wow

What the fuck is wrong with Kansas?

It was a textbook case of premeditated murder.

Murder one, assholes.

The judge FAILs hard.

Be Well.

the judge is basically saying that abortion is murder and this guy was stopping a murderer.

killing is wrong but killing a murderer is manslaughter.

are they TRYING to force this to the supreme court?

are they TRYING to force this to the supreme court?

I hope. The alternative explanation is that the judge is attempting to legitimize this man's actions as best he can. That would be really bad.

"A conviction could bring a prison sentence closer to five years, instead of a life term for first-degree murder."

This judge should be kicked off the bench, that is certainly not justice. Perhaps the feds will use the violation of civil rights charge that they have used in the past when southern judges and juries refused to convict perpetrators of crimes against civil rights leaders and supporters.

Anybody surprised in the least? This murder is the talibaptist's equivalent of honor killing.

More hypocrisy from the law and order, pro-life crowd, eh?

More hypocrisy from the law and order, pro-life crowd, eh?

#7 | Posted by woke

What crowd, you idiot? Was there more than 1 Judge?

What crowd, you idiot?

The crowd that idolizes this murderer and would support the judge's decision.

Can the DA appeal this decision pre-trial?

That is INSANE! The Prosecution should add the Federal charges then of violating the Doctor's civil rights then as well as a Terrorism charge to the man who shot a doctor to alter US policy. Two can and should play this game.

If the judge is doing this in order that the case will go to the Supreme Court, could the SC ruling then federalize special protections (i.e., tougher sentences for premeditated crimes against abortion doctors?).

Maybe he felt he was "justified" because his religious beliefs had driven him insane. I say let it go to the Supreme court and then we could put Religion itself on trial. Wouldn't that be fun? He could use the "Jesus made me do it" defense! WE could then call Jesus as a witness.

"the judge is basically saying that abortion is murder and this guy was stopping a murderer.

killing is wrong but killing a murderer is manslaughter."

I'm assuming the judge is basically saying that if he can prove the abortion was murder, then he was stopping a murder.

Good luck on that one. Of course, if he can prove that the abortion to take place lacked medical judgment as required under Roe v Wade...

Unbelievable. This judge paints a target on anybody who offers abortion services, protects clinics or engages in any other activity that an extremist wacko might oppose in the name of being "pro life."

from above...

"are they TRYING to force this to the supreme court?"

simple answer:

Yes. The judge is obviously one of those gone-with-the-winder's creationists trying to force their theology upon the law of the land.

it's Murder One...closed case.

From what I've read Kansas law does not allow this as an affirmative defense. I don't see how this stands up.

the abortion to take place lacked medical judgment as required under Roe v Wade

It took place under Tiller's judgment, dumbass. It's past time for you to take that feeble old argument out behind the barn...

I honestly would like to know people like Sarah Palin's opinion on this.

He simply executed a murdering dog.

Murder is a legal term. Abortion is legal, so the doctor performing abortions may be killing, but is not murdering. The guy who killed the doctor however, did break the law regarding unlawful killing and therefore did commit murder. Simple.

"He simply executed a murdering dog.

#20 | Posted by rebelnation"

The white trash speaks, poorly as usual.

As a criminal defense attorney let me clarify the law: If the attorney can make a legal argument for the elements of the crime of manslaughter based on actual present facts which jurors might reasonably find to be true, the judges hands are tied. He has to give the instruction. The only way the instruction can be denied is if the defense theory in support of manslaughter is so far fetched that no "reasonable" juror could find it to be supported by any reasonable interpretation of the facts.

M8,

Is that Federal law, or State law?

the abortion to take place lacked medical judgment as required under Roe v Wade

It took place under Tiller's judgment, dumbass. It's past time for you to take that feeble old argument out behind the barn...

#18 | Posted by ZombieHunter

And if Tiller's judgment is not based on medicine, it isn't medical judgment. That makes Tiller subject to State law that would prevent abortion.

Zombie, you just don't like Roe v Wade's decision. It states that the abortion is free from State interference if it includes the medical judgment of the physician.

If the defense can prove that abortions were done with out medical judgment (like I didn't feel like being pregnant anymore) then the State has an interest in the issue.

Is it murder in the State of Kansas to perform an abortion without medical judgment?

ACTIVIST JUDGES!!!

-The Right.....oh...wait...not this time.

He simply executed a murdering dog.

#20 | Posted by rebelnation at 2010-01-12 02:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

I thought you right-wingers were the party of 'law and order'?

I'm sure you're all for the death penalty for this murderer, right?.....or are you a hypocrite?

The only way the instruction can be denied is if the defense theory in support of manslaughter is so far fetched that no "reasonable" juror could find it to be supported by any reasonable interpretation of the facts.

#23 | Posted by moder8 at 2010-01-12 03:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

A "reasonable juror" in KS when it comes to abortion? Like trying to find a Unicorn.

it is funny how when a judge does something you don't like they are an activist. Both sides are so guilty of this...

A "reasonable juror" in KS when it comes to abortion? Like trying to find a Unicorn.

#28 | Posted by COMMONSENSE
That is just a dumb comment. There are reasonable people in every state.

A "reasonable juror" in KS when it comes to abortion? Like trying to find a Unicorn.

#28 | Posted by COMMONSENSE
That is just a dumb comment. There are reasonable people in every state.

#30 | Posted by freechoice at 2010-01-12 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Really? Are you sure? Wow...I had no idea! OMG!!! Thank you SOOOOO much for explaining that to me.

#31 | Posted by COMMONSENSE
Well it is just common sense that their would be..

I hope the defense moves that their client acted in preventing more murders.

Then the prosecution can cite Roe v Wade and remind the court that the highest court in the nation has determined that abortion is not murder; and that the act committed by defendant is...

As a criminal defense attorney let me clarify the law: If the attorney can make a legal argument for the elements of the crime of manslaughter based on actual present facts which jurors might reasonably find to be true, the judges hands are tied. He has to give the instruction. The only way the instruction can be denied is if the defense theory in support of manslaughter is so far fetched that no "reasonable" juror could find it to be supported by any reasonable interpretation of the facts.

Thank you, moder.

But the judge dealt prosecutors a setback during a hearing Tuesday, saying that until the defense decides which evidence it will present, it's difficult for him to rule on its admissibility.

The impression I got from the article and particularly the above line is that the judge isn't ruling that the defense is OK, he's ruling that he CAN'T rule it not ok YET until the evidence is presented.

I don't have a problem with this.Roeder admitted he killed Tiller,so its pretty much case closed for the prosecution.
What I am more concerned about is an activist jury letting him go scot free.Kansas after all is right in the middle of the bible belt so this is a dream defense for this guy.
If they do convict(or not) this guy we will probably need some ledgislation in the future to limit this type of defense.
I don't agree with abortion at all but it is legal to so and taking pot shots at doctors is unacceptable.

rwd

#31 | Posted by COMMONSENSE
Well it is just common sense that their would be..

#32 | Posted by freechoice at 2010-01-12 04:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Once again...thank you for enlightening me. It's 'spine-tingling' to see such brilliance in action.

wow..this judge is totally fucked up. It was 1st degree premeditated murder.

Murder one, assholes.

The judge FAILs hard.

Be Well.

#2 | Posted by dethspud

Abortion is premeditated.

Too bad it's not murder.

Do you ever get sick of being a failure, Eddie?

I think jury nullification will come in to play in this case, if Roeder is denied the manslaughter defense in the challenge to the judges ruling.

It's the 'silent' part of our legal system, and this is Kansas, after all.

Using this judge's "logic" someone could kill him for trying to let a 1st degree murderer like Roeder out of a life sentence.

Before anyone complains, I DON'T hope that happens. This judge needs to be fired, not killed.

Stupid decisions aren't limited to lib judges, I see. Bad move here.

This is what I don't get:

The accused murders a doctor because he is upset that this doctor murders unborn children?

Am I the only one to see the paradox here?

For what it's worth (I now have two stalkers -- sprayer and 'left-hand hurts from jacking off') and pets must be fed ..........

I am a Bible-believing Christian and I believe ....

Scott Roeder, is guilty of pre-meditated, first degree murder. He should suffer the worst punishment - for his crime - as state law provides

I also believe that George Tiller was the most vile of humans alive. He ranks with Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Hirohito, Kim il, and many more evil leaders.

All these other evil people also found a loophole in the legal slaughter of innocent people

Can the DA appeal this decision pre-trial?

#10 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2010-01-12 12:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm not going to research Kansas law, but generally, the prosecution has a very limited ability to appeal in a criminal case, and can't appeal a "not guilty" verdict. There may be a procedure for the trial court to certify a pre-trial appeal on a specific issue, but I can't tell you for sure. Criminal law is not my area of expertise. I'm interested to hear what the Retort defense attorneys have to say.

So if this line of defense is valid why couldn't the attorney for the Ft. Hood shooter use the same defense? Hasan's claim was that he was preventing the murder of innocent Muslims. What's the difference if you buy the argument that fetuses are people, which this judge apparently does? I'm sure this will be a great comfort to the survivors and the families of those soldiers who were killed. Way to go Kansas!

Abortion is premeditated.

But it's not murder... carry on righties.

And if Tiller's judgment is not based on medicine, it isn't medical judgment.

Who the fuck is some internet flunkie who goes by "Petrous" to define medical judgment and determine what is "based on medicine"? Pontificating fools such as this fellow have neither the authority nor the educational background to do so.

Zombie, you just don't like Roe v Wade's decision. It states that the abortion is free from State interference if it includes the medical judgment of the physician.

I have nothing wrong with Roe v. Wade. It is your flawed interpretation of it that I take issue with. Your error lies in the arrogant presumption that self-absorberd rightwing fools are somehow capable of making more sound "medical judgments" than a physician. Note that Roe v. Wade uses the phrase "medical judgment" instead of "threat of death or disability". Any physician who is performing an abortion is doing so he or she thinks the procedure is warranted for a patient... that constitutes medical judgment. You simply disagree with it. That is your right, but your opinion on the matter is utterly meaningless.

trying to force their theology upon the law of the land.

#16 | Posted by earthmuse at 2010-01-12 12:58 PM | Reply | Flag

Ya mean like roe v wade and the light skinned negro does as a test for appointment to the federal court?

But the judge dealt prosecutors a setback during a hearing Tuesday, saying that until the defense decides which evidence it will present, it's difficult for him to rule on its admissibility.

The impression I got from the article and particularly the above line is that the judge isn't ruling that the defense is OK, he's ruling that he CAN'T rule it not ok YET until the evidence is presented.

#34 | Posted by jpw at 2010-01-12 05:52 PM

He's not necessarily "allowing" the manslaughter claim. He just needs to see the evidence the defense is supposedly bringing up first before he can shoot it down.

The impression I got from the article and particularly the above line is that the judge isn't ruling that the defense is OK, he's ruling that he CAN'T rule it not ok YET until the evidence is presented.

#34 | Posted by jpw

Thank you for the cool head analysis.

This judge has to follow the law. Sometimes rightly or wrongly.

I don't personally see how this could be found to be anything but murder. (1 or 2)

Manslaughter denotes 'accidental or an oops' doesn't it??

Roeder planned this out--where to go--what time--what day--parked the car--walked in with a gun.

There were so many opportunities to stop and back out. He didn't.

In an earlier post I said I wasn't going to research Kansas law, but I couldn't help myself. My quick search leaves me with the impression that the prosecution could probably appeal a ruling by the court that the defendant is definitively entitled to present the defense that the killing was justified. It doesn't sound like the case is at that point though.

As to when the prosecution is allowed to appeal, I'll leave that to a criminal procedure geek. It bores me to tears.

(I based my conclusion on the following statute and case. I didn't go very far with my research because I'm not getting paid for it!)

From KANSAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 22-3602:
(b) Appeals to the court of appeals may be taken by the prosecution from cases before a district judge as a matter of right in the following cases, and no others:
...
(3) upon a question reserved by the prosecution; or

From State v. Wilson, 261 Kan. 924:
"Appeals on questions reserved by the prosecution in criminal actions will not be entertained merely to demonstrate whether errors have been committed by the trial court in its rulings adverse to the State. Such questions must be of statewide interest, and answers thereto must be vital to a correct and uniform administration of the criminal law."