So does George Tiller get to have his life's work helping women defended?

[Hello_Kitty]

The more I think of that stupid judge in Kansas letting the cold-blooded murderer Scott Roeder get to advance a voluntary manslaughter defense the angrier I get. This scumbag motherfucker is going to be allowed to attempt persuade a jury (and you can bet the defense will get as many fundies as they can on it) that he was acting out of a sincere desire to save babies.

I'm not well versed in criminal trial law so maybe someone here can help me out. What I want to know is will the prosecutors get to call character witnesses on Dr. Tiller's behalf? Roeder's defense team is essentially arguing that the murder was justifiable homicide (at least in the defendant's mind), and will probably trot out a buttload of anti-choice propaganda in support of that. So will there be women called to the stand who will testify as to the wonderful care and treatment they got at Tiller's clinic when they were going through a horribly difficult time? Will jurors be able to hear from friends and associates of George Tiller about what a kind and good man he was? It sickens me to think that Roeder will get to present his side of things and portray Tiller as a baby killing monster.

On the good side, is it possible that the evidence that comes out at trial about the violent anti-choice groups who influenced Roeder could open the door to sue the shit out of them?

[WCGreen]

1. I guess there are still parts of Kansas that make you think....

What's (the fuck) is wrong with Kansas?

[mzteris]

2. aacck - I hit unrec by mistake!

Maybe I was subconsciously thinking about UNREC-ing the damn "judge"!

What an idiot. I mean - even IF - one was anti-choice - this is absolutely a stupid move. With it one could attempt to justify ANY murder based on an "well, I believed . . . " defense.

What - Person A "believes" that Person B might kill Person C down the street, so they shoot them. Is that justifiable? What an absolutely ridiculous ruling.

Kansas - home of the attempt to have "intelligent design textbooks". No wonder they're stupid. :eyes:

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[varelse]

4. This judge's decision makes my blood run cold

It opens the door to so many other uses of that defense. It is a very dangerous precedent to set.

[grantcart]

6. Yes I would be interested in DU attornies giving an opinion

[varelse]

10. Likewise, as I'm far from being an expert

please give me a 'heads up' if there are any "sightings" from our fellow DU'ers in the legal professions.

I would love to hear that I'm way off base, actually. This ruling just seems so very wrong - in a way that far outreaches this particular murder trial, even.

[debbierlus]

5. It is very disturbing. We must speak out strongly.

[KakistocracyHater]

7. & we MUST stick together

*

[paulsby]

8. excellent discussion on volokh.com on this very topic

by some very astute legal minds (from various places on the political spectrum).

god knows DU is about the worst place on earth for legal analysis...

my posts excepted :)

[varelse]

11. Yes it is, thanks for the reference

http://volokh.com/2010/01/12/self-defense-and-the-kansas-abortion-case/

[Hello_Kitty]

14. Yeah. Some of the comments were chilling though.

One brought up the potential of jury nullification. :scared:

[varelse]

16. There is much evidence that Americans do not fully comprehend the concept of "rule of law" (nt)

[Odin2005]

9. This judge is a asshole.

:puke:

[niyad]

12. who appointed him? a repuke?

[Solly Mack]

13. K&R

[Ilsa]

15. What about all the lives Dr. Tiller saved in his regular practice? I suppose

that means nothing to assholes like the murderer who killed him.

[varelse]

17. I suppose if his killer faces a civil trial

either for violation of civil rights or wrongful death, it could be done then.

This stuff really grinds you down, doesn't it? :(