Scott Roeder, guilty of premeditated, first-degree murder

By Kathleen GilbertWICHITA, Kansas, January 29, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Wichita jury found 51-year-old Scott Roeder guilty of first-degree murder Friday for his admitted shooting of late-term abortionist George Tiller last May.Roeder confessed to shooting the abortionist at point-blank range in...

Full article...

The jury deliberated for just 37 minutes before finding Scott Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Mo., guilty of premeditated, first-degree murder in the May 31 shooting death.

I would like to know why the trial judge would not allow the jury to consider any OTHER lesser charge than first degree murder? The consideration of a lesser charge is more common than not but apparently not in this case unless an appeal is succesfull. I have an opinion on this case but the previous sentences were not an expression of that opinion…:confused:

[quote="joe_clark, post:2, topic:184912"]
The jury deliberated for just 37 minutes before finding Scott Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Mo., guilty of premeditated, first-degree murder in the May 31 shooting death.

[/quote]

37 minutes??? I'm surprised it took them that long. This was an open-and-shut case if there ever was one.

37 minutes was 27 too long. Should have only taken 10 min tops, to decide this nut case guilty.

[quote="Christopher68, post:4, topic:184912"]
37 minutes??? I'm surprised it took them that long. This was an open-and-shut case if there ever was one.

[/quote]

Under that state's law..the case was not so open and shut. The defendant was disallowed to present a case that was directed toward a verdict of manslaughter which was not out of the range of possibility had it been allowed to be opened. Further..perhaps the defendant was a "nut case"..in my opinion, the person he murdered was a "chock full of nuts case". Interesting from a legal/philosophical point of view but certainly sad when the mounds of innocent dead bodies are considered. None of this was something to feel good about..there were no "good guys".:shrug:

God bless Scott Roeder for sticking up for the innocent and bringing a just punishment to a murderer. Unfortunately our country has become so depraved that it considers abortion nothing more than a medical procedure and not the genocide that it is. If given the chance who who wouldnt kill another adolf hitler?

How did Roeder help even a single unborn person by committing the murder?

Who was he to usurp what is God’s perogative, and kill the man before he might have repented of what he did? A number of former abortionists did just that, most famously Bernard Nathanson, who has subsequently done much to fight the American pro-abortion movement. Suppose some madman had killed Nathanson?

And, this doesn’t even count the injury Roeder has done to the pro-life movement.

Let him rot in prison.

[quote="pismopal, post:3, topic:184912"]
I would like to know why the trial judge would not allow the jury to consider any OTHER lesser charge than first degree murder? The consideration of a lesser charge is more common than not but apparently not in this case unless an appeal is succesfull. I have an opinion on this case but the previous sentences were not an expression of that opinion....:confused:

[/quote]

Yeah, it's political in nature. Planned Parenthood and the others would be sure of that.

[quote="Califman831, post:7, topic:184912"]
God bless Scott Roeder for sticking up for the innocent and bringing a just punishment to a murderer. Unfortunately our country has become so depraved that it considers abortion nothing more than a medical procedure and not the genocide that it is. If given the chance who who wouldnt kill another adolf hitler?

[/quote]

Agreed. It's a shame. Tiller the Killer was doing infanticide.

And Roeder was doing first degree murder.

[quote="DihydrogenOxide, post:9, topic:184912"]
Agreed. It's a shame. Tiller the Killer was doing infanticide.

[/quote]

How does it advance the culture of life we are trying to promote when we take the very principle we oppose and "use it" for our own means? The pro-abortion people say that unborn babies do not count and can be killed. We simply turn around cannot say that Tiller's life "does not count" and therefore can be taken. All that does is go down to their level.

I would love for all abortions to end, but this was murder plain and simple. The jury made the right choice. Thou shalt not kill is still a commandment, and we can't ignore that or support someone who does.

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:10, topic:184912"]
And Roeder was doing first degree murder.

[/quote]

And what is infanticide?

[quote="curlycool89, post:11, topic:184912"]
How does it advance the culture of life we are trying to promote when we take the very principle we oppose and "use it" for our own means? The pro-abortion people say that unborn babies do not count and can be killed. We simply turn around cannot say that Tiller's life "does not count" and therefore can be taken. All that does is go down to their level.

I would love for all abortions to end, but this was murder plain and simple. The jury made the right choice. Thou shalt not kill is still a commandment, and we can't ignore that or support someone who does.

[/quote]

Tiller is the murderer, not the babies. It's twisted logic to say that "Tiller's life does not count" if it obviously does when he's murdering, even illegally in the eyes of the law, which is saying a lot in our culture today. This man was a sicko...he photographed post-abortive mothers with their dead infant's bodies with sweetsie poses on their faces. He was a serial killer.

According to the jury, it was in fact an open and shut case. The defendant admitted to premeditated first degree murder. The jury convicted him.

[quote="Christopher68, post:13, topic:184912"]
According to the jury, it was in fact an open and shut case. The defendant admitted to premeditated first degree murder. The jury convicted him.

[/quote]

I oppose the death penalty so I wouldn't have wanted Roeder put to death even if it were not Kansas that doesn't have a death penalty. In another state, however, he could just have well been put to death.

[quote="DihydrogenOxide, post:12, topic:184912"]

Tiller is the murderer, not the babies.

[/quote]

Had he killed even your own parents or your wife, you don't have the right to take vengeance and kill him yourself in return. It is the State's duty to prosecute crimes and punish the guilty.

[quote="Christopher68, post:13, topic:184912"]
According to the jury, it was in fact an open and shut case. The defendant admitted to premeditated first degree murder. The jury convicted him.

[/quote]

You are absolutely wrong. The defendant did not admit to premeditated "first degree murder". He said that he killed the victim. There are many shades of homicide and some of them involve justification..not all are murder. No attorney would allow his client to define the act he committed as "first degree murder". It is not up to the defendant to define his act anyway. The jury convicted him of the only crime the judge allowed to be considered. We will see where the appeal goes..won't we? As to how many babies Tiller's death will bring back...none.. but he won't be responsible for any more deaths now will he?

[quote="pismopal, post:16, topic:184912"]
...he [Tiller] won't be responsible for any more deaths now will he?

[/quote]

Quite right....Nor will Roeder.

You live in a totalitarian country which has been taken over by a political group which hates a certain ethnic minority. These ethnic monorities have been hauled away for execution but a small number of them are being hidden in your house by your family. The law of the land is that these minorities are fair game for arrest and death and so is anyone who attempts to prevent this by hiding them. An officer discovers them hiding in your home and you kill the officer to prevent the arrest of those you are hiding and to prevent the arrests and deaths of your family members and yourself.
What crime are you guilty of? Don’t forget the law of the land which demands that you be punished for hiding innocents as well as for the death of an agent of this political group. Not so easy to be the judge is it?:shrug:

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:14, topic:184912"]
I oppose the death penalty so I wouldn't have wanted Roeder put to death even if it were not Kansas that doesn't have a death penalty. In another state, however, he could just have well been put to death.

[/quote]

Kansas does currently have a death penalty, and a few years back it was sought against the Carr brothers who raped and killed four people. The death penalty, however, can not be sought for 1st degree murder, but only for capital murder. That crime was not charged in this case.

Thanks for the correction. Arkansas, similarly, has the death penalty only for capital murder.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.