• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trial to Begin in Abortion-Doctor Killing

If we go by the legal definition, then Jerry must maintain that the doctor was innocent, and was murdered in cold blood. He can't have it both ways.

I would agree that this is a clear-cut case of murder, which is why I keep insisting that it is not a terrorist act.
 
Depends on how you define terrorist. He is not being charged with terrorism, but he does meet the definition of terrorist I use.

How does he meet the definition of a terrorist?
 
And the US justice system.

Correction. The Kansas Justice System. I'm surprised this guy hasn't been given community service already. You are being intentionally obtuse Ethereal.
 
I would agree that this is a clear-cut case of murder, which is why I keep insisting that it is not a terrorist act.

It might not be a terrorist act if the killer had done in the doctor in some dark alley. But he walked into a church full of men, women, and children, and carried out the act there, thus terrorizing ALL of them. What does that make him? A terrorist.
 
How does he meet the definition of a terrorist?

He used violence to promote a political agenda and create terror is my belief. It makes an assumption on motive, but motive without confession is always assumption.
 
Correction. The Kansas Justice System. I'm surprised this guy hasn't been given community service already. You are being intentionally obtuse Ethereal.

If it's so obvious that he's a domestic terrorist then why hasn't the Federal government brought charges against him?

Why do you presume to know his intent? Can you read minds?
 
Last edited:
1) A shooting, for the purpose of intimidation, to change policy, IS terrorism. It's the dictionary definition.

Scott Roeder did not shoot Dr. Tiller for the purpose of intimidation or to influence policy. Scott Roeder shot Dr. Tiller to stop Dr. Tiller from performing late-term abortions.

2) You use the legal definition to define him as NOT a terrorist.

Scott Roeder does not fit the definition. This not my opinion but an objective fact anyone can measure and observe for themselves. Meeting a few criteria is not sufficient, Scott Roeder must meet them all, which he does not.

3) But the law says the doctor committed no crime.

That means while Scott Roeder is not a terrorist, he might still be some other kind of criminal.

4) However, you do not apply the law there, as you did in saying that the killer is not a terrorist. You call the doctor a mass murderer, even though the law says he is not.

Please note the words highlighted in red. The fact that they are spelled differently is a key indicator that they mean different things.

My personal opinion aside, Scott Roeder may be a murderer, but he's not a terrorist.
 
He used violence to promote a political agenda and create terror is my belief. It makes an assumption on motive, but motive without confession is always assumption.

And what evidence do you have that this was his motive?

Of course, you're correct that a motive cannot be conclusively established without a confession, but that doesn't mean you can assign someone a motive absent any evidence.
 
If it's so obvious that he's a domestic terrorist then why hasn't the Federal government brought charges against him?

Why do presume to know his intent? Can you read minds?

Because we are going by a legal definition here, and not the definition that we find in the dictionary. Hence my contention that Jerry is dishonest. If we go by the legal definition, then, perhaps, the man is not a terrorist. If that is the case, then Jerry cannot call the doctor a mass murderer without exposing himself as dishonest, because, under the law, the doctor committed no crime.
 
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. I know, it's fun to play stupid games, but in this case, he intentionally shot an innocent(in the eyes of the law) man. No one is arguing this to my knowledge. If this is the case, he is, and most likely will be found to be, guilty of a crime. Little retard semantic games won't change this.

Sure, guilty of a crime on the level of a parking violation. That's all Dr. Tiller was worth.
 
It might not be a terrorist act if the killer had done in the doctor in some dark alley. But he walked into a church full of men, women, and children, and carried out the act there, thus terrorizing ALL of them. What does that make him? A terrorist.

Anyone who is proximate to a heinous crime will be terrorized. That doesn't mean the perpetrator of the crime is a terrorist. There has to be a clear-cut political and social motive in order for it to qualify as terrorism.
 
Depends on how you define terrorist. He is not being charged with terrorism, but he does meet the definition of terrorist I use.

He doesn't meet the definition the US Government uses.
 
Anyone who is proximate to a heinous crime will be terrorized. That doesn't mean the perpetrator of the crime is a terrorist. There has to be a clear-cut political and social motive in order for it to qualify as terrorism.

OK, let's go with that. Was the doctor a mass murderer? If you maintain he was, then show me with facts. Not the Bible, or what one group of people believe over another group of people. Show me the legal facts.
 
OK, let's go with that. Was the doctor a mass murderer? If you maintain he was, then show me with facts. Not the Bible, or what one group of people believe over another group of people. Show me the legal facts.

Ethereal was not discussing Dr. Tiller in that post.
 
If it's so obvious that he's a domestic terrorist then why hasn't the Federal government brought charges against him?

For the same reason it won't file charges against just anybody who associates with ALF. Too inconsistent and indebted to the people who support these acts.

Why do you presume to know his intent? Can you read minds?

Considering the circumstances of the murder and the man's history, this is nothing less than a terrorist attack.
 
OK, let's go with that. Was the doctor a mass murderer? If you maintain he was, then show me with facts. Not the Bible, or what one group of people believe over another group of people. Show me the legal facts.

I never implied that he was. Whatever argument you're having with Jerry doesn't concern me. I'm just saying this does not qualify as a terrorist act.
 
Some of you STILL aren't using the difference between MORALS and LAWS. Let me repost this... though I'm still expecting more links to Webster as this thread progresses:

There are two issues here. The first is a legal one. Was what Dr. Tiller doing illegal? Absolutely not. Was what Scott Roeder did illegal? Absolutely. These are legal facts and are not disputable.

The second issue is a moral one. Was what Dr. Tiller doing immoral? Was what Scott Roeder did immoral? That is for each of us to decide, and IS disputable.
 
I never implied that he was. Whatever argument you're having with Jerry doesn't concern me. I'm just saying this does not qualify as a terrorist act.

OK. LOL. I understand. I maintain that many people will see this as a terrorist act, and many won't. Legally, it probably isn't. Jerry cites US code to show that it isn't. OK, I can accept that. On the other hand, Jerry calls Dr. Tiller a mass murderer, when the clear definition, under the law, is that he wasn't. That is why I maintain that Jerry is being dishonest, in citing the law in one case and not the other. He is citing the law only when it suits his purpose. That IS dishonest.
 
For the same reason it won't file charges against just anybody who associates with ALF. Too inconsistent and indebted to the people who support these acts.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Considering the circumstances of the murder and the man's history, this is nothing less than a terrorist attack.


Okay, let's expand on that. What is it about the circumstances of the murder and the man's history that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt his intent was to effectuate political and social intimidation?
 
I can see it now. Tomorrow night I will log on. This thread will be 80 pages long... mostly filled with posts of people arguing over semantics, rather than the issue.

Just another DP thread.

And on this agreeable note don't think i'll read anymore of this thread.
 
Have a Mod edit your OP to remove the claim and we'll go from there. As long as the claim is in the OP, you're still making it.

Nope. To me, it was a terroristic act, and I stand by my statement. However, I will make an admission that, legally, he isn't.

Now how about that doctor? I know you think he is a mass murderer because you said it. Under the law, is he?
 
OK - Legally he isn't. Now how about the doctor? Was he a mass murderer?

That has yet to be seen. I don't say that out of opinion or my distaste of late-term abortion, but because many of those abortions are still of questionable legality.

Until the legality of those abortions is resolved, I can't say.
 
Back
Top Bottom