Some fear Kan. ruling may spur abortion violence
 

Some fear Kan. ruling may spur abortion violence

By ROXANA HEGEMAN, Associated Press Writer Roxana Hegeman, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 18 mins ago

WICHITA, Kan. – A judge's decision to allow a confessed killer to argue that he believes the slaying of one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers was a justified act aimed at saving unborn children has upended what most expected to be an open-and-shut first-degree murder case.

Prosecutors have challenged the ruling that allows Scott Roeder to tell a jury that the fatal shooting of Wichita doctor George Tiller was voluntary manslaughter. A Tuesday hearing is scheduled to allow Roeder's defense attorneys to respond.

Some abortion opponents were pleasantly stunned and eager to watch Roeder plead his case. Tiller's colleagues and abortion rights advocates were outraged and feared the court's actions give more than tacit approval to further acts of violence.

"This judge has basically announced a death sentence for all of us who help women," said Dr. Warren Hern of Boulder, Colo., a longtime friend of Tiller's who also performs late-term abortions. "That is the effect of the ruling."

The facts of the case are not in dispute: On a balmy Sunday morning, Roeder got up from a pew at Wichita's Reformation Lutheran Church at the start of services and walked to the foyer, where Tiller and a fellow usher were chatting. Wordlessly, he pressed the barrel of a .22-caliber handgun to Tiller's forehead and pulled the trigger.

Prosecutors charged Roeder with first-degree murder. The 51-year-old from Kansas City, Mo., later admitted to reporters and in a court filing that he killed Tiller. The prosecution stands ready with more than 250 prospective witnesses to prove it.

But what had been expected to be a simple trial was altered Friday when Sedgwick County Judge Warren Wilbert decided he would allow Roeder to build a defense case calling for a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter because Roeder sincerely believed the May 31 slaying would save unborn children.

Kansas law defines voluntary manslaughter as "an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force." A conviction could bring a prison sentence closer to five years, instead of a life term for first-degree murder.

Prosecutors argued Monday that such a defense should not be considered because there is no evidence Tiller posed an imminent threat at the time of the killing.

"The State encourages this Court to not be the first to enable a defendant to justify premeditated murder because of an emotionally charged political belief," the prosecution wrote.

Defense attorneys filed a motion Tuesday arguing that in Roeder's mind, the "imminence of danger" Tiller posed to fetuses was greater than mere fear of future harm because Tiller's clinic was performing abortions.

"It had staff. It had a practitioner. It had a budget. It had clientele. It assumedly had a schedule of pending abortion procedures. In the mind of Mr. Roeder, the victim presented a clear danger to unborn children," the defense wrote.

As events unfold inside a Wichita courtroom, the Kansas Supreme Court was considering a challenge from four media outlets, including The Associated Press, over the judge's decision to bar reporters from witnessing jury selection.

But key questions being asked outside the courtroom have galvanized both sides of the abortion debate.

Will the judge's decision embolden militant anti-abortion activists and lead to open season on abortion providers? Does the Justice Department plan to file charges against Roeder under federal statutes guaranteeing access to clinics? And what does it portend for the unfolding case itself and the inevitable legal challenges to the nation's abortion laws?

Hern, the doctor in Colorado, said it's irrelevant that Wilbert won't decide until after the defense presents its evidence whether to allow jurors to actually consider a conviction on the lesser charge.

"The damage is done: The judge has agreed to give him a platform," Hern said. "It is an act of incomprehensible stupidity on the part of the judge, but he is carrying out the will of the people of Kansas who are trying to get out of the 19th century."

The Feminist Majority Foundation also denounced the ruling, saying Wilbert essentially was allowing a justifiable homicide defense. The group urged the Justice Department to file federal charges under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.

Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar declined to comment, citing an ongoing investigation.

The Rev. Don Spitz of Chesapeake, Va., who runs a Web site supporting violence against abortion providers, said he and other activists from the Army of God plan to quietly observe the court proceedings.

"I am flabbergasted, but in a good way," Spitz said of the judge's decision.

Spitz acknowledged Wilbert's decision may influence some people who in the past wouldn't kill abortion providers because they risked a sentence of death or life imprisonment. "It may increase the number of people who may be willing to take that risk," he said.

In Des Moines, Iowa, militant anti-abortion activist Dave Leach agreed the decision opens the door to presenting the same evidence as in a case of justifiable homicide. It was Leach who wrote the 104-page legal brief Roeder signed and submitted to the court in which he admitted killing Tiller.

"The closer we come to a court actually addressing these issues, the less danger abortionists are going to be in," Leach said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100112/...shooting_trial

Yeah, so basically anybody that gets mad about this is ignorant. When exactly is the sentencing?

That's just stupid. That law shouldn't even exist. The guy is within the law, but that's just retarded.

It'll only lead to more stupidity.

Opening statements.



That guy looks dumb as shit. I bet he can't even comprehend that he's done wrong. Goddamn. Religion as much as it helps plagues just as many things.

In my opinion, for every bit of good that religion does for the world, it does an order of magnitude more bad. Some religions are more guilty than others, naturally. I'd rather live next to a Buddhist than a couple of mormon missionaries. I definitely don't mind the religions that keep to themselves as much as I mind the ones that try to spread their ignorance and, for the most part, succeed. This is where religion does ultimate harm, by giving people fairy tales to explain things rather than letting us curious humans do what we do best and figure it out ourselves. So much of the future generation has grown up with magical thinking, and comfort in religion. Fortunately, I have noticed that a lot of people seem to drop that stuff once they get to college or start developing their own lives after moving out of their parents place. Which is very good, in my opinion, because I encourage skepticism. The constant interrogation of knowledge and ideas is vital to our progress as a species.

Another non-scientific problem with people not questioning knowledge and ideas is that they also tend to not question people in power. This is...INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS. But I digress.

I absolutely agree, one of your better posts K_A.

lololol.
There's a thin line between religious and crazy, and Mdselctr is that line.

Here's the man himself taking the stand.



His answer at the and is ridiculous.

They need to fear violence if this man gets off in any way.

Looks like he was convicted for first degree murder. I'm glad.

Same here, a quick decision none-the-less. Good job judicial system, I actually think he should get life in prison as opposed to the death penalty for two reasons. I think the death penalty is hypocritical, and I don't want him to think of himself or others to think of him as a martyr with his execution.

Agreed on life vs. death. Honestly, I think life in prison is a lot worse of a punishment anyway. Given the choice of going to prison for life or dying, I'd choose death.

No, there is not. You have me, you, and the Preistess. Those are the three alignments of sanity. Chose wisely, because after you chose, the ninjas kill you and eat your innards.


If I could write a book, I'd probably chose prison, as long as I get solitary confinement. That way I could write all my stories as well as go completely insane by the time I'm done with book 7.