Ks v Roeder on this the anniversary of Roe v Wade

ASPCA4EVER

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Messages
2,555
Location
Land of the JAYHAWKS-ROCK CHOCK Jayhawk, KU
courtinsession@cnn.com

The court case just started this morning in the murder case of Scott Roeder who shot Dr. George Tiller point blank in the head prior to church service. 4 Eye witnesses were present when this occurred, Scott Roeder drove his own vehicle/registered to him with his current home address.

He admitted that he did it, plead not guilty due to a defense of necessity. It was premeditated, he had planned this for quite a while, purchased a gun, practiced target shooting with his brother the night before, traveled over 3½ hours, checked into a hotel the previous night, had a website that he had talked about killing Dr. George Tiller on {specifically}.

So the defense is claiming 'NECESSITY'...they declined to have an opening argument...they have tried to have Dr. George Tillers profession be the main stay of the legal argument and the Judge has ruled against that...so how does this all shake down for all of you?

AND PLEASE...WE HAVE A TOPIC ONGOING ABOUT ABORTION, SO COULD WE NOT TURN THIS INTO A DEBATE ABOUT THAT COULD WE KEEP THIS THE LEGAL QUESTION OF MURDER/PREMEDITATED/NECESSITY...HE CONFESSED TO THE ACT...BUT WANTS TO CLAIM THAT HE WAS DRIVEN TO DO THIS.

I understand the thin line of: that old tried / true question of...RIGHT TO LIFE v PRO-CHOICE. Does having a 'mindset about your life's vision' allow you the RIGHT to take a life? Was Scott Roeder justified or just a few bricks shy of a full load {nut-job-whack-o} and needs to be found guilty with the book thrown at him?
 
Werbung:
If one is driven to break the law by their moral imperative, then they should be willing to accept the punishment for breaking that law. Quakers protesting war go to prison and serve their time.

This murderer should be punished to whatever the extent the law deems correct, if it's the death penalty then so be it, he can become a martyr. You must be willing to die for your beliefs or you are just a poser.
 
If one is driven to break the law by their moral imperative, then they should be willing to accept the punishment for breaking that law. Quakers protesting war go to prison and serve their time.

This murderer should be punished to whatever the extent the law deems correct, if it's the death penalty then so be it, he can become a martyr. You must be willing to die for your beliefs or you are just a poser.

Murder is murder. I personally view abortion as murder, but this guy has pretty clearly committed premeditated murder, and ought to be treated accordingly.
 
Murder is murder. I personally view abortion as murder, but this guy has pretty clearly committed premeditated murder, and ought to be treated accordingly.
Interesting to me; how someone can say that they are PRO-LIFE and then kill someone because they_______________ {fill that in as needed}.
I do understand someone being passionate about issues...we see that a lot around here {I get passionate and very, very angry at humans that do heinous things to animals} but I don't split my ideologies down the middle about what LIFE is all about.

Maybe he's of the limited mental capacity and as his ex-wife did try to get his family to do something about his 'mental state'...but wouldn't that lean more towards a 'insanity defense instead of a necessity defense'?
 
Interesting to me; how someone can say that they are PRO-LIFE and then kill someone because they_______________ {fill that in as needed}.
I do understand someone being passionate about issues...we see that a lot around here {I get passionate and very, very angry at humans that do heinous things to animals} but I don't split my ideologies down the middle about what LIFE is all about.

Maybe he's of the limited mental capacity and as his ex-wife did try to get his family to do something about his 'mental state'...but wouldn't that lean more towards a 'insanity defense instead of a necessity defense'?


not that I agree with what he did, clearly wrong, but technically what he did was not murder (taking of innocent life). the abortionist was anything but innocent. but I'm happy to let God take care of him.
 
not that I agree with what he did, clearly wrong, but technically what he did was not murder (taking of innocent life). the abortionist was anything but innocent. but I'm happy to let God take care of him.
So, do you mean that justice was served and that our laws would not have to be upheld because of an 'EYE for an EYE' should prevail in things/issues such as this?
 
not that I agree with what he did, clearly wrong, but technically what he did was not murder (taking of innocent life). the abortionist was anything but innocent. but I'm happy to let God take care of him.

The doctor wasn't commiting murder under US law, your religious beliefs though perhaps heartfelt are not US law. Technically what he did WAS murder, he comitted premeditated murder of an American citizen who was acting within the legal framework of our country's laws. Your opinion of someone's "innocence" or "guilt" is irrelevant unless you can prove it in court.
 
The doctor wasn't commiting murder under US law, your religious beliefs though perhaps heartfelt are not US law. Technically what he did WAS murder, he comitted premeditated murder of an American citizen who was acting within the legal framework of our country's laws. Your opinion of someone's "innocence" or "guilt" is irrelevant unless you can prove it in court.
Ever wonder why the 'RIGHT' just ignore that part of our consitution about the separation of church and state...but OMG...don't ask any of them to give up their weapons and you'll be in for a Constitutional battle of mega proportions :rolleyes:
 
This type of behavior became inevitable when the supreme court decided to take the people's right to govern themselves out of their hands and act as unelected "rulers" of us all. Did Roeder commit murder--yes. Is he a nut--no. He is committed to his cause and sees no other way to prevail. If SCOTUS hadn't gotten involved and invented "rights" not in the constitution, there's no saying that Roeder might have spent his zealous energies trying to convince his fellow citizens to change the laws.

I've always seen the constitution as a grand bargain. We relinquish our right to violently impose our political will for the guaranteed right to argue our cause with our fellow citizen. If our arguments convince enough people, we can gain our objectives. If they don't, we can always try and try again. It works as long as everyone plays by the rules, but when SCOTUS intervened on behalf of one side, and allowed acts that are clearly violent to proceed without any reasonable hope of recourse, violence begot violence.

There are no winners in the Roeder case, we all lose. We need to take this issue back from the courts and take our chances with each other. We may not get what we want, but at least we'll always have a productive outlet for our dissent.
 
Ever wonder why the 'RIGHT' just ignore that part of our consitution about the separation of church and state...but OMG...don't ask any of them to give up their weapons and you'll be in for a Constitutional battle of mega proportions :rolleyes:
I'm sorry, I missed the part about separation of Church and state in the constitution. There was something in there about the Congress not establishing or preventing the free exercise of religion. Sounds more like power to the people to me.
 
I'm sorry, I missed the part about separation of Church and state in the constitution. There was something in there about the Congress not establishing or preventing the free exercise of religion. Sounds more like power to the people to me.
To follow a thread and to keep the topic going along on the next post...I always utilize the QUOTE OPTION...so I was posting a reply to Mare after she had posted this>>>>
Originally Posted by Mare Tranquillity The doctor wasn't commiting murder under US law, your religious beliefs though perhaps heartfelt are not US law. Technically what he did WAS murder, he comitted premeditated murder of an American citizen who was acting within the legal framework of our country's laws. Your opinion of someone's "innocence" or "guilt" is irrelevant unless you can prove it in court.
Hang in there it does get easier once you get the hang of posting and reading the connected threads ;)
 
The doctor wasn't commiting murder under US law, your religious beliefs though perhaps heartfelt are not US law. Technically what he did WAS murder, he comitted premeditated murder of an American citizen who was acting within the legal framework of our country's laws. Your opinion of someone's "innocence" or "guilt" is irrelevant unless you can prove it in court.
We live under a system of laws, not justice (certainly not in the moral sense). We develop laws to try and approximate a system of justice. Currently, under those laws, the abortionist does not accrue guilt for all the lives he's snuffed out, but his murderer does. My personal sense of justice condemns Tiller and exonerates Roeder, but, I'd still convict him if I was on the jury, because it's not possible to have justice in this world, only law. If we don't have that, what is left?
 
Helicitor said: (certainly not in the moral sense).

Isn't that exactly why we have the huge volume of law books in each and every law firm/courthouse...and not the wide variety of religious printed booklets/definitions/interpretations/unique faiths/plethora of listed sins...they all have their own unique idea of what's considered a morality issue and what isn't ;)

Basically someones morals or the lack there of isn't ours to judge...they get that in the 'END'...our poor humanity just has to follow the laws that have been set down for that specific purpose!
 
This type of behavior became inevitable when the supreme court decided to take the people's right to govern themselves out of their hands and act as unelected "rulers" of us all. Did Roeder commit murder--yes. Is he a nut--no. He is committed to his cause and sees no other way to prevail. If SCOTUS hadn't gotten involved and invented "rights" not in the constitution, there's no saying that Roeder might have spent his zealous energies trying to convince his fellow citizens to change the laws.

I've always seen the constitution as a grand bargain. We relinquish our right to violently impose our political will for the guaranteed right to argue our cause with our fellow citizen. If our arguments convince enough people, we can gain our objectives. If they don't, we can always try and try again. It works as long as everyone plays by the rules, but when SCOTUS intervened on behalf of one side, and allowed acts that are clearly violent to proceed without any reasonable hope of recourse, violence begot violence.

There are no winners in the Roeder case, we all lose. We need to take this issue back from the courts and take our chances with each other. We may not get what we want, but at least we'll always have a productive outlet for our dissent.

I'm curious if it is only human life that has intrinsic value in your eyes. Does someone who kills animals for fun or profit incur any guilt in your eyes?
 
Werbung:
Originally Posted by Helicitor
I'm sorry, I missed the part about separation of Church and state in the constitution. There was something in there about the Congress not establishing or preventing the free exercise of religion. Sounds more like power to the people to me.

To follow a thread and to keep the topic going along on the next post...I always utilize the QUOTE OPTION...so I was posting a reply to Mare after she had posted this>>>>

Hang in there it does get easier once you get the hang of posting and reading the connected threads ;)

Appreciate the advice. However, the point I was trying to make (perhaps a little too subtly) is that 'separation of church and state' does not exist in the language of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. The first amendment states 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...', the latter being the point I was trying to make. The separation argument often conflicts with free exercise.
 
Back
Top