Judge rejects 'necessity defense' in abortion case

[meegbear]

Source: Salon.com / AP

A judge ruled Tuesday that Kansas law doesn't allow a so-called "necessity defense" in the trial of a man charged with killing one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers.

The decision was another blow to lawyers for 51-year-old Scott Roeder, who has confessed to shooting Dr. George Tiller on May 31 and says it was necessary to save unborn children.

In his ruling, Judge Warren Wilbert cited a 1993 criminal trespassing case involving an abortion clinic in which the Kansas Supreme Court said that to allow the personal beliefs of a person to justify criminal activity to stop a law-abiding citizen from exercising his rights would "not only lead to chaos but would be tantamount to sanctioning anarchy."

But he noted that that case dealt only with a property rights issue, whereas the case involving Roeder has elevated the argument to whether it is justified to take one life for another.

Read more: http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/us/2009/12/22/D9COH57O1_us_abortion_shooting

[Realityhack]

1. W00t! n/t

[ck4829]

2. Chaos and anarchy, this isn't about protecting fetuses, but destabilization of the US

Federal charges should be brought against Roeder, and there should be a federal investigation into Operation Rescue and allies as well.

Hey Congress, stop going after baseball players, and start investigating these anti-choice militants!

[Hepburn]

3. Good....

...I hope the POS rots in jail and then in hell for what he did to Dr. Tiller and the women whose lives were lost because Tiller was murdered.

:applause:

[SkyDaddy7]

5. NO NO NO...This is not good!!!

When you read the entire article look what the judge does say...

"However, the judge told attorneys he would "leave the door open" to consider later whether to allow specific evidence on the use of force for the defense of another person before letting the jury hear it."

...To even consider this is BS! This man killed someone for doing their legal job as a doctor, period!

Oh well, it is Kansas so I guess I should be surprised & thankful Scott Roeder has not made bail!

...Religion is America's biggest enemy, period!

[KansDem]

7. "Oh well, it is Kansas..."

I hear you...believe me!

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. Roeder's chief fund raiser lives in MO

[KansDem]

29. Perhaps we should be happy Kansas and Missouri are getting along now...

:sarcasm:

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. LOL

At least until the KU - MU game:)

[wolfgangmo]

8. YES, YES, YES - this might be good.

By "leaving the door open" the judge, who has already ruled on one defence and stated that there is no precedent in this case as argued by the defence may be allowing the defence to try their motions on the justifiable use of force in defence of another person in order to shut that door permanently.

By ruling on that motion and finding it wanting and then setting precedent in the case he will shut down that "defence" for the foreseeable future. Time will tell but I see his ruling so far as being very positive.

[SkyDaddy7]

31. You very well could be correct but...

for some reason I think the Judge is not thinking on those terms.

[omega minimo]

11. Good point, altho if that testimony reveals the insanity of this defense ..........

[anigbrowl]

17. Yes it is.

It's his duty to consider the defense's arguments before ruling whether they're admissible o not. If he didn't, they'd have grounds for a mistrial or an appeal.

[Thickasabrick]

19. Is a foetus a person in Kansas? nt

[gratuitous]

27. I want Roeder to have the full benefit of a vigorous defense

So that when he's found guilty, the judge will have no problem sentencing him to the maximum time allowable, and Roeder's bases for appeal are narrowed to a very few, if any.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fascisthunter]

4. good!(nt)

[Ozymanithrax]

6. There is no necessity defense against a legal act...

Judge did it right.

[Deep13]

9. Necessity to stop what a woman has a right to do?

Contradiction in terms. There are exactly three issues the court and jury have to decide. 1. Did he kill Tiller? 2. If so, did he mean to do it? 3. If so, can the defense prove a recognized excuse or justification? Seems like the trial court has already answered that last one.

Neither Tiller not the legality of abortion is on trial. Only a confessed murderer is.

[JDPriestly]

10. Basically, the question here is whether lynchings or lynch-mobs are legal.

I think that when you use the terminology "lynching," it becomes obvious to everyone that it is murder pure and simple. I may disapprove of someone's conduct, let's say selling guns, alcohol or tobacco (I don't disapprove of selling those things, so don't go on that tangent) and decide to enforce my view of the law by killing the sellers of those articles. Obviously, it would be reasonable in some minds to view the sellers of guns, alcohol and tobacco as killers. (I would not necessarily agree although I have heard it argued that a bartender who continues to sell alcohol to someone who is drunk may be liable if the drunk person then kills someone.) Most people would understand that the person who took it upon himself to kill the seller of guns, alcohol or tobacco would not succeed in using the defense of justification.

How can lawyers even waste the time of the court with this nonsense? If I were the judge, I would give them the opportunity to withdraw their arguments or sanction them for filing papers with frivolous arguments. The law on this is pretty well established.

[rfranklin]

12. The judge left the door open to consider this insane argument...

from MSNBC--

However, Wilbert told attorneys he would "leave the door open" to consider later whether to allow specific evidence on the use of force for the defense of another person before letting the jury hear it.

"That doesn't mean it is wide open ... we can discuss it," Wilbert said.

Defense attorneys could later ask the judge to allow jurors to consider a lesser offense such as voluntary manslaughter — defined in Kansas as "an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34525160/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

[rasputin1952]

14. I cannot fathom how a jury could use this...

"Defense attorneys could later ask the judge to allow jurors to consider a lesser offense such as voluntary manslaughter — defined in Kansas as "an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force."

To exonerate premeditated murder in any case. The "unreasonable" aspect would lead one to an insanity defense, that's about it. Tiller was killed in a church, not a clinic while preparing for or performing a procedure, Deadly force can't be considered unless there is an imminent threat at the time.

Using the above, I could murder someone in KS and say I honestly believed they were going to kill me sometime in the future...an absurdity.

[zbdent]

15. would it then be okay for Operation Rescue to be slaughtered

to prevent the deaths of various doctors?

[rd_kent]

16. [phone]

[myrna minx]

13. K&R n/t

[beyurslf]

20. This was an obvious decision. Anything else would have been saying, "Go ahead and kill

doctors and clinic workers."

[bahrbearian]

21. It is not an Abortion Case it is a Murder Case

[Solly Mack]

22. K&R

[pleah]

23. K&R

[dipsydoodle]

24. I thought that defence was cleared up years ago

on the basis that there is no greater crime than taking the life of another.

[Odin2005]

25. I hope this shitbag rots in jail.

[slackmaster]

26. BAD Journalism 101 - This is a MURDER case, not an "abortion case"

:nuke:

[catzies]

28. Agreed! That ticked me off too.

:mad: