Kansas does not have “justifiable homicide” per se. Kansas Statute Annotated (K.S.A.) 21-3211 provides for use of force in defense of a person. The statute states, in relevant part:
(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.
What this means for Scott Roeder is that to claim he was defending a third person from Dr. George Tiller he will have to be able to establish:
1. That he reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary;
2. That he reasonably believed that he had to use deadly force;
3. That had he not used deadly force, there would have been imminent death or great bodily harm by Dr. Tiller to a third person.
That all seems straight forward, and to Roeder’s terrorist brethren it’s a clear case. But, when you look at the law in Kansas and how the statute is legally applied, it’s not what they claim. We’ll look at the specifics of a third part defense in part 2.