(no subject)

[desertvixen]

 The news article is related to the shooting of Dr. Tiller, a doctor who performed late-term abortions.  It's under a cut for anyone wanting to avoid the politics.


 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34775587/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

A man accused of killing one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers can try to build a case that the slaying was voluntary manslaughter because he sincerely believed it was necessary to save unborn babies, a Kansas judge ruled Friday.

Scott Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Mo., is charged with one count of first-degree murder in Dr. George Tiller's death and two counts of aggravated assault for allegedly threatening two ushers who tried to stop him during the May 31 melee in the foyer of the doctor's Wichita church. Roeder has pleaded not guilty and his trial begins Monday.

Roeder faces life imprisonment if convicted of first-degree murder. A voluntary manslaughter conviction could bring a prison term closer to five years, depending on prior criminal record.

Voluntary manslaughter is defined in Kansas law as "an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force."

Sedgwick County District Judge Warren Wilbert ruled that defense attorneys can present evidence to support such a conviction. He said he will consider everything Roeder's lawyers present at trial before deciding whether to tell jurors if they can consider a conviction on a lesser offense.

The judge warned defense attorneys they faced "a substantial uphill battle" in showing Roeder had a sincere belief that the use of deadly force was necessary in the defense of others.

*** *** *** 

  My understanding of the decision is that the judge will allow the defense to present the defense that he had to kill Dr. Tiller to save unborn babies - then, after they present, he will decide whether or not the jury could consider finding him guilty of voluntary manslaughter, not first degree murder.  Am I wrong?

 I think if they were to find him guilty of voluntary manslaughter (basically, it was wrong, but he believed it was SO right that he should get a pitiful five years) for going into a church and shooting a doctor, that would be a very bad situation. 
 
*** *** *** 

Roeder has confessed to reporters to shooting Tiller, saying it was necessary to save "unborn children." He filed a motion made public Friday in which he admitted to the court that he killed Tiller, arguing his trial would be a "charade" if he could not present to jurors his only defense. He asked the judge to reconsider his decision last month prohibiting a so-called necessity defense.

Such a defense would allow his attorneys to argue for acquittal on the grounds that the shooting was justified.

Wilbert again denied the request, telling Roeder at Friday's hearing that the argument "I had to shoot and kill Dr. Tiller to save unborn babies" from abortion doesn't meet the necessity defense because abortions are legal and there has never been a finding that Tiller was performing illegal abortions. Wilbert said the argument also fails by its very definition because one life is not worth more than another.

*** *** ***

So far, it seems like the right things are happening, but I'm still worried that even though he's admitted he shot the man, he might get off.

Not only was Tiller not performing illegal abortions, he was performing difficult late-term abortions, which are generally done for life-threatening circumstances only, NOT the ever-popular argument against abortion as birth control.  With him gone, there is a very noticeable hole.

DV

Comments

[dunmurderin.livejournal.com]

Nice try, jackass. Y'know, if you believe that strongly in something that you're willing to walk into a place to shoot down a person, you really should have the stones to stand by your act and take the consequences like a big boy.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

*grumpy sarcastic woman gonna make oatmeal now*

[auriaephiala.livejournal.com]

Interestingly enough, Dr. Henry Morgentaler used the defence of necessity in 1973 to argue in favour of allowing abortion. Perhaps the the anti-choice extremists think they can have a giggle reusing the argument for their side.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgentaler_v._The_Queen

In this case, though, there's a really simple argument against it: you're not saving lives because late abortions are generally only done when the baby's prognosis is very bad (or dead), or the mother's health is in danger.

As well, I agree with Wilbert's argument that you can't save a life by taking another.

I also agree with your concerns re voluntary manslaughter. It would just be a massive loophole to allow any sort of killing -- and I would hope would be struck down immediately.