Oh, hell no.
Scott Roeder, the conservative, right-wing, anti-abortion freak who took the law into his own hands, decided Dr. George Tiller should be murdered and then drove 3 hours down I-35 to Wichita to do just that--murder Dr. Tiller--may only get a manslaughter charge for this gross, unjustifiable, psychotic act.
I say psychotic because you have to have lost a touch with reality when you select to murder someone, for starters, and then decide you'll drive 3 hours down the turnpike to do it.
It's disappointing and surprising to me that the Judge in the case, Judge Warren Wilbert, is going to allow the defense the opportunity to consider letting the dirtbag Roeder off with a mere manslaughter charge.
Mind you, the jury may well find this guy guilty of first degree murder, as they ought, but the judge should have thrown this option out, right off, and for two reasons.
First, abortion is legal in the US, like it or not, and has been for decades. (Does precedent mean anything here?).
Second, there is virtually no question that Roeder killed Dr. Tiller and that he drove 3 hours, from Overland Park to do it.
If that's not premeditated, there is no such thing as premeditated murder.
And the fact that this coward Roeder shot Dr. Tiller in Tiller's church, as he was helping at the service is so gross, absurd, ironic and hypocritical it's off the charts.
Hopefully, even the religious zealouts have to see that.
Posts
Sunday 'Happyish Holidays' Toons
1 hour ago
6 comments:
You seem to have forgotten about the helpless babies George the Babykiller Tiller murdered each and every day.
I'm glad Scott Roeder stopped that babykilling abortionist from murdering any more helpless children.
What a hypocrite you babykillers are when you support the murder of helpless children, then whine when a babykiller is stopped from murdering any more childeren.
Roeder deliberately loaded the gun. He deliberately brought it with him. He deliberately drove the car to the church. He deliberately walked in and located his target. He deliberately pointed the gun. He deliberately pulled the trigger. That is NOT manslaughter.
"Reverend" Spitz,
On the contrary, I absolutely did not forget about the helpless fetuses.
I don't "support" murder, either. I support our laws, to be sure, and, again, abortion islegal. Additionally, it was decided that abortion should be legal so people didn't have to resort to illegal, "back alley" abortions that risked the lives of countless mothers across the nation.
Should there be alot of abortions?
In a perfect world, no.
Should abortion be used as a form of after-the-fact birth control?
Certainly not.
But should someone who disagrees with our laws take the law into his or her own hands and murder someone when they don't agree with them?
Again, certainly not.
The fact that you call yourself a "Reverend" but condone murder is more than a bit shocking, sad and disappointing and, using your word, hypocritical.
Thanks for reading.
If it was planned for several hours, it is first degree murder. Even if this defense is allowed to be attempted, I hope the jury gets proper instructions.
"Rev" Spits:
Although I do not agree, I can understand the viewpoint that killing an abortion doctor is righteous. However, according to our law, it is still murder and must be punished as such. An honorable man would confess to both God and man, plead guilty and accept his fate--secure in the belief that God will reward him as he deserves.
The judge has not allowed the defense; he has allowed hearing the defense’s case for allowing the manslaughter defense. This is an opportunity for the defense to raise a point that the judge might not have thought of or considered. It’s called “being thorough” to ensure that this cases ruling isn’t overturned by a higher court because of an overlooked detail.
Once the defense has presented their justification to the judge, he’ll take their opinion and his own, and then compare them to the criminal charges definitions. With the current facts about this case, the judge will not allow the manslaughter charge and will default to the recommended charge of first-degree murder.
I based this on my interpretation of the states definition of first-degree murder and voluntary-manslaughter. The premeditation is easily proved under Roeder’s own admission. He went to Tiller’s church with the sole intent of killing him. That’s murder in the first-degree.
Roeder’s attorney’s voluntary-manslaughter charge is flawed – the basis of voluntary-manslaughter is that a person’s primary intentions were NOT to cause death, but knew their actions could likely result in death. A prime example would be the man in St. Louis, MO that shot a thief that was stealing his truck; he was trying to prevent the theft of his vehicle (primary motive) and his actions results in the thief’s death. Under Missouri Law, Deadly Force is not authorized for solely protection of property. It wasn’t murder because he felt (as many do) that he had a moral and legal right to protect his property. (Castle Doctrine doesn’t apply to this case) If Roeder had killed Tiller at his abortion clinic before he had performed an abortion, maybe and I mean a very slim maybe, he could pull voluntary-manslaughter under belief that he was defending a life. However, as soon as Roeder admitted premeditation, that would immediately trump manslaughter and elevate him into murder.
As I stated above, given the publicly available information, Roeder is guilty of First-Degree Murder. However, he is still entitled to the legal representation as you and me.
okay, sure, I'll grant you that but my point just goes to the point that the manslaughter defense possibly shouldn't be allowed because Roeder made it clear, at this own insistence, that this killing is what he intended. With that, I thought it sealed it for him.
Give him his rights, of course.
Then, if found guilty, as he most surely will, given his confession, then have the ruling.
Post a Comment