The Judge again denied the necessity defense for all the same reasons he did last month.
However, the court has left open the possibility of a statutory "defense of others" claim. Roeder will be able to put on some evidence of this defense but the court indicated that it was unlikely anything presented would rise to a level that would ultimately lead to the jury being instructed on the defense. The Court made it clear that this is not going to be a trial about abortion and if it should or should not be legal. It's about the actions of Scott Roeder.
Finally, the Court indicated that if supported by the evidence it would give the jury a lesser offense instruction of manslaughter. In short, if Roeder had an honest belief even though it was wrong that he had to act to protect others, that may rise to the level necessary for a lesser offense instruction. To get it however Roeder almost has to testify as to what he was thinking/feeling (like he would skip the chance to talk in this case).
Posts
Scott professes he cares deeply for the unborn, Scott, or any man for the matter, has no idea what it feels like to carry a child for nine months. Scott does know what it is like to hold and cuddle his newborn son. The same son he walked out on--leaving him without food in the house or money to purchase food. Scott does know what it is like to tell his 10 year old son that he won't pay his child support. Scott was not out of work. Scott made a deliberate decision to not support his child. Scott made a decision to purchase a gun, determine where Dr.Tiller would be most vulnerable, made last visits to his family and drove to Wichita. Scott went into the church waited till everyone was seated and walked out to the lobby where he shot a man point blank. After his arrest Scott mad another decision to write and tell his son what an ungrateful spoiled brat he thought he was. I have no doubt that Scott in his own way loves his son. The son that some of his friends and supporters knew nothing about. "Didn't even know he had a son," was what one of them told me personally. So we have a man who could get off with manslaughter for a premeditated cold blooded murder. A man who has "given his life for the sake of the unborn." This same man could not support his own child with the basic needs. (Trust me I more than cared for my child.) This is the same man whose brother once accused him of being a "dead beat dad" in hopes that he would step up to the plate. This issue of child support was something my son and I had moved on from--it was over and long done. I understand that Scott felt he was "saving" lives of the unborn, just please explain why he could not provide for his son?
ReplyDeleteStrange how the pro death zealots have no problem whatsoever of the taking of the lives of 51 million innocent babies!
ReplyDeleteOh that's right! It's alright to murder these human beings because it's "legal"! Just like it used to be legal to enslave and keep uneducated our brothers and sisters in humanity!
It seems there is a bias on this blog. You put any post that touches your golden calf.
ReplyDelete