Monday, January 11, 2010

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?

Labels: ,


At 7:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is typical kansas behavior. One of the few states that allows late term abortions to be performed when mom or fetus suffer from life threatening illnesses. many women and their S.O. have seen Dr. Tiller as life saving because he prevented them from having to undergo a difficult labor to a child who will be stillborn or be born with a fatal anomoly.BUT, this same state that legally allows this also wants to persecute and prosecute the doctor for doing his job. This wasn't Dr. Tiller's lifelong physician dream. instead it was done for the women suffering after he discovered his father had been doing it prior to his death. Dr. Tiller was a controversial man but was only doing what his heart and spirituality, AND the law, lead him to do. His murderer has no law on his side and did exactly what he accused Dr. Tiller of doing.He killed one of the last Dr.s willing to help women in their most desperate times. For the judge to allow such a defense is appalling and a sad testiment to how far backwards a state can go.We may not agree with Dr. Tillers' beliefs and actions but he felt he was providing a much needed service under the law. His murderer cannot say the same.The unborn children this man is perporting to having saved were, in most circumstances, going to die painfully soon after birth.

At 11:53 PM, Blogger Carolyn Marie Fugit said...

That was not the judge's ruling. The judge said he cannot disallow relevant evidence before the evidence is heard. At this point, there is no way to know whether or not that evidence is relevant. The jury instruction to consider voluntary manslaughter is given at the end of the trial, not before it starts. And Roeder's team would have a very, very difficult time claiming imminence as is required by Kansas law with use of deadly force. Judge Wilbert is doing his best to prevent a mistrial. The problem isn't with the ruling but with the law. We wrote about this over on Roeder Watch.


Post a Comment

<< Home