catsittingstill: (Default)
[personal profile] catsittingstill
Terrorist and "Pro-Life" activist Scott Roeder, who brutally murdered Dr. George Tiller (with the help of Operation Rescue who kindly posted Tiller's location and movements for easy reference), has been found guilty of murder in the first degree.  It is interesting to note that fellow "Pro-Life" terrorist Michael Bray was in the audience at the time.  One hopes he also learned something.

This isn't the end of the story.  Plenty of people will be willing to donate to this terrorist's "cause," so he will have money to appeal his case.  But it is a start.  I'm glad.

Date: 2010-01-30 11:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bigbumble.livejournal.com
I wonder if certain commentators went past the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" standard for free speech. Massive dollar lawsuits against their respective organizations might also have an educational effect.

Date: 2010-01-31 01:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] catsittingstill.livejournal.com
It is very difficult to prosecute such "incitement to violence" versus free speech issues, I think (IANAL, so maybe I'm wrong about this). Nor am I excited about letting Rush Limbaugh be the poster boy for free speech.

But I agree with you that they are also responsible for creating a climate in which terrorist sympathizers encourage the murder of doctors for the purpose of making both health care workers and women afraid.

Date: 2010-01-30 11:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sffilk.livejournal.com
I've not heard of Michael Bray, so I cannot intelligently comment on him.

The problem with any appeal is that he freely admitted that he killed Dr. Tiller (z"l) and that he did it of his own free will.

Date: 2010-01-31 05:09 am (UTC)
deborah_c: (Default)
From: [personal profile] deborah_c
I think there are at least two avenues for appeal: continue the argument at trial that his religious belief compelled him to do this (and that the judge was unreasonable to exclude involuntary manslaughter), or a more pragmatic insanity defence (possibly with bonus "ineffectual counsel" to account for it not being used originally). I think the former is more likely, since he's happy to be a martyr, but IANAL (and neither do I play one on TV ;-)

Date: 2010-01-31 01:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] catsittingstill.livejournal.com
I agree--he's not just happy to be a martyr; he wallows in it, and his fellow terrorists are helping him with both hands.

Date: 2010-01-31 01:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] catsittingstill.livejournal.com
Yeah, they'll appeal saying the conviction should have been only for manslaughter (claiming he had "an unreasonable but honest conviction" that killing Dr. Tiller was the only way to prevent Dr. Tiller immediately murdering someone.)

Never mind the fact that, even if abortion *were* murder, to imagine that Dr. Tiller might perform an abortion at his church, during church services, you'd have to be not just crazy, but hallucinating.

And Roeder is arguably crazy--he's certainly not mentally normal--but no crazier than any other stone cold killer who murders someone and then goes out for lunch. There's no indication that he was hallucinating Dr. Tiller about to perform an abortion.

Date: 2010-01-31 02:03 pm (UTC)
occams_pyramid: (Default)
From: [personal profile] occams_pyramid
Hmm. So any convinced christian is liable to kill people due to their beliefs? Better lock them all up in the interests of the safety of the public then?

I assume that those christians who support this legal theory would wish it to be applied equally to adherents of other religions? That is, that they would actively support any muslims who killed people due to religious beliefs, say by crashing aircraft into them?

Bulk shipment of cans of worms, meet can opener.

Date: 2010-01-31 06:28 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] catsittingstill.livejournal.com
industrial strength automatic can opener :-)

Date: 2010-01-31 09:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dan-ad-nauseam.livejournal.com
Roeder has no serious chance on appeal. The court ruled that the evidence showed he didn't act to prevent an imminent threat, but instead planned the attack. That has never been considered sufficient evidence to present a manslaughter issue for the jury. Basically, the defendant has to show action in hot blood and reasonable provocation. This wasn't hot blood.

Bray, unfortunately, has already criticized the verdict.

Date: 2010-01-31 10:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] catsittingstill.livejournal.com
I am relieved to hear this, but had the impression that he was planning to appeal (perhaps he doesn't realize he has no serious chance, or perhaps the Pro-Life community sees this as a great opportunity for publicity and doesn't care that he has no chance.)

I don't see any way this could be described as hot blood, seeing as he admitted going to the church the week before to kill Tiller, and coming back a week later to try again--that would seem to allow a reasonable cooling off period.

I hope they lock that murderer up until the day he dies.

Profile

catsittingstill: (Default)
catsittingstill

February 2024

S M T W T F S
    1 23
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Nov. 5th, 2025 02:22 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios