Tiller shooting - justifiable homicide?

[CLite]

From reading a lot of articles it just seems the judge doesn't want to blankly say that he will disallow the defense from presenting evidence. There are quotes of him saying that he will do his best to try this as murder 1.

I just don't see how the judge has the right to offer alternative charges. The prosecution is applying for murder 1 and it is on them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Roeder committed murder 1, which they very easily will.

Defenses include:
insanity
self defense
unintentional

A reasonable defense does not include arguing for an alternative lesser charge, it just doesn't make sense.

 

[JS80]

Why, after saying that do YOU now want to murder a murderer?

Add "charge" to the end of my sentence.

But for the record I am against capital punishment.

 

[woolfe9999]

From reading a lot of articles it just seems the judge doesn't want to blankly say that he will disallow the defense from presenting evidence. There are quotes of him saying that he will do his best to try this as murder 1.

I just don't see how the judge has the right to offer alternative charges. The prosecution is applying for murder 1 and it is on them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Roeder committed murder 1, which they very easily will.

Defenses include:
insanity
self defense
unintentional

A reasonable defense does not include arguing for an alternative lesser charge, it just doesn't make sense.

It is allowable if there is legitimate legal theory to support it. The prosecution can charge a certain offense, but the defense can argue that they have a basis for a legal defense that would reduce the charge. If the defense's legal argument is correct, the judge is obligated under the law to allow it and include the lesser charge in his instructions to the jury or else face being overturned on appeal.

Here, the issue comes down to "justification." The classic form of justification is self-defense and/or defense of others. It requires an honest and reasonable belief that you are preventing an imminent harm. It is a complete defense, if successful. In some states, there is a variation of this where you can have an honest, but UNreasonable, belief that you are preventing imminent harm. This is a partial defense that will reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter. The problem here is that the element of imminence. His belief in the imminence of the threat can be unreasonable under this doctrine, but it must at least be an honest belief. It's hard to accept that Roeder honestly believed that he was preventing an *imminent* threat, and hence the notion of even allowing Roeder to put on this defense is pretty foolish.

- wolf

 

[Fern]

Like others I belive the guy committed murder 1, but the principle at stake here bothers me.

I'm not sure why or how a judge should be able to decide what defense a defendant puts up. 'Nutty' defenses are nothing new; remember the "twinky defense"?

It doesn't seem fair to the accused. Put up whatever defense you want, whether or not it flies should be up to the jury.

Jury nullification? Yeah, it's a possiblility; it's nothing new either. For a judge to able to decide what defense a defendant can use so as to avoid the possibility of jury nullification strikes me as unfair to defendants.

What if an Iraqi terrorist captured in Iraq fighting US/coalition troops wanted to put up a defense that he was just fighting illegal invaders and protecting his country, shouldn't he be allowed to use that defense? Why would we allow a judge to forbid it?

Fern

 

[werepossum]

It is allowable if there is legitimate legal theory to support it. The prosecution can charge a certain offense, but the defense can argue that they have a basis for a legal defense that would reduce the charge. If the defense's legal argument is correct, the judge is obligated under the law to allow it and include the lesser charge in his instructions to the jury or else face being overturned on appeal.

Here, the issue comes down to "justification." The classic form of justification is self-defense and/or defense of others. It requires an honest and reasonable belief that you are preventing an imminent harm. It is a complete defense, if successful. In some states, there is a variation of this where you can have an honest, but UNreasonable, belief that you are preventing imminent harm. This is a partial defense that will reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter. The problem here is that the element of imminence. His belief in the imminence of the threat can be unreasonable under this doctrine, but it must at least be an honest belief. It's hard to accept that Roeder honestly believed that he was preventing an *imminent* threat, and hence the notion of even allowing Roeder to put on this defense is pretty foolish.

- wolf

I'm a pretty big advocate of allowing the defense considerable latitude and I have no problem with the defense using this stratagem, but think what it says about our society if the jury does acquit. I can't see how they could convict on manslaughter; either it was a pre-meditated but justifiable killing, or it was pre-meditated murder. (In the former case, the doctor who takes Tiller's place would have an excellent defense for, should Roeder be freed, gunning the man down himself, as Roeder would also present the exact same threat to the next abortion doctor that the abortion doctor presents to the unborn. Sauce for the goose . . .)

The judge is fooling himself though, or trying to eat his cake and have it too. Once an emotion-based defense is presented, the jury can't unhear it, and I seriously doubt that a juror who would acquit is going to disregard the defense if so instructed. Perhaps he's going to hear the defense in camera first?

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm a pretty big advocate of allowing the defense considerable latitude and I have no problem with the defense using this stratagem, but think what it says about our society if the jury does acquit. I can't see how they could convict on manslaughter; either it was a pre-meditated but justifiable killing, or it was pre-meditated murder. (In the former case, the doctor who takes Tiller's place would have an excellent defense for, should Roeder be freed, gunning the man down himself, as Roeder would also present the exact same threat to the next abortion doctor that the abortion doctor presents to the unborn. Sauce for the goose . . .)

The judge is fooling himself though, or trying to eat his cake and have it too. Once an emotion-based defense is presented, the jury can't unhear it, and I seriously doubt that a juror who would acquit is going to disregard the defense if so instructed. Perhaps he's going to hear the defense in camera first?

No, he isn't going to hear it in camera. And you're right, the jury cannot unhear it. I think the judge is doing this to prevent an overturn on appeal. He is thinking that he will allow Roeder to put on the defense, but then disallow it, giving instructions to the jury only on murder 1. He thinks if he disallows him even putting on the defense, on appeal he will argue that it couldn't be known whether the evidence supported the defense since he wasn't allowed to even put on the evidence. You're right though - Roeder might put on this emotional defense, the judge then submits to the jury with only an option for murder 1, but then the (possibly pro-life) jury acquits him entirely, which would actually be jury nullifcation but then technically that isn't the judges fault and the verdict is final...

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

No, he isn't going to hear it in camera. And you're right, the jury cannot unhear it. I think the judge is doing this to prevent an overturn on appeal. He is thinking that he will allow Roeder to put on the defense, but then disallow it, giving instructions to the jury only on murder 1. He thinks if he disallows him even putting on the defense, on appeal he will argue that it couldn't be known whether the evidence supported the defense since he wasn't allowed to even put on the evidence. You're right though - Roeder might put on this emotional defense, the judge then submits to the jury with only an option for murder 1, but then the (possibly pro-life) jury acquits him entirely, which would actually be jury nullifcation but then technically that isn't the judges fault and the verdict is final...

- wolf

You think the judge wouldn't declare a mistrial in that case, just let the state appeal? It would have to be overturned, one way or another. I have a big problem with civilian trials for foreign terrorists, but at least they go home if freed and have to actually get back into the country or catch us abroad to get another crack at killing us. Should Roeder succeed in this defense and it's not overturned on appeal, we're opened up for domestic terrorism out the window. It's odd, jury nullification used to be principally a white-on-black thing, now it's mainly a black-on-white thing, and it may soon (honestly, very slim chance, but still . . .) be a pro-life thing.

All this procedural maneuvering makes my head hurt.

 

[Robor]

Sure this defense will be allowed... and it will fail.

:thumbsup:

 

[Robor]

ahhh......so thats why he all of a sudden disappeared...
I was wondering how long before he screwed up...sort of reminds me of that other guy who was almost exactly like this guy then one night he went off on these forums and it was discovered that he was somebody who had been banned previousoly!!

I thought he got a 4 day vacation? He was banned? Such a shame. :awe:

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Should Roeder succeed in this defense and it's not overturned on appeal, we're opened up for domestic terrorism out the window.

I don't think it's quite so dire if Roeder's defense works.

It's not a precedent like a SCOTUS case. It would be just a single case of a bad jury trial, those are nothing new and no one can rely on that for their own case no matter how similar.

And if there were any legal precedent in the details it would only apply to that state. (He's tried under state law right?)

Fern

 

[Ozoned]

How on earth would you pick an impartial jury for this?

 

[Zebo]

Holy shit this the craziest! Murder should be death no if ands or buts. Only 5 years and you'll have fundi nuts murdering doctors left and right.

 

[Craig234]

How on earth would you pick an impartial jury for this?

By finding jurors willing to folllow the law and the evidence.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Murder should be death no if ands or buts. Only 5 years and you'll have fundi nuts murdering doctors left and right.

Life in prison (which may or may not involve being raped by your cell mate*) is sufficient punishment to deter most would-be premeditated murderers without state sponsored executions. I would also be willing to bet that the vast majority of pro-lifers would agree that murdering doctors is not the right way to bring about change.

*NOTE: I do not condone criminal actions inside or outside of prison and it should be stopped / punished whenever it is discovered

 

[Zebo]

Life in prison being raped by your cell mate is sufficient punishment to deter most would-be premeditated murderers without state sponsored executions. I would also be willing to bet that the vast majority of pro-lifers would agree that murdering doctors is not the right way to bring about change.

I'm not into that with 280 witnesses (proof positive) why should society have to suffer twice? Once his crime and second housing them for life. I also don't agree with forcible rape that occurs in prisons. Keep in mind he could be rapist instead of rapee.

 

[SilentRunning]

Murdering a murderer is still murder. I hope to God Tiller gets nothing less than first degree murder.

Why, after saying that do YOU now want to murder a murderer?

You guys need to leave the victim alone. He's dead already.

 

[Atreus21]

I don't think it's quite so dire if Roeder's defense works.

It's not a precedent like a SCOTUS case. It would be just a single case of a bad jury trial, those are nothing new and no one can rely on that for their own case no matter how similar.

And if there were any legal precedent in the details it would only apply to that state. (He's tried under state law right?)

Fern

Interesting point.

 

[werepossum]

I don't think it's quite so dire if Roeder's defense works.

It's not a precedent like a SCOTUS case. It would be just a single case of a bad jury trial, those are nothing new and no one can rely on that for their own case no matter how similar.

And if there were any legal precedent in the details it would only apply to that state. (He's tried under state law right?)

Fern

Maybe, but while I don't know any people who think that, for instance, 9/11 was justifiable, I know several who think Tiller the Killer's murder was perfectly justified. Assuming Roeder is acquitted based on justifiable homicide and SCOTUS ultimately either doesn't hear it (most likely, although there is a human rights issue just as with black victims whose white murderers in the sixties walked due to jury nullification) or upholds it, not terribly unlikely since it would not after all be a technical violation of legal process, supposedly all an appeals court examines, I can see a lot of people tempted to do the same for other abortion doctors, especially across the Bible Belt and other parts of flyover country where the unborn are generally more valued and juries would be more likely to acquit based on this valuation (i.e. babies > abortion doctors rather than babies > rule of law.) There aren't really that many abortion clinics, after all, which makes them somewhat vulnerable to terrorism.

 

[surfsatwerk]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35145293/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Glad to see justice is being served.

 

[kage69]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35145293/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Glad to see justice is being served.

From the your link:

"A jury deliberated for 37 minutes Friday before finding Scott Roeder guilty of premeditated, first-degree murder. The 51-year-old Kansas City, Mo., man faces a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after 25 years."


I hope the parole board isn't full of activist baptists, or if it is, they remember that this man decided to murder another within a place of worship during service.
Make an example of that fvcker.

 

[woolfe9999]

Glad to see this turned out right.

I notice the judge ultimately did not allow the jury to consider the lesser charge.

- wolf

 

[hal2kilo]

Score one for the American Justice system.

Damn left off the quote. He was found guilty of premeditated murder.

 

[Skitzer]

I bet he ends up dead within a few months after entering Prison.

 

[ichy]

Glad to see that this terrorist was held accountable for his crime. It's a pity that he wasn't eligible for the death penalty, but apparently the prosecutor is trying to get a life sentence that would leave him ineligible for parole for 50 years, which given his age would be a de facto life w/o parole sentence.

 

[PokerGuy]

He should be given the death penalty, but I guess this is second best.