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.


— 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.”


yourworstnightmare 8 years, 5 months ago

"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.

Steve Jacob 8 years, 5 months ago

Can a lawyer get a gag order for there own client? Public defenders don't make enough money to deal with cases like this.

Mike Blur 8 years, 5 months ago

An attorney presenting the "necessity defense" would likely risk him/herself to disbarment.

1029 8 years, 5 months ago

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.

middlemgmt 8 years, 5 months ago

I have met him and I think he is insane so he should work that angle.

Kathy Theis-Getto 8 years, 5 months ago

The frightening part is many people view him as a hero.

sfjayhawk 8 years, 5 months ago

The guy is clearly a total wackjob - they need to go with the insanity defense.

Steve Jacob 8 years, 5 months ago

middlemgmt, you just earned yourself a summons to appear in court :)

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 5 months ago

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.

Kryptenx 8 years, 5 months ago

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?

BrianR 8 years, 5 months ago

Now right_thinker is condoning murder. Nice.

weeslicket 8 years, 5 months ago

so far today,1029 has the funniest posts.

ivalueamerica 8 years, 5 months ago

Tom Shewmon is clearly a traitor to America so defy the Constitution and support a murderer.

He is the enemy within.

Kryptenx 8 years, 5 months ago

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.

Kryptenx 8 years, 5 months ago

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.

Cait McKnelly 8 years, 5 months ago

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.

Cooky_the_Cook 8 years, 5 months ago

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?

Amy Heeter 8 years, 5 months ago

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.

Mel Briscoe 8 years, 5 months ago

so this dude is down w/ the whole jihad mindset, right?

Fixed_Asset 8 years, 5 months ago

I like it, too porch - so does that mean artichokeheart supports Al Qaeda, too?

Amy Heeter 8 years, 5 months ago

Who knows maybe McVeigh isn't really dead at all. I suspect Obama and Both the Bushes before know where Bin Laden is too.

kmat 8 years, 5 months ago

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.

kmat 8 years, 5 months ago

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.

Fixed_Asset 8 years, 5 months ago

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?

Amy Heeter 8 years, 5 months ago

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.

ksdivakat 8 years, 5 months ago

Thank God that none of you are in high goevernment positions...we would all be in big trouble!

Cait McKnelly 8 years, 5 months ago

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.

Amy Heeter 8 years, 5 months ago

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."

Fixed_Asset 8 years, 5 months ago

You mean like "making" someone carry a fetus after being raped? I'm sorry you are confused artichokeheart. Bottom line - Roeder is a terrorist.

kmat 8 years, 5 months ago

ComradeRedRooster - You are a nut case. Go climb into your bunker and stay there.

You are a terrorist supporter.

Amy Heeter 8 years, 5 months ago

Nope it appears "prochoice" has strings attached. You know like killing innocents for the cause. Hey terrorists do that too. Go figure.

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 5 months ago

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.

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 5 months ago

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.

ebyrdstarr 8 years, 5 months ago

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.

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 5 months ago

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.

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 5 months ago

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.

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 5 months ago

"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.

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 5 months ago

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.

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 5 months ago

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.

Amy Heeter 8 years, 5 months ago

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.

Navin_R_Johnson 8 years, 5 months ago

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.

Cait McKnelly 8 years, 5 months ago

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.

Cait McKnelly 8 years, 5 months ago

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.

Cait McKnelly 8 years, 5 months ago

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.

kmat 8 years, 5 months ago

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".

Navin_R_Johnson 8 years, 5 months ago


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.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.