Scott Roeder, murderer of Dr. George Tilden, states his defense.
Animal.
Just as disgusting was the former Kansas (?) Attorney General who was trying to use Roeder’s trial to try Dr. Tiller posthumously on charges that he’d already been acquitted of.
Thanks to Wilbo523’s thread and link, I watched part of this asshole’s testimony live yesterday. Both prosecution and defense rested, so presumably their summations will be this morning.
At the end of the day, the judge asked the jurors to be back by 9 AM, so coverage may start that early.
I’m amazed that his defense is getting any press at all. He confessed to the murder. There’s really nothing left to discuss. I’m just so surprised that the media is covering his defense as if it has any legitimacy at all. His defense is no more legitimate than the defense used by the Unabomber or Timothy McVeigh - and shouldn’t be treated as any more legitimate by the press.
I don’t understand this statement. Can you explain?
Um… what?
As a matter of law, there is a crime in that state called voluntary manslaughter. That crime exists when someone has an objectively unreasonable but still honestly held belief that circumstances he was facing justified deadly force.
Whether those circumstances actually existed in a question of fact for a jury to decide.
What is “illegitimate” about that defense?
Be specific, please. It’s not relevant to the defense that the circumstances didn’t actually, reasonably justify deadly force. It’s only relevant that the actor honestly believed that they did.
Bricker, out of honest curiosity, can you give me another (presumably hypothetical) situation where a defendant might be guilty of voluntary manslaughter rather than murder?
Former Kansas AG Phill Kline (who had been very active in trying to get Dr. Tiller put in jail for his completely legal activities) was going to testify on Roeder’s behalf by claiming that Kline’s attempts to prosecute Dr. Tiller for performing late-term abortions contributed to Roeder’s belief that it was necessary to kill Dr. Tiller. The judge shut him down after listening to his planned testimony without the jury present because that testimony would basically be an attempt to paint Dr. Tiller as a murderer despite his acquittal for such a year or so before his death (an acquittal for a trial that Kline prosecuted).
If “I was savin’ babies” is accepted as a legitimate defense, then it’s going to be open season on doctors.
I guess I should clarify - I didn’t mean legitimate in any legal sense (I have no right using any term in a legal sense) - and I certainly defer to you in that regard. I don’t doubt that he has the right to defend himself and that this defense is legally valid.
I’m really just speaking from a joe-public point of view, in which the facts of the case seem clear. And here is someone basically claiming - well, I had a reason to kill that guy, so it’s OK. Well - I’m obviously no expert - but I’m guessing most people accused of murder have some “reason” for it. Gee - my wife was cheating, so I killed her. Or my Dad was an abusive jerk - so I killed him. Or my boss didn’t approve overtime - so I killed him. Typically - when I see these types of crimes discussed in the media, the notion that they had some reason to commit the crime isn’t really treated as justification for the crime itself. I guess this just seems different to me - like the media is treating the success of the defense as a referendum on abortion itself.
Anyway - I should have been more clear. I’m sure the defense is valid legally. And he’s innocent until proven otherwise. I just don’t see how, big picture, this is anything more than a murder case, and I wish it was treated as such, instead of as some sort of referendum on abortion because of the defense he’s using. I don’t know if that clarifies my original post or not.
ETA: This is why I referred to McVeigh and the Unabomber. I’m sure they thought what they did was justified too - and I’m sure their defenses were based on that But I don’t remember the media saying, in essence - let’s wait on the outcome of the trial to see if the Government deserved to be bombed, and that somehow justified Oklahoma City.
That’s not his defense though, apparently. His defense seems to be “he was accused of misdemeanors in his practice, so I believed he was a criminal, so I shot him”.
If that flies, it’s gonna be open season on people.
You mean it isn’t? I’ve yet to hear an anti-abortionist use the term “doctor.” It’s always “abortionists” or “baby killer.”
Sure. We just had one last year in Virginia. Guy was running a grow house that got raided by police. As the raid began, the guy grabbed his gun and fired, killing a police officer. At trial, he testified he believed that he was being attacked by a gang that wanted to steal his product, and that he had no idea the police were the ones outside.
The jury found he was telling the truth about what he thought, but they found his belief objectively unreasonable. So it wasn’t self defense, which requires that the belief be reasonable. But it was an honestly held belief, which means that they could (and did) find him guilty of the voluntary manslaughter charge instead of murder (actually, capital murder, which would be the charge if he knew he was killing a police officer).
Much clearer, and I didn’t mean to sound as if I was jumping down your throat.
Yeah, I think where his defense will (or should) fail him was that he’s saying he was acting in defense of others – that is, his honestly-held but objectively unreasonable belief was that Dr. Tiller was acting illegally in aborting late-term babies. Thats’ fine… except that even if that’s all true, the danger to others typically has to be imminent. Unless the evidence will show that the foyer of Dr. Tiller’s church had an exam table, stirrups, and a patient waiting for a D&C, I don’t see how the jurors can find the danger to others was imminent.
But again, that’s a question of fact for the jurors to resolve.
At least the judge didin’t allow Kline to testify. ETA - not a lawyer, so I’m not sure of how it all works, but it appears that the judge heard something from Kilne in chambers or in sidebar, but didn’t allow him to testify for the jury.
http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/1713378-p3.html
[/QUOTE]
“To bring in Phill Kline to somehow collaterally bolster up his (Roeder’s) beliefs or give them credence or validity is not appropriate,” he said. “As I sit here and listen to Phill Kline testify, it’s exactly what this court seeks to avoid.”
He said he “would not allow this courtroom to turn into a referendum on abortion.”
[/QUOTE]
FYI, according to the stories I’ve read, while the judge is allowing questions from the defense and evidence that would be in pursuance of a voluntary manslaughter charge, he has not yet decided whether to allow the jury to consider convicting on manslaughter. Apparently he will decide if the evidence presented meets the standards for such a conviction, and his instructions to the jury will (or won’t) allow them to consider it.
It seems the biggest hurdle to the manslaughter standard is ‘imminence’ – the killer need to believe he is stopping an immediate threat. The prosecution is addressing this by putting in evidence that this guy was researching and stalking the doctor for nearly a year before the murder.
ETA: Sorry, none of the other posts were there when I started writing thing. Apologies if it seems like I ignored a point.
I’m not following it per se, but I do find the legal question interesting. If we take the linked story as fact-checked, consider:
A question of law: does Kansas allow the use of deadly force in third-party defense? If so, then on its face the defense seems like it might fit, though it will take a bit of work.
For a moment, consider a few building blocks:
Defendant sees a mugging taking place. During the mugging, defendant sees the victim pull out a knife and try to stab the mugee. Defendant reasonably believes that deadly force is justified, and presumably (I don’t know Kansas law) has a defense.
Tweak it a bit:
The mugging is actually a bit of street theater (gone horribly wrong). Defendant’s views are still reasonable, despite having absolutely no basis in fact. I suggest a defense would be applicable.
Tweak some more:
The “mugging” is actually a scene from Hamlet, with full costumes and spectators. It’s clearly a play, as any reasonable person could tell. However, after examination the fact finder determines that though the Defendant’s belief was unreasonable, it was held honestly. He really thought the swords were dipped in poison, and honestly thought that if he didn’t act, Hamlet would be killed.
There is a question of imminence, but I think the above could be tweaked to cover that. Say the Defendant saw a man with an explosive belt getting on a train. Or say it was that poster (who?) that asked in GQ if it was okay to bring a breadboard on a plane and build circuits. Keep in mind that Kansas law provides a defense for unreasonable beliefs, as long as they’re honestly held. Kansas is far from unique in this.
To get as close to the case as possible, consider a thug who is so connected with the local police and courts that he routinely gets away with murder. Defendant knows (or honestly believes) that the victim is going to continue killing. Defendant acts, and uses the provided defense at his trial. This has the separation in time element, and hints at (but doesn’t quite get to) the intrinsic legality at the heart of the OP.
So about the OP? You have a person with an unreasonable but honest belief that unless he acted the doctor was going to murder someone.
What will make for interesting legalities is the approach the court will take. I suspect the defense will focus on establishing the unborn as a human being – I’m assuming the self/third party-defense laws only cover humans (er, note that all of this is written without any knowledge of Kansas law).
Will the courts confront that contention head on? How will they avoid it? There is the possibility that they will decide on other grounds (remember the Pledge of Allegiance case a few years ago? I froze my ass off sleeping in front of the Supreme Court, and kept thinking please don’t let them decide on standing … please don’t let them decide on standing …). But I’m really not sure how they can convict in the face of the defense without addressing it.
I don’t know abortion law so have no idea if there’s precedent for the above (hmmm… maybe I should have thought about that before writing), but expect about half the country to flip out no matter how the court rules (if the court does rule on it).
And since it’s a question of law rather than fact, it seems that the main question is subject to appeal (on either side). Could this make it to the Supreme Court? Given the state of the court, is it easy to predict how they will rule on personhood for a third-trimester fetus?
So, yeah. I’m fervently pro-choice, and thing this repugnant asshole is a blight on humanity. But I think this case is news because though it may fizzle out, it may end up being a major precedent-setting case in the realm of abortion law.
Well, you know those wacky Unitarians…
I can take the other side a little bit, based on the thread title. For instance someone wants to leave Cuba or North Korea, or the old East Germany, and kills border guards who were legally doing their job to do so. I can see that.
I would also support killing child molesters who have multiple convictions and are out on a technicality yet again. Both examples would fit the thread title and be fine with me.
I’d support OJ Simpson being put away as well for reasons not much different than this guy says.
As far as this guy shooting people in a church, no way would I support that. For one thing he could easily miss and kill others, even children. Just all the PR that this guy would even attend church too hurt the other side, as I too would not expect him to be a church member and it would never have got mentioned if he had killed him elsewhere. Yes he belongs in jail.