It is not a man’s job to take life. It is our heavenly father’s."
- Scott Roeder
:rolleyes:
It is, however, man’s job to give a killer life.
Nice work, jury.
No, they do, but they don’t use it much.
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:http://www.sedgwickcounty.org/da/death.html
IIRC, there hasn’t been an execution since…1976-ish, I think?
No, but he’s still working for the defendant, and not the other way around - so if Roeder told him to shut up and let him jabber, he’s got no choice.
This goes to prove a point I’ve made before…you just can’t teach these kind of people about irony. They’re immune to the concept.
I’m against the death penalty, but I’m pretty sure I would make an exception for this guy.
Thing is, we really don’t know what their strategy sessions, if any, were like. I wouldn’t put it past Roeder to try to game the system such that he can try to appeal on the grounds of ineffective counsel. It may be that staying out of jail isn’t even the point, as far as he is concerned – the important thing is to stay up there in the public eye, so even if a judge won’t allow his trial to be an abortion debate, the media coverage of it will be.
'Course, that’s just as speculative as the notion of Roeder telling his P.D. to shut up and let him jabber.
Not me. There’s not a whole lot of point in being against the death penalty if you’re going to go making exceptions for people. I’m just sayin’.
I’m not sure that trinket exists. Unless he can show the Doc was about to perform an abortion, there is no imminent threat. Also think it might be possible to argue that even if he was about to perform an abortion, there is no “person” at risk of “unlawful force” within the meaning of the statute Rhythmdvl. cited, read in conjunction with 21-3211:
-
21-3211. Use of force in defense of a person; no duty to retreat. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force.
(b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person. (c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person or a third person. *
I don’t think the plain meaning of person includes “fetus who might become a person at some future time”.
Well, that decision is ultimately Roeder’s, isn’t it? Maybe his lawyer didn’t want him up there, but acquiesced to the client’s wishes.
I am so doing my Happy Dance. My message to the anti-abortion people is: Abortion is legal. If you don’t like that fact, go to Washington and try to change it. But stop using terroristic tactis of bombing clinics and killing people.
ETA: I wonder if the jury took 30 minutes trying to find a way to convict his lawyer for offering such a lamebrain defense.
What was the non-lamebrain defense?
The Chewbacca defense?
Thanks so much Annie! The .001% of pro lifers who think that bombing clinics and killing people is OK will surely be changed by your heartfelt message. Meanwhile the 99.999% of pro lifers who thoroughly reject bombing clinics and killing people will just smile at yet another attempt to paint them as terrorists. Well done!
But that isn’t a public defender trying to “squeeze out a last minute public service announcement for the cause.”
That means you’re for the death penalty.
I see that we’re in complete agreement about abortion.
Sure. And given this guy’s an evident nut, he may have simply wanted this to be a showcase for his views, not a vigorous legal advocacy.
You don’t know Annie very well, do you?
If you read my post carefully you’ll note that I actually said both Roeder and Dr. Tiller were immoral. I’ve tried to differentiate between the moral discussion concerning murder and the legal discussion.
From a legal standpoint there was some argument as to whether or not Roeder may have been guilty of voluntary manslaughter instead of first degree murder; however the judge ruled that the jury could not even consider this option (I’ll defer to his legal expertise on this.) So from a legal perspective, Roeder committed murder and was convicted of murder.
From a legal perspective, Dr. Tiller had not done anything wrong.
However, from a moral perspective I think Dr. Tiller was an abomination. I don’t think Dr. Tiller was a murderer because he didn’t have a guilty mind, he did not believe that what he was doing was a moral wrong.
Same thing with Scott Roeder, Roeder did not believe that what he was doing was a moral wrong. In fact, he felt it was a moral necessity.
Both Scott Roeder and Dr. Tiller were incorrect, and both committed immoral acts. Like I said, I view it as extremely hard to justify a homicide morally. I think you have to at least try something else first, and exhaust all possible options.
The only situations in which I can say a homicide is truly morally acceptable would be:
-Situations in war, in which you are acting in accordance with accepted military norms
-Self defense when your life or the life of another is in imminent danger or the health and well being of another is in imminent danger
-Certain far-fetched situations like people who had opportunities to assassinate Adolf Hitler and et cetera
I will say this though, everyone has a moral obligation to do what is right. If that goes against the law, you still have a moral obligation to do what is right. Part of that is that you have to stand up and accept the consequences though, under the law. There usually isn’t a moral defense for attempting to hide from law enforcement or a moral defense for threatening others with a weapon in order to escape capture.
Yes, well, Roeder’s “defense” has a lot more American sympathizers. That’s just how it is.
Dr Tiller was a good man doing a hard job.
He gave people options after hearing terrible news about their own health or the health of their unborn child. His work saved women’s lives and in many cases saved marriages and parental mental health that would have been destroyed by raising severely disabled or life-limited children.
He deserved better than to be gunned down in what should have been a sanctuary.
It is nice to see justice prevail.
I think this is important. Bricker has said some obnoxious things on this board over the years, but one thing he regularly gets jumped for – improperly, IMO – is when he, as a retired defense attorney, points out that an accused is entitled to a good defense.
Personally, I think that Roeder is guilty of premeditated murder. But trying to establish that the facts warrant voluntary manslaugher instead of murder is a perfectly valid tactic for his defense to raise – and I for one am glad that Bricker brought that argument out.