Scott Roeder convicted of murder

[Saddle Bronc 124]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...;show_article=1

Man convicted of murdering Kan. abortion provider

2010/01/29 12:23

By MARIA SUDEKUM FISHER

Associated Press Writer

WICHITA, Kan. (AP) - A man who said he killed prominent Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller in order to save the lives of unborn children was convicted Friday of murder.

The jury deliberated for just 37 minutes before finding Scott Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Mo., guilty of premeditated, first-degree murder in the May 31 shooting death.

He faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years when he is sentenced March 9. Prosecutor Nola Foulston said she would pursue a so-called "Hard 50" sentence, which would require Roeder to serve at least 50 years before he can be considered for parole.

Roeder had confessed publicly before the trial and admitted again on the witness stand that he shot Tiller in the head in the foyer of the church where the doctor was serving as an usher. He testified he felt the lives of unborn children were in "immediate danger" because of Tiller.

Roeder also was convicted of aggravated assault for pointing a gun at two ushers at Tiller's Wichita church after the shooting.

Roeder sat straightforward as the verdict was read, showing no visible reaction as he moved his head toward the judge and to the jury as each juror confirmed the verdict.

Tiller was one of the nation's few providers of late-term abortions, and his Wichita clinic was the focus of many protests. It also had been under investigation by a former state district attorney who accused Tiller of skirting Kansas' abortion laws.

Roeder's attorneys were hoping to get a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter for Roeder, a defense that would have required them to show that Roeder had an unreasonable but honest belief that deadly force was justified.

But after hearing Roeder testify, District Judge Warren Wilbert ruled that his lawyers failed to show that Tiller posed an imminent threat and the jury could not consider such a verdict.

Prosecutors were careful during the first few days of testimony to avoid the subject of abortion and to focus on the specifics of the shooting. Wilbert said he did not want the trial to become a debate on abortion, but he did allow Roeder to discuss his views on the subject because his attorneys said they were integral to their case.

[Peikko 1,575]

That seems satisfactory.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

yup

[Danno 1,228]

Sounds like the work of Public defenders to me.

[Peikko 1,575]

Sounds like the work of Public defenders to me.

Go on Danno, entertain me. What are you trying to say?

[Danno 1,228]

<<<Roeder's attorneys were hoping to get a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter for Roeder, a defense that would have required them to show that Roeder had an unreasonable but honest belief that deadly force was justified.

>>>

NOt sure when it says "Justified" if they mean; he had a belief that it would be "legally" justified, what do you think?

Anyway

It would seem with the right amount of money.... he could have done better in court.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How do you figure? The guy walked into a church and blew a guy's head off in the middle of service.

Its not like the doctor was in the middle of an abortion procedure, but even if he was - abortion is still legal. It seems highly doubtful that even Johnny Cochrane could get that story to stick and sound convincing.

Surely he'd have been better off with an "insane" defence.

[Peikko 1,575]

Ah, it's Danno's interpretation of justified. Danno, the gunman would have had to have an imperitive justification for killing the guy for example, his own life was in imminent danger, or the life of someone else. Going into a church, pulling a gun out and killing someone just because you don't like the job they do is not a reasonable justification. The judge didn't not entertain that defense, the judge would not have entertained the defense no matter who had presented it.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Danno will always be Danno. Protecting a killer that fights for his beliefs.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

An aside about Roeder's "necessity defence": it sounds a lot like "doctrine of necessity" used by despotic criminal dictators (obvious examples Zia and Musharraf of Pakistan) for removing the nation's previous leaders from office, and for extending their misrule.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I am not surpirsed a murderer was convicted of murder.

[Danno 1,228]

Danno will always be Danno. Protecting a killer that fights for his beliefs.

MAking observations about a legal case falls a little short of "protecting"..... for most people.

[Danno 1,228]

Ah, it's Danno's interpretation of justified. Danno, the gunman would have had to have an imperitive justification for killing the guy for example, his own life was in imminent danger, or the life of someone else. Going into a church, pulling a gun out and killing someone just because you don't like the job they do is not a reasonable justification. The judge didn't not entertain that defense, the judge would not have entertained the defense no matter who had presented it.

You are stretching.

Stick to the facts.

<<<a defense that would have required them to show that Roeder had an unreasonable but honest belief that deadly force was justified.

>>>

There are many cases where people preemptively killed another and were convicted of a much lesser offense. Battered women, abused children.

THis was a late-term abortion doctor, that means this guy pulled healthy, viable babies apart, I don't think it is a stretch to imagine a high dollar team of attorneys could not have done better for him by either playing the crazy-card or proving that in his mind, he was saving others from certain death, much in the way one might kill someone before he activates a bomb.

It's not going to get this guy off but perhaps bump him down to manslaughter.

MC: Your personal views are in the way, do you need to recuse yourself from this thread?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its a very very thin defence, Danno.

You are stretching.

Stick to the facts.

<<<a defense that would have required them to show that Roeder had an unreasonable but honest belief that deadly force was justified.

>>>

There are many cases where people preemptively killed another and were convicted of a much lesser offense. Battered women, abused children.

THis was a late-term abortion doctor, that means this guy pulled healthy, viable babies apart, I don't think it is a stretch to imagine a high dollar team of attorneys could not have done better for him by either playing the crazy-card or proving that in his mind, he was saving others from certain death, much in the way one might kill someone before he activates a bomb.

It's not going to get this guy off but perhaps bump him down to manslaughter.

Perhaps the same reasoning could be applied to the guy who shot up Fort Hood...

Hell, perhaps even Lee Harvey Oswald could have used that defence.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

It might have worked if the guy was performing a later term abortion on the man's son or daughter like the next week I suppose. But yeah to walk into a church and kill the guy with his motive is premed. murder full stop, no defense.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Sousuke