Tiller shooting - justifiable homicide?

[woolfe9999]

Apparently the judge is going to allow Scott Roeder to argue that the killing of Dr. Tiller was mitigated by his belief that he was saving unborn children.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34810725/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts

Quoting the relevant portion:

"But what had been expected to be an open-and-shut murder trial was upended Friday when a judge decided to let Roeder argue he should be convicted of voluntary manslaughter because he believed the May 31 slaying would save unborn children. Suddenly, the case has taken on a new significance that has galvanized both sides of the nation's abortion debate.

Prosecutors on Monday challenged the ruling, arguing that such a defense is not appropriately considered with premeditated first-degree murder when there is no evidence of an imminent attack at the time of the killing, and jury selection was delayed. A hearing was scheduled for Tuesday afternoon to give the defense time to respond.

"The State encourages this Court to not be the first to enable a defendant to justify premeditated murder because of an emotionally charged political belief," the prosecution wrote. "Such a ruling has far reaching consequences and would be contrary to Kansas law.""

- wolf

 

[halik]

That would be a fantastic precedent. Think of all the presidential assassins that could bank off those.

 

[woolfe9999]

That would be a fantastic precedent. Think of all the presidential assassins that could bank off those.

That's what I was thinking. Suppose I decided to shoot George Bush because of how many people I believed he was killing by not funding stem cell research, or by starting the Iraq War? Manslaughter?

- wolf

 

[JS80]

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

 

[Atreus21]

Apparently the judge is going to allow Scott Roeder to argue that the killing of Dr. Tiller was mitigated by his belief that he was saving unborn children.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34810725/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts

Quoting the relevant portion:

"But what had been expected to be an open-and-shut murder trial was upended Friday when a judge decided to let Roeder argue he should be convicted of voluntary manslaughter because he believed the May 31 slaying would save unborn children. Suddenly, the case has taken on a new significance that has galvanized both sides of the nation's abortion debate.

Prosecutors on Monday challenged the ruling, arguing that such a defense is not appropriately considered with premeditated first-degree murder when there is no evidence of an imminent attack at the time of the killing, and jury selection was delayed. A hearing was scheduled for Tuesday afternoon to give the defense time to respond.

"The State encourages this Court to not be the first to enable a defendant to justify premeditated murder because of an emotionally charged political belief," the prosecution wrote. "Such a ruling has far reaching consequences and would be contrary to Kansas law.""

- wolf

I'm vehemently pro-life.

And this is a huge mistake.

Clinic bombers and doctor murderers should be tried as terrorists. You don't kill innocents to save innocents.

 

[spidey07]

I'm about as pro-choice as you are going to get. This was nothing short of pre-meditated murder 1 and the case should be done and sent to the gas chamber.

The defense has nothing. Now if there was a direct threat of loss of life of others in your act of killing said threat then maybe a case. But not pre-meditated murder.

This was murder, pure and simple.

 

[MotF Bane]

Utterly ridiculous. This was pre-meditated murder.

 

[halik]

That's what I was thinking. Suppose I decided to shoot George Bush because of how many people I believed he was killing by not funding stem cell research, or by starting the Iraq War? Manslaughter?

- wolf

Pretty ridiculous - the entire argument essentially rests on the guy's own hypothetical.
Will the judge determine a plausibility test for that?

If i shoot my girlfriend and later argue for manslaughter because I'm saving the people she'd kill due to her terrible driving (true story...), is my argument any less valid?

 

[spidey07]

Pretty ridiculous - the entire argument essentially rests on the guy's own hypothetical.
Will the judge determine a plausibility test for that?

If i shoot my girlfriend and later argue for manslaughter because I'm saving the people she'd kill due to her terrible driving (true story...), is my argument any less valid?

Eitherway it's spun, it doesn't work. All the analogies and hypotheticals lead to fail.

Bascially you're right. Killing another is justified by law, but not on what they "could" do.

 

[woolfe9999]

A small correction. The judge has not decided yet whether to actually allow the defense. He is allowing the defendant to put on the defense. Then after all the evidence is in he will decide if the defense goes to the jury. This means that Roeder will be allowed to cry about baby killing for the entire length of the trial, and given the likely pro-life composition of the jury, there is a possibility for aquittal by jury nullification even if the jury is given no option for the lesser charge of manslaughter.

- wolf

 

[Schadenfroh]

I'm about as pro-choice as you are going to get. This was nothing short of pre-meditated murder 1 and the case should be done and sent to the gas chamber.

This was murder, pure and simple.

I am mostly pro-life (abortion only in cases of incest, severe deformities or if the mother's life is in significant danger). This is definitely pre-meditated murder and he should get life in prison. I disagree about him being executed, since I am against the death penalty as well.

 

[kage69]

Utterly ridiculous. This was pre-meditated murder.

I applaud the consensus we seem to have in this thread guys. Maybe it's from reading too many Avocado posts lately, but I thought for sure this topic would illicit fundie ranting of some sort.

 

[woolfe9999]

I applaud the consensus we seem to have in this thread guys. Maybe it's from reading too many Avocado posts lately, but I thought for sure this topic would illicit fundie ranting of some sort.

Ah, but the aforementioned "Avocado" has not made an appearence yet. The evening is still young.

 

[spidey07]

I applaud the consensus we seem to have in this thread guys. Maybe it's from reading too many Avocado posts lately, but I thought for sure this topic would illicit fundie ranting of some sort.

I don't think you'll find anybody in P&N condoning this behavior no matter what side.

 

[evident]

what? a P&N thread where everyone agrees? :head explodes:

 

[Argo]

If he is acquitted based on that defense, that'll just mean we'll be allowed to kill him based on all the future abortion clinic bombings he'll perform. So I don't see a problem either way.

 

[Patranus]

If the state allows for someone to be charged with double homicide if they kill a pregnant woman than this defense should be allowed.

 

[Special K]

Ah, but the aforementioned "Avocado" has not made an appearence yet. The evening is still young.

Actually it looks like he was banned. If you look at all his posts in the minimum wage thread, it says "Banned" under his username.

 

[fskimospy]

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

 

[Moonbeam]

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?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Actually it looks like he was banned. If you look at all his posts in the minimum wage thread, it says "Banned" under his username.

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!!

 

[Jaskalas]

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

That makes the most logical sense.

So why then, is the defense itself newsworthy and making these people squirm?

 

[ichy]

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

That's what I was thinking. The judge probably figures that by allowing this defense he'll make the appeals significantly easier and shorter. If he disallowed it then Roeder's lawyers could spend years going through appellate courts claiming he should've been allowed to present the manslaughter defense. Hopefully the jury will see through the BS though, Roeder is a terrorist and a murderer and ought to fry.

 

[Moonbeam]

That's what I was thinking. The judge probably figures that by allowing this defense he'll make the appeals significantly easier and shorter. If he disallowed it then Roeder's lawyers could spend years going through appellate courts claiming he should've been allowed to present the manslaughter defense. Hopefully the jury will see through the BS though, Roeder is a terrorist and a murderer and ought to fry.

That is exactly what he thought and that is his defense. If it works for you why not him?

In an age when the state has created prisons that can separate evil people from the rest, it becomes totally absurd and rather counterproductive to say to folk that we will kill you for killing. You have to be a rather large hypocrite to think that way, it seems to me.

 

[ichy]

In an age when the state has created prisons that can separate evil people from the rest, it becomes totally absurd and rather counterproductive to say to folk that we will kill you for killing. You have to be a rather large hypocrite to think that way, it seems to me.

A.)There are plenty of examples of inmates still doing harm from behind bars. The assault COs, other inmates, and occasionally order hits against people on the outside.

B.)If the purpose of capital punishment was simply to protect society then you might have a point, but there's a reason it's called capital PUNISHMENT. Part of the reason we have it is to make criminals pay a penalty for what they have done, regardless of whether they're still a threat to others.