'Necessity defense' in abortion case ruled out

'Necessity defense' in abortion case ruled out

www.msnbc.msn.com

WICHITA, Kan. - A judge on Tuesday ruled that a "necessity defense" in the trial of a man accused of killing Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller is "not viable" under state law.

The ruling was another blow to lawyers for 51-year-old Scott Roeder, who has confessed to fatally shooting Tiller on May 31 but says it was necessary to save unborn children.

Judge Warren Wilbert cited state Supreme Court opinions that the "necessity defense" in the case is not viable under Kansas law. But he left open the door to consider whether he will allow evidence on the use of force for the de

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well this is interesting.

I wonder what the final ruling would be? I mean the man flat out killed him.

I am not very familiar with the story.

Prosecutors have overwhelming evidence against Roeder, chiefly the witnesses who identified him during a July preliminary hearing as the shooter. Legal experts have said prosecutors likely will want to keep the trial limited to a straightforward murder case and avoid a discussion of abortion.

Eye witness testimoney eh?

Any thoughts?

~Keeper

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

He murdered someone som he should go to jail PERIOD. People take abortion way too seriously. I know it is a serious thing but why is it that people feel the need to butt into otrhers problems? Well hey, i guess thats america for you.

MessOnTheFED!

reply to post by MessOnTheFED!


People care about other people's problems because other people don't care about it themselves

in this case it's not even about another person, when you say other person your are referring about the parents, but this guy is only thinking about the baby, which might not even have crossed your mind when you said "other people's problems."

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Look abortion is not the case here. Murder is.

Would you rather it be illegal and people have to resort to back alley clinics? I wouldnt.

MessOnTheFED!

Maybe if it was his kid and the woman was headed out for this abortion for no other purpose to "get back at him" I could see the rationale and have some pity or empathy for the guy. Though he still took a life and should serve time accordingly.

But, as far as I know this wasnt his kid and he had no relations with the woman in question so I cant sympathize at all. The guy is just a murdering nut.

I don't particularly approve of late-term abortions such as those provided by Dr. Tiller. I think abortions should happen only rarely and only in the early weeks of pregnancy.

But my opinion is not the law.

The fact is abortion is legal in the United States, as it is most developed nations.

Roeder killed a man who was acting legally and, in Tiller's estimation, ethically. Tiller was an innocent man.

If you murder an innocent man then you must go to prison, hopefully for life.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


The judge have no other choice in this ruling, because giving the right for the defendant to hide behind "necessity defense" will open the door to anybody to hide also.

"Necessity of killing can apply to many things, like abusive husband, abusive father, drug dealers you name it.

We can all go on a killing rampage because we believe is a "necessity to kill" to save others.

reply to post by marg6043


Yes, a precedent such as that would cause a lot of problems now wouldn't it?

I have read more on the story since posting it, and in my opinion, he murdered an innocent men who as the above poster stated, was acting within his legal rights performing a legal service.

The man should go to jail, why this has even gone this long in the court is absurd.

~Keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Well with so many cases that has gone around getting sympathies from deeply religious fundamental judges, perhaps the defense was betting that this judge will be more leaning to a "necessity defense" even if it means been over ruled by higher court.

But as usual just one positive will make big difference.

If guilty this guy should have a choice between being fried regular or extra crispy. Make him an example of what happens when you violently inject yourself into strangers affairs... nosy people are annoying, he can lecture his cellmate / partner on how to behave.

If I was his defense attorney, I'd make things interesting, while pointing to bush as a war criminal suspect... by arguing that as a nation, the USA used the 'Necessity defense' to murder two entire countries based on propaganda that would never see the light of day as evidence in an open fair US court... if a president of the united states, our so called 'leader' of the free world (lol), thinks 'Necessity defense' is valid for the nation... the court should accept it as well.

As a matter of fact if the the 'Necessity defense' is valid for one US citizen to take a course of violent action and kill 1000s of people, all americans should have the same option...