense of another.”

Sedgwick County District Judge Warren Wilbert has scheduled a Jan. 8 hearing on the issue in the murder case against 51-year-old Scott Roeder of Kansas City, Mo.

Roeder is accused of shooting Dr. George Tiller on May 31 at the doctor’s Wichita church. Roeder’s trial begins Jan. 11.

Last week, Wilbert barred Roeder’s lawyers from putting on a so-called necessity defense. But he also said he would later consider whether to allow specific evidence or argument on the use of force for the defense of another before deciding whether to let the jury hear it.

Comments

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 11 months ago

"’Defense of others’ mulled in abortion case"

What's with this headline? This isn't an "abortion" case. It was cold-blooded murder, plain and simple.

jaywalker 4 years, 11 months ago

LJW, you need a new headline writer. This kind of thing happens way too frequently. 'Defense of others' my heinie. The man strolled into a church and committed murder. I'm a spiritual man so I'm curious how the religious right looks upon that sacrilege and still backs him. This defense holds no water and I'm bothered this is going through further hearings.

"In my opinion they are a good case for more abortions, maybe their parents should have looked at that option."

Beobachter once again revealing why he's one of the leading @#!$&!*#!'s on this site. That's disgusting, beo, even by your standards.

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 11 months ago

beobatcher,

Your comment has all the smuggness one would expect from someone who believes in social engineering and eugenics. You probably look to Margaret Sanger as a heroine.

georgiahawk 4 years, 11 months ago

STRS, just curious, is Roeder a hero to you?

georgeofwesternkansas 4 years, 11 months ago

porch_person, the fact that we are on this site debunks that charge....

jaywalker 4 years, 11 months ago

"Murdering someone in his own church has nothing to do with social engineering or eugenics"

And your lecture to STRS is unfounded as you obviously don't understand or didn't see the comment STRS is responding too..

tomatogrower 4 years, 11 months ago

Maybe this guy should be charged with not taking care of his own son. I understand he didn't pay much in child support. His wife didn't get an abortion, so he's happy, but after that the deadbeat could care less what happens.

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 11 months ago

georgiahawk,

Absolutely not. Because of his own admission of guilt, I believe it's clear that Roeder is guilty of first degree murder. He should be punished as such, and he should be held up as another terrible example of what is wrong with society.

staff04 4 years, 11 months ago

Is the logical extreme of this "defense of others" defense that it would be legally acceptable to murder a drunk person as they try to get in their car to drive home?

Or any driver, drunk or not?

Polly_Gomer 4 years, 11 months ago

Justifiable?

You are a wackjob.

The first post said it all, it's a murder case, abortion has nothing to do with it.

funkdog1 4 years, 11 months ago

jaywalker: The LJW likely took the term "Defense of Others" directly from the defenses' motion. See how it's got "quotes" around it in the headline? That means that the LJW borrowed the language from someone else.

ralphralph 4 years, 11 months ago

Point of View - I think Tiller probably was a sleeze who got rich killing viable babies and who protected his cash flow by purchasing politicians like former-Gov-turned-TV-star Kathy and her appointed lackies. Point of Law - You can't kill people under these circumstances, or anything like them, and no court will recognize a claim of a necessity defense in this case. Any use of force in defense of another, to be sanctioned by law, must be exercised when the danger of harm to the other is imminent and not otherwise avoidable. It is not sufficient that you have decided that "he has killed, and he'll kill again". This was an assassination and there is no legal defense.

georgiahawk 4 years, 11 months ago

Unless you knew Tiller, don't make assumptions as to what sort of man he was, good or bad. He could have been a great human being, he could have been the scum of the earth, it makes no diference in this legal case, but quit making unfounded assumptions about him.

LoveThsLife 4 years, 11 months ago

Porch-Person-

"Claiming that a couple who are going through the heartbreak of discovering that the fetus has no brain or dysfunctional, underdeveloped lungs and will never survive is not the same as the oft-misrepresented claim of anti-abortionists who state that “You're killing a baby who wants to talk to you when he grows up.”

Babies with no brains don't talk, or join the football team, or cheerlead, or vote Republican. They don't survive either. It's not the parent's fault and it's cynical dishonesty to use that tragedy for political gain."

Interesting argument...anencephaly is a pretty rare disorder...in the U.S it occurs in 1 of 150,000-200,000 infants each year.

In addition, most babies born with underdeveloped lungs are actually born premature.

There are very rare congenital problems that may affect lung growth such as dwarfism, congenital diaphragmatic hernia. As I stated earlier, these problems are very rare.

I am sure most of the abortions performed by Dr. Tiller were actually elective abortions performed during the first trimester.

In addition, I had read commentary in other articles claiming that third trimester abortions were necessary if a fetus had died in utero. Let me make it clear, if something of that nature happens it is dangerous to the mother's health, and could be considered a medical emergency. The woman's own ob-gyn will either perform a D&C, induce labor, or perform a c-section depending on the situation. They are certainly not going to send her to some abortion clinic.

http://www.pediatricweb.com/nspeds/article.asp?ArticleID=859&ArticleType=9#2 http://www.anencephalie-info.org/e/index.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

funkdog1 4 years, 11 months ago

LveThsLife says: "I am sure most of the abortions performed by Dr. Tiller were actually elective abortions performed during the first trimester."

Are ya sure? Are ya really sure? Or do you just want that to be the case? 'Cause I myself have done some research on the subject. There were four or so doctors in the entire country performing third-term abortions. When you add up all the "rare" defects that will result in a baby dying soon after it's become unattached from the mother's umbilical chord, it becomes fairly easy to see why those four doctors are handling thousands of cases every year. No one, and I mean no one, has the right to tell a woman that she must carry and give birth to a fatally defective baby that has no hope of living. That is cruel and unusual.

jaywalker 4 years, 11 months ago

funkdog:

" 'Defense of others' mulled in abortion case. "

My problem's not with the first three words, it's with the last three. .

Mixolydian 4 years, 11 months ago

Absolutely should not be allowed as a defense, not legally, not morally. Roeder is a murderer nothing more.

And that's coming from someone who would vote in a heartbeat to outlaw abortion in every case except instances where the imminent physical life of the mother is in jeopardy (not "psychological health")

LoveThsLife 4 years, 11 months ago

"One is that Dr. Tiller was performing first trimester abortions. First trimester abortions are legal, LoveThisLife. Are you saying that they are not?"

What is legal is not always ethical.

"Are you saying that the same procedure that an OB/Gyn can do is suddenly off-limits when Dr. Tiller performs them?"

I am saying that some of the arguments made previously regarding dead fetus syndrome and abortion clinics are not thoroughly thought out. Again, it is pretty rare that a doctor would have to induce labor for a fetus who has died in utero. In most cases, the body will have detected the was fetus dead and begin labor spontaneously. In some cases, a doctor may have to induce labor and if there are complications during a vaginal delivery they may have to do a c-section.

"Have you done research on the rate of miscarriage vs abortion? God seems to do more terminations than man does. I wonder what that does to your religious world-view?"

Ahh..the old blaming God argument.... I'm actually pretty comfortable in my personal beliefs. No, I don't think God is to be blamed for everything that goes wrong in the world, or in one's body.

"Most, if not all, of your colleagues deny the conditions altogether, a rather dishonest gesture."

Who said I am doctor?

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 11 months ago

Machiavelli,

Your description of "murderous nuts" who either kill or attempt to kill abortionists applies to about eight people in the United States.

As a pro-life advocate and staunch defender of children in the womb, I will agree with you that there are a handful of dangerous loose cannons out there.

LoveThsLife 4 years, 11 months ago

Porch Person:

"I see that you are uncomfortable with the revelation that more terminations of pregnancy occur outside of human intervention than with human intervention. I also see that you and your colleagues feel you have the “wrath o' God” on your side but that you can't justify why “God” has that authority. Pretty convenient to absolve “God” whenever you guys do something “unethical” in his name."

I have to respond to this first. I found it quite amusing. First of all, this is not a religious debate. I never brought religion into it you did. Second of all, I have no problem with the fact that nature terminates pregnancy more often than man. I guess in my personal view of the world I accept the fact our bodies aren't perfect and stuff happens. Not sure where the whole "Wrath of God" stuff fit in to anything, but I did find it quite funny. Thanks for the laugh.

Again, I am not arguing about the reality of developmental issues in a fetus. You need to re-read my statement if you think I was.

"You say that what is legal is not always ethical but you have absolutely no problem with your colleagues distorting the facts on abortions and some conditions which present to the clinic. Such misrepresentations are “not ethical”, are they?"

Who said I don't have a problem with fact distorting. I was just saying that I don't think that just because something is legal makes it ethical..in regards to first term abortions. I don't think it is ethical to terminate a pregnancy just because you don't want the baby. In most first term abortions that is exactly what is going on.

"I noted that most of your colleagues deny conditions like hydrocephalus / ancephalus / etc altogether in an effort to portray Dr. Tiller and others as killing viable fetuses."

Who exactly has denied that? If so, they are obviously ignorant.

In conclusion, not everyone who is uncomfortable with abortion is a right wing extremist. Nor are they necessarily in the dark about congenital abnormalities. I am questioning your claims that every person that walked into Dr.Tiller's practice was carrying a child who was non-viable or who's health/life was in jeopardy as a result of the pregnancy. I believe those are two very good questions.

MyName 4 years, 11 months ago

The problem is your annoying trolling, Jacob123 (aka Arminius), followed by userid whack-a-mole that you seem to like play.

Just because you're disconnected with reality, doesn't mean you need to share your loony thoughts with the rest of us.

Get a new hobby. Or a part-time job FFS.

Cait McKnelly 4 years, 11 months ago

To those legal eagles out there: if this judge permits this does the prosecution have any legal recourse to a higher court? Honestly, from what I can tell the defense is outside the legal limits of what the state permits but judges tend to be little gods in their own court rooms and I don't know what is/isn't permissible. I'm sure every district court judge in the state is watching this closely. I know the nation is, as CNN is reporting it. Someone brought up a point earlier; this occurred in front of a church full of people. One hopes the children were sequestered in another part of the church but I'm sure there were at least some children in the sanctuary at the time. Is there any legal recourse for the trauma these people, especially the children, must have suffered? This man's actions directly affected more than just Dr.Tiller and his family but a whole community of people. It wasn't just a murder, it was an assassination. I am sincerely glad I have never had to live through the terror of such a moment and feel for the people that did. Although only one man died and not many people, in my opinion this man is no different from Tim McVeigh.

denak 4 years, 11 months ago

Cait48,

I did a quick search and from what I can tell is that "no" the prosecution can not appeal to a higher court.

For those who are interested, I found a good link that discusses this issue. The link is to jury instructions in Conneticut. I think it pretty much sums up what the state would have to do in order to get an conviction and what the jury would have to consider when deciding whether or not Roeder is guilty.

http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/Criminal/part2/2.8-1.htm

Dena:)

LoveThsLife 4 years, 11 months ago

Porch Person:

"What do you think of those eventualities? Do you think that Dr. Tiller deserved to die in his own church for a procedure which is absolutely legal? Do you think you know the story behind every abortion, enough to pass judgment from whatever stance you subscribe to?"

Was someone murdering him the right thing to do? No, it is illegal to kill someone.

I obviously don't know the story behind every abortion that is why I am questioning some of the arguments I am hearing. I think many arguments I hear are quite skewed. Of course there will be "exceptional circumstances". I guess I just don't agree with the argument that it is every woman's right to have an abortion because for some situations it is necessary.

I think one can go too far on either side of the issue. Should abortion be avoided at all costs even when rape results in a pregnancy or the mother's life is at risk? No. But on the flip side, should abortion be allowed for every person who decides that being pregnant is inconvenient? I don't agree with that either.

LoveThsLife 4 years, 11 months ago

Porch Person:

What exactly is my religious background? Please tell me I would love to know what you suppose my personal beliefs are...

If the answers were easy, I doubt there would be much of a debate...

I'm not forcing people to "go forth and multiply". That would require forcing individuals to have sex, and that would be quite ridiculous. However, I assume you were referring to the fact that I am critical of abortion when it is used as a method of birth control. Indeed, I am. Especially when there are other options available.

In my post I thought I demonstrated both aspects of the debate I found valid. Which is important when you are thinking critically about an issue. There are almost always valid points in an opposing argument, and it's foolish not take them seriously.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.