Admitted Terrorist allowed to plead Justifiable Homicide.

[SirNitram]

Link

WICHITA, Kan. (AP) -- Before the first juror is selected or witness called, a decision allowing a confessed killer to argue 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 case.

Some abortion opponents are pleasantly stunned and eager to watch Scott Roeder tell a jury his slaying of Wichita doctor George Tiller was voluntary manslaughter. Tiller's colleagues and abortion rights advocates are outraged and fear the court's actions give a 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 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 around a table. 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, and 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 he 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 on that charge could bring a prison sentence closer to five years, instead of a life term for first-degree murder.

Prosecutors on Monday challenged the ruling, arguing 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. ''Such a ruling has far reaching consequences and would be contrary to Kansas law.''

As events unfold inside a Wichita courtroom, the Kansas Supreme Court is considering a challenge from four media outlets, including The Associated Press, over the judge's decision to bar reporters from witnessing jury selection. A hearing is also scheduled for Tuesday afternoon to give the defense time to respond to Wilbert's decision to allow Roeder's voluntary manslaughter defense.

But key questions being asked outside the courtroom in the wake of Wilbert's decision 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, of Boulder, Colo., 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, which supports abortion rights, 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.

A man who runs a Web site supporting violence against abortion providers said in the wake of the judge's decision that he has changed his mind about attending Roeder's trial. The Rev. Don Spitz of Chesapeake, Va., said he and other activists from the Army of God plan to observe the court proceedings quietly next week.

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

Spitz acknowledged that the possibility that 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 that 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.

I think I found a use for Gitmo, folks like this.

[wolveraptor]

Kansas law defines voluntary manslaughter as ''an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force.''

Isn't this a shit definition of voluntary manslaughter? "Unreasonable but honest belief"? How fucking broad is that? Shouldn't there be something about self-defense in there? Every whackjob fundamentalist has "unreasonable but honest" beliefs, and this definition could potentially apply to any of them who chose to walk up and smoke an abortion provider.

[The Guid]

Just wait until there's some Islamic fellow blowing people up in Kansas, not that there will be, or that I would hope there would be, but can you imagine the uproar if someone pulled this kind of shit in those circumstances?

[Isolder74]

That Judge is a complete lunatic. The defense lawyer is a insufferable dishonest jerk for even bringing up such an idea. Not only is this really twisting the meaning of the law it is hogtying it.

The intention of the law is to leave open a defense of someone who kills an attacker trying to kill them.

[Lord Pounder]

To me it's basically an open invite for some wack-a-loon there to bomb an abortion clinic.

[Lost Soal]

The intention of the law is to leave open a defense of someone who kills an attacker trying to kill them.

Not quite. Killing in self defence is a different plea all together. This is more akin to, you see a neighbour being attacked and believing that their about to kill them you shoot the attacker. In this case, the attacker is Dr Tiller and the victim the unborn child.
That being said, its still fucking insane and would allow just about any paranoid murderer to use this defence.

[Mr. Coffee]

The upside to this is if this asshole actually successfully argues this and gets away with it then Family Planic Clinic workers have grounds to argue self-defense if they open fire on the activists outside their clinics.

[Big Phil]

Any bets on hearing conservatives screeching about judges "legislating from the bench" in this case? No takers? huh...

[Alyeska]

This is a radical change. I have read more then once that the judge took a dim view of justified homicide each previous time the defense tried to argue the merit for that defense. What changed?

[The Romulan Republic]

The upside to this is if this asshole actually successfully argues this and gets away with it then Family Planic Clinic workers have grounds to argue self-defense if they open fire on the activists outside their clinics.

You think firing on activists who pose no direct threat is a good thing?

Anyway, I fail to see how such a verdict would establish the "grounds" that you describe.

[Tanasinn]

I assume he's making a sarcastic "turnabout is fair play" comment, but I would hardly say these activists pose no threat.

What with the bombs, threats, assaults, and now murder.

[CmdrWilkens]

The upside to this is if this asshole actually successfully argues this and gets away with it then Family Planic Clinic workers have grounds to argue self-defense if they open fire on the activists outside their clinics.

No it would give them grounds to argue for voluntary manslaughter not self-defense, you still need imminent threat for self-defense.

The intention of the law is to leave open a defense of someone who kills an attacker trying to kill them.

Not quite. Killing in self defence is a different plea all together. This is more akin to, you see a neighbour being attacked and believing that their about to kill them you shoot the attacker. In this case, the attacker is Dr Tiller and the victim the unborn child.
That being said, its still fucking insane and would allow just about any paranoid murderer to use this defence.

I'm just wondering if anyone will point out that anyone associated with Al Qaeda related attack could simply use the same defense to justify attack US citizens as an unreasonable but honestly held belief that doing so would prevent the US from attacking (insert Muslim nation). Its a ridiculous defense on the face of it.

[Serafine666]

Any bets on hearing conservatives screeching about judges "legislating from the bench" in this case? No takers? Huh...

May I volunteer for the honor? Seriously... when conservatives are whining about judges substituting their personal opinions for the law, this (among other things) is the sort of crap they're hot under the collar about. The man goes into a church, kills a defenseless old man... and he's gonna be allowed to plead manslaughter? That's what you get convicted of if you didn't intend to kill someone! If this guy is so sure he did the right thing, he should plead guilty, and let the state strap him into Old Sparky (or whatever Kansas' means of execution is) with a clear conscience because, in his mind (and hopefully not in many other minds), he's a martyr. If this guy gets away with a voluntary manslaughter conviction, it'll be justice denied, pure and simple.

[Mr. Coffee]

You think firing on activists who pose no direct threat is a good thing?

Chalk it up to my inner asshole and having the opinion that your average anti-abortion activist is only a delusion of having talked to God from doing the sort shit the asshole in the OP did. Keep in mind, I was mainly being facetious with the comment above.

[K. A. Pital]

Abortion activists are "pleased" with a killer being allowed to plead justifiable homicide? "Pleased"? Ow.

[Patrick Degan]

If ever there was a judge who needed to be removed from hearing a case, it has to be this one. There was no even remotely reasonable interpretation of the chain of events casting Dr. Tiller as posing an imminent threat to anyone. Justifiable homicide is lightyears from what Scott Roeder did.

Basically, this judge fixed the trial in favour of the defence because, without this ruling, Roeder has no defence.

[Highlord Laan]

The upside to this is if this asshole actually successfully argues this and gets away with it then Family Planic Clinic workers have grounds to argue self-defense if they open fire on the activists outside their clinics.

Yup. With the precedent like this, it's almost an open invitation for warfare in the streets.

Good.

[Crossroads Inc.]

OK lets not mince words here. What the judge is basically saying, is that killing an Abortion doctor is basically "ok"
By even giving the possibility of Manslaughter, it means that Tiller was doing something "Bad enough" that shooting him is ok.

It gulls me that the Judge has the balls to say "this casw wont be about Abortion" when his ruling totally and utter ppushes things into it.

The way the Anti Abortion crowd is reacting is equally Sickening. Again, not mincing words, they are all but saying that soon, it will be "OK" to walk up and shoot someone in the head for giving Abortions.

If this goes through, I have no doubt the amount of ABortion shootings will SKyRocket. Kanses, God Damn.

[Surlethe]

OK lets not mince words here. What the judge is basically saying, is that killing an Abortion doctor is basically "ok"
By even giving the possibility of Manslaughter, it means that Tiller was doing something "Bad enough" that shooting him is ok.

Did you read the article? The judge is granting the defendant the possibility of arguing that killing Tiller was "okay". That is emphatically not the same as the judge saying outright that killing an abortion doctor is "okay".

[Feil]

Am I correct in understanding that a judge can actually forbid the defense from pleading a particular defense, on the grounds that there is no evidence to support it? Whatever happened to (procedural) presumption of innocence?

[Lord MJ]

Am I correct in understanding that a judge can actually forbid the defense from pleading a particular defense, on the grounds that there is no evidence to support it? Whatever happened to (procedural) presumption of innocence?

Yes that's correct. Presumption of innocence doesn't mean thatthe defense can pull whetever defense out of their ass if there is no evidence to support the defense.

[Sidewinder]

According to federal and state laws, if a higher court rules Roeder's case a mistrial, can the murderer be re-tried in a manner that does NOT result in an abortion of justice (pun intended)?

[General Zod]

Am I correct in understanding that a judge can actually forbid the defense from pleading a particular defense, on the grounds that there is no evidence to support it? Whatever happened to (procedural) presumption of innocence?

They're not handing down a summary judgment. They're simply forbidding specific measures of defense without sufficient cause. Otherwise every scumbag who thought he could get away with it would go for the temporary insanity plea or any other kind of bullshit they could think of to delay the trial in their favor.

[CmdrWilkens]

OK lets not mince words here. What the judge is basically saying, is that killing an Abortion doctor is basically "ok"
By even giving the possibility of Manslaughter, it means that Tiller was doing something "Bad enough" that shooting him is ok.

Did you read the article? The judge is granting the defendant the possibility of arguing that killing Tiller was "okay". That is emphatically not the same as the judge saying outright that killing an abortion doctor is "okay".

Which does at least indicate a confirmation on the part of the judge that such a defense is viable in these cases. While certainly it might not work (who knows) the judge has allowed that it is not without reason for such a defense to be viable. It is if not a tacit endorsement of Tiller's actions (which it isn't) then at the very least it is acceptance of the idea that preemptive killing of abortion providers can be a viable defense...and that's a slippery slope I think we should never have traveled down.

[JBG]

Any bets on hearing conservatives screeching about judges "legislating from the bench" in this case? No takers? Huh...

May I volunteer for the honor? Seriously... when conservatives are whining about judges substituting their personal opinions for the law, this (among other things) is the sort of crap they're hot under the collar about. The man goes into a church, kills a defenseless old man... and he's gonna be allowed to plead manslaughter? That's what you get convicted of if you didn't intend to kill someone! If this guy is so sure he did the right thing, he should plead guilty, and let the state strap him into Old Sparky (or whatever Kansas' means of execution is) with a clear conscience because, in his mind (and hopefully not in many other minds), he's a martyr. If this guy gets away with a voluntary manslaughter conviction, it'll be justice denied, pure and simple.

As a conservative and as a lawyer I am not screeching about any "legislating from the bench". People, it is called the common law system. It has virtues and, all too often, faults like this. That's why there is an appeal system.

The "unreasonable but honest" part sounds nonsensical but truthfully I haven't bothered to find out whether that is the legislated definition ( ie that which appears in the Act itself ) or whether this is a development of the common law in that state. The article doesn't make that clear but it is many moons since I relied upon the press to accurately summarise legal issues.

I suspect that the law in that state has not caught up with modern realities. For probably various reasons. Combined with what appears to be a strange decision, we have a clusterfuck which will have to sorted out on a appeal or through legislative amendment.

In NSW the perp would be angling for an insanity plea as "voluntary manslaughter" here would be seen as an absurd concept. Insanity means you are locked up "at Her Majesty's Pleasure", ie until you are cured but the system requires fairly rigorous evidence of such so you may be eating porridge for longer than if you'd copped a murder conviction.

Personally, this dude should be tried for murder, pure and simple. There's ample evidence of actus reas and mens rea. Having dipped my toe into prosecution work at one time, I would have been gungho about pursuing this one.

A word about the defence. Prosecutors here, indeed any government agency involved in litigation, are supposed to be "model litigants". No such stricture applies to defences. Their job is to, to use the local phrase in criminal law, "put the prosecution to the test". Any loophole is exploited. That is most proper as it uncovers deficiencies in the prosecution case at law and of the laws themselves as drafted or as interpreted up to that point. And of course the judges are bound to apply the law, as they interpret it.

I am constantly amazed how little the average joe knows about their legal system. They are, after all, the rules of the game.

NB I have always been a solid supporter of abortion rights. One should not unecessarily confuse conservatism with the religious right though many in the States and even here try to conflate the two.