Kill All Ob/Gyns and Be Done With It?
I must admit I don't understand either the judge's or the prosecution's reasoning in the recent decision in the trial of Dr. Tiller's assassin. Any lawyers care to comment?
But what had been expected to be an open-and-shut murder trial was upended Friday when a judge decided to let Roeder argue he should be convicted of voluntary manslaughter because he believed the May 31 slaying would save unborn children. Suddenly, the case has taken on a new significance that has galvanized both sides of the nation's abortion debate.
So, a person can plan and carry out the assassination of fertility specialists or Ob/Gyns who only perform deliveries but have a high C/S rate and argue manslaughter because of a belief that the slaying would save already born female patients. In other words, just the fact that a person holds whatever personal belief is a good enough justification for manslaughter?
Prosecutors on Monday challenged the ruling, arguing that such a defense is not appropriately considered with premeditated first-degree murder when there is no evidence of an imminent attack at the time of the killing, and jury selection was delayed. A hearing was scheduled for Tuesday afternoon to give the defense time to respond.
How can a safe, effective, consented, and legal medical procedure be considered an attack?
What legal sleight of hand am I missing here?