Archive for Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Attorney for man who says he shot George Tiller won’t present ‘necessity’ defense
November 10, 2009, 2:06 p.m. Updated November 10, 2009, 11:34 p.m.
Advertisement
Wichita — Wichita — An anti-abortion activist says he’s the one who killed a Kansas abortion provider — and did it because it was necessary to save lives. But one of his attorneys says there’s no such thing as a “necessity defense” in state law, and that is not the strategy the defense team plans to present at his trial.
Scott Roeder told The Associated Press in a telephone call from jail on Monday that he plans to argue at his trial that he was justified in shooting Dr. George Tiller to protect unborn children.
“We have explored that possibility,” public defender Steve Osburn said a day after his client’s confession. “That does not seem to be the approach that is viable, nor is it the approach we intend to use.”
Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Mo., 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 Wichita church. Roeder has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to go to trial in January.
He told the AP he has no regrets about killing Tiller.
His calls to the AP and the Kansas City Star 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.”
Osburn said he has discussed with Roeder “on numerous occasions” that a necessity defense was not viable, despite what his client was hearing from others. Roeder has said he is looking for an attorney who will present such a defense but cannot afford to hire one.
His former wife said Tuesday that she was in another room when she heard a television news report play an audio clip of his confession to the AP. Lindsey Roeder said she found it surreal to hear her ex-husband’s voice.
“Even though you heard other people say, ‘I saw him do it,’ even though I have heard since 1993 how he feels about justifiable homicide in response to abortion, it made it all very real,” she said. “It was no longer just something we saw on TV or heard in the papers.”
Both sides downplayed the impact Roeder’s statements to the media would have on their cases.
“It is what it is. He is his own man and we are going to move forward,” said Mark Rudy, Roeder’s other public defender.
The defense worked out a plan some time ago on how to proceed with the case, and that plan has not changed, Osburn said. He declined to give specifics on the plan.
“I would highly doubt that the state would attempt to call reporters up to the stand to talk about their conversations with Scott, and I say that because they are not going to want to open this up into arguments about things such as justification, when life begins and all those issues,” Rudy said.
“I anticipate that they will try to keep this narrow, to the point and try it as a typical murder case,” he said. “Therefore they aren’t gonna want to open the door to certain other issues that would undoubtedly come out if the media was put up on the stand.”
More like this
- Tiller suspect has court date Tuesday July 27, 2009
- Suspect pleads not guilty in Tiller murder 48 comments / July 28, 2009
- FBI says it received letter warning them that man who confessed to shooting Tiller could be violent 6 comments / November 13, 2009
- Tiller shooting trial Attorney suggests unusual defense 61 comments / August 30, 2009
- Roeder confesses to shooting abortion doctor 73 comments / November 9, 2009
Top ads RSS
- KU Student Health Services
- HIV Education/ Outreach Coordinator: Dynamic, self-directed person needed to conduct ...
- Coordinator with Teaching Responsibilities University of Kansas Requires professional knowledge ...
- ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT Fundraising and public relations firm seeking full-time administrative ...
- ALL GIRLS & GUYS $400 - $850 / week. No ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Blog: We Noticed November 19, 2009 · 94 comments
- Mangino denies validity of former player allegations November 19, 2009 · 154 comments
- KU's Chancellor issues statement putting support behind Lew Perkins November 20, 2009 · 27 comments
- Lawrence man charged in hit-and-run accident that killed bicyclist November 19, 2009 · 105 comments
- Muslim countries seek blasphemy ban November 20, 2009 · 14 comments
- Blog: Why Do People Repeat Falsehoods? November 20, 2009 · 32 comments
- Blog: Palin Book Could Be Your Cheapest Source For Winter Fuel November 20, 2009 · 14 comments
- Report: Women can do with fewer Pap tests November 20, 2009 · 24 comments
- Fatal mindset November 20, 2009 · 43 comments
- Baldwin City teen detained for bringing loaded gun and knife to school November 19, 2009 · 23 comments
- Baldwin City teen detained for bringing loaded gun and knife to school November 19, 2009
- Mangino denies validity of former player allegations November 19, 2009
- Resident hopes to start rickshaw business in downtown Lawrence, pending city approval November 19, 2009
- Lawrence schools preparing for another round of budget cuts November 18, 2009
- KU's Chancellor issues statement putting support behind Lew Perkins November 20, 2009
- Farmers' Turnpike reopens after four months of construction November 20, 2009
- KU student pushes button that demolishes a portion of the Kansas Turnpike bridge November 19, 2009
- Rise and shine November 20, 2009
- Kansas Board of Regents OKs contract to implement $25.6 million in conservation projects November 19, 2009
- Elder Henry makes debut November 20, 2009
10 November 2009
at 3:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
“Roeder, of Kansas City, Mo., said he has no regrets about shooting Tiller in May at the doctor’s Wichita church.”
Ahh, a candidate for the death penalty. Keep talking, Scottie-boy.
10 November 2009
at 3:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
srj (Anonymous) says…
Can a lawyer get a gag order for there own client? Public defenders don't make enough money to deal with cases like this.
10 November 2009
at 3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mike_blur (Mike Blur) says…
An attorney presenting the “necessity defense” would likely risk him/herself to disbarment.
10 November 2009
at 4:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
1029 (Anonymous) says…
Why doesn't he just claim that he's insane? For example, maybe he could say that he was visited by ghost babies at night and they whispered “instructions” in his ear or something. Or maybe he can say that he thought the church was a forest and that Tiller was a deer. Or he could start going on and on about Judgement Day and how the machines will rise up and take over in the future.
You can do it, Roeder, just be creative. And get that Iragoonily guy to defend you instead of some free lawyer. Surely your supporters can raise the funds.
10 November 2009
at 4:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
middlemgmt (Anonymous) says…
I have met him and I think he is insane so he should work that angle.
10 November 2009
at 4:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…
The frightening part is many people view him as a hero.
10 November 2009
at 4:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sfjayhawk (Anonymous) says…
The guy is clearly a total wackjob - they need to go with the insanity defense.
10 November 2009
at 5:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
srj (Anonymous) says…
middlemgmt, you just earned yourself a summons to appear in court :)
10 November 2009
at 5:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
I find it difficult to see much difference between Roeder and islamic terrorists.
Basically, this guy has martyred himself by committing an act of terrorism and ten giving himsef up. He might be put to death.
I have read many comments saying that it does not matter what happens to Roeder, but the important thing is that Tiller is dead.
This is supporting terrorism. Supporting the result of terrorism is just as bad as supporting the terrorist. Worse, even.
I am sure there are many in Iraq and Afghanistan who support the results of suicide bombers but would never do it themselves.
Roeder is a terrorist, and those who support the resulting death of Tiller are terrorist supporters and cowards.
10 November 2009
at 5:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
Take a headcount of babies Tiller has killed in his career , divide by the days he's spent doing this, then calculate how many babies he didn't kill since he was killed. This is a good start for the record.
10 November 2009
at 6:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Kryptenx (Anonymous) says…
Tom, even if your premises were correct, who designated Roeder as the judge, jury, and executioner? Would you say the same if he had murdered a family member of yours for their wrongs?
10 November 2009
at 6:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BrianR (Anonymous) says…
Now right_thinker is condoning murder. Nice.
10 November 2009
at 6:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
Tom,
For one thing, they weren't “babies”. For another, they were undoubtedly non-viable. I know you wouldn't understand such things as you are confused about many things but not every fetus is destined to be on the football team. Some fetuses don't have brains, some don't have lungs, some have heads the size of basketballs filled with nothing but water, etc.
It's the details that you miss. The details that show how dishonest you are. The details that probably would diffuse the effectiveness of “anti-abortion” BS on the redneck, “The Bible is the unerring Word 'O God” crowd.
10 November 2009
at 7 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
“Would you say the same if he had murdered a family member of yours for their wrongs?” -Kryptenx
I'm not sure, but thanks for admitting Tillers guilt.
10 November 2009
at 7:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
“…some have heads the size of basketballs filled with nothing but water…” -porchie person
And see, you made it this far.
10 November 2009
at 7:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
Tom,
You're right. I don't have a “former name” someone can call me.
10 November 2009
at 7:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
Oh? You don't? Well then you need to work for NBC doing damage control/running interference for Obama/Pelosi/Reid I do believe. Thanks for the laugh. We all know who you are.
(laughter,ie, ha ha ha)
10 November 2009
at 7:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Informed (Anonymous) says…
Valkyrie, I am pro-life. So much so, that I have been arrested for my beliefs and subsequent non-violent, civil disobedient, life-saving actions. I do not consider Roeder a hero. I have a very large circle of pro-life friends. I have not heard a single one of them refer to Roeder as a hero. However, my opinion and statement is every bit as anecdotal as yours.
10 November 2009
at 8:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
weeslicket (Anonymous) says…
so far today,1029 has the funniest posts.
10 November 2009
at 8:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
Tom,
“We all know who you are” - TomShewmon
(laughter)
I have to ask, you who a couple of days ago could discern fellow conservatives on Mass via the “secret wink” method.
Who am I?
(laughter)
This oughta be good.
10 November 2009
at 9:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ivalueamerica (Anonymous) says…
Tom Shewmon is clearly a traitor to America so defy the Constitution and support a murderer.
He is the enemy within.
10 November 2009
at 9:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Kryptenx (Anonymous) says…
Tom, refer to the 'even if your premises were true' part of my post. The problem is that not only is your conclusion faulty, but your premises false as well.
10 November 2009
at 9:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Kryptenx (Anonymous) says…
And given that your premises are false and therefore your conclusion does not follow, one must assume your premises true in order to disprove your conclusion as well. You're wrong on 2/2 points.
11 November 2009
at 12:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cait48 (Anonymous) says…
And what of the two he threatened in the course of his escape, BlessedSap? “Acceptable collateral damage”? In a church? One person or a thousand, Scott Roeder is no different from Timothy McVeigh and the Army of God is no different from Al Qaeda.
11 November 2009
at 12:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Cooky_the_Cook (Anonymous) says…
Would anybody object to me jumping into my time machine and going back to talk Roeder's mom and Tiller's mom into having back-alley abortions?
11 November 2009
at 5:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…
The difference between McVeigh and Roeder is that Roeder won't get the death penalty. The difference between Roeder and Al Qaeda is we know where Roeder is.
11 November 2009
at 9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
artichokeheart spanks one through the five hole and lights the lamp!!
“The difference between Roeder and Al Qaeda is we know where Roeder is.” – artichokeheart
I like that. I really do.
11 November 2009
at 10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
honeychild (Mel Briscoe) says…
so this dude is down w/ the whole jihad mindset, right?
11 November 2009
at 10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Fixed_Asset (Anonymous) says…
I like it, too porch - so does that mean artichokeheart supports Al Qaeda, too?
11 November 2009
at 10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…
Who knows maybe McVeigh isn't really dead at all. I suspect Obama and Both the Bushes before know where Bin Laden is too.
11 November 2009
at 10:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
Fixed_Asset,
How are you getting that artichokeheart is sympathetic to al Qaeda out of that statement?
Oh, I get it. You're not. You're just saying it because you want it to be true.
======
BlessedSap,
You think Tim McVeigh should be mourned? Interesting opinion, sure to win favor among Lawrence Journal World readers. I don't believe that the Feds “hid his body”. I think you're trolling. Keep trying. I'll bet you can get one of your posts removed before the day is over.
11 November 2009
at 11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
BlessedSap,
I don't believe you. I don't believe that McVeigh's family doesn't know where he is buried or where his ashes are. Sounds like you're one of those wackos who live in the underground and want to make pilgrimage to the site of one of your heroes.
Be prepared to go alone.
11 November 2009
at 11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
BlessedSap,
I looked it up. Only took a second. Tim McVeigh was cremated. His ashes were given to his lawyer, who scattered part of them in an undisclosed location and the rest were given to McVeigh's family. Your urban myth is busted.
Feel free to promote the myth that the US Government is keeping you and your buddies from paying tribute to Tim McVeigh, a loser who killed 168 people (19 of which were children in a daycare center).
The only thing the US Government did was make sure McVeigh was never buried in a military cemetery. Not an unexpected or inappropriate response, don't you think?
11 November 2009
at 11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
BlessedSap,
You claimed that the United States Government hid Tim McVeigh's burial site so that you, McVeigh's family and your buddies couldn't go mourn him.
You were wrong on many counts.
What sort of major malfunction causes you to entertain such an ideas.?
11 November 2009
at 12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kmat (Anonymous) says…
I want to remind all these people that support Roeder and his killing of one important rule.
Judge not lest ye be judged.
I assume you are against abortions because of religious beliefs. So, if you believe in what your god says, he tells man to not judge. That is god's role. Roeder judged. You supporting the murder of Tiller have judged. Why not follow what your god demands and leave the judging to god.
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.
Roeder was a terrorist.
11 November 2009
at 12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kmat (Anonymous) says…
Blessed - you should go visit the memorial in OKC to understand why any limits had to be placed on even where that piece of sh*t's ashes were spread. That sick dirt bag thought of having his ashes spread at the memorial? The only thing they should have allowed was for everyone that lost a loved one to be able to spit and dance on his ashes after he was killed. I made my husband visit the site. He did it reluctantly since he didn't really see much of a point in it. Once he saw the remaining fence with all the letters left by loved one's and read some of them, he cried and understood why a memorial had to be created and the importance of us never forgetting what a home grown terrorist can do.
McVeigh was a terrorist. The Ft. Hood shooter is a terrorist. Roeder is a terrorist.
11 November 2009
at 12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Fixed_Asset (Anonymous) says…
No, porch person, I don't wish it to be true at all, in fact that possibility scares me, however, if one supports Roeder because they believe TIller was a murderer, and then makes the statement that there is no difference between Roeder and Al Qaeda - you see where I am going with this? They are both terroristic, so how can one support one terrorist and not another?
11 November 2009
at 1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…
I have no religious ties at all. I know the prolifers would like to label Roeder as a terrorist but Roeder is not a terrorist. By definition he is a murderer but so was Tiller. Roeder did what he felt needed to be done. He will no doubt pay for this according to the standards of law. Just because prochoicers feel Tiller was a great figure does not make it so; at least not for everyone. Tiller was just a man who made the choice to pefrorm late term abortions. He used his money, power and connections to continue doing do. Roeder is just another man who responded to Tiller's actions with a counter action. Roeder will no doubt spend the rest of his life in prison. From now on the majority of people will remember Roeder because of the prochoicers bringing him up. If Tiller is considered to be such a success for” protecting the women's right to choose”( your words not mine) Then Roeder is a success too, for defending the rights of those yet to be born. You prochoicers keep and will continue to keep Roeder's message alive because you keep arguing about it.
11 November 2009
at 1:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ksdivakat (Anonymous) says…
Thank God that none of you are in high goevernment positions…we would all be in big trouble!
11 November 2009
at 2:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cait48 (Anonymous) says…
My daughter and I decided that if we ever had the magical choice to change things we would force Randall Terry and Troy Newman to become pregnant and then make them carry to term. Same goes for every antichoice, “prolife” (now there's a misnomer) man on this board.
Roeder's message will be “kept alive” not by prochoicers but by the pro-terrorists who will martyr him for the cause. They're already doing it.
11 November 2009
at 2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ComradeRedRooster (Anonymous) says…
The reason the socialists can't understand Roeder and believe he is crazy is because the socialists are not familiar with the concept of self responsibility. Roeder has admitted to aborting Dr. Tiller. Roeder has stated publicly that he is ready to accept the consequences of his actions.
When was the last time you heard a socialist accept responsiblity for their actions?…..Never
The socialist needs abortion to be legal, the socialist needs to feel empowered over the weakest in our society. The socialist desires to transfer their rationale for killing unborn children to eventually rounding up and killing Jews, Christians, Patriots, Veterans, etc until it has the perfect utopia.
11 November 2009
at 2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…
cait48 (Anonymous) says…
“My daughter and I decided that if we ever had the magical choice to change things we would force Randall Terry and Troy Newman to become pregnant and then make them carry to term. Same goes for every antichoice, “prolife” (now there's a misnomer) man on this board.”
See even the prochoice advocates aren't really about choice. When you want to “make” someone do something you are so not “pro” about “choice.”
11 November 2009
at 3:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Fixed_Asset (Anonymous) says…
You mean like “making” someone carry a fetus after being raped? I'm sorry you are confused artichokeheart. Bottom line - Roeder is a terrorist.
11 November 2009
at 3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kmat (Anonymous) says…
ComradeRedRooster - You are a nut case. Go climb into your bunker and stay there.
You are a terrorist supporter.
11 November 2009
at 3:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…
Nope it appears “prochoice” has strings attached. You know like killing innocents for the cause. Hey terrorists do that too. Go figure.
11 November 2009
at 6:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
Terrorists are neither justified in their actions nor are they insane.
Roeder is a terrorist, as are many in the “life” movement.
Threatening the use of violence and committing violence in the name of cause is terrorism.
Roeder is a terroist, and organizations like Operation Rescue that use threats of violence and intimidation are terrorist organizations.
11 November 2009
at 6:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
Roeder claims responsibility for his actions just as the suicide bomber blows himself to bits to take responsibility.
Martyrdom is a hallmark of a terrorist.
Roeder might get his wish of martyrdom, as this case has all the hallmarks of a death penalty case.
11 November 2009
at 6:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ebyrdstarr (Anonymous) says…
yourworstnightmare wrote:
“Roeder might get his wish of martyrdom, as this case has all the hallmarks of a death penalty case.”
No, it doesn't. It has none of the hallmarks of a death penalty case in Kansas. It has been stated repeatedly, both in articles about this case and the comments section, that this case does not fit any of the very narrow class of homicides that satisfy the requirements for our capital murder statute.
11 November 2009
at 6:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ComradeRedRooster (Anonymous) says…
cait48,
I'm a regular guy, once a day I carry a socialist to full term, then I flush it and send it on a journey to be with others of it's kind, neo-marxists, liberals, democrats, etc.
11 November 2009
at 6:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
George Tiller was killed for doing something that is perfectly legal.
Late term abortion is not murder, as judged by our Constitution, Supreme Court, and legal system.
There are those who think that abortion is murder. This is their opinion.
Just as the terrorist suicide bomber thinks that he will receive virgins in heaven and that girls with uncovered faces are evil and should be killed.
These are opinions.
Terrorists act on their own opinions and outside of the law. This is what makes them terrorists.
You might think that abortion is murder, but this is your opinion. The law of the United States says it is not murder.
It is the terrorist who uses violence to act on his own opinions and outside of the law.
11 November 2009
at 6:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ComradeRedRooster (Anonymous) says…
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
“George Tiller was killed for doing something that is perfectly legal.”
Some Nazi Party officials were executed for doing something that was perfectly legal within the boundaries of their country.
11 November 2009
at 6:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
You are correct, ebyrdstarr. It doesn't fit the criteria for the death penalty.
I guess he will be forced to find his virgins in jail.
11 November 2009
at 6:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
“Some Nazi Party officials were executed for doing something that was perfectly legal within the boundaries of their country. ”
The comparison of abortion to the horrors committed by the Nazis is facile and really ridiculous and insulting.
Jesus, Comrade, keep a round in the chamber for once.
For starters, the systematic murder committed by the Nazis was never legal in Germany. The Nazis just took it upon themselves through brute force and thuggery.
11 November 2009
at 7:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ComradeRedRooster (Anonymous) says…
Yourownworstnightmare,
You are obviously unfamiliar with the Nuremburg laws of 1935.
“The Nazis just took it upon themselves through brute force and thuggery.”
Was that Chicago style thuggery or through brute force via unions and black panthers, most likely BOTH.
11 November 2009
at 7:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
ComradeRedRooster,
(laughter)
You want so bad to successfully conflate Dr. Tiller with Nazi Germany and it just isn't flying with anyone, is it?
(laughter)
tick, tock
tick, tock
(laughter)
11 November 2009
at 7:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
The Nuremberg laws said nothing about genocide. They were racial purity laws, but certainly did not legalize genocide.
Sort of like “marriage is only between a man and a woman”. Not “kill homosexuals”.
Try again, comrade.
11 November 2009
at 7:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ComradeRedRooster (Anonymous) says…
Gosh PP, it's obvious a socialist, is a socialist is a socialist.
A murder, is a murder is a murder.
I'm sure a Jew in 1939 trying to convince a socialist party official that denying Jews the right to be human was immoral probably has the same result here today when a pro-life supporter tries to convince a socialist that denying an unborn child the right to be human is immoral.
You probably hate children. That is your right, and you believe that the unborn are not human, like the socialist of 1939, that is your right. Are your rights under the law any less immoral? No.
11 November 2009
at 7:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
Wow, just wow comrade.
You have jumped the shark. The only thing left is just to laugh at your ignorance and stupidity.
Bwaaa haa haa. You so funny.
11 November 2009
at 7:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ComradeRedRooster (Anonymous) says…
yourownworstnightmare,
If you violated any of those laws you were sent to the labor camp. What do you think they did there? Have cookouts and make smores? The Nuremburg laws were the legal justification for deportation and extermination because the jew was declared “unhuman”. In 1939 the laws were further clarified to deal with Jews outside of Germany, particularly Poland. It was at this time that the Germans were in violation of Polish law. German law allowed for the mistreatment and murder of Jews.
The German ministry of Justice had ruled on the laws and had interpreted them as broad tools to allow for the cleansing of the german homeland of inferior or unhuman contamination. 16 of those justices were tried at Nuremburg in 1947 for their interpretations. Because Germany didn't have a higher law, such as our constitution, they were bound by what the Reichstag legislated. And without a seperation of power, the system lent itself to abuse.
Much like what we see happening in the US today under the Obama regime.
11 November 2009
at 7:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ComradeRedRooster (Anonymous) says…
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
“The Nuremberg laws said nothing about genocide. They were racial purity laws, but certainly did not legalize genocide.”
Please provide me with a law from 1935 prohibiting genocide? Where was this law? Have you even read the Nuremburg trials? The law was after the fact, made retroactive.
And how do you get racial purity if not by genocide?
Here's your sign!!
LMAO
11 November 2009
at 7:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
If you say so, comrade (rolls eyes).
11 November 2009
at 7:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ComradeRedRooster (Anonymous) says…
Yourownworstnightmare,
It would be impossible for you to provide a fact to support your position, so I understand your attempt to just 'fade away'.
Perhaps next time you can discuss the issue with some knowledge of the subject. Recommend you read the US Army history series on the Nuremburg trials. It will give an excellent insight on morallity and law. Burt Lancaster starred in an accurate movie on the subject.
We can only hope that in 60 years we look upon the holocaust of unborn children with the same revulsion that we look upon the Nazi holocaust.
11 November 2009
at 7:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
ComradeRedRooster,
(laughter)
You're getting funnier by the post.
(laughter)
Some of the “unborn” don't have lungs. Some don't have brains. Some have huge craniums filled with nothing but water. Are you enjoying this little embryology inservice?
(laughter)
11 November 2009
at 8:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ComradeRedRooster (Anonymous) says…
The asylums in Germany were cleared of the “unfit”. They were an unproductive waste of Reich resources. They were euthanized (murdered) to save money. They were without rights.
You find that hillarious, I don't. The Obama Socialist Regime is going to ration health care in much the same way. Just wait, it is coming.
You justify it which indicates you have a moral reservation?
Most of the murdered unborn children have lungs, have brains and are perfectly healthy. Are you enjoying your little genocide inservice?
11 November 2009
at 8:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
ComradeRedRooster,
(laughter)
Ok, you've gone from trying to conflate Dr. Tiller with Nazi Germany to conflating Obama's health care plan with Nazi Germany.
(laughter)
All the while, demonstrating a resolute desire to remain ignorant of some unfortunate developmental conditions that anyone can confirm with a few keystrokes.
(laughter)
You're not one of those nuts who just can't get enough of Nazi Germany, are you?
(laughter)
11 November 2009
at 8:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ComradeRedRooster (Anonymous) says…
PP,
If you don't wish to engage in a civil manner then don't engage. You have failed to cite an example or historical fact to refute my premise. You've resorted to name calling and are attempting ridicule. It reflects a last ditch defense, you don't know what to write, you have little or no knowledge on the subject, yet you feel compelled to attack the opposing view out of some misplaced ideological loyalty. It is clear that your responses are emotional and not reasoned. You are the embodiment of the Democratic party far left. Emotion is the rule.
11 November 2009
at 9:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
ComradeRedRoooster,
(laughter)
What “premise” is that, ComradeRedRooster? That Dr. Tiller's perfectly legal medical service to an extremely small population dealing with a heartbreaking outcome is akin to Nazi extermination or that providing health care for all Americans is the equivalent of the social policies of Nazi Germany?
(laughter)
See how insane you sound?
(laughter)
==========
I've provided examples of several developmental conditions which necessitate late-term abortions, conditions which are *real* and able to be confirmed with very little effort in research, yet you claim that every fetus is viable.
They aren't.
Most of those conditions aren't discovered until mid to late term sonographs are performed. You don't know that. You're speaking from ignorance.
=======
Phill Kline did everything he could, even beyond what the law allows him to do, in a effort to find something wrong with Dr. Tiller's practice.
He couldn't.
==========
Over half of all terminations of pregnancy are “natural”, ComradeRedRooster. They are called “miscarriages”. You don't know that either.
You're giving everyone an irrelevant history lesson in Nazi Germany and I'm giving information just a little closer to the subject of this thread.
You feel like a returning troll. I have no doubt that your days here are numbered.
12 November 2009
at 4:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ComradeRedRooster (Anonymous) says…
PP,
You insist upon name calling and uncivil behavior. You veiled a threat and you call me insane. All these actions are against good order and civility in any online community. You apparently believe yourself above the rules and wish to argue nonsense instead of issues.
I have merely stated that Abortion is murder in my moral and ethical beliefs. I concede that it is a “legal procedure” but that does not negate its immorality. Slavery was once a legal activity, as was the persecution of Jews, Gypsies and others in Germany. They were legal, yet immoral. We have made heroes of those that assisted the underground railroad and righteous gentiles. Under your moral code they were criminals. Very telling.
Miscarriages are natural, understood, your assumption that I don't know it is ridiculous. Heart attacks and cancer kill people, they aren't murder. So what, your point is nothing.
Scott Petterson was found guilty for killing his unborn child. Hmmm
You fail to see the obvious or dismiss it, and instead of acknowledging that someone can hold an opposing view you attack and name call, threaten and ridicule. You are intolerant of others and you are an abusive poster.
I recommend that you change your style, you might find it refreshing and intellectually rewarding instead of parroting the party line.
12 November 2009
at 4:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ComradeRedRooster (Anonymous) says…
As for Phil Kline, he found several violations by Tiller. Tiller was charged, it was Kline's successor that wished to not persue some of those charges. Tillers timely abortion negated any further action. Tiller had broke the law. Tiller was an immoral person regardless of the law for the law allowing murder is immoral.
12 November 2009
at 6:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…
Comrade
You make a good point when you bring up Scott Peterson. More often than not when a pregnant woman is killed two charges are filed. One for the mother and one for the child. If a person can and has been charged with killing a unborn child then the law does recognize the unborn as viable despite what the laws say about abortion.
12 November 2009
at 8 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tumbilweed (Anonymous) says…
If Roeder admitted it then why is there still a trial?
12 November 2009
at 8:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…
“According to Johnson, the non-profit was struggling under the weight of a tough economy, and changing it's business model from one that pushed prevention, to one that focused on abortion.
“It seemed like maybe that's not what a lot of people were believing any more because that's not where the money was. The money wasn't in family planning, the money wasn't in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that,” said Johnson.”
http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/68…
And according to Johnson, several other PP employees around the country are converting, but she happened to be a director.
12 November 2009
at 11:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Navin_R_Johnson (Anonymous) says…
man, comrade,
nightmare and porch dude just received a first class –- whoopin.' problem is they don't realize they just brought only their fists to gunfight.
they'd serve themselves well to go back and read Dred Scott to get a handle on what used to be “perfectly legal” in America. of course, havin' read their blind swinging, factually deficient posts, it'd probably just be a lesson wasted on the ideological punch drunk.
to recap, what was “perfectly legal” in 1857, as handed to us by justice taney, was:
“[african americans] had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it.”
or this jewel:
“… … We think they [people of African ancestry] are … not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word “citizens” in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States… .” — Chief Justice Roger B. Taney,
speaking for the majority
nevermind that whole three-fifths a person thing.
perfectly legal nightmare. your bluster about legality is bull $#!+ unless you support the law of the land of 1857. Dred Scott also goes a long way in demonstrating that unjust law can be overturned, even if forced through the instrument of war.
wake up wingnuts, go stand over in the corner with the other dunces.
i suppose, according to the scotch-saturated collective of doofi above, the abolitionists were just plain kooks for being outraged at the “perfectly legal” decision of Dred Scott. both of you are about as fluent in your historical lessons as tit-mice.
thank God the abolitionists were people who would champion the morally right against the “legally” wrong.
how does it go? (roll eyes and laughter).
good posts comrade.
12 November 2009
at 12:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cait48 (Anonymous) says…
People who compare Scott Roeder to John Brown and abortion to slavery are engaging in logical fallacies.
They are two completely different things and the only real comparison between the two is that outlawing abortion would serve to enslave half the human race.
Granting constitutional rights to a potential human being trumps the rights of already born human beings; women. It threatens their right to bodily integrity and the right to do with their body as they choose, including carrying a fetus and bearing children.
When Comrade, Navin, Tom and the rest of you middle aged white men debating the lives of women over your scotch-on-the rocks can come up with a solution to balancing those rights let me know. I'll be happy to listen.
12 November 2009
at 1:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ComradeRedRooster (Anonymous) says…
Cait48,
What about that sticky little precedent with Scott Peterson, and several others around the country. They were convicted of killing another human being, but wait, that human for which they were convicted was an unborn child.
Please explain, what “logical fallacies” were identified in the discussion? The deductive argument is not flawed therefore your assertion of a “fallacy” is incorrect. You, PP and yourownworstnightmare have all engaged in fallacy of emotion.
I have engaged in logical, deductive reasoning supported by precedent and fact. Therefore my argument is not fallacious. Your responses were without fact, emotionally based, and of little value except to cheer the other emotional posters, PP and Yourownworstnightmare. You my friend are a fake.
12 November 2009
at 2:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cait48 (Anonymous) says…
Far from it Redbaiter (oh, did I say that?).
Scott Petersen was convicted because the woman he murdered was willingly carrying the baby and the fetus was viable. He was convicted because he interfered with HER right to carry that fetus to term and give birth, murdering not just her but the fetus as well.
I already explained the fallacies in your argument. Comparing abortion and slavery is comparing apples and oranges.
Your last paragraph almost made me fall off my chair laughing.
“I said it so it makes it so.”
Try again.
12 November 2009
at 2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cait48 (Anonymous) says…
Oh and by the way, my offer still stands. When you and your “comrades” can come up with a solution to balancing the rights of the fetus with the rights of women, let me know. I'll be more than happy to hear you out.
12 November 2009
at 3:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ComradeRedRooster (Anonymous) says…
“I already explained the fallacies in your argument.”
(No, you gave emotional commentary)
“Comparing abortion and slavery is comparing apples and oranges.”
(So you determine what is an apple and what is an orange? Because you say so. )
Good stuff. Do you write comedy?
12 November 2009
at 3:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kmat (Anonymous) says…
artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…
I have no religious ties at all. I know the prolifers would like to label Roeder as a terrorist but Roeder is not a terrorist.
_____________________
You are so wrong. Terrorism (by definition) is - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature.
Did Roeder use violence against civilians in order to attain goals of a religious nature? YEP!
I thought you had to end every comment you make with “charge him now”.
12 November 2009
at 3:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Navin_R_Johnson (Anonymous) says…
cait,
you have failed like the rest. you accuse of a fallacy but are incapable of actually pointing out a fallacy. you end up defaulting to some hysterical, pro-choice rant.
you're “offer” is irrelevant to this conversation and is nothing more than a neo-marxist-like technique to move the argument in a direction you are more comfortable with, since you are clearly in over your head with the current subject matter.
now if you would like to offer counter-points of the finer details of national socialist Germany or the Dred Scott decision, to prove whatever your point is, you should begin immediately; othersie you might wish to just move along and go carry a sign on a street corner somewhere.
btw, you might want to let nightmare and porch speak for themselves regarding “perfect legality,” as well as just and unjust law (although, unlike you, they had the good sense to quit, understanding they are clearly on the wrong side of logic on this one); you are not serving either of them very well at present.
13 November 2009
at 7:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LarryNative (Anonymous) says…
Artichoke,
Tiller was not a murderer. He is labeled a murderer by your definition, not the legal definition. So you can go around making all kinds of legal accusations in your small little world while making up your own definitions and laws but in our country, Tiller was not a murderer. Your arguments only make sense in your own head. The rest of us look at you and see a crazy person.
13 November 2009
at 8:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LarryNative (Anonymous) says…
Sorry to hijack the thread but….
Last sept 15, the LJW ran a small story of a women, 32, arrested for indicent liberties with a child. What happened was this women and her scumbag boyfriend, who was also arrested, did horrible things to her own handicapped child. I just found out and I know the child. Does anyone have any more information on how the DA is handling this case? If there was ever a situation where two people should have been aborted, it's these two sick f*cks.
13 November 2009
at 8:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
Navin_R_Johnson,
(laughter)
You done cheerleading for ComradeRedRooster yet? I'm sure he appreciates it.
(laughter)
Dr. Tiller's work was both legal and medically necessary, Phill Kline was dressed down by the Kansas Supreme Court for his behavior in persecuting Dr. Tiller, Scott Roeder is going away for the rest of his life for murdering Dr. Tiller in his own church and both of you are on the wrong side of this issue.
(laughter)
Have I summarized events succinctly?
(laughter)
13 November 2009
at 8:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LarryNative (Anonymous) says…
Rooster,
John Brown was a criminal.
Scott Peterson was guilty of aggravated murder for the unlawful termination of a pregnancy.
Anything else you want to make up?
14 November 2009
at 7:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ComradeRedRooster (Anonymous) says…
Larry says:
“John Brown was a criminal”
Of course he was Larry, the law was unjust, slavery was an immoral activity allowed by an immoral law. He was compelled to act. Our founding fathers were considered by the ruling authority to be criminals. Do you think before you post?
Scott Peterson was found guilty of Second degree Murder of his unborn son. Sentenced for the 1st degree murder of Laci with lethal injection.
So please tell me what was made up? Or do facts conflict with your fantasy world of unicorns and elves?