Innocent until proven guilty, therefore it was murder, and even assuming he wasn't adhering to Kansas law (hah) it doesn't provide justification for murder since the penalty he would have face would likely not have been the death sentence, and furthermore theres the issue of vigilante "justice" which we don't allow, which makes this more like a lynching.
Abortion Doctor Killer trial: Defendant to be allowed to argue manslaughter
- Thread starter .Shane.
- Start date
Innocent until proven guilty, therefore it was murder, and even assuming he wasn't adhering to Kansas law (hah) it doesn't provide justification for murder since the penalty he would have face would likely not have been the death sentence, and furthermore theres the issue of vigilante "justice" which we don't allow, which makes this more like a lynching.
Thats not true, there are plenty of legal restrictions to abortion.
Many pro-life supporters believe(d) that Tiller either manipulated the system or outright violated the law and murdered babies that otherwise had (statistically) a very high chance of living outside the womb.
It would still fail the need for imminent harm to qualify as self defense of others and would thus still be illegal.
You could still argue that it is terrorism if the intent to intimidate or coerce abortion providers and patients could be proven. The issue would not be the legality of the act, as it is still illegal to kill in defense of others when there is clearly no possible imminent harm.
Well, he wasn't. And it was a pretty open and shut case against him. But hooray for Kathleen Sebilus and the then state governor for completely throwing the case and refusing to present any evidence against Tiller. But that's neither here nor there, as I'm not trying to rationalize away what Scott Roeder did, because it's indefensible. I was more wondering about all the accusations of "terrorism" and how the case would play out if it was determined that Tiller was breaking the law.
I wonder if Roeder would get off with a lighter sentence then.
So theoretically, if Tiller had been shot in the act of performing an abortion, that would be different?
I'm not seeing how you could do that, since intent is hard to prove. At the end of the day, I think it's just one guy doing to someone else what he feels the law failed to do. Not terrorism, but definitely murder.
Maybe in the eyes of the law, but probably not so in the eyes of the general population.
Depends if it was a legal or illegal abortion. If shot while preforming a legal abortion I see no reason why that may be the case.
Welp its a good thing we have the law then. Since his case never went to trial that means he's good as innocent regardless of if you or anyone else think he was guilty.
Well, no, illegal abortions are not legally equivalent to murder, and I doubt they ever will be.
"Pro-Lifer's" lose again!
The partial birth abortion ban act gives a punishment of either a fine or an imprisonment up to two years.
Not to mention that it doesn't punish the mother, either; it allows her to file a civil suit to the doctor, instead! Abortion being legally and ethically equivalent to murder would certainly punish the mother in the same way one punishes someone who hires an assassin.I suppose it's just me, but I don't see the difference between killing someone who is in the process of committing an illegal act and killing someone who has committed an illegal act and will be likely to commit that same act in the future. Now, this requires one to prove that the killed has engaged in an illegal act and was likely to commit that act in the future, but the point still remains. I know nothing of the case, but I'd be willing to bet that the defense will try to present evidence compiled the KSBHA in arguing that Roeder had at least a reason (Not necessarily a legitimate reason) to do what he did. Of course, he'd still end up in jail, but his punishment wouldn't be as severe as it would have been otherwise.
Edit: Actually, I take the underlined back. I should say I see a difference between premeditated murder and killing someone who has committed an illegal act in the past and is likely to commit an illegal act in the future.
But his case will be heard by a jury, and a jury is comprised on people taken from the general population.
Well, then all the defense has to do is prove that Tiller was indeed guilty of the charges levied against him, and that left alone he would have continued killing otherwise viable fetuses illegally.
It makes all the difference when it comes to justified self defense laws. For example, if someone is trying to rape you, deadly force can only be justified while you are being immediately threatened to being raped; not once the rapist has already raped you and left.
If the abortion can be considered the legal equivalent of murder (I don't know where that would stand or other serious physical attacks on people), and he did NOT go there with an intent to do harm. As soon as you go somewhere intending to do harm, you are guilty no matter the circumstance (of at least what you intended to do).
So if you see someone driving under the influence and have reason to believe they will do the same in the future you have the right to kill them? After all he could cause can accident and kill someone.
I don't think that the law allows for such a thing. Probably the best you could do is say that your client believed that Tiller was committing illegal abortions.
Onionsoilder
Reaver
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,173
True. But I think it is very unlikely that a jury would find Tiller guilty of any crime that warrants a death sentence. Even if would have, he wasn't yet convicted. Regardless of your opinion of him, Tiller was an innocent civilian in the eyes of the law. There is no way the sentence should be reduced to manslaughter because somebody feels it's justified.
I'd be very shocked if courts allowed the precedent that a person could successfully argue voluntary manslaughter after walking into a legitimate clinic and shooting a doctor carrying out an abortion, merely on the defendant's claims that he honestly believed the doctor could have been performing an illegal abortion.
Intent is proven all the time. In this case there is an entire wiki page on Mr. Roeder's professed anti-government, anti-abortion stances and his professed desire to perform acts of violence in order to bring about changes in-line with his warped world view.
I was thinking about this, and my own opinion is that if Roeder had evidence that Tiller was performing many illegal abortions & had tried to use legal means of stopping the abortions (but those take time), he then may have been justified (in his own mind) in shooting the doctor before he could kill his next victim.
And I mean evidence. Something he could show to other people who'd, after a bit of thinking, would agree that Tiller was performing illegal abortions.
What's terrible is that most people are okay with 'medically necessary abortions' that save the life of the mother. That's what Tiller did. By intimidating these types of doctors, you're denying women their last hope
And I mean evidence. Something he could show to other people who'd, after a bit of thinking, would agree that Tiller was performing illegal abortions.
What's terrible is that most people are okay with 'medically necessary abortions' that save the life of the mother. That's what Tiller did. By intimidating these types of doctors, you're denying women their last hope
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Excellent
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
I wonder how the law and order crowd is going to try to spin this.
Similar threads
