Home - List All Discussions

Scott update

by: faithman

http://www.saltshaker.us/Scott-Roeder-Resources.htm

reply from: nancyu

Abortion is not legal. Never has been. Never will be.

reply from: nancyu

Where is the ACLJ now? Are they involved with this case at all? If they are not, they should be.

reply from: faithman

Can you say self preservation? [check PM's]

reply from: nancyu

I understand the concept. But if ever there were a time to go out a little ways on the limb to end abortion, this would be a very opportune time.

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
What does any of this have to do with ending abortion?

reply from: SpitMcGee

That's rich. Half the U.S. thinks abortion is genocide? Where did they get this one from?

reply from: faithman

Unless making a living off the issue were more important that stopping the slaughter.

reply from: nancyu

Unless making a living off the issue were more important that stopping the slaughter.
I see what you're sayin

reply from: faithman

Great point!!!! Why baptize a lump of cells? Either they do believe it is a little person, or they are making a mockery of faith for money. Maybe a combination of the 2? And a certain clown wishes this man were still alive and killing children....

reply from: Banned Member

The rest of your post makes perfect sense, however, this sentence right here is wrong head and misleading. It's not one life for another and there is no parity.
This Doctor may have killed thousands and who knows how many more he would have killed. To focus only upon the singular malevolent life force of this one Doctor is missing the point entirely, and I believe they're missing it on purpose.

reply from: faithman

What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: B0zo

The rest of your post makes perfect sense, however, this sentence right here is wrong head and misleading. It's not one life for another and there is no parity.
This Doctor may have killed thousands and who knows how many more he would have killed. To focus only upon the singular malevolent life force of this one Doctor is missing the point entirely, and I believe they're missing it on purpose.
You are advocating murder of abortion doctors as a legitimate means to fight abortion. (So long as some kook does the dirty work and he is the one who rots in jail).
This overall principle of using evil to fight evil is wrong.
And it's wrong to encourage other deluded souls to throw their lives and families away.
If it's the right thing to do morally, then have some guts and lead the charge.

reply from: invextigator

The jury's job is to decide if he did it, whether he committed murder according to the law. It is not for the jury to decide who is and is not subject to the law....

reply from: faithman

Sorry dude, but you are absolutely wrong. If the jury thinks a law is unjust, they can decide a person is innocent. It is the final safe guard of our system. WE THE PEOPLE have the final say, not them the judges.

reply from: faithman

The rest of your post makes perfect sense, however, this sentence right here is wrong head and misleading. It's not one life for another and there is no parity.
This Doctor may have killed thousands and who knows how many more he would have killed. To focus only upon the singular malevolent life force of this one Doctor is missing the point entirely, and I believe they're missing it on purpose.
You are advocating murder of abortion doctors as a legitimate means to fight abortion. (So long as some kook does the dirty work and he is the one who rots in jail).
This overall principle of using evil to fight evil is wrong.
And it's wrong to encourage other deluded souls to throw their lives and families away.
If it's the right thing to do morally, then have some guts and lead the charge.
,,,and this is what butt nuggets like you are too stupid to understand. It is not an act of evil to use force to stop evil aggression. On the contrary. It is a moral duty to do so. There could be no civil society at all, if we followed your way of thinking. SSSSOOOOOO you would rather this degenerate monster was still killing children? You hate the fact that a killing center is closed permanent , and Wichita has remained abortion clinic free for 9 months now? With "friends" like you, the womb child doesn't need anymore enemies.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.saltshaker.us/Scott-Roeder-Resources/Brief4Roeder.pdf

reply from: nancyu

http://www.saltshaker.us/Scott-Roeder-Resources/Tilson.pdf
This is the Kansas precedent which orders Scott Roeder's judge to order Roeder not to say a
word to the jury about the only contested issue of his trial, which is also his only defense. This is the
case which inspires lawyers to say Scott Roeder has no hope. Significant statements in the ruling are in
blue. My comments are in red. - Dave Leach, November, 2009 AD
CITY OF WICHITA v. TILSON Kan. 911 Cite as 855 P.2d 911 (Kan. 1993) 253 Kan. 285 4.
Criminal Law e'38 Justification by necessity defense, except as codified in statutes such as those
relating to self-defense and compulsion, has not been adopted in Kansas.
CITY OF WICHITA, Kansas, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. Elizabeth TILSON, Appellee. No.
68575. Supreme Court of Kansas. June 28, 1993.
City brought action against abortion protester for criminal trespass. The District Court,
Sedgwick County, Paul W. Clark, J., held that defendant was absolved by the justification by necessity
defense. City appealed. The Supreme Court held that: (1) the defense of justification by necessity
cannot be used when the harm sought to be avoided is a constitutionally protected legal activity and the
harm incurred is in violation of the law, and (2) evidence on when life begins was irrelevant in action
for criminal trespass on property of abortion clinic and thus admission was error.
Appeal sustained.
1. Criminal Law e-1I34(8)
Whether the "necessity" defense was recognized by state law and applied to defendant's
criminal acts of trespass were questions of law subject to broad appellate review.
2. Criminal Law 8za330, 569
Necessity is generally considered to be affirmative defense that must be proved by defendant,
usually beyond a reasonable doubt
3. Criminal Law 8=38
If recognized as defense in criminal case, justification by necessity defense only applies when
harm or evil which defendant seeks to prevent by his or her own criminal conduct is legal harm or evil
as opposed to moral or ethical belief of individual defendant. Abortion and Birth Control x.50
Ed: This is a false choice. No one is suggesting that any abortion prevention defendant be
exonerated upon the basis of his individual moral or ethical belief, but upon the basis of facts
established by the jury.
A woman has an unfettered constitutional right to an abortion during the first trimester of
pregnancy and a somewhat more restricted right to abortion thereafter.
4. Criminal Law e-38
The defense of justification by necessity cannot be utilized when harm sought to be avoided is
constitutionally-protected legal activity and harm incurred by defendant's acts is in violation of law.
I find neither reasoning nor case law, anywhere in this ruling, for this strange characterization of
the nature of the Necessity Defense, which is so at odds with the history of this defense.
5. Trespass X88
In criminal prosecution for trespass upon property of abortion clinic, evidence of when life
begins is irrelevant, and thus inadmissible.
Nor do I find precedent or reasoning for this harsh, heartless ruling. It really doesn't matter
whether abortion is, in fact, genocide? It is "irrelevant"? The precedent which this ruling violates
includes Roe v. Wade itself, which asserted that not only is "evidence of when life begins" "relevant",
but if it points to conception, Roe itself must "collapse"!
Syllabus by the Court
1. In a criminal prosecution for trespass upon the property of an abortion clinic, wherein the
defendant asserted the defense of necessity, the background, history, and elements of the common-law
criminal defense of justification by necessity are discussed and considered.
This case law at least recognizes the existence of "the common-law criminal defense of
justification by necessity", and opens the door to an evaluation of its history in order to understand
what it ought to cover. Thus this ruling identifies "the background, history" as the foundation of its own
interpretation, opening the door for us to examine that same foundation, to see if this ruling
understands it correctly, and to recognize the error of this Court where it does not.
2. If recognized as a defense in a criminal case, the justification by necessity defense only
applies when the harm or evil which a defendant seeks to prevent by his or her own criminal conduct is
a legal harm or evil as opposed to a moral or ethical belief of the individual defendant.
Repetition. Still no reasoning or precedent.
3. The justification by necessity defense, except as codified in statutes such as those relating to
self-defense and compulsion, has not been adopted in Kansas.
In other words, Defense of Others, which is modeled after this ruling, was not enacted by the
time of this ruling.
4. A woman has an unfettered constitutional right to an abortion during the first trimester of
pregnancy and a somewhat more restricted right to abortion thereafter. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93
S.Ct. 705, 35 LEd.2d 147 (1973).
5. The defense of justification by necessity cannot be utilized when the harm
912 Kan. 855 PACIFIC REPORTER, Zd SERIES
sought to be avoided is a constitutionally protected legal activity and the harm incurred by the
defendant's acts is in violation of the law.
This reasoning violates Roe v. Wade, which says the "constitutionally protected legal"ity of
abortion must "collapse" as soon as abortion is established as, in fact, a harm.
6. In a criminal prosecution for trespass upon the property of an abortion clinic, the defense of
justification by necessity is inapplicable and evidence of when life begins is irrelevant. The admission
of evidence of when life begins in such an action was error by the trial court.
More repetition; still no reasoning or precedent.
Sharon L. Chalker, Asst. City Atty., argued the cause and Gary E. Rebenstorf, City Atty., was
with her on the brief, for appellant.
Steven W. Graber, Hutchinson, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.
Louise Melling, of Reproductive Freedom Project, American Civil Liberties Foundation, of
New York, New York, and Jim hawing, Wichita, were on the brief for amid curiae American Civil
Liberties Union, et al.
Richard D. Cimino, and Raphael F. Hanley, of St. Marys, were on the brief for amicus curiae
Right to Life of Kansas, Inc.
John E. Cowles, of McDonald, Tinker, Skaer, Quinn & Herrington, P.A., Wichita, was on the
brief for amicus curiae Women's Health Care Services, P.A.
PER CURIAM:
The City of Wichita appeals from the trial court's ruling that the justification by necessity
defense absolved the defendant, Elizabeth A. Tilson, of criminal liability for her actions in trespassing
on property owned by the Wichita Family Planning Clinic, Inc., (Clinic) on August 3, 1991. This
appeal is taken pursuant to K.S.A. 223602(bX3) on a question reserved by the City. We sustain the
appeal.
The facts are not seriously disputed. On August 3, 1991, Elizabeth A. Tilson was arrested for
trespassing on property of the Clinic located at 3013 East Central in Wichita, Kansas, The Clinic does
not deny that it provides abortion services to some of its patients. Ms. Tilson and others were gathered
at both entrances of the Clinic attempting to stop patrons from entering the Clinic. Ms. Deborah Riggs,
administrator of the Clinic, asked the individuals to leave the premises. The protesters failed to respond
to the request. Ms. Riggs then called Captain William Watson of the Wichita Police Department to the
scene. Ms. Riggs asked Captain Watson to request the individuals to leave the Clinic premises. The
protesters made no response to his command.
Ms. Tilson was subsequently arrested by Officer Gary Smith for criminal trespass in violation
of Section 5.66.060(a) (1992) of the Code of the City of Wichita which provides in part:
"Criminal trespass--is entering or remaining upon or in any land, structure, vehicle, aircraft or
watercraft by a person who knows he/she is not authorized or privileged to do so, and:
"(a) Such person enters or remains therein in defiance of an order not to enter or to leave such
premises [orJ property personally communicated to such person by the owner thereof or other
authorized person;
"Any person who commits a criminal trespass within the corporate limits of the city of Wichita
shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not
more than one thousand dollars or imprisonment which shall not exceed six months, or by both such
fine and imprisonment ((3rd. No. 39-765, § 1)."
On November 13, 1991, the defendant was found guilty in Wichita Municipal Court of criminal
trespass in violation of the city ordinance. The court ordered her to pay a $1,000 fine, serve six months
in the Sedgwick County Adult Detention Facility, and pay all court costs. On the same date, the
defendant appealed her conviction to the Sedgwick County District Court.
On January 14, 1992, the district court held a pretrial conference to determine if the court would
hear evidence on the issue of when human life begins. At the hearing, the defendant noted that she
would be
asking the court to make hen life begins and at wh
has
life h constitutional protection. The trial court found that evidence of when life be- gins was
relevant and would be admitted. On January 21, 1992, the court ruled that it would allow the defendant
to present evi- dence on any common-law defense, includ- ing the defense of necessity.
when Co
At trial, the defendant admitted that she blocked the entrance to the Clinic but as- serted that her
actions were excused by the necessity defense. Specifically, she claimed her actions were justified
because "abortion takes the life of an unborn baby, and I wanted to prevent that, and I wanted to
prevent the detrimental effect that hap- pens to the woman, the father of the baby, the grandparents and
brothers and sisters involved." There was no evidence intro- duced, and no claim has been made by the
defendant, that the abortions performed by the Clinic were illegal or that the Clinic was operating in
any illegal manner. Defen- dant in her brief, as she did before this court, takes great umbrage with
being re- ferred to as a "protester" and instead por- trays herself as being on a "rescue" mis- sion. By
whatever name or designation she chooses to be known, it is admitted that she violated the criminal
code of the City of Wichita.
On July 20, 1992, following a three-day bench trial, Judge Paul Clark held that the defendant
had violated § 5.66.050(a) of the Code of the City of Wichita. He further held, however, that the
defendant was ab- solved of any criminal liability for her ac- tions, based upon the necessity defense.
Judge Clark, in a 25 - page memorandum opinion, held that the doctrine of justifica- tion by necessity
was recognized under Kansas law. He additionally held that the doctrine was applicable to the
defendant's actions and justified her trespassing upon the Clinic property for the purpose of say- ing a
human life. At trial, over the objec. tions of the City, the defendant was al- lowed to introduce expert
testimony on the question of when life begins. The City did not attempt to controvert such evidence but
instead took the position that the evidence was inadmissible because it was irrelevant
Kan. 913
the court and that the did not apply to the charges in this case.
Brave words, reflected in the Cincinnati Law Review article. But the fact is there is no possible
way to "controvert such evidence". But what kind of cold, dark heart can call it "irrelevant" whether
the "harm" under investigation is, in fact, the cruelest genocide?
Pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3602(b)(3), the City of Wichita timely appeals from the trial court's
holding that the necessity defense was applicable to the defendant's act of criminal trespass on the
property of the Clinic.
The issues as stated by the City in its docketing statement read:
"1. Did the District Court err in holding that the necessity defense was recognized by Kansas
law on August 3, 1991?
"2. Did the District Court err in concluding that the necessity defense was applicable to the facts
of this case there- by discharging the Defendant from criminal liability for her actions in violating
Section 5.66.050(a) of the de of the City of Wichita?"
III The City contends that the trial court erred in concluding that the necessity defense was
recognized by Kansas law and applied to defendant's criminal acts of trespass. These issues are
questions of law subject to broad appellate review. State, ex rel., v. Doolin & Shaw, 209 Kan, 244, 261,
497 P.24 138 (1972).
Before turning to the specific issues on appeal, some background on the necessity defense is
deemed advisable. Necessity is a common-law defense recognized in some jurisdictions, while in
others it has been adopted by statute.
Again, this Court establishes the authority of "necessity [a]s a common-law defense". Later this
ruling passes on whether or not this defense ought to be recognized in Kansas, thus explicitly ruling out
any argument that this ruling rules the defense unavailable in Kansas.
Several states which have no statute on the defense have not determined whether the commonlaw
defense will be recognized. It has been referred to by various terms, including "justification."
"choice of evils," or "competing harms." Depending upon the jurisdiction, various elements must be
proven in order for a defendant to establish the defense. Section 3.02 of the Model Penal Code, adopted
by a number of states and relied upon by the City, provides one formulation of the necessity defense:
"(1) Conduct that the actor believes to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or to
another is justifiable, provided that:
CITY OF WICHITA Y. TILSON
Clbr asf r.2d stI (K... 1t93)
the determination to the issues before at point in time necessity defense
914 Kan. 855 PACIFIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES
(a) the harm or evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be
prevented by the law defining the offense charged; and
(b) neither the Code nor other law defining the offense provides exceptions or defenses dealing
with the specific situation involved; and
(c) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed does not otherwise plainly appear."
Model Penal Code § 3.02 (1962), 10 U.L.A. 477 (1962).
Even by this formulation, (a) and (b) must be conceded by all, and regarding (c), there has
certainly been no legislation in favor of abortion! To the contrary! All state legislation prior to Roe
criminalized it! Unless this Court is saying what no Justice dares admit: that Courts have been
"legislating"! But not even Roe v Wade expressed any "purpose to exclude the justification". Roe did
not say "whether or not abortion is murder, it is legal." To the contrary, Roe said "if abortion is murder,
Roe must collapse." In other words, such a "purpose" plainly did not appear.
In his treatise on criminal law defenses, Professor Robinson explains the necessity defense
another way:
"The lesser evils defense, sometimes called 'choice of evils' or 'necessity' or the general
justification defense, is recognized in about one-half of American jurisdictions. It is perhaps the best
illustration of the structure and operation of justification defenses generally. It explicitly relies upon the
rationale inherent in all justifications: while the defendant may have caused the harm or evil
contemplated by an offense, given the justifying circumstances, he has not caused a net harm or evil
and is therefore to be exculpated. The principle of this general justification defense may be stated as
follows:
"Lesser Evils. Conduct constituting an offense is justified if.
"(1) any legally-protected interest is unjustifiably threatened or an opportunity to further such
an interest is presented; and
Now pay attention. Here is where the Court's logic misses a cog. Consider that Life is a "legally
protected interest. Notice this sentence unambiguously says what must be "legal" is the "interest"
served by the defendant's action. In this case, human life. Human life is "legal", and saving it is
"legal".
"(2) the actor engages in conduct, constituting the offense,
(a) when and to the extent necessary to protect or further the interest,
(b) that avoids a harm or evil or furthers a legal interest greater than the harm or evil caused by
actor's conduct" (Italics in original.) 2 Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses § 124(a) pp. 45-46 (1984).
Again, notice it is the "interest" served by the defendant's action which must be "legal".
[2) Necessity is generally considered to be an affirmative defense that must be proved by the
defendant, usually beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. O'Brien, 784 S.W.2d 187, 189 (Mo.App.1989).
Also, "[t)he burden of production for the defense of lesser evils (choice of evils, necessity) is always on
the defendant" 2 Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses § 124(a) p. 47. However, some jurisdictions treat
the defense as an "ordinary" defense that must be disproved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable
doubt. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Brugmann, 13 Mass.App. 373, 379, 433 N.E.2d 457 (1982).
[31 Regardless of what name is attached to the defense (and for the sake of simplicity we will
refer to it as the necessity defense) one thing is clear: The harm or evil which a defendant, who asserts
the necessity defense, seeks to prevent must be a legal harm or evil as opposed to a moral or ethical
belief of the individual defendant,
See?
The City contends that there is no judicial decision in Kansas which expressly recognizes the
necessity defense. It notes that the trial court relied upon State v. Taylor, 138 Kan. 407, 26 P.2d 698
(1933), for its determination that the defense was recognized under Kansas law. The City, however,
correctly points out that the defense of necessity was not an issue in Taylor, nor did the case set forth
the elements of such a defense.
? Necessity doesn't have to be an issue in a case, or be defined in detail, for its legitimacy to be
acknowledged in passing.
In Taylor, the defendant was charged with shooting his estranged wife and her brother. The
defendant attempted to remove one of his children from the home of his brother-in-law. The defendant
alleged that he acted in self-defense in shooting his brother-in-law. Taylor, however, does not mention
or recognize the necessity defense. The passage from Taylor relied upon by the trial court in its
memorandum opinion has no bearing upon the defense of necessity. Taylor does not support the trial
court's holding that the necessity defense is recognized under Kansas law.
Article:
Grammar So Bad it Literally Kills
"Scott Roeder can't expect the Necessity Defense to justify saving thousands of unborn babies
by shooting the man planning to kill them, because abortion is legal." So says just about every
American. Every Kansas lawyer will add, "and the Kansas 'defense of others' statute only lets you
defend yourself or others from 'unlawful force'."
Where does this idea come from, that the Necessity Defense can only apply where the harm
prevented is unlawful? That even if you can prove to a jury that what you stopped was the most
barbaric genocide, you have to let it keep on destroying people, as long as the laws of your country
have made it "legal"?
The Kansas court precedent which says that got it not from sound legal reasoning, legal
necessity, American legal history, the Constitution, our Founding Fathers, or common sense, but from a
misunderstanding of grammar in 1993.
The case is based on a quote from "professor" Paul H. Robinson, who published a 2 volume set
on Criminal Law Defenses in 1988. The problem is that the quote from Robinson says the opposite.
Kansas law and precedent says Necessity won't justify saving ourselves or others from a harm
that is "legal".
Robinson says Necessity justifies saving ourselves or others from any harm whatsoever so long
as what we want to save (in this case, human life) is legal. (In other words, Necessity wouldn't justify
us killing an officer to save our marijuana crop. Marijuana is not a legal "interrest".)
Kansas law and precedent says whether or not a harm we want to prevent is unthinkably
harmful - even genocide itself - is "irrelevant", so long as it is "legal". If it is "legal", we must stand
aside and allow it to harm us and those we love.
Robinson says it is whether the harm is "legal" that is irrelevant. If it is in fact harmful, then (as
long as what it is harming is legal), we may lawfully prevent it.
I am not a lawyer. I have nothing on my wall to allow me to understand obscure laws. But I
have spoken English all my life, and I have a diploma that allows me to understand English grammar. I
invite all Americans to "stop your knees from shaking" (Hebrews 12:12) and examine this grammar
with me. I challenge all news reporters, whose credentials for understanding English grammar are
equal to that of lawyers, to follow this reasoning with me and report it to the nation.
Not only does the 1993 Kansas case contradict the Robinson quote it claims for its basis, but (1)
its characterization of the quote contradicts the quote, (2) its opening case summary contradicts the
Robinson quote, and (3) its characterization of the Robinson quote contradicts its opening case
summary!
Before I make my case for their irreconcilability, let's stare at them together for a few moments.
And you tell me if they seem like the same statement to you. (Tell me at music@Saltshaker.US)
The Kansas law:
Kansas 21-3211(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and
to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other's imminent use of
unlawful force. [Or, a person is not justified if the force from which he defends others is
lawful.]
Every Kansas lawyer you ask will tell you this Kansas law gives Scott Roeder no right to stop
genocide itself, so long as genocide remains "legal".
Here is the summary from the 1993 case, City of Wichita v. Tilson, 855 P.2d 911 (Kan. 1993):
(1) the defense of justification by necessity cannot be used when the harm sought to
be avoided is a constitutionally protected legal activity and the harm incurred is in violation
of the law, and (2) evidence on when life begins was irrelevant in action for criminal trespass
on property of abortion clinic and thus admission was error.
(Translation: Abortion is not merely "legal", but "constitutionally protected". Evidence that
abortion is brutal genocide is "irrelevant" and "inadmissible" in court. In other words, the defendant is
ordered not to breathe a word to the jury about it. That would be "error", meaning if the jury found out
about Roeder's defense, that would be so wicked to a judges as to constitute grounds for an appeals
court to reverse the jury's acquittal and convict him.)
Now here is the quote from "Professor Robinson" given in the Tilson case, as Tilson's authority.
Although other state supreme courts are quoted who appear to have reached the same conclusion as this
case, other states are not necessarily "authority" for this court, and it is the Robinson reasoning which
comes directly before, and appears to clinch, Tilson's conclusion that abortion is legal so it can't be
legally recognized as the slightest "harm"::
In his treatise on criminal law defenses, Professor Robinson explains the necessity
defense another way: ..."Lesser Evils. Conduct constituting an offense is justified if:
"(1) any legally-protected interest is unjustifiably threatened or an opportunity to
further such an interest is presented; and...."
Let's slow down long enough to absorb these words before memory of them is lost in the rush
of grammar stretching that follows.
Consider that Life is a "legally protected interest". Notice this sentence unambiguously says
what must be "legal" is the "interest" served by the defendant's action. In this case, human life. Human
life is "legal", and saving it is "legal". It may be arguable whether abortion's "threat" to human life is
"unjustified", but it should not be arguable that "an opportunity to further" the "interest" of saving life
was "presented" to Scott Roeder, and he acted on that opportunity. Robinson continues:
"(2) the actor engages in conduct, constituting the offense,
(a) when and to the extent necessary to protect or further the interest,
(b) that avoids a harm or evil or furthers a legal interest greater than the harm or evil
caused by actor's conduct" (Italics in original.) 2 Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses § 124(a)
pp. 45-46 (1984).
Again, notice it is the "interest" served by the defendant's action which must be "legal".
Now observe Tilson's conclusion from Robinson's or evil which a
defendant, who asserts the necessity defense, seeks to prevent must be a legal harm or evil
as opposed to a moral or ethical belief of the individual defendant,
Wait a minute. This doesn't sound either like Robinson or like Tilson's opening summary.
Doesn't this say necessity may be used only if abortion is legal?
But didn't Tilson's opening statement say "necessity cannot be used when [abortion] is...legal"?
(1) the defense of justification by necessity cannot be used when the harm sought to
be avoided is a constitutionally protected legal activity and the harm incurred is in violation
of the law....
And didn't Robinson say it doesn't matter if the harm prevented is legal - what matters is
whether the "interest" protected is legal?
Let's cut out the extraneous words so the contrast is more clear:
Robinson: "Conduct constituting an offense is justified if...the actor...furthers a legal interest
greater than the harm or evil caused by actor's conduct."
Tilson's interpretation of Robinson: "The harm ... prevent[ed] must be a legal harm...
Tilson's opening statement: "...necessity cannot be used when the harm...is...legal...."
You can see how simple it is to reconcile Tilson's opening statement with Tilson's interpretation
of Robinson. All you have to do is add the word "not". Reconciling either statement with Robinson is a
little more complicated.
Not only are we witnessing an utter failure to understand grammar through these discrepancies,
but we see an attack on logic through the introduction of a false choice: "[The harm or evil which a
defendant...seeks to prevent must be a legal harm or evil] ...as opposed to a moral or ethical belief of
the individual defendant." No one has suggested that any defendant's subjective "belief" should carry
any weight whatsoever in a Necessity Defense trial. Necessity is decided, in courts of law, by the jury's
objective establishment of the facts.
(Maybe the Court confused the Necessity Defense with the "emotional outburst" defense, or the
"sincere belief" defense, which trims a couple of years off a sentence if the jury can be persuaded the
defendant's reasoning may have been the ravings of a crazy cult, but at least they were sincere.)
But back to Tilson's contradictory statements about Necessity. How can they be reconciled?
What must go through a lawyer's mind who tries to trace the Court's reasoning?
First, Robinson says Necessity justifies any lawful purpose, or "interest" (like saving life); it is
irrelevant whether the threat to that lawful purpose (abortion) is legal or not.
Second, Tilson characterizes Robinson as saying "necessity cannot be used when [abortion]
is...legal".
Third, Tilson's opening statement says not only can Necessity not be used because abortion is
legal, but what is irrelevant is the harm it causes.
To state the contradiction another way, Robinson's quote, and Tilson's interpretation of the
quote, use opposite tests of what must be "legal".
Robinson focuses on the legality of the "interest" "promoted" by the action. (It is legal to want
human beings to live, so otherwise illegal action promoting that purpose is justified.)
Tilson focuses on the legality of the harm interrupted by the action. (It is legal to kill thousands
of babies through abortion, so otherwise illegal action that obstructs that purpose is not justified.)
For example, let's take the classic illustration of the Necessity Defense: it's OK to break down
your neighbor's door to save him from a fire.
Robinson would agree, saying your "interest" is in saving your neighbor, which is OK because
saving a human being is a legal objective. It is irrelevant whether the fire is legal or illegal.
Tilson might ag

reply from: Banned Member

How can the court deny the accused of professing his motive?

reply from: nancyu

Looks like they just ...do.

reply from: Banned Member

Will the prosecutors simply not ask Scott Roeder why he killed George Tiller? If I were a jury member, I would not convict on that basis alone. Leaving the jury in the dark as to why Scott Roeder killed George Tiller is a very bad prosecutorial move. Every person in that church can testify that Scott Roeder shot George Tiller, but if they fail to address why the accused shot Tiller, that leaves a very large gap in the prosecutions case. You cannot allow a jury to believe that the motive for the killing is none of their business.

reply from: B0zo

What Scott did is legal in all 50 states according to our resident legal expert and verbal abuser. I wonder if he will be called in to testify. Maybe he should offer to be Scott's lawyer?

reply from: Banned Member

The point that people need to understand is that this is looking very much like a mock trial where the nature and character of the victim of the crime will not even be allowed because the court may be opposed to unpopular conclusions which people might draw from that information. If Roeder had wrongfully killed a person, a person who had killed born children by the thouands, a jury might be sympathetic to the accused, even if he acted out irrationally and unlawfully in violent righteous anger.
The jury must be allowed he hear the accuseds defense so that they may know why he did what he did. Scott Roeder killed George Tiller because George Tiller killed unborn children by the thousands. A jury has the right to know that information. Scott Roeder deserves a fair trial regardless of what he did. But I shouldn't be surprised if he does not receive a fair trial in a country where the president does not take seriously a terrorist who tries to kill more than 200 people by blowing himself up on an airplane.

reply from: QueenJ

If there was a hell, I'd wish for him to rot in it.

reply from: faithman

+1.
Seeings how you are children of it, I guess you would be the experts on hell. Me thinks you will find your "hero" Tiller waiting on your arival.

reply from: Rosalie

Yay hell. At least we'll keep warm.
Fanatics like you are just funny and pitiful. Nothing more.

reply from: faithman

But this is my whole point. If it had been a killer of born children, not a grand jury in the land would have indicted. The only legitamit use of deadly force is to stop evil aggression. If you disagree with Roeder, then you must side with Planned Parenthood, and a stupid clown, that the womb child is not a person, and deserves no consideration at all. Roeder acted on his belief that children in the womb are innocent persons, and should not be slaughtered, but defended. As a US citizen, he should be able to present his case to a jury of fellow citizens. We the people should always have the final say. That is why we have a jury system in this country. To deny Roeder his defense, is a blatant attack on the constitution, and an act of oppression against our liberty to speak freely. Only a godless lefty, with a pinchant for hating our God given right to live free, would fail to see that.

reply from: faithman

Gosh!!! Talking to your mirror again I see. You are one of the most rabid fanatics around. But you are neither funny, nor deserve pity.

reply from: Sigma

Generally speaking, the motivation of the accused is irrelevent. Motivation is not one of the four degrees of legal culpability to determine if the accused is responsible for what occured. There is no conspiracy. It just doesn't matter to determine if the accused is responsible for a crime.
Motivation can be relevant if the defense wishes to say that the accused had an honest but mistaken belief that his actions would prevent the commission of a crime (such as murder).

reply from: faithman

What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: Sigma

Unless you feel it is justified, of course. Then it's ok.

reply from: faithman

What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: Sigma

If you can't defend your position, why are you posting it?

reply from: Sigma

Apparently the "necessity defense" is not being allowed. Defense is trying to argue it was justified and that the accused was ignorant of the legal status of abortion, it appears.
Edit: From the preview, it looks like the accused will be allowed to testify to his own mindset to establish what his "honestly held beliefs" were at the time.

reply from: faithman

Unless you feel it is justified, of course. Then it's ok.
the life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause.

reply from: Sigma

Yep. Killing can be justified. If you can justify killing one life, and the value of all life is equal, then any killing can be justified. It just depends on the circumstances and standards you personally use.

reply from: faithman

Yep. Killing can be justified. If you can justify killing one life, and the value of all life is equal, then any killing can be justified. It just depends on the circumstances and standards you personally use.
You try to confuse the issue on purpose. But that is all you low life pro-deathers have.
It has been clear for thousands of years that the only legit use of force is to repel evil aggression, and defend the innocent. Without evil aggression, nary another shot would be fired. Don't want to be shot, don't act aggressively against the innocent.

reply from: Sigma

I'm not trying to confuse anything. I'm trying to provide clarity without prejudice.
Killing is an act. Is it justified or unjustified? You and I both believe it is sometimes justified and sometimes unjustified. We're only quibbling over when killing is allowed, and you somehow believe you have the moral high ground. You really don't.

reply from: faithman

I'm not trying to confuse anything. I'm trying to provide clarity without prejudice.
Killing is an act. Is it justified or unjustified? You and I both believe it is sometimes justified and sometimes unjustified. What you're doing is quibbling over when killing is allowed, and then somehow believing you have the moral high road. You really don't.
then tell us baby killer. When is lethal force justified? I don't think the answer is arbitrary. I believe the only legit use of force is to stop evil aggression against the innocent. You are the only one "quibbling" the point. You have no solid ground at all, much less any ground with elevation. you are a low life scumbag, and dwell in a feted pit of child murder.

reply from: Sigma

Any standard is arbitrary, because there is no objective standard to use. They're based on our personal beliefs. When you disagree with my standards and promote your own standards you are quibbling over the standards to use to justify killing.
Abortion, for example, is an instance of killing I think is justified. You think killing abortion providers is justified. We're just quibbling over standards. You're in whatever pit I occupy, too

reply from: Sigma

Looks like the entire defense rests on the notion that since the accused filed felony charges against the victim that were dismissed he felt justified in killing the victim to receive relief.
What is iron-clad is that a crime took place. The only question is if killing someone is a justified route to take when legal action is not sufficient to provide relief. Since the logical conclusion is anarchy, I doubt the jury would find in the defendants favor.
The problem with the defendant's strategy is that the "honest but mistaken belief" apparently applies only to his own action. His "mistake" must have been that he thought his own actions weren't illegal. Since he appears to have known that killing is illegal, I don't see how this defense could be successful.

reply from: faithman

Any standard is arbitrary, because there is no objective standard to use. They're based on our personal beliefs. When you disagree with my standards and promote your own standards you are quibbling over the standards to use to justify killing.
Abortion, for example, is an instance of killing I think is justified. You think killing abortion providers is justified. We're just quibbling over standards. You're in whatever pit I occupy, too
Your whole post collapses on itself. It is you who promote anrachy by denying set standards that have existed for well over a thousand years.

reply from: Sigma

Your post only contains your personal beliefs. It does not contain any objective standards. Yours are as arbitrary as mine. You believe some killing is justified just as I think some killing is justified. That is the fact of the matter

reply from: Sigma

The Judge just ruled that the testimony of the AG is not going to be allowed to establish the mindset of the accused.

reply from: faithman

Your post only contains your personal beliefs. It does not contain any objective standards. Yours are as arbitrary as mine. You believe some killing is justified just as I think some killing is justified. That is the fact of the matter
No, you are trying to miss represent what I have said. I did not say some killing is justified. I said that the only legit use of force is to stop evil aggression, and protect innocent persons.Any other use of force IS evil aggression.

reply from: Sigma

Perhaps I misunderstood your position then. So you don't believe killing is ever justified?

reply from: faithman

Perhaps I misunderstood your position then. So you don't believe killing is ever justified?
Once again you are trying to purposely confuse what I have said. But I got time to deal with a low life word twisting bort head. You know full well that is not what I said. The only legit use of force is to stop evil aggression, and protect the innocent.

reply from: joueravecfous

So killing IS sometimes justified?

reply from: Sigma

No I'm looking for clarity. Is killing sometimes justified? You've said no before, but then seemed to change your mind.

reply from: faithman

No I'm looking for clarity. Is killing sometimes justified? You've said no before, but then seemed to change your mind.
No I did not change my mind. And if you wanted clarity, you wouldn't continue to throw mud in the waters.
The only legit use of force is to stop evil aggression, and protect the innocent.

reply from: joueravecfous

So, killing IS sometimes justified?

reply from: faithman

So, killing IS sometimes justified?
The only legit use of force is to stop evil aggression, and protect the innocent.

reply from: joueravecfous

Should we accept your repetition to be a 'yes'?

reply from: Sigma

Does "use of force" include killing, or only up to but not including killing?

reply from: Sigma

His attempts to dodge the question are amusing

reply from: faithman

The only legit use of force is to stop evil aggression, and protect the innocent.

reply from: faithman

Does "use of force" include killing, or only up to but not including killing?
The only legit use of force is to stop evil aggression, and protect the innocent.

reply from: joueravecfous

I think you have proven that faithman is prochoice in his views on justified killing. Well done.

reply from: joueravecfous

There you have it folks. Faithman agrees that killing can be justified. Guess he's not reallly prolife anymore....

reply from: faithman

You have proven nothing but that you are word twisting pro-death punks who think you are cute. You are purposely ignorant, which is blatant stupidity.
And you have proven that you are not "prochoice" but pro dead baby.The only legit use of force is to stop evil aggression, and protect the innocent.

reply from: joueravecfous

Which means you support certain killing unless you state otherwise. Unless you're willing to state that "force" only means up to but not killing. How about it?

reply from: Sigma

However, if you think killing is justified in certain circumstances you are as "pro-death" as you believe pro-choice people are. The only consistent pro-life position is to believe killing is not justified.

reply from: faithman

However, if you think killing is justified in certain circumstances you are as "pro-death" as you believe pro-choice people are. The only consistent pro-life position is to believe killing is not justified.
Not at all. The only just use of any kind of force is to protect innocent life. You kill simply because you are inconvenianced.

reply from: Sigma

Now you're just quibbling over which standard to use when killing is justified. You think it's justified under one set of circumstances and I think it's justified under another set of circumstances.

reply from: joueravecfous

So killing is justified (to you) to protect innocent life. Is that right?

reply from: faithman

...and you are asking this stupid question why?

reply from: Sigma

Because you haven't been clear if you believe killing is justified.

reply from: joueravecfous

It's a pretty simple question which can be answered in 3 letters or less.

reply from: joueravecfous

Poor coward. He ran away rather than honestly answering.....

reply from: faithman

The only legit use of force is to stop evil aggression, and protect the innocent.

reply from: Sigma

May I assume that the "use of force" includes killing? I'd rather not assume I know what you believe.

reply from: faithman

If an innocent life is in eminant danger, and the evil aggressors refuses to stop, then, as every law enforcement and military man; as well as any informed citizen knows full well, yes. It is the only legit use of lethal force is to stop evil aggression against the innocent.

reply from: Sigma

Then you believe killing is sometimes justified. So do pro-choice people. The only difference is the circumstances.

reply from: faithman

Then you believe killing is sometimes justified. So do pro-choice people. The only difference is the circumstances.
You believe in taking evil aggression against the innocent. I believe the only use of force is to stop evil aggression.

reply from: joueravecfous

You both believe that killing is sometimes justified. Why are you so upset by that revelation?

reply from: Sigma

I really don't, but thanks for playing. I was just trying to nail down what exactly you believe.

reply from: faithman

I really don't, but thanks for playing. I was just trying to nail down what exactly you believe.
Yes, you really do. To kill a child for no other reason than conveniance is evil aggression against the innocent. Their just isn't one thread of honesty in you to admit the very obvious. Your whole mind set is swallowed up in your evil agressive blood lust to kill innocent children.

reply from: Sigma

I want to ask you something. You keep saying "innocent". What exactly do you believe that to mean?

reply from: faithman

I want to ask you something. You keep saying "innocent". What exactly do you believe that to mean?
Look it up.

reply from: Sigma

So... you mean those who haven't been found guilty in a court of law?

reply from: faithman

The only legit use of force is to stop evil aggression, and protect the innocent.

reply from: Sigma

You keep saying "innocent". What exactly do you believe that to mean?

reply from: faithman

What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: Sigma

You keep saying "innocent". What exactly do you believe that to mean?

reply from: faithman

You are purposely stupid. If you "choose" to be so dumb, that is on you. If you don't know what innocent is by now, you never will.

reply from: Sigma

I know what it means in context of the court... but I don't know how you mean it when you use it.

reply from: CaptainJamesTKirk

I'm pretty sure he thinks we are all born into sin, so none are "innocent." In this context, I think "innocent" means people he doesn't believe deserve to die.

reply from: CDC700

There are steps to use of force, Lethal Force being the last step to stop an imminent threat to human life. Tiller was using lethal force on babies for money, that's a hitman or "knife for hire". I believe Roeder did what he felt was necessary to protect human life and the irony of it all is, he DID in fact, save human lives.

reply from: CaptainJamesTKirk

The irony here is that it wouldn't have been justifiable defense under the law even if Tiller had been killing high school students. He was unarmed, and there was no imminent threat.

reply from: Sigma

So, then, being born makes us sinners? Or is it conception?

reply from: CaptainJamesTKirk

So, then, being born makes us sinners? Or is it conception?
Interesting question, but you'll have to ask someone who actually believes in that crap.

reply from: Sigma

I'd ask faithman to explain his position but I don't think he understands it himself.

reply from: Sigma

Ooo another copy/paste job.
So what does this mean in your own words?

reply from: CDC700

He was an imminent threat to human life every day he walked into his office. When he went to work, babies died. Terrorists are taken out of the picture unarmed on a regular basis. The world is a better place with him in his new pine office.

reply from: CaptainJamesTKirk

I'd ask faithman to explain his position but I don't think he understands it himself.
A preacher told him what to think years ago, and he never questioned it. What do you expect from him?

reply from: CDC700

So what does this mean in your own words?
Ooo another copy/paste job.
Copy paste from where? Those are my own words. I happen to be educated on use of force, glad it impressed you.....

reply from: CaptainJamesTKirk

He was an imminent threat to human life every day he walked into his office. When he went to work, babies died. Terrorists are taken out of the picture unarmed on a regular basis. The world is a better place with him in his new pine office.
Someone doesn't understand the legal definition for "imminent."

reply from: Sigma

That may be true, but he wasn't in his office. He was in a church, where he presented no imminent threat.

reply from: Sigma

Faithman quoted you. I'm asking faithman to put it in his own words

reply from: CDC700

That may be true, but he wasn't in his office. He was in a church, where he presented no imminent threat.
Exactly where he needed to be, hopefully he asked for forgiveness, but I doubt it....

reply from: CaptainJamesTKirk

ITT:
Trolls trolling trolls...

reply from: Sigma

He may have been, in which case his killer should be doubly damned for interrupting it

reply from: CDC700

He may have been, in which case his killer should be doubly damned for interrupting it
LOL

reply from: faithman

That may be true, but he wasn't in his office. He was in a church, where he presented no imminent threat.
Him drawing breath was a threat. His entire being was dedicated to killing children for money.

reply from: nancyu

He was an imminent threat to human life every day he walked into his office. When he went to work, babies died. Terrorists are taken out of the picture unarmed on a regular basis. The world is a better place with him in his new pine office.
Someone doesn't understand the legal definition for "imminent."
...and that "someone" is you.

reply from: Banned Member

Generally speaking, the motivation of the accused is irrelevent. Motivation is not one of the four degrees of legal culpability to determine if the accused is responsible for what occured. There is no conspiracy. It just doesn't matter to determine if the accused is responsible for a crime.
Motivation can be relevant if the defense wishes to say that the accused had an honest but mistaken belief that his actions would prevent the commission of a crime (such as murder).
The court fears that if why Roeder killed Tiller is brought into question, the question of what an abortion is may also be brought into question. If the jury were to understand that abortions do in fact kill unborn children as they do and that George Tiller did in fact kill unborn children with abortions and that this is why Roeder killed Tiller, they may reach a conclusion that while in fact it was illegal for Roeder to kill Tiller, it may in fact have well been justified. Certainly that is meaningful to the sentencing phase of the trial.

reply from: Sigma

While the prosecution obviously would want to prevent any sympathy toward the accused, it is not in dispute that the accused committed a crime. The only strategy that the defense can put up is to reduce the charge. Given the facts of the case, I don't think that will occur.

reply from: faithman

While the prosecution obviously would want to prevent any sympathy toward the accused, it is not in dispute that the accused committed a crime. The only strategy that the defense can put up is to reduce the charge. Given the facts of the case, I don't think that will occur.
It is very much in dispute. Taking out a mass murderer is not a crime.

reply from: joueravecfous

Premeditated, first degree murder is a legal crime.
Abortion is not.

reply from: Banned Member

Abortion could be presented before a jury both as "not a legal crime" and the killing of a human person. Nothing in the law says that abortion is not a legal crime simply because abortion is not the killing of a human person.

reply from: Spinwubby

Originally posted by: Augustine
"not a legal crime"
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
From the Department of Redundancy Department...

reply from: Banned Member

Abortion could be presented before a jury both as not a crime and the killing of a human person. Nothing in the law says that abortion is not a legal crime simply because abortion is not the killing of a human person.

reply from: faithman

Defensive action is not murder. Abortion is.

reply from: Banned Member

I've never heard of a defendant offering motive. However, if I were in his shoes and I knew for certain that the law had no interest in telling the whole story, (the real truth of things), I would stand up at an opportune moment and clearly declare to the jury that Tiller was an abortionist who has killed thousands of children. After all, how much more trouble can he get in. That would drag it out and make for big news in the press.
Another aspect of this legal debacle that I have a hard time believing is that they are actually going to be able to get a jury together that doesn't even have one juror who is aware of Tiller's occupation.
How does the prosecution vet a jury to discover if they are aware that Tiller was an abortionist. I suppose that they could ask if they knew what his job was but a savvy juror could just lie about it. In the name of truth and justice, both Superman and I would.

reply from: Sigma

Well... yes it is. The "necessary defense" strategy was not allowed, so the only strategy that the defense will be able to put up is that the accused had an honest but mistaken belief that his actions were legal. I don't believe that will pan out.

reply from: CDC700

I am fairly certain he will be convicted of murder, he did commit murder. even though many will feel it is justified homicide. Tiller will be replaced by another butcher, as long as this horrible act is carried out on the unborn, another will most likely follow in Roeder's footsteps. I hope that I live to see the day abortion is no longer legal and pray for all of the souls that have been taken away at the hands of "legal" murderers. I would be willing to bet Roeder is just as happy with his "choice" as the members of this forum who promote murder in the name of "feminism". There once was a time when "Blacks" were forced into the back of the bus, let's hope that some day the unborn will be allowed up in the front too! This atrocious act will certainly be stopped one day.

reply from: joueravecfous

Well, he's done. Might have been the quickest conviction ever....

reply from: Banned Member

And so begins the appeals process.

reply from: Skippy

Wow. It only took the jury forty minutes to reach a guilty verdict. That's got to be some kind of record.

reply from: CDC700

I'm surprised it took that long. Roeder said he killed the guy????

reply from: Banned Member

37 minutes to be exact.

reply from: nancyu

I've never heard of a defendant offering motive. However, if I were in his shoes and I knew for certain that the law had no interest in telling the whole story, (the real truth of things), I would stand up at an opportune moment and clearly declare to the jury that Tiller was an abortionist who has killed thousands of children. After all, how much more trouble can he get in. That would drag it out and make for big news in the press.
Another aspect of this legal debacle that I have a hard time believing is that they are actually going to be able to get a jury together that doesn't even have one juror who is aware of Tiller's occupation.
How does the prosecution vet a jury to discover if they are aware that Tiller was an abortionist. I suppose that they could ask if they knew what his job was but a savvy juror could just lie about it. In the name of truth and justice, both Superman and I would.
He did that. I heard it on fox news radio. He was talking about babies being dismembered in abortions, and then you hear lawyers just about screaming, "objection objection!" Then the announcer explaining that he is not allowed to describe "medical procedures". I doubt this was shown on tv. The media is complicit in crimes against humanity...it simply ignores the truths it doesn't like.

reply from: Sigma

No, it was on the televised portion too. At least, the judge was interrupting the witness and instructing him to refrain from describing the medical procedures he isn't qualified to give perspective on.

reply from: Rino

I've never heard of a defendant offering motive. However, if I were in his shoes and I knew for certain that the law had no interest in telling the whole story, (the real truth of things), I would stand up at an opportune moment and clearly declare to the jury that Tiller was an abortionist who has killed thousands of children. After all, how much more trouble can he get in. That would drag it out and make for big news in the press.
Another aspect of this legal debacle that I have a hard time believing is that they are actually going to be able to get a jury together that doesn't even have one juror who is aware of Tiller's occupation.
How does the prosecution vet a jury to discover if they are aware that Tiller was an abortionist. I suppose that they could ask if they knew what his job was but a savvy juror could just lie about it. In the name of truth and justice, both Superman and I would.
He did that. I heard it on fox news radio. He was talking about babies being dismembered in abortions, and then you hear lawyers just about screaming, "objection objection!" Then the announcer explaining that he is not allowed to describe "medical procedures". I doubt this was shown on tv. The media is complicit in crimes against humanity...it simply ignores the truths it doesn't like.
Yeah, I just don't understand why the media doesn't take a guy who has never witnessed an abortion seriously when he attempts to provide a graphic description of same. Roeder may as well have been telling mothers how it feels to birth a child.

reply from: Spinwubby

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You'd lie under oath?
...After being sworn in on a BIBLE?
It says a lot about your character. You don't really believe all that Jesus/God stuff any more than I do, but I still wouldn't lie under oath.

reply from: Sigma

Superman would never do that


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics