Justifiable homicide defense considered in abortion doctor murder case

[proud2BlibKansan]

The suspect in the killing of abortion provider George Tiller is in talks with a prominent attorney who represents anti-abortion protesters and has long advocated justifiable homicide as a legal defense in such cases.

Scott Roeder, 51, has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and aggravated assault charges in the May 31 shooting death of Tiller in the foyer of his Wichita church. The Kansas City, Mo., man has refused to discuss his case, but he has told The Associated Press that Tiller's killing was justified to save "the lives of unborn children."

Roeder has court-appointed defense attorneys, but he apparently has now turned to Michael Hirsh, the lawyer who represented Paul Hill on appeal for killing a Florida abortion provider and his bodyguard in 1994. Hill was executed in 2003 after the Florida Supreme Court rejected Hirsh's argument that the judge should have allowed Hill to present to jurors his claim that the killings were justified to prevent abortions.

<skip>

But Hirsh discounted the suggestion that if a jury acquitted Roeder of murder based on such a defense, it would lead to an open season on abortion doctors.

"It has been open season on unborn children for over 30 years. I think on abortionists there will be a bag limit," Hirsh said in a phone interview this week from his Kennesaw, Ga., office.

more . . . http://www.kansascity.com/437/story/1412487.html

[vadawg]

1. yup i would say this is not unexpected, my partner thinks that doctors who perfrom abortions are

killing babies, so he can understand why someone would see this as legitimate, i gotta say that i can see a lot of people who will agree with this. I would hate to have to work this case, its gonna be a nightmare..

[malaise]

2. I think insurance companies who deny people heallth care

are guilty of murder. Would I be allowed to use a justifiable murder defense if I were stupid enough to believe that I have the right to kill those who deny others the right to life via health care?

The law defends a woman's right to an abortion. D. Tiller was assassinated by evil bullies. Throw away the fugging key. Who the fugg do these people think they are?

[vadawg]

4. well as i said some people believe killing a child at 2 months is no different than killing a child

at 12 weeks in the womb, there is a huge disconnect between what you believe and what others believe and i dont think it can ever be bridged..

[No Elephants]

14. "Some" people? BTW, this is a murder case, not an abortion case.

[vadawg]

19. okay mayby not some mayby a lot of people is a better way to put it...

some as in a number of people before you start thinking anything else....

[No Elephants]

27. My point is that you are very persistent about this, yet not stating what your own view is.

First, it is allegedly your gay partner, who is okay with being gay, yet is anti-choice. Then, it's some people. Then, it's a lot of people.

Also, you probably did not see my edit, in which I pointed out that this is a murder case, not an abortion case. You keep talking about it as though a doctor is being tried for abortion, versus some guy walking into a church and killing a doctor in cold blood.

[Lyric]

22. I don't give a damn what they "believe." The law is the law.

If they "believe" that homosexuality deserves the death penalty, and then they actually go out and kill gay people, then they deserve whatever the law nails them to the floor with.

"Belief" does not trump law. I'm not interested in bridging gaps with "believers." If they break laws, then let them rot in prison woth their "beliefs" for company.

[uppityperson]

31. a 12 wk fetus is not "a child". Anyone who says so is ignorant

Yes, there is a huge disconnect between someone who considers a 12 wk fetus "a child" and those of us who see it as a 12 wk fetus. "Some people" do not believe that people of different color than they are fully human either. Lots of "large disconnects", aren't there

[proud2BlibKansan]

39. "Some people"??

[havocmom]

42. So, if killing a doctor who does the procedure is justifiable homicide...

do any of us get to take out politicians who vote for needless war and/or pass policies that cost lives? It that justifiable homicide too?

Those would be my questions for a killer who was not under any personal threat from the man he killed.

[uppityperson]

45. only, in that poster's view, if you are a cop

reading below about cop partner and how police (should) be able to take the law into their own hands to protect the rest of us. blech

[WeDidIt]

65. The poster's cop partner is part of the reason

cops have a bad name.

[vadawg]

69. why because he believes abortion is wrong, and he has the ability to understand crazy people

he would and i would have shot him to protect doctor without missing a beat, and if we caught this case we would work the case as we do every other case we work, just because someone has a different belief dosent mean that they cant enforce laws that may be at odds with said belief.

[havocmom]

83. No, thinking being a cop gives extra rights and powers beyond laws

is the problem

Disclosure: There were cops in my family. Now, that out of the way, cops who think they ARE the law are a big problem. Enforcing the laws is fine. It is the few who think they are entitled to be judge and jury that are nothing but trouble

edited to add for clarity. Note to self, don't hit post during a household emergency

[WeDidIt]

84. No, because he justifies the homicide of Tiller

That makes him a piece of shit cop.

[LiberalFighter]

59. By their logic it should be okay to kill anyone that kills doctors.

[Blue_Tires]

104. that was my response as well....

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. +1

[AuntPatsy]

55. Nothing more need be said..perfect

[lunatica]

3. Being a nightmare shouldn't cloud the fact that he murdered someone

That's still against the law. And justifiable homicide is usually when the person doing the killing was in mortal danger and killed to save their own life.

Sure there will be a lot of turmoil, but simply following the law makes the crime clear cut. It also makes it premeditated which carries a larger sentence and even the death penalty (something I'm against).

[vadawg]

5. i am saying this case will be a nightmare from a professional point of view

and its a case i would not have wanted to get from a personal point of view..

[sandnsea]

10. Oh good lord, this is open and shut

We do not have the right to kill people because we disagree with the law.

At the very very least, the doctor wasn't in the act of "killing a baby" anyway, so there was no imminent danger to any "life" to justify this defense.

What garbage. Every thought that floats through your head does not have equal weight. Some need to be discarded immediately and this is one of them.

[vadawg]

12. what that i as a professional would not personally want this case do you not get

im not talking about the legality of the case, im talking about the crap that will ensue,

[sandnsea]

16. I would clamor for it

I would find a way to make sure every nitwit in this country understands not only the complete illegality of this kind of thinking, but the total immorality of it as well.

Have a disagreement about abortion, fine. But killing people over it? No way. Nobody got shot over an illegal war.

[vadawg]

21. then your nuts, these cases are career killers, nothing worse than national TV to kill any future

investigations... you could have it and id thank you...

[sandnsea]

26. Not where I live

This guy is a terrorist. Since when is locking up a murdering terrorist a "career killer"? Seriously, most of the country does not think like you.

[uppityperson]

38. prosecuting someone for breaking the law is a career killer? Thanx 4 making your views clear.

[AuntPatsy]

57. Your last line says it all...

[vadawg]

58. yup it can be, the publicity from this case would mean there were lots of assaignments you could

never work, publicity for cops is not a good thing all the time, for some it destroys their career path and means that they can never work as a NARC, undercover or with informants. Not to mention if there is a screw up then your name is forever linked with losing the case even if its not your fault...

[Catshrink]

78. You're a professional?

I'd expect a legal professional to have a better grasp of spelling, punctuation, and capitalization. If this is how you would write a brief, you're right up there with Orly Taitz.

Note: "You're" is a contraction for "you are." "Your" is a possessive that precedes a noun as in "your dogs" or "your house."

"Id" is one of the three parts of the psychic apparatus defined by Freud. "I'd" is a contraction meaning "I would."

On edit: I just read below that you're a police officer so you won't be writing legal briefs.

[vadawg]

80. plus like the rest of humanity i write shit online, especially when im on hour 16 and i know im not

going home for at least another 8 hours or so, but im glad the grammar police are on duty, carry on sir..

[Catshrink]

89. Not here...

a couple of mistakes we get -- we all make typos. But, an excessive number says something.

[No Elephants]

20. A professional what? Are you saying you are a lawyer or a judge?

[uppityperson]

37. yet you say "a nightmare from a professional viewpoint", leading me to wonder, what "profession" you

mean? Or do you mean from the crap a professional lawyer will get for trying to prosecute someone for breaking the law?

[lunatica]

17. I'm afraid you're probably right there. If the prosecutor wins he's in danger

As are the judge and the jury. I wouldn't want it either since it looks like the defense is going to use Sarah Palin arguments regarding the 'open season on babies' talk.

[sandnsea]

29. The danger is probably true

Which is all the more reason this "defense" should be rejected outright.

[proud2BlibKansan]

How so?

Roeder walked up to George Tiller and murdered him in cold blood. How is that a nightmare of a case?

[malaise]

46. There is no nightmare here

Dr. Tiller was assassinated by a right wing zealot. This was a hate crime - Murder One.

[WeDidIt]

66. Nope, the judge will not allow the defense

which is the point of these fuck's exercise.

[sandnsea]

7. I think executions are killing people

Does that mean I can start shooting prison guards?

Since when is taking the law into ones own hands "legitimate".

Honestly.

[vadawg]

9. okay you go ahead with that and see how many people agree with you

the whole point im making is that there are a hell of a lot of people who will agree with the OP's post and that killing an abortion doctor is justifiable, whether you like it or not, or what the law says. Hell tonnes of people here on DU disagree with a lot of laws, its the same out there in the real world people disagree with a whole lot of laws, some of them minor some major and some just batshit insane...

[sandnsea]

13. And a whole hell of a lot of people are fucking idiots

I don't know anybody who thinks like that - not anybody. Maybe you need to educate people on both law and morality or find a group of friends who don't justify walking into a church and gunning people down.

Or maybe you need to alter your definition of batshit insane.

[uppityperson]

40. +1

[fascisthunter]

33. I agree with her

most in my part of the country see this individual as a nut case/terrorist.

[Hansel]

72. My brother is strongly anti-abortion and thinks this guy should fry. nt

[No Elephants]

43. Not sure how it affects the cops who arrested someone for walking into a church and shooting someone

[sandnsea]

8. dupe

Although it's worth repeating.

[No Elephants]

11. He is gay, and has a problem with choice? Interesting. Usually the same people who

feel the way he does claim homosexuality is an "abomination."

[vadawg]

15. jeez i think theres a misunderstanding, im talking about my partner on the job

ie we are cops, guess everyone nowadays thinks of partner in a different way..

[sandnsea]

23. A cop who doesn't understand the law

Wonderful. But we're the evil ones for pointing out that cops are not always the most enlightened thinkers.

[vadawg]

62. no he understands the law, dosent mean that he cant understand why someone would do something

kinda like there are lots of cases were we understand why someone would do something illegal but we know its against the law, take the drug laws frinstance.

[WeDidIt]

68. Your partner is a lousy cop

and is the reason cops have a bad name.

[vadawg]

71. yeah okay, because he believes something different from you

difference is he can put his feelings on the back burner to do his job, same as most cops have to do, im not so sure you would have the ability to..

[WeDidIt]

82. "justifiable homicide"

'Nuff said.

[uppityperson]

99. If he believes, as you have intimated, that police are above the law, that is why he's a lousy cop

and why cops like him give decent police a bad name

[sandnsea]

85. Vigilante murder is not confusing

I would fire any cop who thought otherwise.

[No Elephants]

35. I would hope that a cop who thinks abortion is murder does not think walking into

a church to shoot someone is OK. At worst, he should think both are murder, one cureently perfectly legal and one not.

[uppityperson]

41. Aha, one of "those kinds" of cops, eh? One who doesn't think the law needs to be followed

good grif

[No Elephants]

47. He hasn't said that....yet. He's only stated "his partner's" belief. That doesn't mean

"his partner" would shoot a doctor or fail to arrest someone who did. That may be so, but he has not said that...yet.

[vadawg]

52. you got it there, if people would read what i said, i said that he understood why someone would do

it, he didnt justify it and neither do i, but there is a large minority who would justify it..

[vadawg]

61. how do you get from my saying he understands why people think that way

to he dosent think the law needs to be followed, i state that he can understand and so do i to an extent that if someone really believes that the doctor was killing babies then it makes sense that they believe that they are saving babies, not that this is a good defense or even legal, just that you can understand the thought process.

[blogslut]

48. Your partner

...needs to find another career.

[tekisui]

74. Your partner

is an ignorant asshole.

[vadawg]

76. why, because he believes something different from you.

[tekisui]

87. Because he is ignorant and an asshole.

[uppityperson]

100. cops that believe they are above the law are ignorant assholes?

I agree and thank you for replying so well

[Th1onein]

51. I also believe that doctors who perform abortions are killing babies.

But it does not necessarily follow that the murder of Dr. Tiller was justified in any way. It is not. And the fact that this attorney would make the comment about "bag limits" just shows how easily he can dehumanize people he doesn't agree with. His client has an idiot for a lawyer. And that lawyer is using him as a sacrificial lamb. When that jury puts him on Death Row, he'll figure it out, I guess.

[vadawg]

64. not disagreeing with you at all, and i dont know some here think im justifying it

im saying that people use all sorts of logic to justify their own law breaking and to some it makes sense..

[tekisui]

75. Your belief is not the law, thankfully.

It is sad we have to have these conversations on a Democratic discussion board.

[Th1onein]

77. So "Democrat" means that one must be pro-choice?

I don't think so, dear.

Actually, if you want to be consistent about these values, and you are going to use whether one is anti abortion or pro abortion as yardsticks, then according to YOUR view, Democrats should be pro capital punishment, and prowar. And Republicans should be antiwar and anti capital punishment.

Fortunately, your views are not applied on this forum.

[sandnsea]

86. Abortion is not killing living beings

Abortion is generally eliminating cells, much the same way they are eliminated in a miscarriage.

Regardless of your belief in first trimester abortion, late term abortion, particularly, is a medical necessity which is why the outrage at those doctors is entirely ignorant and uncalled for.

[Th1onein]

90. YOUR definition of abortion. Not MINE.

And there are many many people, and many Democrats, who agree with me, as I am sure you will find there are many that will agree with you on the definition of abortion. I don't have a problem with the fact that your definition is different from mine. I DO, however, have a problem with you defining me as someone other than a Democrat because of that difference.

I happen to think, as well, that most late term abortions are medical emergencies, and, in my opinion, they ALL should be. I think that, when they are medical necessities, people are IDIOTS to condemn them or the doctors who perform them. I also think that it is just that kind of simplistic thinking that keeps them IDIOTS and that it is the same kind of simplistic thinking that motivates people on the left to demonize those of us who believe that life begins at conception and characterize us as not being liberals.

[Th1onein]

91. YOUR definition of abortion. Not MINE.

And there are many many people, and many Democrats, who agree with me, as I am sure you will find there are many that will agree with you on the definition of abortion. I don't have a problem with the fact that your definition is different from mine. I DO, however, have a problem with you defining me as someone other than a Democrat because of that difference.

I happen to think, as well, that most late term abortions are medical emergencies, and, in my opinion, they ALL should be. I think that, when they are medical necessities, people are IDIOTS to condemn them or the doctors who perform them. I also think that it is just that kind of simplistic thinking that keeps them IDIOTS and that it is the same kind of simplistic thinking that motivates people on the left to demonize those of us who believe that life begins at conception and characterize us as not being liberals.

[sandnsea]

94. So why are the late term abortions most targeted

When they're the ones most likely to be medical necessities? Because this is an idiotic debate that is largely settled, but can only be stirred up with buckets of money and terms like "partial birth".

And I didn't say you aren't a Democrat. You've got me confused with someone else. I'd just say you need to stop being pro-fetus and start being pro-woman.

[Th1onein]

95. I cannot change my beliefs simply because you do not like them.

I believe that life begins at conception. I do not CHOOSE to believe that. It is simply what I know to be true. That doesn't make me any less pro-woman, either.

I don't know why the idiots target these procedures. Probably because it is one place where the loony right can get their "propaganda catapulted." They take advantage of people's ignorance.

[sandnsea]

105. Hmmm, F-I-R-E

Which do you save?
http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6507602,00.jpg

[Th1onein]

106. I'm sorry.

That is a false choice.

This is really getting silly now. Don't you think?

[sandnsea]

109. Nonsense. You know you'd save the child

Anybody would. An infant is not the same as a blastocyst or embryo, never will be. That's the false choice and it's also false morality. There is nothing holy about worshipping cells while real needs, both physical and spiritual, are ignored.

[REP]

108. When is conception? When the sperm penetrates the egg, when the fertilized egg implants, when?

"Conception" isn't a scientific or medical term. It's a fuzzy, sentimental term used bybthose who wish to deceptive.

[tekisui]

88. 'Dear", any anti-choice Democrat is not a true Democrat, IMO.

Why should you claim Dems should be prowar? and pro capital punishment? This should be good.

[Th1onein]

92. You apparently did not read my post, or think it through.

And, as I said in my previous post (it's posted twice, in fact), you are not the final arbiter of what a liberal is. Or on where one must stand in regards to this issue in order to be considered a Democrat.

[REP]

107. And when he's on Death Row, you can be his pen pal

[Lorien]

97. I don't know anyone who would agree with it

but then again, I don't associate with nutcases who hate women. My mother is an anti-abortionist, but murder is murder in her book. She wouldn't give him a pass for doing the very thing that he accused Tiller of doing.

[baldguy]

6. Since when is a terrorist assasination "justifiable homicide"?

[47of74]

50. That's my question

Since when is walking into a place of worship, walking up to a man, and shooting him in the head an act of justifiable homicide?

This attorney sounds like another reich wing terrorist to me.

[malaise]

93. Ding ding

Never!

[RoccoR5955]

18. There is no such thing as justifiable homocide.

Why do we kill people, who kill people, to show people that killing people is wrong?

This should be an open and shut case, and this domestic terrorist will be doing a lot of time in the Crowbar Hotel.

[vadawg]

28. in your world theres no such thing, in mine there sure as hell is and im glad

remember we kill people to stop them killing other people or us and i would say that is justified..

[No Elephants]

49. It's justified when danger is imminent only. You don't kill execute someone on the spot

because he killed someone last month or you assume he may kill you or someone else next month. If he's coming at you or your kid with a knife and obvious intent to kill, sure, go ahead and shoot him. Preferably in the hand or leg--just enough to stop him. Otherwise, you're a bigger murdering POS than he is.

[vadawg]

67. not saying this was, but if id been there and drawn and fired before he did

killing the assassin then that would be a righteous shoot and justifiable, but no way im ever going to shoot a hand or a foot, that just movie stuff, centre mass every time...

[Beer on a stick]

30. Sure there is. This just doesn't happen to be one of them.

In fact, I hope they use this defense. It would be a slam-dunk conviction.

[snake in the grass]

32. I disagree.

If the opportunity would have been there, it would have been totally justifiable to take Roeder out as he approached Tiller and drew his weapon. I'd also add, if someone were to enter my home with the intent of doing me or my family harm and I would have the chance, I would not hesitate to end that person's existence with as much violence as possible.

But that's just me.

[geek tragedy]

56. So, killing someone in self-defense or defense of another should

get a person landed in prison?

[FreakinDJ]

24. Doing God's work? - instigating murder

"It has been open season on unborn children for over 30 years. I think on abortionists there will be a bag limit," Hirsh said in a phone interview this week from his Kennesaw, Ga., office.

Oh Great

We have more from the lunatic Fringe right after the guy who kidnapped the girl for 18 years and had 2 children from molesting her, and believes he was doing "God's Work"

[proud2BlibKansan]

44. 'bag limit'

Interesting choice of words there.

[FreakinDJ]

53. Evidently part of the "Warrior for Christ" sect

The "Fire and Brimstone" folks have evolved into the "Guns for God" crowd with 1/2 of them clearly cheerleading for Race Wars

[snake in the grass]

25. In every detail, I wish him the same amount of success with Roeder...

...as with Paul Hill.

[fascisthunter]

36. he'll lose... and then I will applaud

this person should be charged as a terrorist.

[slackmaster]

54. If that's the best defense he can come up with, this is good news

The law is clear.

[moondust]

60. And if somebody kills some military recruiters?

It's justified in order to "save the lives of Afghanis and Iraqis?"

[DFW]

63. I don't get the "justifiers." Abortion is legal. Murder One is not. Period

Innocent men have been put to death in Huntsville by the State of Texas. By the same logic
of "justifiable homicide" that Roeder's lawyer states, it would be justifiable homicide to
walk up to any employee of the Huntsville execution team and kill them. After all, they will
certainly kill again, and legally. Is the family of an innocent man scheduled to die justified
in killing people who work at Hunstville?

My personal view is that abortion is not murder, but that the death penalty should be abolished,
contradictory as that may seem to some (and I accept that), just for the record. I do not believe
that a fetus is a fully formed person, therefore my support of choice. I do believe that the
criminal justice system is not flawless (especially in Texas!), and that the execution of one
innocent is worse than not executing all that are.

That having been said, if the laws of Kansas say that the penalty for Murder One is death, well
Roeder did a pre-meditated killing with malice of forethought in front of many witnesses in broad
daylight, and expresses no remorse whatsoever. He must have known that he stood a good chance of
dying by the sword he lived by. I may be against the death penalty, but he obviously isn't. I'd
rather see him rot in solitary for the next 25 years, and go slowly insane with his personal demons.
Should he be set free, well, with his declared defense of "justifiable homicide," I'd say he has just
provided cover for all who fear him and those who think like him to take similar counter-measures.
It's up to his peers in Kansas whether they want to start down that road or not.

[proud2BlibKansan]

70. He won't get the death penalty

He was not charged with a crime punishable by death in Kansas. He can get life in prison.

[DFW]

73. And I hope he does. n/t

[Karenina]

81. Without the possibility of parole. n/t

[slackmaster]

98. Criminal defense attorneys say all kinds of bizarre things

It's their job. Don't worry about it.

[DefenseLawyer]

102. No, it's really not.

Mr. Hirsh is not a criminal defense attorney. He is an activist with a law degree. He's one of the operators of Operation Rescue and styles himself a "First Amendment Lawyer" according to Martindale Hubbell. Although he was involved in an unsuccessful appeal in the Hill case, I would venture a guess that he has never tried a criminal case in his life. He's Orly Taitz not Clarence Darrow. It is not the job of a criminal defense attorney, of which I am one, to "say bizarre things". It is the defense attorney's job to make sure his client gets a fair trial and to test the government's evidence such that a jury is able to better judge whether that evidence is reliable. No actual criminal defense attorney would raise a defense that would fail on it's face and guarantee his client's conviction just to make some political point and no court is going to allow a jury instruction on justifiable homicide in Mr. Roeder's case.
.

[peace frog]

79. Paul Hill was executed in 2003

despite Hirsh's representation at his appeal. I predict Hirsh will have the same lack of success with Scott Roeder's murder trial, and rightly so.

[11 Bravo]

96. Have at it, Roeder. And later, when you're burning in Hell ...

you and Paul Hill can discuss how well the Hirsch defense worked.

[NashVegas]

101. I Guess His Beliefs Weren't That Strong, After All

If the asshole in question isn't willing to accept the crime's punishment.

[moriah]

103. He's angling for an insanity plea -- no way he can actually think that would fly. n/t