Posts Tagged ‘Roeder’

I apologize in advance for another post about the trial of Scott Roeder but, now that the trial has started, interesting news stories keep popping up. The New York Times has a lengthy article with the latest updates of the trial, as well as information about a development that’s been unfolding… namely, how schisms have begun to develop among anti-choice activists about how to approach the ongoing trial (more information on this can also be found here).

Some prominent “pro-life” individuals, such as Troy Newman of Operation Rescue, have attempted to distance themselves from Roeder (for reasons the linked Wikipedia article makes fairly clear). Others, such as Randall Terry (who actually founded Operation Rescue but is no longer affiliated with the group), have been more ambiguous with their sentiments. According to the Times piece, Terry has refused to condone or condemn Roeder, but also made it a point to mention that “George Tiller shed the blood of 60,000 innocent children.” I could write several blogs about Terry alone (his hypocrisy is something to behold, but I think his reluctance to even feign sympathy for the Tillers says enough on its own.

But even as they try to distance themselves from Roeder, the fact remains that it’s organizations like Operation Rescue, who railed against Tiller for years, that are at least somewhat accountable for the circumstances that led to Dr. Tiller’s death. Their message was that Dr. Tiller must be stopped, and their tone and sentiment said “at any cost.” Roeder’s own words make this frighteningly apparent. From the Times (emphasis mine):

So, Nola Foulston, the prosecutor asked him, do you feel you have successfully completed your mission?

“He’s been stopped,” Mr. Roeder said.

But do you feel you have successfully completed your mission, she asked again.

“Yes,” he said.

There have been some new, offensive developments in the Scott Roeder case.  As I recently wrote, Roeder wants to argue a “necessity defense,” implying that murdering Dr. Tiller was “for the greater good.” The presiding judge just heard new arguments around this issue, causing jury selection (which was to begin earlier this week) to be delayed. Now, it seems, the judge will allow Roeder and his attorneys to argue the “necessity defense,” but has not yet decided whether or not he’ll allow the jury to consider it as an option during deliberations.

I’m no legal scholar, but this seems extremely counterproductive. Even if the judge eventually decides that the jury shouldn’t have the option of considering a “necessity defense” argument and, therefore, convicting Roeder of a lesser charge, surely the information the jury members hear will influence and taint their eventual decision. More strikingly, should the judge allow this defense to be considered, it may lead to a dangerous precedent. From the link above: “Abortion-rights advocates also say giving juries the option of applying a lesser charge to the killers of abortion providers would encourage more violence against the providers.”

While some may see this is an overreaction, I don’t. What this decision really says is that individuals and groups may be justified in committing acts of violence against abortion providers. Keep in mind: Dr. Tiller was murdered for doing something completely legal. And if this defense works, the judge and jury will be implying that murdering an abortion provider is somehow less of a crime than murdering someone of any other profession. An implication, I fear, that some may take all too seriously.

Hello again, and a happy 2010 to everyone!

I’d love to kick off the new year with some good news, but, if you hadn’t yet noticed, that’s not really my modus operandi. So,  let’s turn to the impending trial of Scott Roeder, the pro-”life” activist who murdered Dr. George Tiller last year. Jury selection begins next week, meaning that press coverage will most likely explode over the coming days and weeks.

Until the media circus begins, however, those of us interested in the case must content ourselves with small nuggets of information. Like, for instance, this article, which explains what kind of defense the judge will allow Roeder to utilize. Or this one, which reveals that Roeder’s attorney has subpoenaed former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline in an attempt to get him to testify for the defense. I mention these two developments together because, as we’ll see, they are somewhat related.

The first article describes the presiding judge’s decision to prohibit Roeder and his attorneys from using a “necessity defense.” Basically, this type of defense is used to try and persuade a jury that a defendant broke the law to prevent a greater harm. The greater harm in this case being, in Roeder’s view, the continued access to abortion services provided by Dr. Tiller. Now, to his credit, the judge ruled that Roeder could not use the necessity defense, mostly because precedent only shows it being allowable when the victim is breaking the law (something Dr. Tiller was not doing, since, of course, he was a) providing a legal medical procedure and b) going to church at the time of his death). However,the judge did leave the door open for the defense to argue that, in Roeder’s mind, “circumstances existed that justified deadly force.”

Which is where Phill Kline comes in. In case you’e not familiar with him, Kline spent four years investigating the practices of Dr. Tiller, attempting to find evidence of Dr. Tiller breaking the law. It is speculated that Roeder’s attorney hopes to use Kline’s testimony to convince the jury that Tiller’s death was perhaps justified.

Because Roeder has already publicly admitted to the murder, it appears that he’s hoping for one of two results: a) convince the jury to convict him of a lesser charge, such as manslaughter (in which case he could be freed in less than 10 years) or b) convince one or two members of the jury that he did, in fact, act with “the greater good” in mind and force a hung jury. (This, of course, also presupposes that if Dr. Tiller did in fact break a law, something which was never proven, it suddenly became perfectly acceptable for Roeder to take it upon himself to act as executioner… a worldview, as you might expect, I have problems with.)

The fact that this is the tact the defense is choosing to take is utterly reprehensible to me, but there’s little about this situation that isn’t, really. What amazes me, however, is that a man who claims to be pro-life is so willing to completely abandon that opinion… first, of course, by the brutal slaying of Dr. Tiller, and now by inferring that Roeder himself gets to decide who’s worthy of living or dying. How is it that Roeder can be so vehemently against letting a woman decide what to do with her own body, yet believe that it’s ok to choose to murder someone? Can he really reconcile the hypocrisy in his own mind? Or is he so desperate to save himself that he’ll now embrace a twisted and despicable variant on the idea of choice?

One of the mantras of the anti-choicers is that “every life is precious.” Except, it seems, when one of them is in a bind.