• 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

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Jury selection begins Monday in the trial of Scott Roeder, who is accused of killing a Kansas doctor known for performing late-term abortions.


Police and prosecutors say Mr. Roeder walked into the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita last May 31 and shot Dr. George Tiller once in the head.

Now here is the part I find disturbing:

Judge Wilbert also said he was open to the defense presenting evidence that Mr. Roeder might be guilty not of first-degree murder, which carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison, but of the far lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter, which carries a sentence of about five years.

Manslaughter? 5 years for premeditating a murder, then walking through the door and shooting someone in the head? I don't buy it. If this is how it turns out for crazy radical righties, then would crazy radical lefties be justified for only a 5 year sentence for assassinating the president because they feel he is killing "innocent" people in Afghanistan? In either case, murder is murder, under the laws of the land.

If I had my way, this killer would be tried as a terrorist, and given the maximum sentence that is usually reserved for those who commit acts of terrorism, because this is exactly what it was - an act of terrorism.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
All he said was that he would allow the defense to make such an argument; he never said he sympathized with it.
 
Now here is the part I find disturbing:



Manslaughter? 5 years for premeditating a murder, then walking through the door and shooting someone in the head? I don't buy it. If this is how it turns out for crazy radical righties, then would crazy radical lefties be justified for only a 5 year sentence for assassinating the president because they feel he is killing "innocent" people in Afghanistan? In either case, murder is murder, under the laws of the land.

Article is here.

Since I applaud the man for taking out a baby serial killer I hope he gets the most lenient sentence possible assuming that is why he performed a late term abortion on a late term abortion provider.


If I had my way, this killer would be tried as a terrorist, and given the maximum sentence that is usually reserved for those who commit acts of terrorism, because this is exactly what it was - an act of terrorism.

The act of killing one person is not a act of terrorism. Heck if he went around just killing abortion doctors he still would not be a terrorist, he would be just a serial killer ironically taking out serial killers. If he blew up abortion clinics then yeah that would be a terrorist act.

I am sure many abortionist and closet abortionist will harp on me for making my comments but **** them. If this guy killer someone they viewed to be no different than Jeffery Dhamer or Charles Manson they would not be condemning Scott Roeder. Nor would the cowards who consider themselves to be anti-abortion(not the phonies who say they think abortion is morally wrong but not morally wrong enough to want it illegal, but those are actually opposed to abortion) but are worried about the abortionist (yes the same people who have no problem with babies being killed) painting anti-abortionist as loons.
 
Last edited:
If I had my way, this killer would be tried as a terrorist, and given the maximum sentence that is usually reserved for those who commit acts of terrorism, because this is exactly what it was - an act of terrorism.

I would like to see this, as well.

It does sound like the judge is allowing those two defenses as a compromise, since Kline's first choice defense, justifiable homicide, is not an option in Kansas.

I do not, however, think that Kline's defense will be at all successful.
 
I am hopeful that the argument does not fare well. I find it hard to see any situation where this is anything other than premeditated murder. I doubt the terrorism charge would work well, though to my mind it is certainly possible to see the argument. He certainly terrorized some innocent churchgoers.

I do find it funny how conservatives, supposedly the law and order bunch, are only law and order when it's convenient. At least I am consistent, if you do the crime, you deserve the punishment.
 
He should get the death penalty......;)
He's no different than any other extremist......:2mad:
 
Now here is the part I find disturbing:



Manslaughter? 5 years for premeditating a murder, then walking through the door and shooting someone in the head? I don't buy it. If this is how it turns out for crazy radical righties, then would crazy radical lefties be justified for only a 5 year sentence for assassinating the president because they feel he is killing "innocent" people in Afghanistan? In either case, murder is murder, under the laws of the land.

If I had my way, this killer would be tried as a terrorist, and given the maximum sentence that is usually reserved for those who commit acts of terrorism, because this is exactly what it was - an act of terrorism.

Article is here.
I suspect the defense would like to have the charge available as a fall-back position should the jury not agree on first-degree murder.
 
Since I applaud the man for taking out a baby serial killer I hope he gets the most lenient sentence possible assuming that is why he performed a late term abortion on a late term abortion provider.

The act of killing one person is not a act of terrorism. Heck if he went around just killing abortion doctors he still would not be a terrorist, he would be just a serial killer ironically taking out serial killers. If he blew up abortion clinics then yeah that would be a terrorist act.

I am sure many abortionist and closet abortionist will harp on me for making my comments but **** them. If this guy killer someone they viewed to be no different than Jeffery Dhamer or Charles Manson they would not be condemning Scott Roeder. Nor would the cowards who consider themselves to be anti-abortion(not the phonies who say they think abortion is morally wrong but not morally wrong enough to want it illegal, but those are actually opposed to abortion) but are worried about the abortionist (yes the same people who have no problem with babies being killed) painting anti-abortionist as loons.

The origin, nature, and development of life and consciousness is too mysterious for anyone to be able to justify their confidence in the humanity or non-humanity or life or non-life of fetuses. If it wasn't, abortion would be uncontroversially legal or illegal. Disagreeing with the law and wanting it to be changed is one thing, but disregarding the mysteriousness it is based on to condemn a slain late-term abortionist in such strong terms is not a justified course of action.

Secondly, having opinions is not courageous. Voicing them can be, but not over the Internet.
 
Last edited:
Since I applaud the man for taking out a baby serial killer I hope he gets the most lenient sentence possible assuming that is why he performed a late term abortion on a late term abortion provider.




The act of killing one person is not a act of terrorism. Heck if he went around just killing abortion doctors he still would not be a terrorist, he would be just a serial killer ironically taking out serial killers. If he blew up abortion clinics then yeah that would be a terrorist act.

I am sure many abortionist and closet abortionist will harp on me for making my comments but **** them. If this guy killer someone they viewed to be no different than Jeffery Dhamer or Charles Manson they would not be condemning Scott Roeder. Nor would the cowards who consider themselves to be anti-abortion(not the phonies who say they think abortion is morally wrong but not morally wrong enough to want it illegal, but those are actually opposed to abortion) but are worried about the abortionist (yes the same people who have no problem with babies being killed) painting anti-abortionist as loons.

Then, perhaps, you won't complain if a pro-abortion sharpshooter takes him out. After all, you found it a good thing to take out the doctor. Someone on the other side must feel the same way about taking out the killer.

Anarchy, anyone? Or are we a nation of laws?
 
Hopefully murder one sticks.

From the very limited amount of information I have, murder one sounds like the right call unless there is some kind of evidence he didn't plan it and did it on the spur of the moment.

Murder 2 should be thrown in but not manslaughter
 
Since I applaud the man for taking out a baby serial killer I hope he gets the most lenient sentence possible assuming that is why he performed a late term abortion on a late term abortion provider.

Regardless of what YOU think about abortion, it is not illegal in the country. Why should people have to die for performing legal medical procedures? For that matter, even if it was illegal, Mr. Roeder had no right to take the law into his own hands.

jamesrage said:
The act of killing one person is not a act of terrorism. Heck if he went around just killing abortion doctors he still would not be a terrorist, he would be just a serial killer ironically taking out serial killers. If he blew up abortion clinics then yeah that would be a terrorist act.

I'm not sure I see the difference. Terrorists don't have to kill multiple people for it to be terrorism. The general goal of terrorism (I know I'm oversimplifying a bit here) is to murder civilians to advance a political agenda, which is exactly what Mr. Roeder did.

jamesrage said:
I am sure many abortionist and closet abortionist will harp on me for making my comments but **** them. If this guy killer someone they viewed to be no different than Jeffery Dhamer or Charles Manson they would not be condemning Scott Roeder.

If you had evidence that Jeffrey Dahmer or Charles Manson was breaking the law, what would be the better course of action: A) Turn that evidence over to the police so that they can arrest him and try him in accordance with the law, B) Shoot him while he's sitting in church and not bothering anyone.
 
I do find it funny how conservatives, supposedly the law and order bunch, are only law and order when it's convenient. At least I am consistent, if you do the crime, you deserve the punishment.

I hope you realize you're generalizing here. While there are many people who applaud what the guy did (jamesrage, for example), I think that the consensus even among conservatives would be that the rule of law must be upheld, and that what this guy did was premeditated murder, which usually earns one either a life in prison or the death penalty.
 
I hope you realize you're generalizing here. While there are many people who applaud what the guy did (jamesrage, for example), I think that the consensus even among conservatives would be that the rule of law must be upheld, and that what this guy did was premeditated murder, which usually earns one either a life in prison or the death penalty.

I think the point wasn't to insult conservatives so much as the shame jamesrage.
 
I am hopeful that the argument does not fare well. I find it hard to see any situation where this is anything other than premeditated murder. I doubt the terrorism charge would work well, though to my mind it is certainly possible to see the argument. He certainly terrorized some innocent churchgoers.

I do find it funny how conservatives, supposedly the law and order bunch, are only law and order when it's convenient. At least I am consistent, if you do the crime, you deserve the punishment.

And once again Redress provides a vivid display of why assumption is the mother of all **** ups.
 
Now here is the part I find disturbing:



Manslaughter? 5 years for premeditating a murder, then walking through the door and shooting someone in the head? I don't buy it. If this is how it turns out for crazy radical righties, then would crazy radical lefties be justified for only a 5 year sentence for assassinating the president because they feel he is killing "innocent" people in Afghanistan? In either case, murder is murder, under the laws of the land.

If I had my way, this killer would be tried as a terrorist, and given the maximum sentence that is usually reserved for those who commit acts of terrorism, because this is exactly what it was - an act of terrorism.

Article is here.

It wasn't terrorism.

Please keep the hysteria to a minimum :2wave:
 
I do find it funny how conservatives, supposedly the law and order bunch, are only law and order when it's convenient. At least I am consistent, if you do the crime, you deserve the punishment.

Dr. Tiller deserved to die, I'm glad we agree.

Dr. Tiller should have been tried and put to the needle, instead of an assassin's bullet, I'm sure we agree there also.
 
From the very limited amount of information I have, murder one sounds like the right call unless there is some kind of evidence he didn't plan it and did it on the spur of the moment.

Murder 2 should be thrown in but not manslaughter
The state would have to prove premeditation. It's not up to the defense to disprove it.

Second-degree murder would be extremely hard to prove, given that he laid in wait for Tiller.
 
Dr. Tiller deserved to die, I'm glad we agree.

Dr. Tiller should have been tried and put to the needle, instead of an assassin's bullet, I'm sure we agree there also.

Dr. Tiller committed no crime.
 
The origin, nature, and development of life and consciousness is too mysterious for anyone to be able to justify their confidence in the humanity or non-humanity or life or non-life of fetuses.

He was a late term abortion provider,so many of the babies he did kill were most likely viable,therefore they were capable of consciousness.


If it wasn't, abortion would be uncontroversially legal or illegal.

The lines are pretty much drawn in the sand on the abortion debate.Either you are actually against abortion because you view that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being or you are for abortion and you view an unborn child as nothing more than a toe nail or kidney or some other expendable part of the body. I think anyone who is actually against abortion should applaud the actions of Scott Reoder while only the abortionist should be the ones condemning Scott Roeder's actions.


Disagreeing with the law and wanting it to be changed is one thing, but disregarding the mysteriousness it is based on to condemn a slain late-term abortionist in such strong terms is not a justified course of action.
When the law turns a blind eye or refuses to act then vigilantism is sometimes the only way.

Secondly, having opinions is not courageous. Voicing them can be, but not over the Internet.


A lot of people who claim to actually be against abortion are cowards in regard to this matter. They are worried that abortionist(sickos who have no problem with the life of innocent human beings being taken)will somehow view them as sickos for applauding the efforts of someone who does take out a late term abortion provider.
 
Then, perhaps, you won't complain if a pro-abortion sharpshooter takes him out.


Yes I would condemn the pro-abortion sharpshooter. Because the pro-abortion sharp shooter would be killing someone for killing a serial killer.

After all, you found it a good thing to take out the doctor.

Thats because the "doctor" was nothing more that a baby serial killer. So it is not the same thing.Roeder only killed one human being and that human being was not innocent.Tiller the Baby serial killer most likely killed hundreds of human beings who were all innocent.

Someone on the other side must feel the same way about taking out the killer.


I imagine so. I know why abortionist condemn Scott Roeder. In their eyes Roeder took out someone who was only removing the equivalent of a toenail. If Tiller the Baby serial killer specialized in killing adults and got away with it I seriously doubt most of them would be condemning someone for killing Tiller.


Anarchy, anyone? Or are we a nation of laws?

If the serial killer's victims were adults and the law refused to do anything about him, would you condemn someone for taking out that serial killer or would you be just fine with that serial killer being allowed to continue to still kill? If he is taken out he will be unable to kill anymore.
 
I hope you realize you're generalizing here. While there are many people who applaud what the guy did (jamesrage, for example), I think that the consensus even among conservatives would be that the rule of law must be upheld, and that what this guy did was premeditated murder, which usually earns one either a life in prison or the death penalty.

It was aimed at James, I phrased it poorly. I apologize to those not referred to. It was not meant to be a blanket statement, I should have done better.
 
Back
Top Bottom