PDA

View Full Version : Roeder's Justified Murder Defense



YardleyLabs
01-28-2010, 04:13 PM
With all the complaints about the possibility of terrorists being allowed to proclaim their ideology if given the platform of a trial, why are the same complainers saying nothing about Scott Roeder being permitted to argue that the murder of Dr. George Tiller was justified to prevent Tiller from performing additional legal abortions? If it is appropriate to permit Roeder to present this argument, isn't it equally appropriate for terrorists to present a defense arguing that their actions are justified?

Franco
01-28-2010, 04:21 PM
No!

There is a huge difference between Islamic terrorist wanting to blow up as many people as they can and giving them rights that Americans are given as well as an international media platform to spew thier hate and a cold-blooded murderer that happens to be a U S citizen.

To all the above; Hang 'em high!

YardleyLabs
01-28-2010, 04:25 PM
Unless you rewrite the Constitution, the right of due process and trial by jury are not a rights of citizenship, they are rights of anyone being charged with a crime in the United States. That is an issue that has been adjudicated repeatedly and is cleared "settled" law. That is not true for all rights. In some cases, such as rights to vote, the rights are restricted to citizens. But that is not the case for our justice system. By the way, not all terrorists are foreigners.

Pals
01-28-2010, 04:31 PM
Roeder is a fruitcake Jeff.

Terrorists proclaiming war on the United States of America belong in military court. Jihad is exactly what these islamic nutjobs are doing, a threat to our nation, whether they be foreign or home grown. Pretty sure Roeder and his loony ilk have proclaimed war on abortion doctors, not the USA.

Franco
01-28-2010, 04:34 PM
[quote=YardleyLabs;558614]Unless you rewrite the Constitution, the right of due process and trial by jury are not a rights of citizenship, they are rights of anyone being charged with a crime in the United States. That is an issue that has been adjudicated repeatedly and is cleared "settled" law. That is not true for all rights. In some cases, such as rights to vote, the rights are restricted to citizens. But that is not the case for our justice system. By the way, not all terrorists are foreigners.[/quote

They should have never been charged in the United States. The fact that Obama wants to read them Maranda Rights is his folly. The Muslims should be dealt with by a Military Tribunal...then hanged!

How many millions (maybe over a billion) will it cost tax payers to defend the scum in the USA? As a tax payer, I want the Dems to quit wasting my money!

Uncle Bill
01-28-2010, 04:35 PM
With all the complaints about the possibility of terrorists being allowed to proclaim their ideology if given the platform of a trial, why are the same complainers saying nothing about Scott Roeder being permitted to argue that the murder of Dr. George Tiller was justified to prevent Tiller from performing additional legal abortions? If it is appropriate to permit Roeder to present this argument, isn't it equally appropriate for terrorists to present a defense arguing that their actions are justified?

Somehow, your view of this is not surprising to me. You need lots of believers in Christ to pray for your unGodly soul.

It's never hard for an atheist to also fall into the camp that finds in favor for the traitors of this nation. They think they are supporting fairness, and seldom see how unAmerican their views really are.

What you have just implied should be offensive to every citizen in this nation that has worn a uniform to defend what this nation stands for. Unfortunately, that also means we have to defend your right to issue that form of crap...but we don't have to stand by and not refute it.

UB

Franco
01-28-2010, 04:45 PM
You need lots of believers in Christ to pray for your unGodly soul.



UB, I find this just as unAmerican as what Yardley posted!

I know many Jews who fought in WW2, Korea, Vietnam and other conflicts. I know some awesome Americans that are Taoist and Hindu as well.

I have no problem with people wanting to pray! It's just when they think they need to pray for me or anyone else.

Thomas Jefferson was a Deist. I'm Agnostic and believe in freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

road kill
01-28-2010, 05:02 PM
With all the complaints about the possibility of terrorists being allowed to proclaim their ideology if given the platform of a trial, why are the same complainers saying nothing about Scott Roeder being permitted to argue that the murder of Dr. George Tiller was justified to prevent Tiller from performing additional legal abortions? If it is appropriate to permit Roeder to present this argument, isn't it equally appropriate for terrorists to present a defense arguing that their actions are justified?
Uhh, where were the terrorists taken into custody and by who?
Where was Roeder taken into custody and by who?

And, am I to understand that pro-life in your mind is the same as jihad?
(not justifying the taking of a life by either!!!)

I see, they are identical situations, aren't they???:rolleyes:




rk

achiro
01-28-2010, 05:10 PM
I'm wondering what kind of mind it takes to even remotely compare the two first of all since there is no comparison.
second of all, I've never heard anyone but loons say that what roeder did was ok. :rolleyes:

Uncle Bill
01-28-2010, 05:16 PM
UB, I find this just as unAmerican as what Yardley posted!

I know many Jews who fought in WW2, Korea, Vietnam and other conflicts. I know some awesome Americans that are Taoist and Hindu as well.

I have no problem with people wanting to pray! It's just when they think they need to pray for me or anyone else.

Thomas Jefferson was a Deist. I'm Agnostic and believe in freedom of religion and freedom from religion.


I would never think of praying for you Franco. You, after all have your saints....who could ask for anything more?:rolleyes:

UB

YardleyLabs
01-28-2010, 05:22 PM
Somehow, your view of this is not surprising to me. You need lots of believers in Christ to pray for your unGodly soul.

It's never hard for an atheist to also fall into the camp that finds in favor for the traitors of this nation. They think they are supporting fairness, and seldom see how unAmerican their views really are.

What you have just implied should be offensive to every citizen in this nation that has worn a uniform to defend what this nation stands for. Unfortunately, that also means we have to defend your right to issue that form of crap...but we don't have to stand by and not refute it.

UB

Due process is not designed to protect the guilty; it is designed to protect all of us. More than anything else it is designed to protect us from the quick judgments of the lynch mob, secure in the knowledge that being accused is the same as being guilty.

In our justice system, we presume innocence. That is not true in most other countries (witness the outrage when an Italian court convicted an American citizen using Italian standards of justice). We also allow a variety of defenses against charges of murder even when it is clear that the individual involved actually committed the act for which he is accused. Thus, Roeder -- a terrorist nutjob -- could have entered a plea of not guilty by reason if insanity rather than justified homicide. I suspect that a similar claim of reduced responsibility could apply in the case of some small children that could be used as walking bombs by terrorist groups.

For what it's worth, trying a person in a military tribunal does not change the standards of due process, only the procedures in use. Similarly, holding the trial outside of the country but under American control also does not reduce the rights of defendants and was decided by the courts over the objections of the Bush administration.

YardleyLabs
01-28-2010, 05:34 PM
I'm wondering what kind of mind it takes to even remotely compare the two first of all since there is no comparison.
second of all, I've never heard anyone but loons say that what roeder did was ok. :rolleyes:
Is the difference defined by the number of people killed, or by the insane justification used?

Would you feel better if I referenced Jim David Adkisson, who decided to shoot people randomly during a youth performance at a Unitarian church in Knoxville TN because of his desire to kill Democrats and liberals? Multiple people were wounded and two killed before members of the church wrestled him to the ground. "During the [police] interview Adkisson stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets." When does murder or attempted murder become terror?

DSemple
01-28-2010, 05:37 PM
With all the complaints about the possibility of terrorists being allowed to proclaim their ideology if given the platform of a trial, why are the same complainers saying nothing about Scott Roeder being permitted to argue that the murder of Dr. George Tiller was justified to prevent Tiller from performing additional legal abortions? If it is appropriate to permit Roeder to present this argument, isn't it equally appropriate for terrorists to present a defense arguing that their actions are justified?

Roeder will be locked up for the rest of his life like he should be.

But, Tiller was a scum bag that had been manipulating the laws governing late term abortions, with Democratic support from the likes of Kathleen Sebelius and others here in Kansas for over a decade. He was certainly no innocent victim of terrorism.

achiro
01-28-2010, 05:55 PM
Is the difference defined by the number of people killed, or by the insane justification used?

Would you feel better if I referenced Jim David Adkisson, who decided to shoot people randomly during a youth performance at a Unitarian church in Knoxville TN because of his desire to kill Democrats and liberals? Multiple people were wounded and two killed before members of the church wrestled him to the ground. "During the [police] interview Adkisson stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets." When does murder or attempted murder become terror?
I can NOT believe I am actually responding to this stupidity but here I go. Comparing one loon or even a couple of loons(the DC snipers) to a taliban member or a member of any other terrorist group is just ridiculous. Had Adkisson been a member of a militia that trained him to do that sort of thing and helped him pick a target we would be talking apples to apples but he wasn't so we are not.
Both should be sentenced to death, the sooner the better.

BTW, you REALLY do need to find a hobby, like maybe training dogs? The constant banter that you engage in on this site can't be healthy for anyone. I know for a fact that it makes me sick.

YardleyLabs
01-28-2010, 06:01 PM
Roeder will be locked up for the rest of his life like he should be.

But, Tiller was a scum bag that had been manipulating the laws governing late term abortions, with Democratic support from the likes of Kathleen Sebelius and others here in Kansas for over a decade. He was certainly no innocent victim of terrorism.
Actually, repeated investigations of Tiller's clinic failed to find evidence that he was operating in a manner inconsistent with the law.

However, one of the tenets of our justice process is that the victim is not on trial. Just as it is illegal to rape a promiscuous person, it is illegal to murder a person you believe is bad. The dictionary defines terrorism as the systematic use of terror to coerce behavior. Thus, killing legal abortionists to convince them to stop operating is terrorism. Killing liberals and democrats to send a message is terrorism. Why should Roeder be treated any differently from Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab?

road kill
01-28-2010, 07:19 PM
Uhh, where were the terrorists taken into custody and by who?
Where was Roeder taken into custody and by who?

And, am I to understand that pro-life in your mind is the same as jihad?
(not justifying the taking of a life by either!!!)

I see, they are identical situations, aren't they???:rolleyes:




rk
Is this an inconvenient question??



rk

BonMallari
01-28-2010, 07:33 PM
Jeff, I see your point but respectfully disagree but would you care if someone shanked Charles Manson in jail, or how about O.J., Mark David Chapman

YardleyLabs
01-28-2010, 08:24 PM
Uhh, where were the terrorists taken into custody and by who?
Where was Roeder taken into custody and by who?

And, am I to understand that pro-life in your mind is the same as jihad?
(not justifying the taking of a life by either!!!)

I see, they are identical situations, aren't they???:rolleyes:




rk

Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab initiated his attempted bombing on an airplane as it was approaching Detroit MI. He was subdued by passengers and taken into custody at the Detroit airport. Scott Roeder was arrested in Topeka the day following Tiller's murder in Wichita. Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab was possibly never a member of al Qaeda although he appears to have received his bomb from a Yemen contact that also supplies al Qaeda. He does not appear to have had any prior terrorist training or involvement but was identified by his father as a risk. Scott Roeder was a former member of a group known as the Freemen, a radical group declaring itself exempt from all government control. He was arrested in 1996 for possession of bomb components including blasting caps, gunpowder and fuses. Roeder was arrested by state and city police following a auto chase. Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab was detained by airport officers wen the plane landed and taken to the hospital in Detroit under guard for emergency treatment of his burns.

I'm not sure that any of this has anything to do with "pro-life" or "jihad". Both are beliefs and completely legal. In both cases, the arrests involve murder or attempted murder as a terrorist political act.

YardleyLabs
01-28-2010, 08:40 PM
Jeff, I see your point but respectfully disagree but would you care if someone shanked Charles Manson in jail, or how about O.J., Mark David Chapman
I'm not sure what Manson, et al have to do with it. They were all murderers, but not terrorists in the political sense (although a case might be made for Manson). I actually shed few tears when violent criminals are killed "in action". However, that is not "justice" within the legal system. However, I go not trust governments in general and believe that view was shared by our founding fathers. That was the reason for defining rights in our Constitution as protections against government abuse.

The problems with lynch mods is that they want exceptions to be made in those cases where they just know they are right. Today we want to exempt those nasty Islamic radicals from protection because they are so clearly bad. I remember the 60's when a lot of powerful people wanted the same types of "exemptions" for anti-war protesters. Maybe tomorrow the government will go after the Lutherans or the atheists. Who knows. I'm not saying there are never exceptions, but I believe that the slippery slope on dur process is even more dangerous than the slippery slope on guns. I do not trust government and I especially do not trust mob logic.

road kill
01-28-2010, 09:16 PM
Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab initiated his attempted bombing on an airplane as it was approaching Detroit MI. He was subdued by passengers and taken into custody at the Detroit airport. Scott Roeder was arrested in Topeka the day following Tiller's murder in Wichita. Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab was possibly never a member of al Qaeda although he appears to have received his bomb from a Yemen contact that also supplies al Qaeda. He does not appear to have had any prior terrorist training or involvement but was identified by his father as a risk. Scott Roeder was a former member of a group known as the Freemen, a radical group declaring itself exempt from all government control. He was arrested in 1996 for possession of bomb components including blasting caps, gunpowder and fuses. Roeder was arrested by state and city police following a auto chase. Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab was detained by airport officers wen the plane landed and taken to the hospital in Detroit under guard for emergency treatment of his burns.

I'm not sure that any of this has anything to do with "pro-life" or "jihad". Both are beliefs and completely legal. In both cases, the arrests involve murder or attempted murder as a terrorist political act.
In my opinion, Roeder should be executed, as he murdered Dr. Tiller.
Mutallab should be imprisoned for life for the attempted murders of the passengers.

You can "think" whaever you want, but when you act its a game changer.
Motivation is irrelevant to me.

I know that is not how the justice system works, just my opinion.




rk

BonMallari
01-28-2010, 10:48 PM
I'm not sure what Manson, et al have to do with it. They were all murderers, but not terrorists in the political sense (although a case might be made for Manson). I actually shed few tears when violent criminals are killed "in action". However, that is not "justice" within the legal system. However, I go not trust governments in general and believe that view was shared by our founding fathers. That was the reason for defining rights in our Constitution as protections against government abuse.

The problems with lynch mods is that they want exceptions to be made in those cases where they just know they are right. Today we want to exempt those nasty Islamic radicals from protection because they are so clearly bad. I remember the 60's when a lot of powerful people wanted the same types of "exemptions" for anti-war protesters. Maybe tomorrow the government will go after the Lutherans or the atheists. Who knows. I'm not saying there are never exceptions, but I believe that the slippery slope on due process is even more dangerous than the slippery slope on guns. I do not trust government and I especially do not trust mob logic.

You are right very poor choice of a metaphor with Manson etc...I dislike the mob mentality too and yes I am old enough to remember the anti war protesters of the late 60's and 70's even though I was in high school at the time...not sure I equate due process being more dangerous than gun control, I'll leave that for another thread...I also think mob logic is an oxymoron...mobs have no logic

code3retrievers
01-29-2010, 01:00 AM
I. I do not trust government and I especially do not trust mob logic.

What are you talking about? Not one person is talking about lynching this guy but they are asking that since he claims to be associated with al Qaeda (a well funded terrorist organization) which has declared war on the US then he should be treated as a war criminal and tried in a military tribunal.

You need to change the way you think about this type of organization. We are not living in the 60's any more.

Our military struggles for the next 50 years will not be against governments, but loosely organized private organizations or proxies of terrorist governments with attacks coming from individuals or small groups sponsored by these organizations.

Gerry Clinchy
01-29-2010, 08:51 AM
With all the complaints about the possibility of terrorists being allowed to proclaim their ideology if given the platform of a trial, why are the same complainers saying nothing about Scott Roeder being permitted to argue that the murder of Dr. George Tiller was justified to prevent Tiller from performing additional legal abortions? If it is appropriate to permit Roeder to present this argument, isn't it equally appropriate for terrorists to present a defense arguing that their actions are justified?

I believe that the issue is that in the State in which Roeder is being tried there is a law on the books with the defense he proposes ... a honest belief that he was saving human life. It is not an insanity defense in the sense that we see it usually defined.

For the pantybomber, it seems that civil courts would have jurisdiction. I don't recall hearing that anyone believed he should be tried by a military tribunal. For the fellow who was to be brought to Manhattan for trial, I believe the scenario is different. If one of the 9-11 terrorists had survived, what jurisdiction would have prevailed? If it was from the plane aimed at the Pentagon v. the towers? The White House might qualify as a "military" target.

YardleyLabs
01-29-2010, 09:12 AM
I believe that the issue is that in the State in which Roeder is being tried there is a law on the books with the defense he proposes ... a honest belief that he was saving human life. It is not an insanity defense in the sense that we see it usually defined.

For the pantybomber, it seems that civil courts would have jurisdiction. I don't recall hearing that anyone believed he should be tried by a military tribunal. For the fellow who was to be brought to Manhattan for trial, I believe the scenario is different. If one of the 9-11 terrorists had survived, what jurisdiction would have prevailed? If it was from the plane aimed at the Pentagon v. the towers? The White House might qualify as a "military" target.
Gerry, I agree with you and actually have no problems with the use of a justified homicide defense -- for either Roeder or Mutallab. My post is based on a concerted attack on the administration by congressional Republicans who argue that Mutallab should have been treated as an illegal enemy combatant so that he could be subjected to "enhanced" interrogation and then be detained indefinitely pending trial by military tribune. (see, for example, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/27/boehner-way-terrorist-trials-held-new-york/)

Franco
01-29-2010, 09:26 AM
Gerry, I agree with you and actually have no problems with the use of a justified homicide defense -- for either Roeder or Mutallab. My post is based on a concerted attack on the administration by congressional Republicans who argue that Mutallab should have been treated as an illegal enemy combatant so that he could be subjected to "enhanced" interrogation and then be detained indefinitely pending trial by military tribune.



I am all for using whatever tools we haveto get information from terrorist with ties to Islamic terrorist or any other terrorist organization, foreign or domestic!

DSemple
01-29-2010, 09:51 AM
Actually, repeated investigations of Tiller's clinic failed to find evidence that he was operating in a manner inconsistent with the law.

However, one of the tenets of our justice process is that the victim is not on trial. Just as it is illegal to rape a promiscuous person, it is illegal to murder a person you believe is bad. The dictionary defines terrorism as the systematic use of terror to coerce behavior. Thus, killing legal abortionists to convince them to stop operating is terrorism. Killing liberals and democrats to send a message is terrorism. Why should Roeder be treated any differently from Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab?

Slick sympathetic politicians and lawyers kept Tiller out of trouble with the law, but that is not really the point of your thread is it?

Jeff, as to Due process, is there any dollar amount limit we have to afford to foreign terrorists to provide for their defense?

And, following your liberal logic, if we are going to provide foreign terrorist once captured due process in our American court system, should we not also provide their colleagues, who the Obama administration is perfectly willing to take out with drone missiles abroad some form of due process before we kill them?

Confused conservative regards.

Don Semple

david gibson
01-29-2010, 10:50 AM
there are many that say the whole thing behind the civilian vs military trials is because
President Barack Obama will have to personally sign the death warrant of Major Nidal Malik Hasan if he is convicted and sentenced to be executed for the Fort Hood massacre. this means a muslim ordering another muslim to his death - which is against Islamic law.

same logic with all the other terrorists.

this could be speculation - but it would not surprise me one bit. if Obama could sit through "GD America" Rev. Wright, his mentor and "uncle figure" and not know he felt that way then surely he missed any real christian messages (if any) the man espoused as well. Obamas church-going was a sham to shore up his image. THAT i do believe. the rest sure makes sense even if not substantiated....

BonMallari
01-29-2010, 11:06 AM
The only thing BHO is going to sign is a Presidential commutation of the death sentence since he wont even acknowledge that it was an act of terrorism

zeus3925
01-29-2010, 12:15 PM
The trouble with this discussion is the fact there is no formal declaration of war operant for the US. In the absence of such, I think a civilian trial for the underwear bomber is the most appropriate one.

BonMallari
01-29-2010, 12:21 PM
Roeder guilty 1st degree murder took the jury about 30 minutes of deliberation...no brainer

YardleyLabs
01-29-2010, 01:52 PM
there are many that say the whole thing behind the civilian vs military trials is because
President Barack Obama will have to personally sign the death warrant of Major Nidal Malik Hasan if he is convicted and sentenced to be executed for the Fort Hood massacre. this means a muslim ordering another muslim to his death - which is against Islamic law.

same logic with all the other terrorists.

this could be speculation - but it would not surprise me one bit. if Obama could sit through "GD America" Rev. Wright, his mentor and "uncle figure" and not know he felt that way then surely he missed any real christian messages (if any) the man espoused as well. Obamas church-going was a sham to shore up his image. THAT i do believe. the rest sure makes sense even if not substantiated....

In case you haven't noticed, Obama has had problems with many liberals because he is actually one of the more hawkish Democrats. He opposed the invasion of Iraq, but stated from the beginning of his campaign that we couldn't just pull out. He favored escalation in Afghanistan and expansion of efforts to attack the enemy even when that meant sending more and more drones across the border (as Don notes below). He has carried through on both fronts. I don't think killing Islamic terrorists gives him any sleepless nights.


Slick sympathetic politicians and lawyers kept Tiller out of trouble with the law, but that is not really the point of your thread is it?

Jeff, as to Due process, is there any dollar amount limit we have to afford to foreign terrorists to provide for their defense?

And, following your liberal logic, if we are going to provide foreign terrorist once captured due process in our American court system, should we not also provide their colleagues, who the Obama administration is perfectly willing to take out with drone missiles abroad some form of due process before we kill them?

Confused conservative regards.

Don Semple

I don't think many court observers have ever suggested that public defenders are providing Cadillac defenses. I also have no problems with combatant fatalities in the field. That is what war is about. However, even in war there are limits. We, as a nation, have agreed to certain rules of war, codified in the Geneva Conventions which are ratified treaties and carry the force of law. We have been torn by the fact that our system offers two ways of handling captives: we can handle them in accordance with the rule of war, or we can handle them in accordance with national and international law. If we choose to handle them without regard to law, we are lawless. It's hard to reconcile that with our claim to be a nation of laws.


Roeder guilty 1st degree murder took the jury about 30 minutes of deliberation...no brainer

Kudos to the jury. I would love to see terrorists use their moment in the spotlight, like Roeder, to put forward their justifiable homicide defense, and have our juries listen respectfully and then convict them.

Terry Britton
01-29-2010, 02:03 PM
Bad guys never admit to doing anything bad, or claim it was in the name of good.

Nothing new here.