# I had the right to kill this man in cold blood because I didn't like his performing legal acts **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 29, 2010, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-had-the-right-to-kill-this-man-in-cold-blood-because-i-didnt-like-his-performing-legal-acts/526883 "2010-01-29T14:19:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Katriona](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/katriona/32/113_2.png) [@Katriona](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Katriona)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-had-the-right-to-kill-this-man-in-cold-blood-because-i-didnt-like-his-performing-legal-acts/526883/21 "2010-01-29T15:46:28Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > ETA: Sorry, none of the other posts were there when I started writing thing. Apologies if it seems like I ignored a point. > > 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. The judge has been consistent throughout that he does not want this trial to turn into a referendum on abortion, and in the article I posted above, he does say that a murder charge is the only option now and that he will not allow the jury to consider voluntary manslaughter. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-had-the-right-to-kill-this-man-in-cold-blood-because-i-didnt-like-his-performing-legal-acts/526883/22 "2010-01-29T15:48:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. No. It isn’t. Judge Wilbert has ruled, rightly so, that the murderer’s “aggravated manslaughter”, even his “second degree murder”, defenses were, to use a legal term, bullshit. The jury, again rightfully so, won’t be considering lesser charges. [From here](http://www.kansas.com/news/featured/story/1158413.html) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-had-the-right-to-kill-this-man-in-cold-blood-because-i-didnt-like-his-performing-legal-acts/526883/23 "2010-01-29T15:49:43Z")
> [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](#): > > 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. I have extrapolated two ideas from this post: 1. That it would be totally okay if Roeder had shot Dr. Tiller in the street, or perhaps in his home, but shooting him in a church was wrong; and 2. That murdering somebody who attends a church is somehow worse than murdering somebody who doesn’t. Are these beliefs you hold? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-had-the-right-to-kill-this-man-in-cold-blood-because-i-didnt-like-his-performing-legal-acts/526883/24 "2010-01-29T15:51:51Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > …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). … IANAlawyer, but it may be that defining a fetus as a human being, and having a court accept that, wouldn’t be strictly necessary. Perhaps the concept of “unreasonable but honest belief” could be stretched to include what the killer believed about the potential victims. He believes they are human beings, whether or not they actually are. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-had-the-right-to-kill-this-man-in-cold-blood-because-i-didnt-like-his-performing-legal-acts/526883/25 "2010-01-29T15:54:14Z")
The trial is running live now. Click the link of my first post. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-had-the-right-to-kill-this-man-in-cold-blood-because-i-didnt-like-his-performing-legal-acts/526883/26 "2010-01-29T15:54:36Z")
> [@Katriona](#): > > The judge has been consistent throughout that he does not want this trial to turn into a referendum on abortion, and in the article I posted above, he does say that a murder charge is the only option now and that he will not allow the jury to consider voluntary manslaughter. Thanks. Like I said, I wasn’t following the case too closely so missed that. Even if the question of personhood doesn’t come up, it’s still a fascinating case in how carefully the judge has to act to avoid it, especially as the judge has to be sure there isn’t a question of law subject to appeal. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-had-the-right-to-kill-this-man-in-cold-blood-because-i-didnt-like-his-performing-legal-acts/526883/27 "2010-01-29T15:54:41Z")
> [@Silverstreak Wonder](#): > > I too would not expect him to be a church member Why not? ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-had-the-right-to-kill-this-man-in-cold-blood-because-i-didnt-like-his-performing-legal-acts/526883/28 "2010-01-29T15:57:22Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Why not? Because he ( **silverstreak wonder** ) is an idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-had-the-right-to-kill-this-man-in-cold-blood-because-i-didnt-like-his-performing-legal-acts/526883/29 "2010-01-29T15:57:49Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > IANAlawyer, but it may be that defining a fetus as a human being, and having a court accept that, wouldn’t be strictly necessary. Perhaps the concept of “unreasonable but honest belief” could be stretched to include what the killer believed about the potential victims. He believes they are human beings, whether or not they actually are. It’s a moot point now, but if this had been allowed to fly, it would open the door for animal rights activists being able to kill scientists, farmers, etc. if they really think dogs and cows have “human rights.” ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-had-the-right-to-kill-this-man-in-cold-blood-because-i-didnt-like-his-performing-legal-acts/526883/30 "2010-01-29T16:11:26Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s a moot point now, but if this had been allowed to fly, it would open the door for animal rights activists being able to kill scientists, farmers, etc. if they really think dogs and cows have “human rights.” I agree with you, but if you allow that “unreasonable but honest beliefs” constitute mitigating circumstances – more or less – it seems there would be almost no limits. When I was writing that post, the example that came to mind is if the killer thought trees are human, and killed someone about to cut down a tree. Where does one draw the line between unreasonable and bonkers? And thinks for that link Katriona. I hadn’t seen that voluntary manslaughter had been ruled out, and I’m glad it was. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-had-the-right-to-kill-this-man-in-cold-blood-because-i-didnt-like-his-performing-legal-acts/526883/31 "2010-01-29T16:17:42Z")
RE the question of allowing this to go forward would open doors to PETA, ELF, etc.: Here is the [text](http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatuteFile.do?number=/21-3403.html)of the actual statute: > [@](#): > > 21-3403. Voluntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter is the intentional killing of a human being committed: > > ``` > (a) Upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion; or > > (b) upon an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force under K.S.A. 21-3211, 21-3212 or 21-3213 and amendments thereto. > > ``` Note that the “unreasonable belief” refers to the _circumstances_, not whether or not it was a human being. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-had-the-right-to-kill-this-man-in-cold-blood-because-i-didnt-like-his-performing-legal-acts/526883/32 "2010-01-29T16:31:04Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > No. It isn’t. > > Judge Wilbert has ruled, rightly so, that the murderer’s “aggravated manslaughter”, even his “second degree murder”, defenses were, to use a legal term, bullshit. The jury, again rightfully so, won’t be considering lesser charges. > > [From here](http://www.kansas.com/news/featured/story/1158413.html) Well, obviously there’s a threshold factual determination to be made by the judge. Typically if there is even a scintilla of evidence that would support the giving of a lesser-included instruction, the judge is obligated to give it. By refusing to give such an instruction, the judge needs to be on ultra-solid ground with respect to that lack of even a scintilla of evidence. I assume there was no evidence of the imminent threat. It doesn’t sound like justice is being denied here, in any event. But I guarantee you the lack of that jury instruction will be an assignment of error on appeal. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-had-the-right-to-kill-this-man-in-cold-blood-because-i-didnt-like-his-performing-legal-acts/526883/33 "2010-01-29T16:34:48Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > RE the question of allowing this to go forward would open doors to PETA, ELF, etc.: > > Here is the [text](http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatuteFile.do?number=/21-3403.html)of the actual statute: > Note that the “unreasonable belief” refers to the _circumstances_, not whether or not it was a human being. Yes, but what if those circumstances include the belief that human being was about to be killed, as opposed to a tree or a dog? ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-had-the-right-to-kill-this-man-in-cold-blood-because-i-didnt-like-his-performing-legal-acts/526883/34 "2010-01-29T16:36:06Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. [Naked Gun] Lt. Drebbin: I’m sorry, your honor, but when I see five weirdos dressed in sheets stabbing a guy in broad daylight in full view of a hundred people, I shoot the bastards. That’s my policy. Commissioner: That was a “Shakespeare in the Park” production of _Julius Ceasar_ you moron. You killed five actors. Good ones! [/Naked Gun] Sorry for the hijack, but that’s one of my favorite lines from that movie, and I’ve been waiting to fit it into a conversation for 20 years. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-had-the-right-to-kill-this-man-in-cold-blood-because-i-didnt-like-his-performing-legal-acts/526883/35 "2010-01-29T16:38:38Z")
> [@Silverstreak\_Wonder](#): > > 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. Ah HA ! **Curtis Lemay** , I sussed you out ! I thought you was banned, man. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-had-the-right-to-kill-this-man-in-cold-blood-because-i-didnt-like-his-performing-legal-acts/526883/36 "2010-01-29T16:41:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, obviously there’s a threshold factual determination to be made by the judge. Typically if there is even a scintilla of evidence that would support the giving of a lesser-included instruction, the judge is obligated to give it. By refusing to give such an instruction, the judge needs to be on ultra-solid ground with respect to that lack of even a scintilla of evidence. I assume there was no evidence of the imminent threat. I agree with everything you say, except the “obviously” part. A great deal of readers without a legal background may have been confused when you said it was “that’s a question of fact for the jurors to resolve.” It’s not. > [@Bricker](#): > > It doesn’t sound like justice is being denied here, in any event. But I guarantee you the lack of that jury instruction will be an assignment of error on appeal. Of course it will be, as will pretty much everything in the trial. That’s what appellate cases are, claims of assignment. But I’d be willing to bet dollars to donuts that the lack of instructions on the lesser included offenses will be upheld on appeal. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-had-the-right-to-kill-this-man-in-cold-blood-because-i-didnt-like-his-performing-legal-acts/526883/37 "2010-01-29T16:49:34Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > But I’d be willing to bet dollars to donuts that the lack of instructions on the lesser included offenses will be upheld on appeal. Me, too, although I’d be even more confident in that assessment (dollars to doughnut holes?) if I knew now exactly what the defense’s proffer was, instead of simply knowing what’s filtered into news reports. ---
**Author:** ![Katriona](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/katriona/32/113_2.png) [@Katriona](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Katriona)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-had-the-right-to-kill-this-man-in-cold-blood-because-i-didnt-like-his-performing-legal-acts/526883/38 "2010-01-29T16:50:49Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I agree with you, but if you allow that “unreasonable but honest beliefs” constitute mitigating circumstances – more or less – it seems there would be almost no limits. When I was writing that post, the example that came to mind is if the killer thought trees are human, and killed someone about to cut down a tree. Where does one draw the line between unreasonable and bonkers? > > And thinks for that link Katriona. I hadn’t seen that voluntary manslaughter had been ruled out, and I’m glad it was. My local papers have been FILLED with coverage - I’m in Kansas City! ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-had-the-right-to-kill-this-man-in-cold-blood-because-i-didnt-like-his-performing-legal-acts/526883/39 "2010-01-29T16:51:19Z")
Legality isn’t morality, I can think of many situations in which it would be the moral thing to do something illegal. Homicide is one of those things it is virtually impossible to justify morally, however if anything can justify homicide it would be in order to stop a mass murderer. Under many people’s moral code, Dr. Tiller was a mass murderer. I think Dr. Tiller was extremely immoral, and I think abortion is immoral as are the wretches that have it performed on themselves–however I don’t think it is actually murder, so I can’t agree with Scott Roeder’s line of thought. Murder has legal definitions that there is no point to argue about, but it also has a definition in the popular consciousness of man. Long before any legislator took pen to paper, humans knew what murder was, and they knew it was wrong. It has never been universal, though. In some societies it was murder to kill your wife, in some societies men had absolute power of life and death over their immediate family and it would not be considered murder to kill one’s wife. From a moral perspective, I don’t view Scott Roeder as a murderer, because I do not believe he had _mens rea_. He had a genuine moral belief that what he was doing was correct. I disagree with his conclusions, and I think his act was definitely immoral (immoral because he took it upon himself to decide who lives and dies–something that in his own words should be reserved for God.) To make society work we have to hold people to the law of the land; but that doesn’t mean there is any inviolable sanctity in those laws. Mostly law is a form of societal control and something that promotes societal stability. While much law has its original basis in popular morality, I think it very unfortunate that most people seem to think doing something illegal is instantly the same thing as doing something immoral. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-had-the-right-to-kill-this-man-in-cold-blood-because-i-didnt-like-his-performing-legal-acts/526883/40 "2010-01-29T16:53:56Z")
Killing an innocent is pretty immoral, IMHO. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-had-the-right-to-kill-this-man-in-cold-blood-because-i-didnt-like-his-performing-legal-acts/526883.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-had-the-right-to-kill-this-man-in-cold-blood-because-i-didnt-like-his-performing-legal-acts/526883.md?page=3)