Tiller jury selection; abortion on trial

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Tiller jury selection; abortion on trial
Mon, 01-11-2010 - 11:26am


Murder trial shines national spotlight on abortion debate
By Emanuella Grinberg and Lena Jakobssen, CNN
January 11, 2010 11:00 a.m. EST

Wichita, Kansas (CNN/In Session) -- Jury selection begins this week in the murder trial of a man who admits he fatally shot Dr. George Tiller, one of four abortion providers in the country who performed late-term abortions.

But if defendant Scott Roeder has his way, abortion also will be on trial when testimony begins.

Roeder, 51, has never denied shooting Tiller. In statements to the news media and in pretrial memos, he has asserted that he was justified under the theory that he was trying to save the lives of unborn children when he gunned down Tiller at Sunday church services on May 20, 2009.

Tiller, who had been performing late-term abortions in his Wichita clinic since 1973, was serving as an usher at Reformation Lutheran Church when Roeder shot him in the head at point-blank range.

Read the criminal complaint

Sedgwick County prosecutors have fought to keep the issue of abortion out of the trial, and even the presiding judge has said he does not want the case to become a venue for a debate on the legality of abortion.

With Roeder's beliefs expected to be the focal point of the defense case, the trial could become the next forum in the fierce debate over one of the nation's most emotionally charged and divisive issues.

Security is expected to be tighter than usual at the courthouse when proceedings begin Wednesday with jury selection, and officials are uncertain whether demonstrators will gather for the trial. Some groups, including Wichita-based Operation Rescue, have distanced themselves from violence as a means of protest.

Throughout his controversial career, Tiller was among the most enduring targets of the anti-abortion movement, withstanding several legal challenges and numerous death threats, including one in 1993 in which he was shot in the arms. His death sent shock waves through both factions in the abortion debate, with most from the anti-abortion movement rushing to condemn Roeder's actions.

Roeder faces life in prison if convicted of first-degree murder in Tiller's death. He also is charged with two counts of aggravated assault for allegedly pointing his gun at two other ushers as he fled the church.

In several media interviews after his arrest, Roeder expressed no remorse over shooting Tiller, claiming it was necessary to prevent the doctor from carrying out controversial late-term abortions at the Women's Health Care Services clinic.

"Defending innocent life, that is what prompted me," he told The Associated Press in a November 10 telephone interview.

He also spoke of his intention to raise a so-called "necessity defense," a stance that put him at odds with his public defenders, who told the media that such a defense did not exist under Kansas law.

Judge Warren Wilbert has twice denied Roeder's request on the grounds that it is not applicable under Kansas law, which considers abortions legal. The most recent request came on Friday.

Wilbert warned Friday that he did not want his courtroom to become the setting for a full-blown debate on abortion. He did, however, indicate that he would consider giving jurors the option of convicting Roeder of voluntary manslaughter, which is defined as "an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force" under Kansas statute.

His comments opened the door for the possibility that Roeder's lawyers will present evidence to support his belief that he had no other option than to kill the doctor.

"This will not become a trial of the abortion issue, and there are not going to be witnesses who will testify graphic descriptions of abortion procedures and revisit and argue all the legally insufficient discussions and debates over the harm caused," Wilbert said. "It will be limited to Mr. Roeder's beliefs, and how he came to form those beliefs."

Wilbert added that he thought the defense would be an "uphill battle" but maintained he would remain "open-minded"

The judge's remarks surprised observers on both sides of the abortion debate, while raising the possibility of significantly less prison time. Sentencing guidelines for voluntary manslaughter range from 55 months to 247 months, depending on the crime and the defendant's criminal history.

"Today's perplexing decision is effectively backdoor permission for admitted killer Scott Roeder to use a 'justifiable homicide' defense that is both unjustifiable and unconscionable," said Katherine Spillar, executive vice president of Feminist Majority Foundation.

"Allowing an argument that this coldblooded, premeditated murder could be voluntary manslaughter will embolden anti-abortion extremists and could result in 'open season' on doctors across the country," Spillar added.

One of Roeder's supporters expressed disappointment that the judge had rejected the necessity defense, but remained hopeful that the issue of the legality of abortion would have its day in court.

"I am grateful for this evidence that the judge's heart is not fully closed," said David Leach, an Iowa-based anti-abortion activist and friend of Roeder's, who wrote his pro se briefs on the necessity defense. "I think pro-deathers are right to worry that death may lose."


Lilypie Second Birthday tickers

Lilypie Fifth Birthday tickers




iVillage Member
Registered: 05-02-2006
Mon, 01-11-2010 - 1:11pm



<<"I think pro-deathers are right to worry that death may lose.">>


2010 Siggy
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2009
Mon, 01-11-2010 - 1:19pm

I suppose that if he did this to a doctor that shut off life support to brain dead patients, he would argue the same defense.

Or if he walked into a church and shot a soldier that had participated in an attack that included children as casualties.

There is legal taking of life, and like the two cases above, abortion is one.

He committed premeditated murder, planning and shooting a man during a church service. The fact that Dr. Tiller was acting within the law will likely be what negates his claim to "manslaughter" or "justifiable homicide."

As has been said here by others - "Doesn't take Einstein, folks." If you don't want to spend time in jail, don't break the law.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-06-2009
Mon, 01-11-2010 - 4:53pm

I feel a little sorry for the judge. He has no chance of this NOT becoming all about the abortion issue.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-19-2006
Mon, 01-11-2010 - 10:50pm

His defense holds no legal water. You can only kill someone if they present a clear and IMMEDIATE threat to another human being if you want to use defense of a third party as your defense.

So for example if Dr Tiller had been trying to preform an abortion on me against my will and I killed him in an effort to stop him then the defense may hold up but as he was not a clear and present danger to anyone while worshiping it simply won't work.

Honestly I hope this killer rots in Jail the rest of his life.

Follow me to the Unplanned Pregnancy board!Follow me to Hot Debates!Follow me to Abortion Debate!

Lilypie Pregnancy tickers
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-29-2004
Tue, 01-12-2010 - 1:10am

Dear All,

Here's another story on this trial.


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
Tue, 01-12-2010 - 8:09am


Excellent! This can also be used to justify the 911 attacks and every terrorist attack since! Bravo courts~ anarchy WILL rule someday.
Then again, I guess if I perceive abortion protesters at clinics and rallies as a possible life threat to women seeking abortive medical care, and I honestly believe I must eliminate them to save those women, I can mow them down with an uzi, right?


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-20-2009
Tue, 01-12-2010 - 12:05pm

The only way I can possibly start to understand the manslaughter sentence would be if he had killed Dr. Tiller at his clinic. Roeder would have every right to believe Dr. Tiller was going into his clinic to perform an abortion, as I'm sure he would have been, and so, according to this law, he would have killed him in defense of "babies." But I cannot possibly EVER consider gunning a man down in his place of worship, surrounded by his family and other parishoners as anything less than premeditated, first degree murder. Hopefully the jury sees it the same way.

And I agree with Erosia, the possibility of Roder getting a manslaughter sentence is SO horrid and dangerous. Imagine if someone objected to the Iraq War and gunned down a soldier to stop him/her from possibly having to kill someone. Or if someone killed a police officer working on Death Row. It's absurd!

And I can't believe that that idiot used the term "pro-deathers" to support his friend who murdered a doctor. The idiocy of these people astounds me.

Image and video hosting by TinyPicLilypie Breastfeeding TickerPhotobucket
Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket
Image and video hosting by TinyPicLilypie Breastfeeding Ticker
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
Tue, 01-12-2010 - 4:37pm

Wow, Kansas is actually going to trial and it hasn't been a year since Roeder performed a termination on something he didn't want?

I have a pair here that most of this state doesn't want, would Kansas possibly be interested in taking them?


On the other hand, perhaps Texas ....

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Tue, 01-12-2010 - 5:19pm

I'm sorry, but I'm confused by your post; what is your point? That the home-invasion criminals be tried in Kansas?

That was an extremely graphic article, BTW. It probably would have been a good idea to give a heads-up in your post.


Lilypie Second Birthday tickers

Lilypie Fifth Birthday tickers


iVillage Member
Registered: 12-16-2009
Tue, 01-12-2010 - 6:34pm

Maybe check with the authorities in Kansas and Texas.

In the meantime:

http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-psabortdeb/?msg=5004.254 .