Even though I consider myself on the prolife side of the spectrum, this is just an insane ruling.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34810725/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
QuoteSome fear abortion ruling could spur violence
Suspect will be allowed to argue voluntary manslaughter in volatile case
Most viewed on msnbc.com
updated 1:34 p.m. PT, Mon., Jan. 11, 2010
WICHITA, Kan. - On a balmy Sunday morning, Scott Roeder got up from a pew at Reformation Lutheran Church at the start of services and walked to the foyer, where two ushers were chatting around a table. Wordlessly, he pressed the barrel of a .22-caliber handgun to the forehead of Dr. George Tiller, one of the ushers, and pulled the trigger.
As his premeditated, first-degree murder trial begins Wednesday, no one — not even Roeder himself — disputes that he killed one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers.
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.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
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."
More violence against providers?
With secret jury selection proceedings stalled, the key questions are now being asked outside the courtroom: Will the judge's decision embolden militant anti-abortion activists and lead to open season on abortion providers? Does the Justice Department plan to file charges against Roeder under draconian federal statutes guaranteeing access to clinics? And what does it all portend for the unfolding case itself and the inevitable legal challenges to the nation's abortion laws?
Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Mo., has admitted to reporters and in a court filing that he killed Tiller. The prosecution stands ready with more than 250 prospective witnesses to prove it.
News of Sedgwick County Judge Warren Wilbert's decision infuriated Dr. Warren Hern of Boulder, Colo., a longtime friend of Tiller who performs late-term abortions.
"This judge has basically announced a death sentence for all of us who help women," he said. "That is the effect of the ruling. This is an outrage."
Hern said it's irrelevant that Wilbert won't decide until after the defense presents its evidence whether to allow jurors to actually consider a conviction on the lesser charge.
"The damage is done: The judge has agreed to give him a platform," Hern said. "It is an act of incomprehensible stupidity on the part of the judge, but he is carrying out the will of the people of Kansas who are trying to get out of the 19th century."
Kansas law defines voluntary manslaughter as "an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force." A conviction on that charge could bring a prison sentence closer to five years, instead of a life term for first-degree murder.
'I am flabbergasted'
A man who runs a Web site supporting violence against abortion providers said in the wake of the judge's decision that he has changed his mind about attending Roeder's trial.
The Rev. Don Spitz of Chesapeake, Va., said he and other activists from the Army of God plan to observe the court proceedings quietly next week.
"I am flabbergasted, but in a good way," Spitz said of the judge's decision.
Spitz acknowledged that the possibility of a voluntary manslaughter defense may influence some people who in the past wouldn't kill abortion providers because of the prospect of a sentence of death or life imprisonment. "It may increase the number of people who may be willing to take that risk," he said.
The Feminist Majority Foundation also denounced the ruling, saying Wilbert essentially was allowing a justifiable homicide defense. The group, which supports abortion rights, urged the Justice Department to file federal charges under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
Decision opens the door
Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar declined to comment, citing an ongoing investigation.
In Des Moines, Iowa, even militant anti-abortion activist Dave Leach agreed that the decision opens the door to presenting the same evidence as for justifiable homicide. It was Leach who wrote the 104-page legal brief that Roeder signed and submitted to the court in which he admitted killing Tiller.
"The closer we come to a court actually addressing these issues, the less danger abortionists are going to be in," Leach said. "The violence started in 1992 when FACE was passed, which made the penalty for sitting at the abortion door ... about the same as for shooting an abortionist and ever since the courts have simply not addressed the issues that it looks like this judge is going to take a step to addressing."
As events unfold inside a Wichita courtroom, the Kansas Supreme Court is considering a challenge from four media outlets, including The Associated Press, over the judge's decision to ban reporters from from witnessing jury selection.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
It's a stupid ruling, because it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter. I'm sick of murder trials where the defense is essentially, "Yeah, I killed him. Here's my excuse". Hell, even O.J. had the relative grace to at least deny he did it, instead of trying to excuse it.
Bizarro ruling.
If only Marty hadn't quit the forum we could have a lively discussion on the relative merits of elected vs. appointed judges.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2010, 09:47:25 PM
Bizarro ruling.
If only Marty hadn't quit the forum
Again?
Quote from: dps on January 11, 2010, 08:35:31 PM
It's a stupid ruling, because it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter. I'm sick of murder trials where the defense is essentially, "Yeah, I killed him. Here's my excuse". Hell, even O.J. had the relative grace to at least deny he did it, instead of trying to excuse it.
I dunno, I have a sentimental attachment for the "sonofabitch needed killing" justification.
Quotean unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force
Allahu Akbar!
Wow... can that judge be disbarred/debenched/whatever for that ruling? :blink:
I dunno. If you're pro-life, shouldn't this man be lauded?
Yes, yes, there's the idea that ou still obey the law even if you disagree with it. but he killed hundreds of babies.
When I saw the thread title I thought this somehow involved Blockbuster Video.
Anywho, though I'm with you guys on this, I will say FWIW that shooting someone in the head with a .22 pistol is far less brutal & savage than a late term abortion. I wonder how that doctor was able to go to church with a clear conscience, let alone sleep at night.
Quote from: derspiess on January 12, 2010, 10:49:33 AM
Anywho, though I'm with you guys on this, I will say FWIW that shooting someone in the head with a .22 pistol is far less brutal & savage than a late term abortion. I wonder how that doctor was able to go to church with a clear conscience, let alone sleep at night.
Well, that's beside the point (which you seem to be agreeing with).
Quote from: derspiess on January 12, 2010, 10:49:33 AM
Anywho, though I'm with you guys on this, I will say FWIW that shooting someone in the head with a .22 pistol is far less brutal & savage than a late term abortion. I wonder how that doctor was able to go to church with a clear conscience, let alone sleep at night.
By viewing it as analogous to removing a mole?
There's moles and moles... When it's no bigger than a wart - abort away. But when it's almost fully formed that's another story.
EDIT: However even in such cases nobody should be justified to kill others - especially not religious nutjobs.
G.
This isn't a ruling at all. It sounds like the judge just let the guy ARGUE that he should recieve a lesser punishment. For all I care he could argue that the deserves a pension and free meals at the Piraeus
Quote from: Faeelin on January 12, 2010, 10:45:46 AM
I dunno. If you're pro-life, shouldn't this man be lauded?
Yes, yes, there's the idea that ou still obey the law even if you disagree with it. but he killed hundreds of babies.
It's not that much different than an anti-war protestor assassinating a bomber pilot.
Quote from: chipwich on January 12, 2010, 11:26:37 AM
This isn't a ruling at all. It sounds like the judge just let the guy ARGUE that he should recieve a lesser punishment.
That is a ruling. Ordinarily, you can't make arguments to a jury that are directly contrary to law. So for example, the prosecution can't argue that a person being tried for a drug transaction should be convicted of murder because "drugs kill." And a defendant on trial for killing a Air Force bomber pilot can't argue justification on the grounds that he was trying to save the lives of Afghan civilians. the judge is supposed to make rulings of law and keep irrelevant and prejudicial matter from the jury.
EDIT - I see PW has already made the bomber analogy.
Quote from: Caliga on January 12, 2010, 10:39:31 AM
Wow... can that judge be disbarred/debenched/whatever for that ruling? :blink:
No. Only appealed.
Quote from: Faeelin on January 12, 2010, 10:45:46 AM
I dunno. If you're pro-life, shouldn't this man be lauded?
No.
Quote from: derspiess on January 12, 2010, 10:49:33 AM
Anywho, though I'm with you guys on this, I will say FWIW that shooting someone in the head with a .22 pistol is far less brutal & savage than a late term abortion. I wonder how that doctor was able to go to church with a clear conscience, let alone sleep at night.
You seriously wonder how he was able to go to church? Going to church doesn't mean anything. Tomás de Torquemada went to church just fine.
I suspect he was able to do it because he felt justified in what he was doing.
Quote from: Faeelin on January 12, 2010, 10:45:46 AM
I dunno. If you're pro-life, shouldn't this man be lauded?
Generally being pro-life tends to mean you are against murder not for it.
How late is "late term abortion" and what is its legal framework?
Quote from: The Brain on January 12, 2010, 12:09:29 PM
How late is "late term abortion" and what is its legal framework?
Generally third trimester, and I dunno.
Quote from: Barrister on January 12, 2010, 12:13:33 PM
Generally third trimester, and I dunno.
Statistically I think it is after 20 weeks but that cannot be what it means in this article because I believe something like 2% of all American abortions take place that late or later and the article describes the doctor as being one of the few in the country who will do them.
But I bet a large percentage of those abortions happen for some sort of medical issue.
Quote from: Valmy on January 12, 2010, 12:16:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 12, 2010, 12:13:33 PM
Generally third trimester, and I dunno.
But I bet a large percentage of those abortions happen for some sort of medical issue.
Like wrong race?
Quote from: The Brain on January 12, 2010, 12:17:56 PM
Like wrong race?
Got to keep the Norwegian population down.
Quote from: Valmy on January 12, 2010, 12:16:44 PM
But I bet a large percentage of those abortions happen for some sort of medical issue.
Medical issue like genetic deficiency in the baby?
Quote from: Barrister on January 12, 2010, 12:24:27 PM
Medical issue like genetic deficiency in the baby?
Yes I am racist and want every nigger to die. WTF you are the second person to attack me on this. Do I have a reputation as a KKK member :P
I meant fetus abnormality that made it not viable or some sort of life threatening issue for the mother might lead to an exception so that a doctor who might normally not do an elective late term abortion might do one in that circumstance thus making the percentage higher than one might expect.
Quote from: Barrister on January 12, 2010, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: Caliga on January 12, 2010, 10:39:31 AM
Wow... can that judge be disbarred/debenched/whatever for that ruling? :blink:
No. Only appealed.
In Canada such a process is at least hypothetically possible. There is a Judicial council that hears complaints regarding judges acting inappropriately. Not sure how close to the line this is but allowing an irrelevant argument to be made for apparently political purposes seems to come close. Not sure if they have a similar kind of review in the US.
Quote from: Valmy on January 12, 2010, 12:48:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 12, 2010, 12:24:27 PM
Medical issue like genetic deficiency in the baby?
Yes I am racist and want every nigger to die. WTF you are the second person to attack me on this. Do I have a reputation as a KKK member :P
I meant fetus abnormality that made it not viable or some sort of life threatening issue for the mother might lead to an exception so that a doctor who might normally not do an elective late term abortion might do one in that circumstance thus making the percentage higher than one might expect.
Not that kind of genetic deficiency. :P
BUt I think you might be mistaken. Most of those abortions are likely for genetic deficiencies like Down's Syndrome, or any of a host of other disorders that means a baby isn't 'perfect', but is far from meaning the baby isn't viable.
Sorry, this kind of stuff hits home for me right now. My wife and I had genetic testing done, but we started to talk only to quickly realize we both agreed: we wouldn't abort our baby if he/she had such a problem.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 12, 2010, 12:56:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 12, 2010, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: Caliga on January 12, 2010, 10:39:31 AM
Wow... can that judge be disbarred/debenched/whatever for that ruling? :blink:
No. Only appealed.
In Canada such a process is at least hypothetically possible. There is a Judicial council that hears complaints regarding judges acting inappropriately. Not sure how close to the line this is but allowing an irrelevant argument to be made for apparently political purposes seems to come close. Not sure if they have a similar kind of review in the US.
Be sure to point out that no judge in Canada has ever been removed by the Judicial council. Ever. There was the one judge in Ontario recently who came close, but he decided to resign before he was removed. And that guy was a serious nutter.
Quote from: Barrister on January 12, 2010, 12:06:44 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on January 12, 2010, 10:45:46 AM
I dunno. If you're pro-life, shouldn't this man be lauded?
No.
Really? If I knew of a man who was killing hundreds of people who were just walking down the street, and the state wouldn't stop him, I might find his killer noble.
Quote from: Barrister on January 12, 2010, 12:56:36 PM
BUt I think you might be mistaken.
I might very well be.
I was speculating based on the enormous difference between on one hand roughly 20,000 late term US abortions every year and the supposed very low number of doctors who do them. Those doctors must either be really busy or there is something else at play. So I speculated that perhaps a large number of those abortions were not elective.
Further I do often think about how incredibly different this country would be if the 1.2 million babies we abort every year were born. I mean that is a shitload of babies. We could ship them all to Estonia and double the country's population.
Quote from: Faeelin on January 12, 2010, 01:03:32 PM
Really? If I knew of a man who was killing hundreds of people who were just walking down the street, and the state wouldn't stop him, I might find his killer noble.
So you would kill bomber pilots if you thought they were killing hundreds of people? What about dozens of people? Couples of people? One person?
Just kinda curious as to what the threshold is where murder becomes noble in your eyes.
Quote from: Barrister on January 12, 2010, 12:56:36 PM
BUt I think you might be mistaken. Most of those abortions are likely for genetic deficiencies like Down's Syndrome, or any of a host of other disorders that means a baby isn't 'perfect', but is far from meaning the baby isn't viable.
Evidence indicates that this is not the case. When this issue came up some time ago, someone posted a study that indicated that the majority of late-term abortions occurred because the mother was unable to get an abortion any earlier (often because she hadn't recognized the symptoms of pregnancy early, and then had to wait to obtain the abortion). Nations with better health care systems had fewer late term abortions because women could get abortions before they became late-term.
Quote from: grumbler on January 12, 2010, 01:23:54 PM
Evidence indicates that this is not the case. When this issue came up some time ago, someone posted a study that indicated that the majority of late-term abortions occurred because the mother was unable to get an abortion any earlier (often because she hadn't recognized the symptoms of pregnancy early, and then had to wait to obtain the abortion). Nations with better health care systems had fewer late term abortions because women could get abortions before they became late-term.
I can see that but the question remains for me: if there are so few doctors willing to do late term abortions to the point their names are well known who is performing all these abortions?
According to this website (http://www.abortion.com/abortion_clinics_late_term.php), there are only 23 clinics in the country that do "Late-term" abortions. According to this report (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib14.html), only 1170 abortions were done after viability (24 weeks) in the U.S. in 1992. And according to this article (http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0543.htm), the reason women gave for having late abortions was exactly what grumbler said, they didn't or couldn't get one earlier.
Given that there were an estimated 1.5 million abortions in 1992 and there are so few clinics who even do them, late-term abortions are incredibly rare. Add to that the 35 states that prohibit or curtail later-term abortions, one can see that it just doesn't happen that often.
As a strong proponent of the right to choose, I find this story appalling, but am not the least bit surprised that it's come out of Kansas. This man deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison, but given where he committed his crime and the defense he'll use, I doubt he'll get serve 10 years. Bastard. :mad:
Quote from: merithyn on January 12, 2010, 02:16:20 PM
As a strong proponent of the right to choose, I find this story appalling, but am not the least bit surprised that it's come out of Kansas. This man deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison, but given where he committed his crime and the defense he'll use, I doubt he'll get 10 years. Bastard. :mad:
I'll take the over.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2010, 02:18:57 PM
Quote from: merithyn on January 12, 2010, 02:16:20 PM
As a strong proponent of the right to choose, I find this story appalling, but am not the least bit surprised that it's come out of Kansas. This man deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison, but given where he committed his crime and the defense he'll use, I doubt he'll get serve 10 years. Bastard. :mad:
I'll take the over.
Corrected
Quote from: grumbler on January 12, 2010, 01:17:43 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on January 12, 2010, 01:03:32 PM
Really? If I knew of a man who was killing hundreds of people who were just walking down the street, and the state wouldn't stop him, I might find his killer noble.
So you would kill bomber pilots if you thought they were killing hundreds of people? What about dozens of people? Couples of people? One person?
Just kinda curious as to what the threshold is where murder becomes noble in your eyes.
I don't know where the threshold is, actually. I also don't see a bomber pilot as analogous, since I do think some wars are necessary or right, even though innocent people may die.
Quote from: Faeelin on January 12, 2010, 02:25:02 PM
I don't know where the threshold is, actually. I also don't see a bomber pilot as analogous, since I do think some wars are necessary or right, even though innocent people may die.
Except in the case of abortion doctors they are simply carrying out the will of their patients. Essentially you are not even killing the murderer only the person who sold them the gun. The women who decide to get abortions are the ones responsible and thus in your logic are the murderers who must be killed.
Quote from: Valmy on January 12, 2010, 02:37:23 PM
Except in the case of abortion doctors they are simply carrying out the will of their patients. Essentially you are not even killing the murderer only the person who sold them the gun. The women who decide to get abortions are the ones responsible and thus in your logic are the murderers who must be killed.
It's closer to a hit man than a gun salesman.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2010, 02:39:05 PM
It's closer to a hit man than a gun salesman.
So who is the murderer the person who hires the hitman or the hitman?
Also in this case the hiring person is bringing in the person to be killed in her belly. Sort of like if the "hit" had the customer hauling in the mark bound and gagged. So still the customer is not responsible?
Quote from: Valmy on January 12, 2010, 02:46:13 PM
So who is the murderer the person who hires the hitman or the hitman?
Also in this case the hiring person is bringing in the person to be killed in her belly. Sort of like if the "hit" had the customer hauling in the mark bound and gagged. So still the customer is not responsible?
I agree with your point. If the Army of God had any balls they would be mowing down women who have had abortions.
That's a little late isn't it? Shouldn't it be women who are about to have abortions?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2010, 02:50:33 PM
I agree with your point. If the Army of God had any balls they would be mowing down women who have had abortions.
:P
It just strikes me as annoying gender double standard number 4 billion that people vent their anger at the male doctor since clearly he is forcing the poor victim women to get abortions and thus the monster. It is just weird. People will jump through incredible hoops of logic to make sure women stay passive figures incapable of making their own choices.
Quote from: The Brain on January 12, 2010, 02:53:56 PM
That's a little late isn't it? Shouldn't it be women who are about to have abortions?
We had to kill the baby in order to save it.
Quote from: Valmy on January 12, 2010, 02:57:10 PM
:P
It just strikes me as annoying gender double standard number 4 billion that people vent their anger at the male doctor since clearly he is forcing the poor victim women to get abortions and thus the monster. It is just weird. People will jump through incredible hoops of logic to make sure women stay passive figures incapable of making their own choices.
How the hell did you make this a gender thing? There are female doctors who do abortions, too. The reason they go after the doctors is that it's killing one person to avoid hundreds of abortions, rather than killing hundreds of women.
Quote from: merithyn on January 12, 2010, 03:07:14 PM
How the hell did you make this a gender thing? There are female doctors who do abortions, too. The reason they go after the doctors is that it's killing one person to avoid hundreds of abortions, rather than killing hundreds of women.
Here is why: this dude who was just killed the sort of doctor I usually hear villified by people and threatened. Also when I see protestors outside abortion clinics the signs they hold up constantly portray abortion as an attack on women, something forced on them that they are victims of. 'Women deserve more than abortion, love women and stop abortion' as if people are leading women to abortion clinics at gunpoint. I find it strange.
Also Spicey saying that a doctor doing late term abortions is more savage than taking out a .22 and blowing somebody away and how the doctor should not be able to go to church...and it made me think if he would feel the same way if I announced I discovered my wife had had an abortion at 20 weeks in her past...would he then say I should leave her at once since she is murderer who is worse than a NKVD executioner? Just makes me wonder.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 12, 2010, 11:33:06 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on January 12, 2010, 10:45:46 AM
I dunno. If you're pro-life, shouldn't this man be lauded?
Yes, yes, there's the idea that ou still obey the law even if you disagree with it. but he killed hundreds of babies.
It's not that much different than an anti-war protestor assassinating a bomber pilot.
Unless the bomber pilot bombs only mindless lumps of cells, not really.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2010, 04:11:48 PM
Unless the bomber pilot bombs only mindless lumps of cells, not really.
We're talking about the mindset of the person committing the crime. So take your bomber-pilot assassin apologism elsewhere plzkthx.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 12, 2010, 04:18:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2010, 04:11:48 PM
Unless the bomber pilot bombs only mindless lumps of cells, not really.
We're talking about the mindset of the person committing the crime. So take your bomber-pilot assassin apologism elsewhere plzkthx.
But still killing a killer of humans and killing a killer of mindless biomass are both based in a different mindset. A better comparison would be a PETA fanatic killing a sushi chef, because he "slaughters the sea-kittens".
Both people are guilty of the same crime, murder. Both have the same motivation, that they feel their victim is the real murderer. Both of those "murderers" are carrying out acts sanctioned by the state. Whether we actually think abortion, collateral damage, or natural self-preservation are murder is a different topic.
Fetuses are not humans. Retard.
:lol:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 12, 2010, 04:34:52 PM
Whether we actually think abortion, collateral damage, or natural self-preservation are murder is a different topic.
And a rather boring one, since there is only one answer.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2010, 04:46:32 PM
Fetuses are not humans. Retard.
[slargos]
Muslims are not humans. Retard.
[/slargos]
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2010, 02:39:05 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 12, 2010, 02:37:23 PM
Except in the case of abortion doctors they are simply carrying out the will of their patients. Essentially you are not even killing the murderer only the person who sold them the gun. The women who decide to get abortions are the ones responsible and thus in your logic are the murderers who must be killed.
It's closer to a hit man than a gun salesman.
Wait, are we agreeing? I'm scared.
Quote from: Martinus on January 12, 2010, 04:46:32 PM
Fetuses are not humans. Retard.
What is and isn't human has been defined both broadly and narrowly in the past. What seems obvious to you may not be the same assumption others will have. I would have thought this could have occurred to you.
Guilty. :contract:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/28/kansas.abortion.roeder.verdict/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/28/kansas.abortion.roeder.verdict/index.html)
QuoteA Kansas jury deliberated just 37 minutes before convicting an anti-abortion activist of first-degree murder in the fatal shooting of an abortion provider.
The jury found Scott Roeder, 51, guilty of gunning down Dr. George Tiller, who operated a clinic in Wichita where late-term abortions were performed. Roeder, 51, faces life in prison when he is sentenced on March 9.
Tiller's family said the jury reached a "just" verdict.
"At this time we hope that George can be remembered for his legacy of service to women, the help he provided for those who needed it and the love and happiness he provided us as a husband, father and grandfather," the family said in a written statement.
A day earlier, Roeder told jurors he had shot Tiller in the foyer of Reformation Lutheran Church as Sunday services began. Testifying as his only defense witness, he said he believed he had to kill Tiller to save lives. He said he had no regrets.
"There was nothing being done, and the legal process had been exhausted, and these babies were dying every day," Roeder said. "I felt that if someone did not do something, he was going to continue."
"His testimony was delivered very matter-of-factly, but its contents were chillingly horrific," prosecutor Ann Swengel said in her closing argument. "He carried out a planned assassination, and there can be no other verdict in this case ... other than guilty."
Quick verdict surprised prosecutor Video
Prosecutors initially fought to keep abortion out of the trial, claiming that Tiller's death was a straightforward case of premeditated murder.
Eventually, the abortion issue took center stage as prosecutors portrayed Tiller as a target of Roeder's anti-abortion agenda, and defense lawyers attempted to mitigate his culpability under the theory that he believed Tiller's death was justified to save the lives of others.
Defense attorney Mark Rudy told jurors in his closing argument that Roeder "thought that the babies kept on dying" and he had to stop Tiller from "killing more babies."
Another defense attorney, Steve Osburn, said Roeder was "disappointed," with the verdict. But he added, "He's known that this day was going to come, I think."
Osburn said his client "feels remorse toward the family, but not for what he did."
The trial drew activists from both sides of the abortion debate to the courtroom, and a van plastered with slogans and photographs of fetuses was parked in a prominent spot in front of the courthouse.
Among the attendees were the Rev. Michael Bray, whose history in the anti-abortion movement includes 1985 conspiracy convictions in connection with a string of clinic bombings, and Katherine Spillar, executive vice president of the Feminist Majority Foundation.
Congregants from Reformation Lutheran testified that they had seen Roeder at church several times before the day he killed Tiller by shooting him at point-blank range in the head.
Jurors heard emotional testimony from church-goers who rushed to Tiller's side and attempted to administer mouth-to-mouth resuscitation as he lay in a pool of blood. Others, meanwhile, followed Roeder into the church parking lot, where he threatened to shoot them.
Roeder also was convicted of aggravated assault in connection with threats he made to two ushers, Gary Hoepner and Keith Martin.
As Roeder pulled away in his car, Martin testified, something moved him to throw the coffee cup he was holding at the vehicle. "Frustration, I guess, lack of accomplishment, nothing else to do."
Prosecutors also called employees of the pawn shop where Roeder purchased the .22-caliber Taurus pistol believed to have been used to shoot Tiller. The gun was never found, but surveillance video and receipts showed that he purchased the gun on May 18 and received it on May 23, the week before he shot Tiller.
Roeder's defense team did not dispute much of the factual evidence. Roeder testified that he chose to target Tiller at church because it presented the best "window of opportunity" to attack Tiller, who traveled in an armored vehicle and whose clinic was a "fortress."
He admitted bringing the pistol with him to Lutheran Reformation on May 24 with the intention of shooting Tiller, but the physician did not attend services that day. So, Roeder testified, he returned the following week.
"Do you feel as though you've successfully completed your mission?" Sedgwick County District Attorney Nola Foulston asked Roeder on Thursday.
"He's been stopped," Roeder answered.
His testimony was intended just as much for the jury as it was to convince Judge Warren Wilbert that evidence existed to support a possible conviction of voluntary manslaughter. A conviction on the lesser offense, which is defined as "an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force," would have set Roeder free from prison after five years.
Earlier in the trial, Wilbert said he would rule after hearing evidence in the case, acknowledging that he felt the defense faced "an uphill battle." Ultimately, he rejected the theory, saying testimony did not support the defense claim that Roeder's beliefs justified using deadly force against Tiller.
"There is no imminence of danger on a Sunday morning in the back of a church, let alone any unlawful conduct, given that what Tiller did at his clinic Monday through Friday is lawful in Kansas," the judge said.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 13, 2010, 12:42:48 AM
I would have thought this could have occurred to you.
Why? Marty is very good at being willfully obtuse. ;)