Scott Roeder convicted of murder

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Scott Roeder's lawyers face a 'formidable and daunting task' trying for a lesser sentence by arguing he sincerely believed his actions were necessary, a judge has warned.

The judge said it was BS almost right off the bat.

[Peikko 1,575]

My personal views have nothing to do with it. There is no reasonable defence to his actions apart from insantiy and that defence also must be PROVED to be acceptable. The defence lawyers had nothing to work with in this instance, it had nothing to do with how much they were, or were not paid.

[Danno 1,228]

The judge said it was BS almost right off the bat.

Look I am no lawyer by any stretch, but I bet the fact that the judge "kept abortion out of the trial" may open up the door for an appeal.

Imagine a woman kills her husband for no apparent reason except she was trying to end his abuse and the Judge claimed "domestic abuse" will not be part of the trial.

While abortion by its self had nothing to do with the trial the roll abortion played in his motivation and his state of mind perhaps would be germane to a vigorous defense.

My personal views have nothing to do with it. There is no reasonable defence to his actions apart from insantiy and that defence also must be PROVED to be acceptable. The defence lawyers had nothing to work with in this instance, it had nothing to do with how much they were, or were not paid.

BUt the point is not "is he is guilty".... the question is what is he guilty of and under what degree.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

Keep going Danno you're doing a fine job...

[Peikko 1,575]

The fact is that the guy who pulled the trigger was not personally in imminent physical danger, and nor was anyone else let alone someone who might have had some relationship to the gunman. Even had this happened in an abortion clinic, as the law stands the Dr would have been performing a legal proceedure so again no legal defence to stop an abortion using forceful means even if he was the would be father. In fact, it's really hard to find any scenario where it's even remotely concievable that the gunman could have a legally reasonable defence. It's not like there's a possibility of mistaken idenity or well, anything really.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Danno, how's about we use terrorism instead of domestic violence as a parallel (it is more appropriate, given the context) - and see how you feel about that.

In your contention KSM would be able to get a lesser sentence for his part in 9/11 because it could be argued by a high-paid defence team, that he believed his actions were "necessary".

I don't think that's the kind of legal precedent many people would appreciate.

[Peikko 1,575]

He's guilty of murder. He shot an unarmed man in a non threatening situation. You are acting like abused women/children can wake up one day and decide to shoot their abusers and get let off. THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. Someone who is abused has to be in a situation where he/she feels there is an imminent threat to their safety.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

He's guilty of murder. He shot an unarmed man in a non threatening situation. You are acting like abused women/children can wake up one day and decide to shoot their abusers and get let off. THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. Someone who is abused has to be in a situation where he/she feels there is an imminent threat to their safety.

Indeed. There's no comparison between battered spouse who shoots their SO and a guy who calmly and with premeditation guns down someone in cold blood over political/ideological differences.

IMO this bears more similarities to terrorism in that sense - and noone would want to see terrorists having their cause validated (even indirectly) in a Federal Court.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Gene Hunt

[Peikko 1,575]

I think that's probably why the judge didn't even entertain that line of reasoning and rightly so.

[Danno 1,228]

Danno, how's about we use terrorism instead of domestic violence as a parallel (it is more appropriate, given the context) - and see how you feel about that.

In your contention KSM would be able to get a lesser sentence for his part in 9/11 because it could be argued by a high-paid defence team, that he believed his actions were "necessary".

I don't think that's the kind of legal precedent many people would appreciate.

This argument is working at it backwards.

Many have already laid out the case where KSM... if he were really given a fair trail could in fact be let off (I think his confession was not of his own free will to say the least) or the charged dropped to a lessor offense.

Bottom line, this is a poor comparison because he should never be in that court room for the exact argument I an others have made.

Keep going Danno you're doing a fine job...

Gee, thanks for your meaningful contribution to the conversation.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This argument is working at it backwards.

Many have already laid out the case where KSM... if he were really given a fair trail could in fact be let off (I think his confession was not of his own free will to say the least) or the charged dropped to a lessor offense.

Bottom line, this is a poor comparison because he should never be in that court room for the exact argument I an others have made.

OK - if you don't like KSM, what about the underwear bomber?

What about the guy who shot up Fort Hood?

The old guy who shot up the Holocaust museum?

[Danno 1,228]

He's guilty of murder. He shot an unarmed man in a non threatening situation. You are acting like abused women/children can wake up one day and decide to shoot their abusers and get let off. THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. Someone who is abused has to be in a situation where he/she feels there is an imminent threat to their safety.

Actually there are a number of just such cases.

There was the one where a man who had molested a boy was shot and killed as they brought him down the hall way by the father.... he did not get murder 1.

Another lady shot to death a man who molested her son as he sat in court, do you think she got murder in the 1st?

Manslaughter.

Every case is unique so it's true, it would be impossible to find this exact case somewhere but there are many many cases where the killer killed for absolutely no benefit to themselves..... often these cases are downgraded.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Actually there are a number of just such cases.

There was the one where a man who had molested a boy was shot and killed as they brought him down the hall way by the father.... he did not get murder 1.

Another lady shot to death a man who molested her son as he sat in court, do you think she got murder in the 1st?

Manslaughter.

Every case is unique so it's true, it would be impossible to find this exact case somewhere but there are many many cases where the killer killed for absolutely no benefit to themselves..... often these cases are downgraded.

You say every case is unique, but in both the examples you mention above a crime has been committed against an identifiable victim and the subsequent murders committed by people with a familial and emotional connection to the original victim.

None of that is present in this Roeder case.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Gene Hunt

[Danno 1,228]

OK - if you don't like KSM, what about the underwear bomber?

What about the guy who shot up Fort Hood?

The old guy who shot up the Holocaust museum?

Your examples are so far removed from this.

Who was the Security guard at the Holocaust (who was murdered) going to kill?

Who were the people in tx going to kill which prompted the Ft. hood shooter to act?

I do get your overall point I just think these examples don't fit.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Your examples are so far removed from this.

Who was the Security guard at the Holocaust (who was murdered) going to kill?

Who were the people in tx going to kill which prompted the Ft. hood shooter to act?

I do get your overall point I just think these examples don't fit.

Of course you don't, because you don't want to acknowledge that your argument has huge holes in it