Doctor killer Scott Roeder to use the necessity defense?

[ellid]

According to the Wall Street Journal, Scott Roeder, the man who gunned down Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas, in cold blood in the foyer of Tiller's church, may be allowed to use the "necessity defense" that killing Dr. Tiller as he passed out programs to churchgoers was "necessary" to save "preborn children." Even worse, he may allow the introduction of "evidence" from a legal witchhunt conducted by former Kansas attorney general Phil Kline, who violated the privacy of Tiller's patients in an attempt to find that he was aborting viable fetuses (Tiller wasn't, and was acquitted of all charges barely two months before his death).

If the judge allows this, it is open season on any doctor who performs abortions, for any reason. Dr. Tiller's patients were women who were carrying babies that were either so deformed that they could not live, or women who so ill from their pregnancies that continuing would kill them, or leave unable to bear future children. There are fewer than a dozen doctors who are willing to perform late term abortions, and fewer and fewer hospitals training interns to perform any abortions at all. Doctors and medical schools are terrified of being killed by people who put the life of a fetus above the life of a woman, or a doctor, or a clinic guard.

This is terrorism, pure and simple. It's a lot more immediate and a lot more common than idiots trying to blow up their shoes, or their underwear. And if Scott Roeder gets off, or is convicted of manslaughter because he "had to save the babies," it is terrorism with the collusion of the state of Kansas.

Comments

[ladyaelfwynn.livejournal.com]

When I wrote about this last month I got patted on the head and told to stop having hysterics. Not exactly in those words, but I was pretty much told my concern was overblown.

And yes, the majority of people telling me to chill were guys (or people whom I think are guys; one of whom I'm uncertain as to hir gender).

I think the defense is letting stuff like this out to judge reaction. To see if they think they can get away with it.

And I think women have every right to be terrified. We have been shown time and again that are concerns are secondary. The way abortion has been treated in the current health care debate is proof of that.

Yes, the judiciary is a different branch of government. But, it's not like that branch has done all that much to help us out since Roe v. Wade.

So, we're down to hoping that the judge is someone who isn't pro-life or has pro-life sympathsies. And I've learned enough from experience to know that putting that kind of hope in someone is pretty much bound to bite you in the butt.

So, yeah. I'm concerned. Actually freaking terrified of what this could mean and I won't settle down until we know who the judge is, at least.

We stand to lose a lot if this goes the wrong way.

[samantha-vimes.livejournal.com]

Using the defense doesn't mean getting away with it. I was almost on a jury where the accused was using the necessity defense to try to dodge a DWI charge. I seriously doubt the jury was convinced, even though I was dismissed "without cause" after speaking up about my skepticism.

[samantha-vimes.livejournal.com]

P.S. Think of the other precedents it would set. How about necessity defense on killing the CEOs of companies damaging the environment? On killing corrupt policemen?
We are a nation of LAWS, and I know that gets ignored by the right wing a lot, but they really shouldn't want to give liberals open season on *their* dangerous asses. The ob/gyns could shoot first in Florida, even with the current law.

[fitzw.livejournal.com]

We were just discussing whether or not someone would consider it a "necessity" to go after the financial institution CEOs that are going to be getting really big bonuses...

This is a nation of laws, true. Unfortunately, it is also a nation of case law; certain precedents should not be set.

[samantha-vimes.livejournal.com]

"it is also a nation of case law; certain precedents should not be set."

That's the point I was trying to make. Even a social conservative judge should be competent enough to find the precedent this would set dangerous. Not only ob/gyns would be at risk.

[celandineb.livejournal.com]

WORD.

[nineveh-uk.livejournal.com]

Surely the defence fails because if it was really necessary to shoot Dr Tiller, than he has been colluding in the murder of thousands by not organising a bombing campaign decades ago? *bangs head in despair*

Though I don't actually understand what a "necessity defense" is and why permission is required, but that's because I don't really understand the US legal system.