Voluntary Manslaughter For Cold-Blooded Doctor Killer???

I am a man. Therefore I have no right to have an opinion about abortion. But anyone that kills a doctor that has broken no laws, should be locked up for life. I definitely think that letting this guy off will lead to more Doctors being murdered.

Hi annie! This is such a crock of sh!t! The man murdered a Doctor in cold blood! It doesn't matter what his insane reasons were! Oh, wait, I don't want him to get off on the "insanity plea"! Using the "abortion issue" here is not a viable defense! And I can't believe that any Judge would fall backwards into that bullsh1t! No man has the right to take another mans life! This has nothing to do with the Abortion Issue and that facts around that! This was a living breathing human being who was alread a MAN, not a fetus! Nope, no way will I believe that any lawyer or Judge could turn this around to make any sense to get this murderer off! There is such a big difference between having an abortion which is justified and killing a Doctor which is murder!

I found this: http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/1679476.html I'm sure I'll hear a lot more in the coming days. I don't usually watch the local news but I may have to while this is going on.

Stupid Stupid Stupid. How can killing him save unborn lives. Killing him did not stop abortions. If a woman decides to get one she will just go to a different doctor. It is not like he was the ONLY doctor doing them. I think the arguement hold no weight at all. But leave it to a judge to let him argue it.

So it's not a plea? He's just being allowed to argue, as a defense, that it was "voluntary manslaughter"? He can argue anything in his own defense, I guess. Whatshisface, the terror suspect, has his lawyer trying to get the case dropped because his due process wasn't speedy enough. I don't like either. But I have a feeling neither will work.

Obviously, the defense would argue that Roeder's state of mind fits the definition of voluntary manslaughter to a tee. However, the prosecution could easily argue that by interpreting the statue so loosely that even many terrorist actions could fall under this defense.

This is a tough one. I am against abortion except in the mist extreme cases. But I do NOT support killing the doctors who perform them. When you make a conscious decision to take a life with out the benefit of a judge and jury, then that is murder. I can kind of understand the thinking behind saving the babies lives, but it is not right to take another persons to protest this. I think he should be tried for murder, he tried and killed that doctor for murder.

Calm down Annie. That's how our legal system works. All the judge is doing is allowing this guy to argue in his defense. It's the same right given to every cold-blooded killer in this country. In law, there is really no such thing as an open and shut case. Even if someone commits a crime is thoroughly videotaped from every angle, and confesses to police giving every minute detail, there can still be a trial that lasts months. Many judges won't even accept guilty pleas if the defendant hasn't made a plea deal with the prosecution. Legally, what this guy is doing is called an affirmative defense. An affirmative defense is actually a gift to the prosecution as it takes the burden off them. Now Scott Roeder is effectively guilty until proven innocent since his defense acknowledges he shot Tiller. Of course this won't lead to increased violence against late term abortionists like Tiller. There's no evidence to back anything like that up. I will not denounce our court system for allowing a man to argue his own defense for his actions as that is at the very core of our judicial system that everyone has that right regardless of whether you had a personal attachment to their victim or not. Tiller got to argue his own defense for all the viable babies he killed so his killer gets that same right.

Wow, this guys dreaming big time isn't he. There isn't an ice cube's chance in a volcano he is going to suceed with this defense. the judge probably allowed it to be entered as a plea for the pure entertainment value of it....lol. Seriously though, this isn't all that unusual for a murder case. the guy is grasping at straws though, he's done for. It was premeditaded murder, no way around it.

I don't believe that this defense strategy will be effective but the judge presiding over the case has to allow it to be presented. Any defense attorney worth is salt will try to pull something out of his butt that justifies the crime his client is charged with when there's no question that he was there. Since I don't believe this will work, I don't think it will lead to an increase in violence directed at doctors who perform abortions.

For those who believe in the sanctity of life, neither Scott Roeder nor Dr. George Tiller is innocent. However, the courts have judged Dr. George Tiller innocent even though he killed hundreds and Scott Roeder only slightly guilty because he killed one. For anyone who believes that God is sovereign you know His word teaches us that both of these men are guilty of murder whether one person was killed or hundreds of the unborn were. Scott Roeder may have felt he was doing God's will by ridding the world of the murderer of the unborn, but God does not need us to help Him get rid of people like this. I personally believe God would rather we change the heart of the abortionist rather than murdering them. Dr. George Tiller may have thought he had a duty toward women and society in general by performing wanted abortions, but what he did, for whatever reason he felt it was justified, he showed a lack of trust in God and His ability to get the woman through whatever her situation was. Dr. Tiller's god was too small.

Very difficult to answer. where can i buy the book?