Wichita — Defiant and unapologetic, a man accused of shooting a Kansas abortion provider confessed to the slaying Monday, telling The Associated Press that he killed the doctor to protect unborn children.
Scott Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Mo., spoke to the AP in a telephone call from jail, saying he plans to argue at his trial that he was justified in shooting Dr. George Tiller at the abortion provider’s Wichita church in May.
“Because of the fact preborn children’s lives were in imminent danger this was the action I chose. ... I want to make sure that the focus is, of course, obviously on the preborn children and the necessity to defend them,” Roeder said.
“Defending innocent life — that is what prompted me. It is pretty simple,” he said.
Roeder is charged with one count of first-degree murder in Tiller’s death and two counts of aggravated assault for allegedly threatening two ushers who tried to stop him during the May 31 melee in the foyer of the doctor’s church. Roeder has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to go to trial in January.
In a more than 30-minute interview with the AP, Roeder did not apologize for the slaying.
“No, I don’t have any regrets because I have been told so far at least four women have changed their minds, that I know of, and have chosen to have the baby,” Roeder said. “So even if one changed her mind it would be worth it. No, I don’t have any regrets.”
His confession came on the same day several strident abortion opponents released their “Defensive Action Statement 3rd Edition” that proclaims any force that can be used to defend the life of a “born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child.” The statement’s 21 signers demand Roeder’s jurors be allowed to consider the “question of when life begins” in deciding whether lethal force was justified.
Among the signers are Eric Rudolph, James Kopp and Shelley Shannon — all serving prison time for targeting abortion doctors.
Lee Thompson, attorney for the Tiller family and executor of his estate, has said allowing such a defense would “invite chaos and be tantamount to anarchy.” The Kansas Supreme Court rejected such a defense in a 1993 ruling over an abortion clinic trespassing case.
Tiller, 67, had been the target of relentless protests for most of the 36 years that he performed abortions at his Wichita clinic, where he practiced as one of the nation’s few providers of late-term abortions. He was shot in both arms in 1993 and his clinic was bombed in 1986.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
srj (anonymous) says…
"Almost all common-law and statutory definitions of the necessity defense include the following elements: (1) the defendant acted to avoid a significant risk of harm; (2) no adequate lawful means could have been used to escape the harm; and (3) the harm avoided was greater than that caused by breaking the law." We are talking about
Abortion protesters (and other protesters) have used necessity defense before and it does not work, so a murder suspect, no way.
Sulla (anonymous) says…
John Brown this redneck Fetus Fixator, ain't
yourworstnightmare (anonymous) says…
This is simply not a viable defense. There is no single person that Roeder can identify as being protected.
Protecting against some undefined, future harm is untenable. It needs to be an individual.
It would be akin to killing gun manufacturers for the future deaths in which those guns might be used.
Ridiculous, in other words.
srj (anonymous) says…
Another good legal quote...
"Virtually all abortion protesters who have tried to avail themselves of the defense have lost. The courts have reasoned that because the right to an abortion is constitutionally protected, it cannot simultaneously be a legally recognized harm justifying illegal action"
And we are just talking about protesters.
honeychild (Mel Briscoe) says…
neccesity defense a/k/a "dreaming and then you woke up" defense.
truly a whack job if ever there was one.
Wallythewalrus (anonymous) says…
Why does he not just claim he heard the voice of god? A religious honor killing? The Bible said he would become a Martyr and would go to heaven? Or, maybe he is just another nut case. Surely, no more of his kind will be attacking humans on religious grounds will they?
honeychild (Mel Briscoe) says…
the best thing about articles on this subject is that it ferrets out the loonies.
present company not included, of course. :D
honeychild (Mel Briscoe) says…
you're right, blessed. so by his own definition, he's a murderer and there is no defense.
preebo (anonymous) says…
Lock him up!
ferrislives (anonymous) says…
BlessedSap, self-righteous much?
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
Roder has it all wrong, its not the necessity defense he needs to use, its the insanity defense. These wackjobs always forget that one.
Sulla (anonymous) says…
Well that would include too many people, that insanity defense. I mean anyone who claims to take a book called The Bible as the certified word of the Almighty has more than one screw loose.C'mon.
ferrislives (anonymous) says…
Roeder doesn't really care about the unborn BlessedSap. He only cares about the attention he gets. He's an attention-whore; nothing more.
1029 (anonymous) says…
This rationale for defense is kind of like when the terminator was sent from the future to kill young John Conner even though he hadn't done anything. But in the future his actions led to the destruction of machines--machines that hadn't even been built yet! So the machines wanted to kill him before he could kill (destroy) them. It's kind of like with the babies--except it was this guy Roeder and not a baby from the future.
kugrad (anonymous) says…
There is zero doubt that he committed murder. He was seen doing it by multiple people. He has confessed. Murder is never legal. It was in cold blood. So, skip the trial, save the taxpayers the money, go straight to sentencing. A trial is, in this case, absolutely pointless.
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…
@kugrad.
The only purpose a trial would serve at this point is to feed his need for attention.
Roeder confessed to the murder. The way I understand it, his confession is the same as standing in court and saying, "Guilty, your honor." That ends the trial and it should go to the sentencing phase.
ebyrdstarr (anonymous) says…
A confession to a reporter is not in any way, shape, or form the same as a guilty plea in a court of law. Heck, even if he'd signed a sworn statement confessing to the police, he would still be entitled to enter a plea of not guilty and have a trial.
deathpenaltyliberal (anonymous) says…
Confesses to murder.
Sentencing?
You know how I roll.
deathpenaltyliberal (anonymous) says…
"barrypenders (Anonymous) rambles…
A terrorist kills 13 in Fort Hood and a terrorist kills one in Kansas.
For the progressive mind, does the terrorist that murdered 13 and lived because of expert government healthcare, get to be put to death 13 times over?"
I wish. But practically speaking, it's one and done.
RogueThrill (anonymous) says…
I don't think he should get the death penalty and even if he does he won't be executed. It's Kansas and we haven't executed anyone in forever. All the death penalty does is cost us a ton of money.
And BlessedSap/be3, you're trying too hard. It's fun to see how many people agree with you, but you aren't trolling out many liberals.
BABBOY (anonymous) says…
Vanguard3 pretty much has this right.
My take is that this is a confession in the sense that it is evidence for the DA. It may also be a capacity argument (which loses) for the defense. It is not a change of plea or confession that will stop a trial. He could retract saying he was grandstanding for the media or more likely he will try the insanity or hybrid justification arguments. My understanding is that the defense has to prove that he did not understand what he was doing was "legally" wrong. I think it is clear he knew it was legally wrong. I do not think the fact that he thought he was morally right matters much as shown by his running away.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Roeder's defense will fall flat, as it would open the door for a wave of justifiable homicides. The precedent would be set: if you can convince the jury that you killed 'em because they needed killin', you get a free pass!
Won't happen.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
artichokeheart (anonymous) says…
If you look back at the articles on this you will find the state has already stated they are not seeking the death penalty in this case.
ebyrdstarr (anonymous) says…
The state can't seek the death penalty here because this particular murder does not fit within the 7 scenarios specified in Kansas' capital murder statute.
puddleglum (anonymous) says…
Thanks for electing me to govenoh of calliefornya.
and come see my new movie terminata tree, Riese of duh machine!
jhawk11 (anonymous) says…
“Defending innocent life — that is what prompted me. It is pretty simple,” [Roeder] said.
So he shot a guy in church? Seems ironic.
ivalueamerica (anonymous) says…
When bigots yell all people who follow Islam are terrorist, where are they when stuff like this happens?
No, I do not think all Christians are terrorists anymore than I think all Muslims are terrorists, I just want to point out that those that do so ONLY to one faith (color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation) are bigots.
LarryNative (anonymous) says…
Tiller, by the laws of the United States, was not a murderer. Your religious or moral beliefs are not the law. Your personal definition of murder is irrelevant. By calling Tiller a murderer, you are committing slander which is illegal by law. You are the criminal.
Tiller's murder was carried out by a religious fanatic just as any terrorist kill's in the name of their god. There is no difference whatsoever.
oldvet (anonymous) says…
You only have to convince one juror each time... and jury nullification is always a possibility...
Cappy (anonymous) says…
Doctors learn to perform abortions in medical school just like they do everything else. Sometimes abortions ARE medically necessary.
Roeder says four women have chosen not to have abortions. Probably because they are terrorized. Because he is a terrorist. I wonder if he expects maybe just a few virgins, if not 72.
BlessedSap (Anonymous) says…
The progressive mind is very flexible and constantly changing like a groovy lava lamp.
Cappy says...
The conservative mind is rigid and inflexible like a dead, unfeeling rock.
Jimo (anonymous) says…
I ask again: why is this terrorist not at Guantanamo?
yankeevet (anonymous) says…
Hangem High..........
..............clint................
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
The neoconservative mind is cold and stiff like a corpse.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
So then, vanguard, by your definition of "liberal" ... you're exclusively talking about people that were, say, teenagers during the '60s and early '70s?
Let's see... that'd make those people, in 2009... ballpark it between 55 and 65 years of age.
Whew! That's kinda cool. Anyone under age 50 can't *possibly* be a "liberal," then.
Thanks for that laugh!
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
P.S. Careful with that red herring you're wearing on your sleeve--those things begin to stink after a couple of days, so mind you don't throw it in the washer with your other laundry. ;)
artichokeheart (anonymous) says…
I could care less what Roeder is doing with his defense. He fulfilled his mission as a result Tiller is dead and will kill no more babies.
"vanguard3 (Anonymous) says…
Larrynative, Tiller, by definition, is not a murderer. However, his actions support the definition of baby killer. Isn't that the name that the liberals used to call the Vietnam Vets when they came home? Seems that for the liberals, the occupation of baby killer is in now vogue."
Yep this is a sign you are in America. Note there is a story on the increase in homeless Veterans with only 3 comments.
Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…
" I could care less what Roeder is doing with his defense. He fulfilled his mission as a result Tiller is dead and will kill no more babies."
Based on this line of thinking, you condone what the murderer at Ft. Hood did as well on his "mission". So........ murder is okay in your book as long as it isn't a zygote. Terrifying.
LarryNative (anonymous) says…
Kathy,
I agree, it is scary that so many individuals think that murder is good if it agrees with their own way of thinking. Don't these people see this is exactly how terrorists think. I would like to have one of you explain how this murder is any different then the murders that took took place on 9/11. Religious freaks killing for their gods. Amazing.
artichokeheart (anonymous) says…
If you compare Roeder to 9/11? One person died vs hundreds.
I find it funny that people keep bringing God into this especially since Tiller was killed in church.
LarryNative (anonymous) says…
Murder is murder arti. It's not a game of numbers.
I mentioned gods as well as moral beliefs in my earlier post. I felt I covered the bases by mentioning both. Is there another reason outside of religion or morals as to why a person would be anit-abortion?
The point I'm making is I find it sickening to see people applauding the cold blooded murder of a man who was doing nothing legally wrong. His actions offended individuals but if that is not a free ticket to justify murder.
LarryNative (anonymous) says…
Like I stated, it is a moral issue and not religious for some such as yourself.
Any person with any sense of decency would not murder a man in cold blood or cheer on that type of behavior. I am not an abortion advocate. I do believe it is not my choice however to bestow my beliefs on others. I also believe that is beside the point. My issue is with anyone who thinks murdering this doctor was a good thing.
artichokeheart (anonymous) says…
Just because the allows it doesn't make it O.K. The state of Kansas may allow late term abortions but the state lacks in other arenas. Apperently it is okie dokie to kill a person with your car in Kansas so long as you flee the scene. Does this make Kansas greater? I think not. Do you wonder why late term abortions have only been allowed at limited locations? People in Kansas think they are somehow special because of their willingness to go where other states will not. You people keep saying " murder is murder" but you dismiss the lives taken by late term abortions. Your very hypocrisy in that kind of statement alone makes me wonder if you even understand what the heck you are supporting.
artichokeheart (anonymous) says…
Sorry that should read " just because the law allows it."
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
You're one to talk about "hypocrisy," choke.
LarryNative (anonymous) says…
Vet,
You would do whatever it took...........so you would murder?
Arti,
It's not legal to hit someone with a car and flee the scene.
I am not a hypocrit because I don't consider an aborted fetus a human life, it is a fetus. It is not murder.
There is really no sense in continuing this discussion because Roeder, you and vet want to take human lives and I do not. You believe in murdering people and I do not. You believe a fetus is a human and I do not. We will never see eye to eye. You believe you and others like you do not have to follow our laws because you believe your beliefs are more important then the greater good.
Like I stated, I am not a pro abortion person. I am a man and will never be put in a situation where I would have to choose if my life and riasing my children are more or less important then a fetus that may kill me due to complications but if I were a women, I would want that right.