When Does Murder Become Manslaughter?:Dr.Tiller Murder Trial
When does a charge of murder get reduced to a charge of manslaughter? Possibly, when the murder victim is a doctor who does abortions.
Scott Roeder is on trial in Wichita KS for the murder of Dr. George Tiller on May 31, 2009. Roeder, an anti-abortion activist for many years well known around Kansas, admitted to authorities that he killed Dr. Tiller by barging into the church where George was ushering, and shooting him. George died immediately; Roeder fled, and was caught within a day.
The drama playing out in Wichita is not whether Roeder will be found guilty, but what he will be found guilty of. He’s charged with murder by the state of Kansas. However, his defense team has argued to the judge that they should be allowed to present evidence that Roeder was motivated by his anti-abortion convictions, and therefore should not be convicted of murder.
Jeff Schweitzer in Cold Blooded-Murder: An Angel Made Me Do it on Huffington Post:
Roeder claims that he gunned down Tiller at Sunday church services on May 31, 2009, in order to “save the lives of preborn children.” Based on this claim, Roeder intends to invoke the “necessity defense” predicated on the idea of “justifiable homicide.” If presiding judge Warren Wilbert accepts this defense strategy, and he appears to be leaning that way, he will give jurors the option of convicting Roeder not of premeditated murder but instead of voluntary manslaughter. That lesser crime is defined as “an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force” under Kansas statute. If convicted of involuntary manslaughter Roeder could be out of prison in five years.
We are investigating the report that Judge Wilbert was endorsed for his judgeship by anti-abortion groups in Kansas. If he allows Roeder’s team to present testimony from an array of anti-abortion politicians and activists, it would be an extraordinary departure.
That would not necessarily convince a jury that Roeder was justified in killing Dr. Tiller. But consider this: yesterday the judge shut out the media from jury selection, saying that abortion is such a controversial topic that jurors would fear to state their thinking on it publicly.
I think it is very relevant why Roeder killed George Tiller. We’ve made the point repeatedly that he was influenced directly by Operation Rescue who relentlessly targeted George for over a decade, and by the Kansas politicians who harassed George with lawsuits and even criminal charges, unsuccessfully. (George always prevailed in court). So what if Roeder does actually believe he’s saving fetal life by having killed George Tiller? He killed a living human being, and that’s murder.
I, along with 5 other anti-war activists, will be going on trial this spring on misdemeanor charges of “disorderly conduct” for protesting in Philadelphia at the entrance to the Army Experience Center. If we had been outside the doors cheering the Army’s recruitment efforts, we would have been welcomed, as the Army welcomed the pro-war bikers they allowed to jeer us. But because our message was opposition to the war and the recruitment of kids with video games, we were arrested. It’s relevant to our defense that we were arrested for the content of our non-violent protest message.
We will argue that we should be allowed to mention why we were protesting. Anti-war protesters Emma Kaplan and Patty Imani may be allowed to speak of their reasons for protesting at their trial on January 25 in Tacoma WA, where anti-war protesters were spied on by the military.
But what happens to the Roeder prosecution should be followed by everyone who cares about the safety of abortion doctors, and the humanity of women seeking abortion and birth control.
The National Organization for Women in Wichita will hold a vigil on Friday night, January 22, for abortion rights. For the 36 previous anniversaries, of the Roe v. Wade decision making abortion legal, George was in Wichita, providing abortions.
Will the anti-abortion lunatics already be celebrating by the end of next week because in Kansas, you might be able to carry out a political assassination, and get made into a hero?
********
I cannot resist urging you to view The Onion’s insightful piece this week on the new abortion laws, designed only to help women through difficult times…New Law Requires Women To Name Baby, Paint Nursery Before Getting Abortion
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
bstrangely
Akopsa
fingerlakeswanderer
carol avigdor
dragonlady
Safe_Bet's Amy
Salon.com
Comments
Roeder committed cold-blooded, premeditated murder. Operation Rescue should be up there as co-conspirators. If Roeder is allowed to plead out to a lesser charge, then Kansas will have cemented its reputation as a state where truth takes a back seat to religious fervour. Not all Kansans feel that way, of course, but those who control the ballot box do, and it's a shame.
I cannot speak about the Tiller murder without great rage. I try to forgive Roeder for what he did, and I find that I cannot. Some day, I may be able to find that compassion, but just as Operation Rescue has no compassion for any woman past the age of birth, I cannot make it my responsibility to teach them that "thou shalt not kill" applies to those who are capable of life outside the womb, not those who are part of their mother's bodies.
Ack. I've written so much on this before that my brain has just exploded.
I will be happy, however, to forget Roeder as soon as he is dead, and I hope to hell it hurt like hell when he dies, but I am not vindictive. It says and eye for an eye in their good book and that is just fine for me in this case.
Everyone in this country has a right to a far trial including someone charged with murder. And each defendant has the right to a lawyer who should argue every avenue of defense. Our system may be complex, but it beat the alternative.
Compassion, for me, does not mean that I excuse behaviour. It simply means that I attempt to understand that there were decisions made for or by someone that set them on a path that they now must walk.
It is extraordinary that a man who murders a doctor in his church during a church service might actually get away with a manslaughter charge! This would set an unbelievable precedent and encourage more assassins like Roeder.
For example, someone who believes that animals should have the same rights as humans could kill a chicken farmer in order to prevent the "murder" of chickens, and then end up being found guilty of voluntary manslaughter instead of murder.
I hate that Roeder might be convicted of voluntary manslaughter instead of murder, but an attorney would certainly not be out of bounds in arguing that Roeder's actions fall within the parameters of the statute defining voluntary manslaughter.
"When does a charge of murder get reduced to a charge of manslaughter? Possibly, when the murder victim is a doctor who does abortions."
I'm sure it happens in other cases as well.
Please understand that I am not defending Roeder here. Dr. Tiller's death affected me greatly. But, the law allows for this defense - even for someone like Roeder.
I was mirroring the thought processes of those who belief such tripe by saying that I'm not vindictive but I hope it hurts like hell when Roeder dies. Of course, that's vindictive and, yes, I really mean it. If we allow animals like this Roeder to get away with it, it will just happen again. On the whole, I would rather let the coyote go free and execute Roeder rather than the other way around.
Of course, there''s no chance that will happen. Roeder will never get the full measure of the justice he deserves.
And, my friend Finger, I completely understand why Roeder did what he did....but understanding doesn't mean that I condone his behavior, and I believe forgiveness is equal to condoning the behavior.
By that standard, we could never move on from anything. There could be no mercy, no pardons, no concept of discharging a debt to society.
I'm not writing this about this so much as a "legal matter" on how the trial is approached, as I am saying that U.S. society should take a clear and decisive stand here. Murdering Tiller was an outrageous crime. Otherwise, all of our courageous doctors who take care of women are in more danger than ever. Which is exactly the point of the abortion foes.
And thanks to Akopsa who is following the trial for those of us who can't be in Wichita! I agree with her that we can't let this murder be unopposed. As we said in the World Can't Wait Call to Drive Out the Bush Regime: "That which you do not resist and mobilize to stop, you will learn -- or be forced -- to accept."
The wording of this particular statute may be unique to Kansas (however, not having researched the voluntary manslaughter statutes of all 50 states, I don't know that for a fact), but I am confident in saying that the law wasn't worded this way for Roeder's benefit.
If we support the rule of law, we have to support it for all defendants, even if they stand accused of doing something that we find outrageous and reprehensible. (And make no mistake about it, I find Roeder's actions outrageous and reprehensible.)
Emma, the statute does not say "justifiable". That's not what voluntary manslaughter means. But, let's face it, those who support Roeder already feel that his actions were justifiable. Their minds are not going to be changed, even if Roeder is convicted of 1st degree murder.
The voluntary manslaughter statute reads "Voluntary manslaughter is the intentional killing of a human being committed:
(a) Upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion; or
(b) upon an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force under K.S.A. 21-3211, 21-3212 or 21-3213 and amendments thereto. [21-3203]
The relevant reference here is 21-3211: "(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force.
(b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person.
(c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person or a third person. "
"Imminent" here means "Impending; menacingly close at hand; threatening.
"Imminent peril, for example, is danger that is certain, immediate, and impending, such as the type an individual might be in as a result of a serious illness or accident. The chance of the individual dying would be highly probable in such situation, as opposed to remote or contingent."
Even given Roeder's understanding of abortion and the personhood of the fetus (or preborn child) I fail to see how any preborn child was in "imminent" danger.
If Roeder believed that a preborn child was in "remote" or "contingent" danger, he should have notified the police.
But this brings up another issue. According to 21-3211 the danger defended against must be of the nature of "unlawful force." But abortion is legal in Kansas. Thus, in the act of abortion Tiller would not have been exercising "unlawful force." In fact, the only reason that Tiller could perform abortions was because they are legal in Kansas.
So there are at least two major problems with voluntary manslaughter: the lack of "imminent death", and the lack of "unlawful force." Having an "unreasonable belief" doesn't mean that Roeder can believe anything he wants to about the law. Clearly he knew both that the danger was not imminent and that Tiller was not using unlawful force.
Like it or not, this is going to be sorted out under the justice system as it currently exists in Kansas. Let's hope that the prosecutors here make better arguments than the defense.
There is nothing in the statute that gives the presiding judge good reason to allow a finding of voluntary manslaughter. Permitting the jury to return such a verdict is prejudicial to the prosecution's case, and the prosecution should have moved for the recusal of the presiding judge. The failure of the prosecutor to demand the judge recuse himself from the case constitutes misfeasance.
This entire proceeding is corrupt from navel to brow.
In response to the discussion in the comments:
Forgiveness is *never* about condoning despicable actions, it is only about forgiving the person who committed those acts, if you think it will help *you* to do so.
Speaking as someone who previously despised the concept of forgiveness for those who commit unspeakable acts, so much so that it is difficult for me to embrace the term even now, I have worked hard to forgive those who grievously wronged me, not for their sake but for my own. I will never accept that what they did to me was OK or will ever be OK. But I did have to accept that it happened, and hating them for it was literally killing me. Forgiving them, I did that for myself, to save myself.
The judge ruled lastTuesday that he cannot use a "necessity" defense, which is the one Roeder really wants to argue.
He's also precluded from arguing "use of force in defense of another" unless that force is used to stop an illegal act. I don't see how Roeder could prevail on this one.
My guess is that the judge simply wants to avoid/eliminate grounds for appeal, although I think it's almost sure that Roeder's team will appeal anything.
Roeder's defense team hasn't tipped what defense they intend to present yet. They really do have a problem with that one.
It's standard in all murder trials I have ever followed for lesser charges to be filed too, simply to get some conviction if the jury won't convict on the first-degree.
When the jury returns a verdict, Roeder could avoid the 1st-degree charge for no reason other than one juror is simply unwilling to convict ... no reason given. He could even all charges this way, although I would think he would be retried (a hung jury doesn't find you "not guilty")
I suspect that many people will not like the comparison, but do consider the case of Amber Cummings serving no jail time for shooting her husband in the head while he was sleeping, with a "Battered woman" defense.
Even if convicted "only" of Voluntary Manslaughter ... Roeder will almost surely serve a significant sentence.
As I wrote last week, I’m deeply ambivalent about abortion rights: I don’t believe that abortion amounts to murder, but I’m unclear as to what it is instead. I am certain, however, that the intentional and premeditated killing of a person who poses no immediate threat to anyone is murder. A lot of people—including many with solidly anti-abortion views—agree.
Kansas law, it turns out, is more ambiguous. On Friday, a Wichita judge indicated that Scott Roeder might be permitted to argue in front of a jury that his killing of abortion provider George Tiller was not murder but voluntary manslaughter—an act he saw as justified because he thought it would save other lives. Yesterday the prosecution moved to prevent this, arguing that such a defense would require that Tiller at least had been poised to perform an abortion at the time of the killing and not chatting with someone in his church foyer. (Not to mention the fact that abortion, like it or not, is legal.)
This morning (Tuesday) the defense responded to the motion, arguing that the whole point of the voluntary manslaughter category—also called “imperfect self-defense”—is that the killing is justified in the killer’s own thinking, however unreasonable.
It’s astonishing to consider that someone can walk up to an unarmed, nonthreatening person, kill him in front of witnesses, confess to doing so and then be convicted of something less than murder because he thinks the act was justified. It’s also terrifying to consider the precedent this would set.
http://theolog.org/2010/01/roeders-frightening-defense.html
I do not want to argue that general proposition in these comments ... not the place.