Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, January 28, 2010

Judge rules jury cannot consider voluntary manslaughter charge for Roeder in trial for Tiller’s murder

Roeder testified he shot Tiller, cited necessity to protect unborn children

January 28, 2010, 8:14 a.m. Updated January 28, 2010, 11:17 p.m.

Advertisement

Judge rules jury cannot consider voluntary manslaughter charge for Roeder in trial for Tiller's murder

The judge in the trial of a man accused of murdering an abortion doctor dealt the defense a major setback Thursday, ruling that the jury cannot consider a lesser charge of manslaughter. Enlarge video

— The judge in the trial of a man accused of murdering an abortion doctor dealt the defense a major setback Thursday, ruling that the jury cannot consider a lesser charge of manslaughter.

The ruling came hours after Scott Roeder took the stand in his own defense and admitted killing Dr. George Tiller, saying he acted to save the lives of unborn children.

Roeder’s attorneys had hoped to win a lesser conviction of voluntary manslaughter, which requires them to show their client had an unreasonable but honest belief that deadly force was justified. The charge carries a considerably lighter sentence than murder.

Roeder testified that he considered elaborate schemes to stop the doctor, including chopping off his hands, crashing a car into him or sneaking into his home to kill him.

But in the end, Roeder told jurors, the easiest way was to walk into Tiller’s church, put a gun to the man’s forehead and pull the trigger.

Testifying as the lone defense witness, Roeder calmly explained what he admitted publicly months ago — that he killed Tiller to save unborn children.

“Those children were in immediate danger if someone did not stop George Tiller,” Roeder said as the jury watched attentively but without a hint of surprise.

“They were going to continue to die,” he said. “The babies were going to continue to die.”

Roeder has pleaded not guilty to murder in the attack at the Wichita church where Tiller was an usher. Witnesses have described how Roeder walked into the building’s foyer on May 31 shortly after the service started, approached Tiller and fired a single shot before fleeing.

After Roeder’s testimony, District Judge Warren Wilbert ruled that the jury would not be permitted to consider the manslaughter charge because abortion, including late-term abortion, is legal in Kansas and because Tiller did not pose an imminent threat.

“There is no immediate danger in the back of a church,” the judge said. He also ruled out a second-degree murder conviction, which does not involve premeditation, because it was clear Roeder planned the killing.

“It would be hard for a reasonable fact-finder to find anything other than the defendant formulating his belief and then planning on multiple occasions ... to carry out his intention to (kill) Dr. Tiller.”

In a November interview with The Associated Press, Roeder publicly confessed to shooting Tiller, who was one of the few doctors in the country who performed late-term abortions.

Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Mo., said he considered other ways of killing Tiller, including driving his car into Tiller’s or shooting him with a shotgun. But he said he was concerned those approaches could hurt others.

“I did what I thought was needed to be done to protect the children,” Roeder said. “I shot him.”

He testified that he wrapped the .22-caliber handgun in a piece of cloth and buried it in a rural area. The weapon has not been recovered.

Calm, collected

Prosecutors were careful during the first few days of testimony to avoid the subject of abortion and to focus on the specifics of the shooting. The judge said he did not want the trial to become a debate on abortion, but he said he would give Roeder a great deal of “latitude” when discussing his beliefs because they were integral to his defense.

Throughout his questioning, Roeder appeared calm and collected, waiting quietly each time prosecutors objected to something he said about medical procedures or late-term abortions, which the judge forbade him from testifying about.

When asked, for example, to detail the types of abortion procedures he was familiar with, Roeder answered “four or five” and then listed them. In one instance, he described a procedure as the fetus being “torn limb from limb” — a characterization that prompted a quick objection from prosecutor Nola Foulston.

During a lengthy cross examination, Foulston tried to keep Roeder’s responses to “yes” or “no.” At one point, Roeder acknowledged that he had been thinking about killing abortion providers since the 1990s, and had considered using a sword to chop off Tiller’s hands or killing him at his home.

Roeder testified though that he thought chopping off Tiller’s hands was not a good solution because Tiller would still be able to train people. He said Tiller’s home was not a good location because it was in a gated community and difficult to access.

Roeder also said he had gone to Reformation Lutheran Church on three other occasions to kill Tiller, once the evening before and once the week before Tiller was shot, and once in 2008, but Tiller was not at the church on those occasions.

Earlier Thursday, the judge barred former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline from testifying after listening to a preview of Kline’s testimony without the jury present.

Kline investigated Tiller’s clinic, Women’s Health Care Services, in 2006 because he suspected Tiller was violating state laws pertaining to late-term abortion. The case was later dropped because of jurisdictional issues.

Wilbert said much of Kline’s testimony would have amounted to “exactly what this court seeks to avoid.”

“I said I would not allow this courtroom to turn into a forum or a referendum on abortion,” Wilbert said.

The defense had hoped to show Roeder was frustrated by Kline’s failure to prosecute Tiller and was influenced in part by Kline’s belief that Tiller was breaking the law.

Comments

beatrice 4 years, 2 months ago

I hope the judge used the word "Duh!" in explaining his stand against considering manslaughter.

0

ebyrdstarr 4 years, 2 months ago

MacHeath, yes. A Justice Department spokesperson is quoted in the New York Times saying they have an open, ongoing investigation into Dr. Tiller's death. They are monitoring Roeder's trial and looking into the possibility of a greater conspiracy.

I suspect they are much more likely to charge Roeder if he is found not guilty of first-degree murder here.

0

MacHeath 4 years, 2 months ago

It would seem to me that Roeder's actions could be called terrorism. Any lawyers out there think the Feds could prosecute this creep, as well?

0

preebo 4 years, 2 months ago

The judge clearly rejected the lower felony charge of voluntary manslaughter based on two main criteria, (1) there was clear, undisputed evidence that Roeder planned to kill Tiller before hand (classic first-degree), this was evident by his (Roeder) traveling the nearly two-hundred miles to do so. And (2), the "immanent threat" factor was also debunked by the length and time it took Roeder to get to Wichita and Tiller's church to act out on his plans. In addition, Roeder clearly showed that he knew that his actions were criminal as indicated by his threats to other parishioners immediately following the shooting (see additional charges of aggravated assault) as to facilitate his escape. Had Roeder thought that his actions were warranted and necessary, there would have been little incentive to flee. This is a textbook case of first-degree murder, all the other stuff is merely political window dressing.

0

Cait McKnelly 4 years, 2 months ago

In the end this man is going to end up just as much of a forgotten footnote to history as Kopp and Griffin. Don't know who they are? Google them.

0

Eride 4 years, 2 months ago

"notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Okay, I'm asking not as a criticism but because I'd really like one of our legal-expert members to answer a question for me - won't this give Roeder some pretty heavy grounds for appeal?

Just a couple of weeks ago this same judge refused to block the manslaughter defense.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/jan

He said at that time that, after the defense had rested, he would decide if the evidence was sufficient to warrant consideration of the lesser charge. Then, AFTER Roeder takes the stand and admits the killing, and after the judge refused to allow the evidence (such as it was) the defense wanted to offer, the judge says no way.

I mean, this really looks like the judge said 'I'm not ruling out manslaughter, go ahead and take the stand and confess,' THEN said 'Oops, so sorry, I AM ruling out manslaughter - thanks for the confession.'

Don't get me wrong - I'd say hang the guy outside the courthouse right after the verdict is announced, were it not for the overabundance of irony that would cause. But somehow this smells bad - like a rotten can of worms."

No.

  1. He already had confessed to killing Tiller before his testimony and his confession was admissible. He testified because he was trying to use a justification defense.... which is an affirmative defense which would require his testimony at the very minimum. Usually for that kind of defense... the defendant's testimony is about the only thing that is admissible.

  2. Even if he had not confessed to killing Tiller prior to this he really only had a justification defense as a possibility because there was over a dozen witnesses who saw him kill Tiller. The question was not did he kill Tiller, that is quite obviously impossible to dispute... the question is did he murder Tiller... the issue is of criminal culpability not of action.

  3. So I guess to answer your question. No, He will most likely not have a legitimate grounds for appeal. He will of course be allowed to appeal... as are we all... to the intermediate court of appeals but I cannot foresee an even slight chance of success. The judge was generous in even allowing him to present any part of his justification defense in the first place and from what has been published it seems the judge was more then generous in using his discretion to allow him leeway to form his defense.

It was the only shot his defense had. Even if it was laughable... what else did he have? If you want to get away with murder you should probably not press a gun against someone's head in the middle of a church and pull the trigger in front of a bunch of witnesses...

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 2 months ago

I know that. But the same thing could happen with a holdout for an acquittal.

The common theme in all this is that most people don't have much faith that the jury will get it right.

0

Newell_Post 4 years, 2 months ago

Yes, but the judge doesn't want to run the risk of one "hold out" juror that could wear the others down to where they vote for a manslaughter verdict, just so they can get out of there and go home....

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 2 months ago

Newell_Post (Anonymous) says…

"I think the judge left open the possibility of the manslaughter verdict until after the evidence had been presented to reduce the possibility of a successful appeal. If he had prohibited it from the beginning, the defense might have appealed on the grounds they were not allowed to present the “best” defense of their client. However, by waiting until after Roeder testified, the judge can say, “OK. I heard his testimony. He had his say. It's not good enough for a verdict of manslaughter. But he had his say. It's either murder 1 or acquittal. Jury: those are your options.”"

But there was the other option - allowing the lower charge to be considered. It seems to me that if he had allowed that, there would have been absolutely no grounds for appeal - 'We gave you every chance you asked for, and you lost.'

It just seems to me that, in our system of justice, the defense gets the benefit of the doubt. It's supposed to be the jury that decides guilt or innocence, and with the judge making this kind of decision (again, not just in this particular case, but in general), it's one man kind of stacking the deck.

I truly believe the jury would find him guilty of the murder charge even if allowed to consider manslaughter. And I think they should, incidentally. But suppose they didn't - suppose they really thought he was somewhat justified? The only option they now have is the first degree murder conviction or letting him go, and I find it hard to believe any jury, even if they believed there was some justification, would let him off scott-free, knowing he shot a man in the head in front of his family in church.


Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

"Wow. And you say I'm touchy?"

Well, actually, the focus of what I was saying was that your reading comprehension stinks. (Sort of ironic that you didn't catch that.)

For example, Aggie, you might have been able to tell from the parts of your comment I quoted that it was your 9:45, not your 10:34, that I was replying to.

0

Newell_Post 4 years, 2 months ago

I think the judge left open the possibility of the manslaughter verdict until after the evidence had been presented to reduce the possibility of a successful appeal. If he had prohibited it from the beginning, the defense might have appealed on the grounds they were not allowed to present the "best" defense of their client. However, by waiting until after Roeder testified, the judge can say, "OK. I heard his testimony. He had his say. It's not good enough for a verdict of manslaughter. But he had his say. It's either murder 1 or acquittal. Jury: those are your options."

0

Agnostick 4 years, 2 months ago

Wow. And you say I'm touchy?

LOL!!!

BTW... @ 10:34... I was in agreement with you. Essentially, that's what the defense did... double or nothing.

Sweet dreams, suckah...

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 2 months ago

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

"Yada yada, blather blather."

Can't help but notice you've been a bit touchy of late, bud. Had money on Coakley, did you? Maybe lost a wager on the Supreme Court decision on corporate spending? Despondent over the fact that the Dems health care 'reform' package is on life support?

Whatever your malfunction, dude, it's really not my fault you've been making an a** of yourself on threads all over the LJW's website lately. That might be more attributable to the rather horrid level of reading comprehension you've been demonstrating recently. To wit:

"Jonesin' for a mistrial, nota….?"

And that startling deduction came from where, Aggie - perhaps when I said "I'd say hang the guy outside the courthouse right after the verdict is announced"? (Pssst - Aggie - that pretty much implies I think he's guilty.)

And if that wasn't enough for you to discern the purpose of my inquiry, Aggie, maybe had you read the opening words of my comment - where I spelled out that intent pretty clearly: "Okay, I'm asking not as a criticism but because I'd really like one of our legal-expert members to answer a question for me ..." See, Aggie, when I said the comment was not a criticism, many people would have figured out I wasn't saying the judge did anything wrong.

"I've read the story you've linked to. Carefully. Three times."

Why, I'm proud of you, Aggie. What with newspapers typically being written at sixth grade level, most people could have gotten the gist of it in one try. And many people would have been frustrated after their second attempt and given up. But hey, you stuck with it, and kept on plugging away until it sunk in. Way to go, big guy.

"Exactly where and when did Wilbert say he was going to do something, back on January 11th-12th… and not follow through on January 27th-28th?"

Exactly where and when did I say he had, Aggie? I noted - as did the story you read over and over - that he said he would rule on the manslaughter charge after the defense had rested. That would pretty much be why my exact words were "after the defense had rested." Which is, um, what he did. Did I say somewhere that he didn't? What? Can't hear you - was that a "No", Aggie?

"Wilbert said he would wait until after the defense had presented their evidence to decide on whether the jury would be instructed to consider voluntary manslaughter: Check."

Really? No kiddin'. Perhaps that's why my comment reads "He said at that time that, after the defense had rested, he would decide if the evidence was sufficient to warrant consideration of the lesser charge."

(Maybe if you had read my entire comment - carefully - three times.)

"What am I missing?"

Well, I haven't seen enough for an accurate diagnosis, but my guess would be a significant amount of the blood flow that's supposed to be going to your frontal lobe. But at the absolute least, it's pretty apparent that reading comprehension appears on the list somewhere.

0

Agnostick 4 years, 2 months ago

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

"The only way the defendant can get a lower charge to be considered is to take the stand and confess he actually committed the crime, and if that's not enough to convince the judge to allow the lower charge, the defendant has already confessed to the higher charge."


"Okay, I'll flip... you call it."

[flip!]

"Heads!"

"Aaannnd... tails."

"Damn. How 'bout double or nothin'?"

0

verity 4 years, 2 months ago

"I believe Phill Kline's law school, Liberty, offers a class on legal advocacy of pro-life issues…"

Now that's just funny . . .

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 2 months ago

ebyrdstarr (Anonymous) says…

"Nota, it's not rotten at all."

I worded that badly. I wasn't implying the judge did anything untowards, just that I was afraid he might have opened the door for a mistrial in what seems like it should have been an open and shut case. Personally, I have enough faith in the jury system that if the judge HAD allowed consideration of the lesser charge, Roeder still would have been found guilty of 1st degree murder.

Thanks for your explanation, I got most of that from the story, it just seems like it puts the defense in an impossible position (not just for this particular case, but in general). The only way the defendant can get a lower charge to be considered is to take the stand and confess he actually committed the crime, and if that's not enough to convince the judge to allow the lower charge, the defendant has already confessed to the higher charge.

0

ebyrdstarr 4 years, 2 months ago

I'm not sure this case would get much more than passing attention in the basic survey criminal law class. It's a fascinating and bizarre case, but it's also a fairly niche issue. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if some law schools have an upper-level seminar that might include these types of cases. (There have been a lot of attacks on abortion providers and clinics.)

I believe Phill Kline's law school, Liberty, offers a class on legal advocacy of pro-life issues...

0

verity 4 years, 2 months ago

And, Nota, I was thinking the same thing you were about an appeal. Glad to hear the answer on that.

0

verity 4 years, 2 months ago

ebyrd or somebody else with legal expertise---Is this a case that will be studied in law schools in the future? To me it seems pretty bizarre and fascinating in a really morbid sort of way and I'm wondering if it is an unusual case.

0

Agnostick 4 years, 2 months ago

Jonesin' for a mistrial, nota....?

I've read the story you've linked to.

Carefully.

Three times.

Exactly where and when did Wilbert say he was going to do something, back on January 11th-12th... and not follow through on January 27th-28th?

Wilbert said that he would allow the defense to present their evidence and reasons that the charge should be reduced from Murder I to Voluntary Manslaughter: Check.

Wilbert said he would wait until after the defense had presented their evidence to decide on whether the jury would be instructed to consider voluntary manslaughter: Check.

Wilbert said (and I'm quoting from the story you linked to) that "he would rule on a witness-by-witness, question-by-question basis as necessary throughout the trial on whether to allow jurors to hear specific evidence on Roeder’s beliefs about abortion."

Check.

As I understand it--and please, correct me if I'm wrong--the defense's strategy amounted to two things:

1) Testimony from Phill Kline

2) Testimony from Scott Roeder

The only thing, as far as I know, that Wilbert didn't allow defense to present, was the Kline testimony. Wilbert listened to that in chambers, or away from the jury. He ruled against it, for the reasons stated in the article above (the article on this page, I mean).

What am I missing?

0

ebyrdstarr 4 years, 2 months ago

Nota, it's not rotten at all. The decisions on which lesser included offense instructions will go to the jury can't be made until after the evidence is all in. It's like that in every trial. The judge said at the earlier hearing that he wasn't saying the defense would get the instruction. In fact, he warned them they would have a formidable task to convince him to give the instruction.

The defense attorneys were fully aware that the instructions conference would only occur after all the evidence is in and that a final decision couldn't come until after the testimony was presented.

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 2 months ago

Okay, I'm asking not as a criticism but because I'd really like one of our legal-expert members to answer a question for me - won't this give Roeder some pretty heavy grounds for appeal?

Just a couple of weeks ago this same judge refused to block the manslaughter defense.

He said at that time that, after the defense had rested, he would decide if the evidence was sufficient to warrant consideration of the lesser charge. Then, AFTER Roeder takes the stand and admits the killing, and after the judge refused to allow the evidence (such as it was) the defense wanted to offer, the judge says no way.

I mean, this really looks like the judge said 'I'm not ruling out manslaughter, go ahead and take the stand and confess,' THEN said 'Oops, so sorry, I AM ruling out manslaughter - thanks for the confession.'

Don't get me wrong - I'd say hang the guy outside the courthouse right after the verdict is announced, were it not for the overabundance of irony that would cause. But somehow this smells bad - like a rotten can of worms.

0

Agnostick 4 years, 2 months ago

True, srj. And when they found Roeder's car, Cheryl Sullenger's name and phone number was sitting out in plain sight... on the dashboard, if I remember correctly.

0

Steve Jacob 4 years, 2 months ago

"Roeder said that through the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue he learned that Tiller took measures to protect himself -- traveling in an armored car, using a security escort, wearing a bulletproof vest and living in a gated community."

If that is not accessory to murder, what the heck it.

0

Agnostick 4 years, 2 months ago

I haven't been to prison lately, Boston.

Is that what they call it in there, nowadays? "Bunk?"

I'm not implying that you've been to prison. Just thought maybe you've heard something.

"Bunk."

Interesting slang term.

0

Boston_Corbett 4 years, 2 months ago

I see one question to be answered.

Top bunk or bottom?

0

Agnostick 4 years, 2 months ago

Were I on the jury, beobachter, I would find "Guilty."

But I'm not on the jury.

0

ebyrdstarr 4 years, 2 months ago

Don't forget the two counts of ag assault!

0

beobachter 4 years, 2 months ago

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

First-degree murder: Guilty. What else to say?

0

Agnostick 4 years, 2 months ago

First-degree murder: Guilty or Not Guilty?

That is now the only question.

0

bad_dog 4 years, 2 months ago

Yes, Tom, there is a difference. Like it or not, what Tiller did was legal.

Pretty simple.

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years, 2 months ago

"There is no difference." -frwent

Between Tiller and Roeder? I agree.

0

GardenMomma 4 years, 2 months ago

Okay then, I hope they read his words back to him when they find him guilty!

Better?

In any event, he is the true meaning of hypocrite.

0

ebyrdstarr 4 years, 2 months ago

The jury does not sentence for anything but capital murder in Kansas. For first-degree murder, the sentence is life with parole eligibility after 25 years.

0

GardenMomma 4 years, 2 months ago

I hope the jury reads his own words back to him when they sentence him to life in prison with no possibility of parole: "It is not a man’s job to take life. It is our heavenly father’s."

Either this guy is truly a nutcase or the most arrogant person ever.

0

Fred Whitehead Jr. 4 years, 2 months ago

The chilling images on the evening newscasts of this twisted, looney, self-aggrandizing moron calmly stating his purposes and reasons for cold blooded murder are beyond any comprehension. To allow this non-human misfit such a venue for his drivel gives the rest of the self-appointed judge and jury terrorists in the movement encouragement and cause for more similar actions. What is the difference in this scum and the terrorist scum that tries to blow up airplaines, knock down buildings, or blow up car bombs? It is all cut from the same cloth and this individual should be tried in the same court as the islamic terrorists. There is no difference.

0

ebyrdstarr 4 years, 2 months ago

Yeah, Roeder had to testify to have any hope of getting the instruction. But in the end, it didn't matter. Judge Wilbert just denied the voluntary manslaughter instruction.

0

Stuart Evans 4 years, 2 months ago

This is what I don't get about religious nuts. Where is their god to carry out this judgment for killing unborn babies? If it's against gods law, why doesn't god do something about it? and why would god allow the death of an innocent child, and let really evil bastards live?

and this.."It is not a man’s job to take life." Then wtf did you think you were doing Mr. Roeder

0

Eride 4 years, 2 months ago

"I'm sure he insisted on testifying in his own behalf in an attempt to “spread the message”.Had he not done so I'd bet the house his defense attorneys never would have let him testify."

His defense is that the killing was justified in defense of another. He has to testify. There isn't any choice when you plan on using that as a defense. His state of mind is about the only relevant evidence available for it.

Considering he confessed to killing Tiller and there are a dozen witnesses of the killing it wasn't like he had any other defense either...

Good thing you didn't bet "the house."

0

Cait McKnelly 4 years, 2 months ago

Actually, they can bring it up on cross if he "opens the door" so to speak. They can't bring it up in direct but by saying he "cares about children" prosecution can ask him if that's the case why he didn't pay his child support. It goes to show that his "justification" is a lie. In a lot of ways this man is shooting holes into his own defense right and left. I'm sure he insisted on testifying in his own behalf in an attempt to "spread the message". Had he not done so I'd bet the house his defense attorneys never would have let him testify.

0

tomatogrower 4 years, 2 months ago

What a hypocrite. He must think he's the "heavenly father" since he took a life. He claims to care about children, but refused to pay child support. I wish the prosecution could bring that up, since it shows he could care less about children, but they probably aren't allowed to bring up former violations of either criminal or civil misdeeds.

0

somedude20 4 years, 2 months ago

Taken from CNN http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/28/abortion.roeder.testifies/index.html?hpt=T2

Roeder testified that his anti-abortion beliefs "go hand in hand" with his religious beliefs. He said he became born again in 1992 after watching an episode of "The 700 Club."

Roeder said he thought abortion could be acceptable if the mother's life was in "absolute" danger. "I struggle with that decision," he said, "because I believe that ultimately, it is up to our heavenly father. But if there was a time, that would be it." When defense attorneys asked about his belief regarding abortion in the case of rape, Roeder said, "I do not believe that is justified. You are taking the life of the innocent. You're punishing the innocent life for the sin of the father. Two wrongs don't make a right."

Asked about incest, he said his beliefs were the same. "It isn't our duty to take life, it's our heavenly father's," he said.

This POS is all over the place with his answers. He is just some d-bag who probably gets an erection from killing and hurting people and animals.

0

gogoplata 4 years, 2 months ago

"You're damn right I killed him and I hope he burns in Hell!"

"Free Carl Lee!"

0

Eride 4 years, 2 months ago

“It is not a man’s job to take life. It is our heavenly father’s. He is our creator.”

Sad that he doesn't understand the hypocrisy of this statement.

0

rbwaa 4 years, 2 months ago

"It is not a man’s job to take life. It is our heavenly father’s. He is our creator."

-- live what you preach. Hopefully the jury was paying attention to his testimony that what he did was wrong.

0

Mel Briscoe 4 years, 2 months ago

"From conception forward it is murder. ... It is not a man’s job to take life. It is our heavenly father’s. He is our creator,” said Roeder

......is this guy for real??.......

0

deathpenaltyliberal 4 years, 2 months ago

As a killer he should be more worried about Satan, because the Heavenly Father has no place for him.

0

somedude20 4 years, 2 months ago

“From conception forward it is murder. ... It is not a man’s job to take life. It is our heavenly father’s. He is our creator,” said Roeder, who is from Kansas City, Mo.

If the fumb duck really believes that drivel then why did he plead not guilty? He admits to taking a life and even if it was to "save" one, it is not his place right, just for the bearded white man in the sky to decide that

0

Agnostick 4 years, 2 months ago

Roeder shot Tiller in church, on a Sunday morning. He says he did it "in an attempt to save unborn children."

1) Were there any "unborn children" in that church, on that morning?

2) Was Tiller, in his duties as a church usher, preparing to perform an abortion on any of those "unborn children." at some time during the ensuing church service?

3) Had the women changed into "gowns?"

4) Was there an exam table set up nearby?

5) Were the medical instruments sterilized, and laid out on the altar?

6) Were there nurses, anesthesiologists etc. present, and ready to go?

I think if Roeder's attorney can prove that all the above conditions existed--without a shadow of a doubt--then I think Roeder might be entitled to his case for voluntary manslaughter.

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

0

GmaD321 4 years, 2 months ago

He didn't even provide properly for his own child after he was divorced. Why in the world would he care about children who have yet to be born? Nutcase. I don't think it matters what his thoughts were. If abortion is legal that's that and his thoughts will get him a prison cell for the rest of his life. Obviously he planned this ahead of time with purchasing and practicing firing a gun.

0

Ray Parker 4 years, 2 months ago

Azure_attitude, Tiller is proven to have committed illegal post-viable abortions on the flimsiest of excuses, to prevent the mother from becoming depressed (abortion often CAUSES long-term depression), to prevent the mother from missing music concerts or rodeos, for correctable birth defects such as cleft palate and clubfoot, as well as uncorrectable but non-fatal defects, for unusual birth circumstances such as twins, or when the mother is coerced, and without informed consent. Tiller made a complete mockery of state abortion laws and medical regulations, much more of the heinous story has been covered up by a corrupt criminal justice system awash in Tiller's blood money.

0

Azure_Attitude 4 years, 2 months ago

Late terms are performed when things go horribly, horribly wrong in a pregnancy and the procedure is not nearly as grisly - and I didn't like that process at all - as it used to be. Roeder chose to believe propaganda over facts. We live in an age where just about everyday there is a report of a man who kills his wife rather than let her leave him, and sometime all the kids too, and it's incredibly hard for women to use battered spouse syndrome in this state where it is allowed, and not at all in states that do not allow it, if they kill their abuser knowing full well he may wind up killing her, but this guy can defend himself with a belief based on propaganda. This will be a travesty of justice if he gets away with it.

0

macon47 4 years, 2 months ago

i have strong feelings about abortion

first it is a personal thing

i believe anyone that thinks some one else should not have an abortion should step up to the plate and adopt the unborn child with no recourse

either that, or just shut up about other peoples personal business.

0

50YearResident 4 years, 2 months ago

In case the "Self Defense" works and he gets off with his plea of self defense then he would be open for a 2nd abortion Dr. to pop him with a 22 as he is walking out of the courtroom and claim "self defense" because Roeder would be sooner or later be trying to kill him. (What goes around, comes around)

0

somedude20 4 years, 2 months ago

rt- you are right, it does not but if Rodent, whoops, Roeder has some like-minds or if dumb people on his jury believe his "defense" the Rodent, whoops again, Roeder might get that slap on the hand that he is looking for

0

Richard Payton 4 years, 2 months ago

His beliefs doesn't allow Scott to be Judge and Jury.

0

Paul R Getto 4 years, 2 months ago

This should be interesting. I wonder how far afield the judge will let him wander?

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.