Roeder's "necessity defense" HAS to be stopped

[jmowreader]

When I hear about Scott Roeder claiming some bizarre "necessity defense" in his case--he claims killing Dr. Tiller was necessary to save the unborn babies--I sit back and think, "I am SO glad I'm not the judge in this case." For I have the strangest feeling I'd be like the judge in Not Sure's "water on plants" trial in Idiocracy--"whatever, man. The guy's guilty as shit. We all know that."

Idiocracy aside, such a defense can't be allowed, because if successful it would legalize murder. Cop walking around with a Taser on his belt? Shoot the bastard--we know cops have killed people with Tasers. Soldiers sometimes kill Iraqi civilians, so to save the Iraqi civilians you'd better kill as many soldiers as you can. That woman has a pit bull! She might use it as a weapon--kill her! And on and on.

I want to know why the feds aren't going after this man on Patriot Act charges. His intent was to scare doctors away from the practice of abortion, and he probably did it in at least a few cases. Violence committed to influence a population is the Book Definition of terrorism--and for at least a few more months we have a real nice prison in Cuba that's got just enough space for one anti-abortion terrorist.

[Gothmog]

1. The trial judge rjected this defense today

The Kan. Supreme court had previously ruled against the necessity defense and the trial court indicated that it was going to follow this precident. http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/us/2009/12/22/D9COH57O1_us_abortion_shooting

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." Roeder listened intently, at times twiddling his thumbs nervously under the defense table, as the judge gave a lengthy recitation of case precedents that mostly undermined that contention.

In his ruling, Judge Warren Wilbert cited a 1993 criminal trespassing case involving an abortion clinic in which the Kansas Supreme Court said that allowing a person's personal beliefs 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 the 1993 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.

"That is certainly not a position I want to be in -- because I am not God," Wilbert said.