abortion classic or dud?

just wrote my congressman to ask that he do whatever is necessary to ensure federal charges under the access to clinics law & would urge pro-choice people who read this thread to do the same with their representatives. this is an outrage.

What will it take, someone walking into Phelps church and slaughtering them pre-emptively as potential abortionist killers, to make people realize this is a preposterously scandalous ruling?

the ruling is new; if the white house & congressmen made it known to the justice dept. that federal charges under the access to clinics law are called for now (not "after we see whether this ridiculously loaded deck pans out as both defense & the kansan judge clearly hope it will"), then there's opportunity for the whole anti-choice strategy here to backfire badly. I am holding off my usual cynicism about how committed the white house is to the right to choose and just urging people who give a shit about this to write their congressman NOW and say that you as a constituent believe that federal charges are called for.

any time a murderous psycho is flabbergasted in a good way is a good time to pick up the phone and call yr congressional representatives

max you know more about politics than I do, is emailing as good as calling or do I need to be getting on the horn about this kinda thing

do both bro! im sure it works differently in all offices but my congressmans office has difft ppl answering the phones and checking email.

and even if its the same poor intern fielding all calls and emails at least they'll know how passionate you are

might as well fax 'em too come to think of it

voluntary manslaughter for premeditated murder...because you had a philosophical difference with your victim is like something from the worst episode of law & order ever

so fucking pissed

"I hate this episode of Law & Order" is my reaction to about half the rulings that make the new tho tbh

i feel like i am less mad about this than i should be

a little context from a lawyer bro:

A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to defend himself. He may argue that his beliefs somehow change the elements of the offense of murder. But they do not as a matter of law. The judge can, and should, give him the right to make his defense any way he sees fit but the judge must also instruct the jury on the elements (premeditation, knowledge, purpose, etc.) of murder. And the jury cannot disregard those elements of the law simply because a criminal defendant decided to argue a ridiculous defense. That guy is going down.

i wish i felt a secure as he does on that final point. Kansas, etc...

yup that's kinda how i feel. most of the quotes in the article are from people who think the sky is falling or want to kill more abortionists, not necessarily people who know what they're talking about.

That is the line I was thinking along as I read this story (no lawyer).

given kansas's definition of voluntary manslaughter if i was the judge i might let him present it too. he could even make himself look worse trying to do it.

I wonder, can they convict him on the lesser charge and then recommend he be locked up forever due to being batshit crazy?

lol no

aw, that's too bad

Despite the assurances of will's lawyer bro, I wrote my congresspeople.

"...an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force."

Would that mean I could go and waste some Blackhawk employee on the theory that they might eventually end up murdering some in Mosul or wherever?

Unless he was prepared to argue that he shot Tiller in the foyer of the church because he thought Tiller was about to perform an abortion right there (and even then...), this should never have been ruled on this way.

but I mean - a judge also has the right to say that a defense is unmountable, doesn't he - a judge allowing a defense that's essentially "the crime isn't as bad because I disagreed w/my victim" is imo giving the defense way too much leeway - I mean, here's the prosecutor's take:

Prosecutors argued Monday that such a defense should not be considered because there is no evidence Tiller posed an imminent threat at the time of the killing.

"The State encourages this Court to not be the first to enable a defendant to justify premeditated murder because of an emotionally charged political belief," the prosecution wrote.

Vol. manslaughter = imminent threat or no go. I can't imagine an assassin would be allowed to mount the defense "my target was going to enact policies that would result in deaths," right?

"I hate this episode of Law & Order" is my reaction to about half the rulings that make the new tho tbh

I swear this was a recent L&O episode, I'm not even joking.

this is an outrage.
this is an outrage.
this is an outrage.
this is an outrage.
this is an outrage.

i dunno maybe there is something in ks case law that says it has to be imminent but "unreasonable" doesn't imply that to me. i agree it sucks but, lawyering, u know?

i mean i get what yr saying harbl/will's brother, but unless this is some cagey 'give em enough rope' ploy by the court, i honestly can't read this as anything other than a sympathetic judge hoping to set some precedent that will allow murderous pro-lifers (and, oh i don't know, TERRORISTS?) a loophole to get out of heavy jail-time.

some precedent that will allow murderous pro-lifers (and, oh i don't know, TERRORISTS?) a loophole to get out of heavy jail-time.

which is why, beyond my own personal passion about the issue, this is a really terrible precedent - seriously wild-west stuff in a "I considered the decedent a bad actor" way. lawyer bros correct me if I'm wrong but a precedent's established by the use of the defense at all, right - not just successful use?

i don't know how many courts in america are following the important precedent of this one trial judge in kansas though

If someone murdered Roder on the steps of the courthouse L&O-style, couldn't they make the same argument in court?

it's not courts, it's that once precedent is established other judges can be persuaded to allow a case to proceed based on precedent having been established, i.e., you'd better believe every pro-life lawyer in the country will have his eyes on this as a way to wedge their murdering/clinic-bombing clients out of long-time charges

i just don't feel like that's true is what i'm saying. the lawyers that defend these guys will try it yeah (they would anyway!) but other judges are not more likely to allow it imo. also if you look at what happened to like all the other abortion clinic bombers and doctor murderers, bad things happened to all of them. if you wanna talk about precedent it looks more like it cuts the other way and rev. don spitz is an idiot. beyond this particular case i actually think defendants should be allowed to present insane defenses if they want to, as a general rule.

i DO agree it will make more unreasonable people think it's easier to get away with killing a doctor though, because they take advice from people like don spitz

at the same time i don't know how much of a deterrent life imprisonment was to them in the first place.....*thinks to self*

guy gives slightly more explanation in this article (warning: comments are ~nuts~) http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/1672142.html

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/28/kansas.abortion.roeder.verdict/index.html?hpt=T2

GUILTY

i wonder what Roeder's stance on capital punishment is?

doesn't matter he's not up for the death penalty

What a frigging relief.

*Whew*

see i told u there was nothing to worry about : )

well done, jury.

I hope he gets impregnated in jail fwiw

only 37 minutes of deliberation!

so, what kind of positive changes could obama make in the next 3/7 years to the discourse regarding abortion?

Putting aborted babies in frappuccinos and giving them to the poor.

How dare you figure out my moneymaking scheme.

<IMG SRC="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/7/2010/03/93467f81bc217c065dd3c5e5f6171b63/original.jpg"; ALT="some text" WIDTH=32 HEIGHT=32>

h/t sweet_communist at Gawker.com

None. It was skillfully played a wedge issue by the Right to induce religious fundamentalists to vote against their economic interests.

And for the question, it really comes down to whether one believes a human soul exists (aside a thought placeholder or rhetorical gesture). As a materialist, I see suffering of the living (and of the unwanted to live) from unwanted pregnancies, but embryos with little neural development have the same moral weight as any other tissue. For dualists and other spiritualists, a soul must become conjoined with the embryo at some point. Its impossible to really speak sensibly about the matter as each position is a radical denial of the other's fundamental premises.

I think its reasonable to put the legality of earlier trimester abortions off-limits, while also allowing the religious to have a say in whether their tax dollars contribute to what they consider murder. I have the same say in voting against out war mongers that I consider murderers. So I don't have a problem with the Stupak amendment.

Planned Parenthood has some rather wealthy supporters. Multi-billionaire Warren Buffett, for example, funded two-thirds of the first year's trials of RU-486. So long as the legality of early trimester medical abortions can be safeguarded, there are ways for private concerns to subsidize the costs.

dude, I fail.

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/7/2010/03/93467f81bc217c065dd3c5e5f6171b63/original.jpg

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/7/2010/03/93467f81bc217c065dd3c5e5f6171b63/original.jpg