Oh shit! The Kansas judge in the trial of Scott Roeder, murderer of Dr. Tiller has ruled ...

[11 Bravo]

that Roeder can mount a defense based on his belief that he had to kill an abortion provider in order to save the lives of "unborn children". This is a new ruling. Earlier the judge said he would consider it, now he says it's a legitimate defense. Un-fucking-believable.

[rudy23]

1. So, that means a person could take out a politician, because they thought he was killing people?

Just wondering exactly where they plan on drawing the line on this "legitimate pre-emptive murder" thing.

[hlthe2b]

5. So theoretically one could launch same defense for anti-abortion

demonstrators, who one fears MIGHT be planning to take out an abortion provider or recipient? This one will not be "cost-neutral" in terms of its impacts...

[The Doctor.]

55. Oh no...

With that kind of precedent it can go anywhere.

Shoot the pharmacist for dispensing drugs you believe are 'evil'?

"I'm going to allow this.", sayeth the Judge.

Murder your neighbors because you 'believe' they are terrorists?

"I'm going to allow this."

Rob a Bank because you believe the bankers are evil, greedy, corrupt people?

"I'm going to allow this."



This judge, if the OP is an accurate reflection, is stark-raving nuts.

[truedelphi]

72. You don't even need to carry it a step forward to believe that if you

You think someone's vote for funding a war means people will die, then why not use deadly force?

In theory, then someone could take out the entire Congress and if they landed in a "pro-peace" judge's court, the mass murder would be condoned!

[CTyankee]

17. Right, think about what Bush/Cheney did to innocents in Iraq...nt

[bobbolink]

41. I'm guessing the blood on Cheeeeeney's hands would be sufficient evidence.

Hmmmm, might be a blessing in disguise....

Seriously, I doubt this will be upheld, although weirder things have happened, eh?

[T Wolf]

2. So, killing that judge could be defended by the fact that he approves of pre-emptive killing to save

a life.

Killing him would prevent him from freeing someone who has killed another living human being (not a smear of cells).

Should work, according to his (il)logic.

[fascisthunter]

19. yup... and that danger has entered this judge's mind?

[RaleighNCDUer]

37. Just think, after approving this line of defense, if Roeder is convicted

in his courtroom someone would be justified in assassinating the judge to keep him from passing a death sentence.

[BreweryYardRat]

73. Edit: Ignore my kneejerk reaction

Scratch that. Looks like someone downthread came up with a possible reason for the ruling.

"He has to admit he killed Tiller, and then defend why. Risky road for the defense, since it could also cement a 1st degree verdict. Another view is that it also allows a compromise verdict which would get a conviction vice a hung jury.

Nothing from anyone knowledgeable I have read seems to think its anything more than a judge closing off avenues of appeal by giving the defense a wide field to work in."

This may be a case of giving the loon enough rope to hang himself.

[The Doctor.]

56. Yep. That's pretty much it.

This can be taken to the nth.

[malaise]

60. Ding ding

We have a winner

[Hello_Kitty]

3. Gosh, then I guess the underwear bomber should get to use a similar defense.

After all, he sincerely believed he was saving Muslims from evil American aggression. :shrug:

[elehhhhna]

29. Major Hassan could cite this defense, as well. We're a mess.

[CBR]

4. Good God. UNBELIEVABLE! nt

[Cha]

6. Abortion is legal the way Dr

Tiller was performing so what's the defense for killing a Dr for doing his job?

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. "Legitimate preemptive murder?" Health insurance CEO's should watch the verdict carefully. n/t

[dixiegrrrrl]

33. Banksters, too.

Throwing people out into the street and taking their life savings leaving them to freeze and starve..
that is killing people.

[Dinger]

8. Link (Sickening):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6985521.ece

[Ian David]

9. Link: Abortion doctor killer Scott Roeder allowed ‘justified’ defence

Abortion doctor killer Scott Roeder allowed ‘justified’ defence
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6985521.ece

[sharesunited]

10. Jury selection in this trial is now more important than ever.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. Just because he is allowed to use that as a defence doesn't mean that

the jury will be crazy enough buy into it.

[daleo]

16. When one stupid thing happens

I am never surprised by a second stupid thing.

[KansDem]

21. .

??
:(

[struggle4progress]

34. Judge disallows 'necessity defense' in Tiller Case: Judge Warren Wilbert also says the murder trial

will stay in Wichita
THE WICHITA EAGLE, KAN. | RON SYLVESTER | Wed, Dec 23, 3:08 AM

... Judge Warren Wilbert ruled Roeder could not use the so-called "necessity defense" in the killing of Wichita abortion provider George Tiller last May.

But the judge said he would "leave the door open" for Roeder's defense to present evidence and arguments that he killed in the belief that he was saving the lives of the unborn ...

Wilbert said he may limit what the defense can say in opening statements. Wilbert also said it would be difficult to allow testimony indicating Roeder was acting in defense of others because the law requires an "imminent threat."

Tiller was shot and killed May 31 inside the lobby of his church, where he was serving as an usher ...

http://dailyme.com/story/2009122300000374/judge-disallows-necessity-defense-tiller-case-.html

[KansDem]

38. Oh, I know about the story...

I was responding to this comment by DUer Freddie Stubbs:

Just because he is allowed to use that as a defence doesn't mean that the jury will be crazy enough buy into it.

I live just a few miles from Roeder lived. And I wonder and worry about the people here.

Consider what our former state attorney general, Phill Kline, attempted to do. In 2005, Kline was on a personal crusade to outlaw abortion and in doing so became the darling of the Religious Right here in Kansas. He attempted to gain access to the medical records of a family-planning clinic in Wichita claiming he only wanted to investigate late-term abortions. But it was obvious that it was an attempt to harass clinic staff and dissuade women from seeking help. He said he was "looking for evidence" but don't you have to establish first that a specific crime was committed before "looking for evidence?" It seems to me you can't just go fishing through private medical records hoping to find a crime, but then I'm not a lawyer—

Kansas Abortion Clinics Fight Data Request
Criminal Inquiries Trump Issues of Privacy, State Says

By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 15, 2005; Page A03

Two Kansas clinics are opposing efforts by the state's Attorney General to obtain the medical records of more than 80 women who received late-term abortions in 2003.

The attorney general, Phill Kline, has argued that he is looking for evidence of child rape and violations of a state law restricting abortions performed after 22 weeks of pregnancy. But clinic supporters contend Kline is on a fishing expedition that invades patients' privacy and is making a calculated effort to hamper the clinics from performing abortions.

Kline's push for medical records, backed by a judicial subpoena, is the strongest move yet by a state law officer against providers of late-term abortions. Abortion rights activists say Kansas heralds a growing risk to the rights of women seeking to terminate pregnancies without government interference.

"It really is scary for patients," said Priscilla Smith, director of the domestic legal program at the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York. "As more and more restrictions are placed upon abortion, there's more and more opportunity for self-righteous and right-wing antiabortion attorneys general and prosecutors to do these kinds of investigations."

For his part, Kline -- who has said he would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned -- contends that "the issue is whether abortion clinics are above the law."

...
This article originally appeared in the "Washington Post"

I hope Freddie Stubbs is right...:scared:

[rhett o rick]

49. Isn't he a blue dog? nt

[havocmom]

22. EXACTLY. Seems judge just said defense could use a lame and groundless defense

Fine by me, as it also means defense has nuttin and the shooter will probably go down unless the jury is comprised of winger fringe loons.

[KansDem]

25. .

??
:(

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. And allowing that defence takes away one more reason to appeal the conviction

[keroro gunsou]

42. all it takes

is one loon to hang the jury.

[Lilith Velkor]

63. I wonder if that was the (other) reason for the Twinkie defense. n/t

[gratuitous]

32. Precisely

Putting on a defense isn't the same as availing oneself of that defense.

I want Roeder to have the full spectrum of the legal system at his disposal. I want him to put on whatever witnesses and evidence he thinks will help him. I want him to have the best legal representation he can buy, and I want them to pursue his defense vigorously.

So that, when he's convicted of being a craven little snivelling coward of a killer, he can go to jail for the maximum time possible, without recourse to any appeal because he got a trial far fairer than the one he himself conducted for Dr. Tiller.

[tonysam]

51. True, but it doesn't mean the jury won't buy it.

n/t

[Odin2005]

62. This is KANSAS we are talking about.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

12. unbelieveable.

Doesn't comport with any legal theory I ever heard.

[tridim]

13. Now THAT is an activist judge.

And apparently a judge who thinks murder is justified. Worst person in the world, by a mile.

[FSogol]

14. Well, killing someone for the defense of others is permissible in certain cases, so

the judge is probably correct in allowing it. However, abortion is legal so the defense will not allow Roeder to get very far. Any lawyers around DU?

[starroute]

26. The problem is that this recognizes fetuses as persons

I think they're trying to hang the defense on the claim that Tiller had aborted viable late-term fetuses -- but I also believe that had been found to be untrue. So there is some very tricky legal testimony here, even aside from questions surrounding the imminent-harm aspect.

[fascisthunter]

15. ok.. this judge just stepped over the line between Church and State

there are people in this country that truly disgust me... religious perverts.

[rucky]

18. Bring it!

Let's nip this shit in the bud. No higher judge will uphold a God Warrior defense.

[eShirl]

20. so does this mean we should brace for civil war?

[KansDem]

23. Only if you think the person you are about to kill is preparing to kill someone else...

At least I think that's how it works...

"Preemptive civil war"

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. We've been on the road to this for a while

this is just one more step.

Kansas is rife with the "movement." So I wonder how many of the Jurors will actually agree and NOT convict?

But thanks for catching on to the Little Kansas War... this IS chilling to me.

[treestar]

24. Lunacy which should be overturned on appeal

As long as abortion is not a crime, it can't be a defense that you were stopping an abortion.

[jgraz]

48. You can't appeal a Not Guilty verdict.

[marginlized]

27. Hey, they tried to teach ID in their schools. What do you expect? n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

30. This could be a good thing,. when the defense fails it means it won't be tried again,

in Kansas anyways

[krabigirl]

31. total bullshit! I am tired of the hypocritical theocrats in this country. Can't stand any of them!

[marmar]

35. The courts are rancid with right-wingers, courtesy of Bush

nt

[old mark]

36. Welcome to the Republicans' America-Country First!

As long as people are liberals-or not conservative enough-killing them is legal.

Do you understand where you live now?


mark

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Why am I having flashbacks to the HISTORY of the Little Kansas War?

Oh never mind... not good for many reasons.

Ah what is that Santayana wrote?

Oh never mind, I'd better get me head off them damn books!

[jobendorfer]

43. question

Isn't it usually the case that to justify a homicide, you have to show more than that a threat existed,
the threat has to be *imminent*?

Tiller was shot down in a church, if my memory serves me correctly.

J.

[sharp_stick]

44. Not really that big of a deal

all the judge is doing is allowing a defendant to mount a defense. He isn't telling the defense that it's going to work. Allowing this cuts off one route to an appeal if/when it fails.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

57. I've heard that from other sources

He has to admit he killed Tiller, and then defend why. Risky road for the defense, since it could also cement a 1st degree verdict. Another view is that it also allows a compromise verdict which would get a conviction vice a hung jury.

Nothing from anyone knowledgeable I have read seems to think its anything more than a judge closing off avenues of appeal by giving the defense a wide field to work in.

I still think the bastard should fry...very very slowly.

[arthritisR_US]

71. not so risky a defense when one considers the likely jury. n/t

[frebrd]

45. Why is anyone surprised?

It is Kansas, after all.

[Stinky The Clown]

46. "What's the Matter With Kansas?"

[unblock]

47. i guess trials of terrorists DO give them a forum to promote their wacky, evil views.

[tonysam]

50. Local link

Wichita Eagle


This guy belongs in the cell next to terrorist Eric Rudolph at Florence ADX. Birds of a feather flock together.

[pitohui]

52. it's kansas, honey

i don't even bother to expect justice

[Maru Kitteh]

53. Freakin' figures. Kansas.

Why are all the powers-that-be in Kansas such total loons?

[Canuckistanian]

54. Shit, indeed

If this is used as a legitimate defence, then all Hell breaks loose.

Although this trial has just started, I see many, many challenges to it already

[ehrnst]

58. So if you think it's justified, then ingnorance of the law is ok?

<In court papers filed yesterday defence lawyers said: “In the mind of Mr Roeder the victim presented a clear danger to unborn children.” >

[ehrnst]

59. Anyone know who appointed the judge? - ELECTED

http://blogs.kansas.com/courts/2008/11/12/langston-pays-for-recount-in-tight-sedgwick-county-judicial-race/

Karen Langston isn’t ready to give up just yet on regaining a seat on the Sedgwick County district court bench.

Langston trailed incumbent Warren Wilbert by only 444 votes Monday, after provisional ballots were counted. This afternoon, Langston asked for a recount of the paper ballots at a cost of $15,000, county election commissioner Bill Gale said.

Kansas law provides for free recounts only for statewide and national offices. The county will absorb the cost if the recount shows Langston the winner. Otherwise, she’ll have to pay.

After election day last week, Wilbert had a 1,067-vote advantage. But the Republican saw that lead more than cut in half as provisional ballots were counted.

Wilbert has been a judge since 1995 but faced his first contested election this year after being publicly disciplined by the state judicial ethics commission in 2006.

Langston served as district court judge from 2000 to 2004 as a Republican before switching parties to run against Wilbert. If she prevails, she would be the only woman to win a race for the Sedgwick County bench in this election.

Read more: http://blogs.kansas.com/courts/2008/11/12/langston-pays-for-recount-in-tight-sedgwick-county-judicial-race/#ixzz0cVJLMuH8

[Odin2005]

61. Activist Judge! Activist Judge!

Oh, wait, that only applies to judges whose decisions the nuts DON'T like. :eyes:

[merh]

64. The defendant is entitled to his defense, no matter how outrageous.

A defense does not equal justification. Please don't confuse the two when considering the court's ruling.

The judge has simply ruled that the defendant will be allowed to present his defense, that he can have his day in court.

The ruling does not mean the judge accepts the defense.

[lame54]

65. The Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strike

[femrap]

66. Gee, I wish I were

unborn...they seem to get such attention and accolades.

Do you think if I wore a t-shirt with 'I am Unborn' I could get money, attention and free food?

[drm604]

67. Everyone please read struggle4progress's post 34

"Judge disallows 'necessity defense' in Tiller Case".

This doesn't appear to be what most people here seem to think it is. This appears to be a judge trying to avoid grounds for appeal, as others have noted.

[Zoeisright]

68. So that means I can go ahead and shoot anti-choice nuts

because they are a threat to doctors, right?

Right??

[Luciferous]

69. The judge is an idiot for ruling in his favor but

just because he is allowed to mount this defense doesn't mean it will actually work for him...

[RainDog]

70. Can the prosecutor put the entire right-to-life nutters on trial?

because, if this guy claims his morality makes it okay to kill doctors based on religious training, doesn't that make all the right-to-lifers domestic religious terrorists? And those who give information and encouragement to people who commit these acts (people like Bill O'Reilly and his call outs of Tiller) aiders and abettors of terrorism?

shouldn't we shut down their financial networks and confiscate the money that they use to plot to kill people who disagree with their radical religious beliefs?

I'm serious about this.

What makes this man any different than someone who puts explosives in his tighty whities?

[lsewpershad]

74. Let the

fanatics now become vigilantes

[historian]

75. Bring on the Spanish Inquisition!

Remember that Kansas is the Afghanistan of the US. Still stuck in the stone ages with the bible as their main source of culture and understanding of the world. Bring on the Spanish Inquisition!
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

[BolivarianHero]

76. If jurors vote to exonerate Roeder as a result of their beliefs about abortion...

My solution for their behaviour would involve feminists with automatic weapons standing in a circle.

[badgerpup]

77. Dear gods, this is one HELL of a really stupid precedent he's setting...

:wtf:

Open this door and there is no telling WHAT is going to come through next.
"Can of worms" indeed...but the worms are more like the statue of Great Cthulu in the amount of disaster, havoc, death, and disorder they will cause.

Just as an example (and I mean absolutley no disrespect...and might even support, depending upon circumstances), think of what some of the most militant, angriest, most committed animal rights people might do with this?

A lot of people are going to wish this judge in hell not too far down the road.
Sure, the pro-lifers may get what they want in the short-term; their boy gets off with manslaughter instead of first-degree murder.
However, stuff like this always...ALWAYS comes back around to bite you in the ass HARD...and not just once.
Something about 'putting the genie back in the bottle'...you turned the big, angry, unpredictable and powerful mofo loose, and now you are stuck with the (Ready, gang? Everybody, say it with me altogether) CONSEQUENCES.

Eventually, they catch up with everyone...and the longer they're put off, ducked, denied, shoved onto someone else, the more interest they accrue.*

Any takers on whether the judge who allowed this was a pro-lifer himself?
If so, in all fairness and the interest of justice he really ought to have recused himself.


* Yeah, I'm a BIG believer in karma...see it in action constantly in my own little sphere too much not to be.

[JNelson6563]

78. Oy.

What an ass.

[glinda]

79. guess you can kill an "abortion doctor killer" then......

[bulloney]

80. Wouldn't this also incriminate the mother who sought the abortion?

After all, the doctor would not have performed the abortion without the mother initiating the process.