- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Jury selection begins Monday in the trial of Scott Roeder, who is accused of killing a Kansas doctor known for performing late-term abortions.
Police and prosecutors say Mr. Roeder walked into the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita last May 31 and shot Dr. George Tiller once in the head.
Judge Wilbert also said he was open to the defense presenting evidence that Mr. Roeder might be guilty not of first-degree murder, which carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison, but of the far lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter, which carries a sentence of about five years.
Now here is the part I find disturbing:
Manslaughter? 5 years for premeditating a murder, then walking through the door and shooting someone in the head? I don't buy it. If this is how it turns out for crazy radical righties, then would crazy radical lefties be justified for only a 5 year sentence for assassinating the president because they feel he is killing "innocent" people in Afghanistan? In either case, murder is murder, under the laws of the land.
Article is here.
If I had my way, this killer would be tried as a terrorist, and given the maximum sentence that is usually reserved for those who commit acts of terrorism, because this is exactly what it was - an act of terrorism.
If I had my way, this killer would be tried as a terrorist, and given the maximum sentence that is usually reserved for those who commit acts of terrorism, because this is exactly what it was - an act of terrorism.
I suspect the defense would like to have the charge available as a fall-back position should the jury not agree on first-degree murder.Now here is the part I find disturbing:
Manslaughter? 5 years for premeditating a murder, then walking through the door and shooting someone in the head? I don't buy it. If this is how it turns out for crazy radical righties, then would crazy radical lefties be justified for only a 5 year sentence for assassinating the president because they feel he is killing "innocent" people in Afghanistan? In either case, murder is murder, under the laws of the land.
If I had my way, this killer would be tried as a terrorist, and given the maximum sentence that is usually reserved for those who commit acts of terrorism, because this is exactly what it was - an act of terrorism.
Article is here.
Since I applaud the man for taking out a baby serial killer I hope he gets the most lenient sentence possible assuming that is why he performed a late term abortion on a late term abortion provider.
The act of killing one person is not a act of terrorism. Heck if he went around just killing abortion doctors he still would not be a terrorist, he would be just a serial killer ironically taking out serial killers. If he blew up abortion clinics then yeah that would be a terrorist act.
I am sure many abortionist and closet abortionist will harp on me for making my comments but **** them. If this guy killer someone they viewed to be no different than Jeffery Dhamer or Charles Manson they would not be condemning Scott Roeder. Nor would the cowards who consider themselves to be anti-abortion(not the phonies who say they think abortion is morally wrong but not morally wrong enough to want it illegal, but those are actually opposed to abortion) but are worried about the abortionist (yes the same people who have no problem with babies being killed) painting anti-abortionist as loons.
Since I applaud the man for taking out a baby serial killer I hope he gets the most lenient sentence possible assuming that is why he performed a late term abortion on a late term abortion provider.
The act of killing one person is not a act of terrorism. Heck if he went around just killing abortion doctors he still would not be a terrorist, he would be just a serial killer ironically taking out serial killers. If he blew up abortion clinics then yeah that would be a terrorist act.
I am sure many abortionist and closet abortionist will harp on me for making my comments but **** them. If this guy killer someone they viewed to be no different than Jeffery Dhamer or Charles Manson they would not be condemning Scott Roeder. Nor would the cowards who consider themselves to be anti-abortion(not the phonies who say they think abortion is morally wrong but not morally wrong enough to want it illegal, but those are actually opposed to abortion) but are worried about the abortionist (yes the same people who have no problem with babies being killed) painting anti-abortionist as loons.
Hopefully murder one sticks.
Since I applaud the man for taking out a baby serial killer I hope he gets the most lenient sentence possible assuming that is why he performed a late term abortion on a late term abortion provider.
jamesrage said:The act of killing one person is not a act of terrorism. Heck if he went around just killing abortion doctors he still would not be a terrorist, he would be just a serial killer ironically taking out serial killers. If he blew up abortion clinics then yeah that would be a terrorist act.
jamesrage said:I am sure many abortionist and closet abortionist will harp on me for making my comments but **** them. If this guy killer someone they viewed to be no different than Jeffery Dhamer or Charles Manson they would not be condemning Scott Roeder.
I do find it funny how conservatives, supposedly the law and order bunch, are only law and order when it's convenient. At least I am consistent, if you do the crime, you deserve the punishment.
I hope you realize you're generalizing here. While there are many people who applaud what the guy did (jamesrage, for example), I think that the consensus even among conservatives would be that the rule of law must be upheld, and that what this guy did was premeditated murder, which usually earns one either a life in prison or the death penalty.
I am hopeful that the argument does not fare well. I find it hard to see any situation where this is anything other than premeditated murder. I doubt the terrorism charge would work well, though to my mind it is certainly possible to see the argument. He certainly terrorized some innocent churchgoers.
I do find it funny how conservatives, supposedly the law and order bunch, are only law and order when it's convenient. At least I am consistent, if you do the crime, you deserve the punishment.
I think the point wasn't to insult conservatives so much as the shame jamesrage.
Now here is the part I find disturbing:
Manslaughter? 5 years for premeditating a murder, then walking through the door and shooting someone in the head? I don't buy it. If this is how it turns out for crazy radical righties, then would crazy radical lefties be justified for only a 5 year sentence for assassinating the president because they feel he is killing "innocent" people in Afghanistan? In either case, murder is murder, under the laws of the land.
If I had my way, this killer would be tried as a terrorist, and given the maximum sentence that is usually reserved for those who commit acts of terrorism, because this is exactly what it was - an act of terrorism.
Article is here.
I do find it funny how conservatives, supposedly the law and order bunch, are only law and order when it's convenient. At least I am consistent, if you do the crime, you deserve the punishment.
The state would have to prove premeditation. It's not up to the defense to disprove it.From the very limited amount of information I have, murder one sounds like the right call unless there is some kind of evidence he didn't plan it and did it on the spur of the moment.
Murder 2 should be thrown in but not manslaughter
Dr. Tiller deserved to die, I'm glad we agree.
Dr. Tiller should have been tried and put to the needle, instead of an assassin's bullet, I'm sure we agree there also.
Dr. Tiller committed no crime.
The origin, nature, and development of life and consciousness is too mysterious for anyone to be able to justify their confidence in the humanity or non-humanity or life or non-life of fetuses.
If it wasn't, abortion would be uncontroversially legal or illegal.
When the law turns a blind eye or refuses to act then vigilantism is sometimes the only way.Disagreeing with the law and wanting it to be changed is one thing, but disregarding the mysteriousness it is based on to condemn a slain late-term abortionist in such strong terms is not a justified course of action.
Secondly, having opinions is not courageous. Voicing them can be, but not over the Internet.
Then, perhaps, you won't complain if a pro-abortion sharpshooter takes him out.
After all, you found it a good thing to take out the doctor.
Someone on the other side must feel the same way about taking out the killer.
Anarchy, anyone? Or are we a nation of laws?
I hope you realize you're generalizing here. While there are many people who applaud what the guy did (jamesrage, for example), I think that the consensus even among conservatives would be that the rule of law must be upheld, and that what this guy did was premeditated murder, which usually earns one either a life in prison or the death penalty.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?