Scott Roeder convicted of murder

[Danno 1,228]

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.

I do get that but I don't think it is "everything".

- The Doc ended the lives of healthy fully viable fetuses, if you see this as killing human life I don't see where you are legally required to personally "know the person" to believe you need to save their life. (which would be his mind-set).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I do get that but I don't think it is "everything".

- The Doc ended the lives of healthy fully viable fetuses, if you see this as killing human life I don't see where you are legally required to personally "know the person" to believe you need to save their life. (which would be his mind-set).

What the doctor was doing was legal, therefore it is protected under the law.

Whether you or the killer disagree with his trade, is completely separate to the murder. Again, if you want to take the route that it isn't, you have to accept that lawyers can then use the same reasoning for other criminals (like terrorists) to establish a diminished responsibility.

Its a horrible precedent to set.

[Danno 1,228]

What the doctor was doing was legal, therefore it is protected under the law.

Whether you or the killer disagree with his trade, is completely separate to the murder. Again, if you want to take the route that it isn't, you have to accept that lawyers can then use the same reasoning for other criminals (like terrorists) to establish a diminished responsibility.

Its a horrible precedent to set.

The problem with the terrorist example is.... these people are killing a third party, in fact people who have no connection to what ever wrong the Terrorist is acting out against.

The reason this guy cannot get off on manslaughter is because it would then be (nearly) open season on Abortion Docs, and legalities be dammed we can't have that.

It's the exact reason Manson is sitting in jail though he killed no one. Politics are a reality in court.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Danno,

Hear Roeder's own words.

gIIMO7paE0E

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The problem with the terrorist example is.... these people are killing a third party, in fact people who have no connection to what ever wrong the Terrorist is acting out against.

The reason this guy cannot get off on manslaughter is because it would then be (nearly) open season on Abortion Docs, and legalities be dammed we can't have that.

It's the exact reason Manson is sitting in jail though he killed no one. Politics are a reality in court.

You're just going round in circles Danno. Yes there are slight differences - but none of those are practical because in the Roeder case you are arguing that the judge should make his determination based on what the deluded defendant believed.

And yes - clearly this would permit open season on abortion doctors. Abortion is currently legal, murder isn't. Suck it up.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=239578

[Niels Bohr 72]

Danno is against women's rights to choose whether or not to abort their child. Heck, the very essence of women rights movement is giving people (women) to choose what they want.

[Danno 1,228]

Danno is against women's rights to choose whether or not to abort their child. Heck, the very essence of women rights movement is giving people (women) to choose what they want.

even woman who want to choke you?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

even woman who want to choke you?

Once again, Danno, you have won the day with your superior wit.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Would have gotten the death penalty in Texas as he should have.

[Peikko 1,575]

The 'problem' Danno, if there is a problem is that abortion is legal at the would be mother's instigation. However, even if it were not legal, the actions of the gun man could still not be justified under any known legal defence because the use of deadly force to prevent a termination, particularly if the gun man has no connection with the fetus can not be justified. If the abortion had of been illegal, the proper course of action would have been to alert the proper authorities and prevent it, not kill one Dr. However, in this case, the gun man wasn't even trying to protect anyone or anything that was in imminent danger, he killed the Dr in cold blood, in a peaceful environment because of his perception that the act of abortion is immoral and this Dr alone represented that imorality. That is not a reasonable justifaction for anything let alone murder.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Brit Abroad 166]

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

Premeditated murder. He deliberately took a loaded gun into a church where he knew the victim would be. He chose to aim and pull the trigger. There is no way in hell it can be said to be "in the heat of the moment". Did he honestly think that saving a life by murdering an abortionist would stop the mother from seeking it elsewhere?

Stated simply, he didn't like the fact that the doctor had chosen to do an unpopular job. I don't like bankers, but you don't see me going into their place of worship and blasting them to death, do you? It's a matter of self control and personal accountability.

[Danno 1,228]

The 'problem' Danno, if there is a problem is that abortion is legal at the would be mother's instigation. However, even if it were not legal, the actions of the gun man could still not be justified under any known legal defence because the use of deadly force to prevent a termination, particularly if the gun man has no connection with the fetus can not be justified. If the abortion had of been illegal, the proper course of action would have been to alert the proper authorities and prevent it, not kill one Dr. However, in this case, the gun man wasn't even trying to protect anyone or anything that was in imminent danger, he killed the Dr in cold blood, in a peaceful environment because of his perception that the act of abortion is immoral and this Dr alone represented that imorality. That is not a reasonable justifaction for anything let alone murder.

MC, are you debating this with yourself because I have said more than once the guy is guilty yet you keep coming back as if I am suggesting a Courtroom miracle could take place where the guy walks.

Even if one believes that what this guy did was justified under civil disobedience.... I doubt this same person would claim the man should not have to answer for his crime.

[Peikko 1,575]

MC, are you debating this with yourself because I have said more than once the guy is guilty yet you keep coming back as if I am suggesting a Courtroom miracle could take place where the guy walks.

Even if one believes that what this guy did was justified under civil disobedience.... I doubt this same person would claim the man should not have to answer for his crime.

You questioned what he is guilty of. Murder - there are no mitigating circumstances. I am explaining to you why. Are you done claiming this should be a lesser crime now?

[Danno 1,228]

Premeditated murder. He deliberately took a loaded gun into a church where he knew the victim would be. He chose to aim and pull the trigger. There is no way in hell it can be said to be "in the heat of the moment". Did he honestly think that saving a life by murdering an abortionist would stop the mother from seeking it elsewhere?

Stated simply, he didn't like the fact that the doctor had chosen to do an unpopular job. I don't like bankers, but you don't see me going into their place of worship and blasting them to death, do you? It's a matter of self control and personal accountability.

I'll respond to your first part as your second part just got too sill, comparing bankers with a man who tears 3rd trimester babies apart (jeez) and had been under investigation for doing it illegally.

You wrote "Did he honestly think that saving a life by murdering an abortionist would stop the mother from seeking it elsewhere?"

SInce he was the only one in the broad area that was willing to do this style abortions and since he is out of business (so to speak), do you know for a fact that some has filled his shoes in this line of "work"?

I don't know but it's very possible some (or more) of these would-be customers did carry their babies to term.