Ks v Roeder on this the anniversary of Roe v Wade

[dogtowner]

The doctor wasn't commiting murder under US law, your religious beliefs though perhaps heartfelt are not US law. Technically what he did WAS murder, he comitted premeditated murder of an American citizen who was acting within the legal framework of our country's laws. Your opinion of someone's "innocence" or "guilt" is irrelevant unless you can prove it in court.

did I say they were ?
did I say I approved ?

please consider seeing someone about that jerky knee.

 

[Helicitor]

I'm curious if it is only human life that has intrinsic value in your eyes. Does someone who kills animals for fun or profit incur any guilt in your eyes?

Interesting question. Life has intrinsic value, though animal life is not on a par with human life. I hunted and fished in my youth, and found the predator-prey relationship instinctive. Though we are rational (some would say spiritual), we are still part of nature, and part of the food chain. I hunted for food, not trophies. Biologically speaking, we are omnivores that require meat (or at least nutritional supplements if we choose not to eat meat).

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Appreciate the advice. However, the point I was trying to make (perhaps a little too subtly) is that 'separation of church and state' does not exist in the language of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. The first amendment states 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...', the latter being the point I was trying to make. The separation argument often conflicts with free exercise.

Ok, your right that 'subtly just went right on over my head' {next time I won't duck}

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Helicitor Said: This type of behavior became inevitable when the supreme court decided to take the people's right to govern themselves out of their hands and act as unelected "rulers" of us all. Did Roeder commit murder--yes. Is he a nut--no. He is committed to his cause and sees no other way to prevail. If SCOTUS hadn't gotten involved and invented "rights" not in the constitution, there's no saying that Roeder might have spent his zealous energies trying to convince his fellow citizens to change the laws.

So if I follow you thoughts on this 'NON-NUT harmless ZEALOT with a mission statement all unto his own agenda...if the PRO-CHOICE wasn't a law he wouldn't have had to murder {shot Dr. Tiller point blank in the head at this place of worship}.

Hmmmm...then in that same mind set wouldn't Timothy McVey have had a 'FREE PASS' for blowing up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City...since he was just reacting to the deaths and destruction of WACO perpetrated by the FBI. I mean come on...all of those innocent men/women/children so horribly burned to death...Timothy McVey was just creating his own unique way to get our government attention and stop the government from becoming such a power house answerable only to themselves

So when/where does this ZEALOT OVERLY REACTIONARY chain of events STOP? What sort of guidelines/rules are we supposed to play by...sure seems highly similar to an 'EYE FOR AN EYE' and I don't think that's what our judicial system allows!

 

[BigRob]

Interesting to me; how someone can say that they are PRO-LIFE and then kill someone because they_______________ {fill that in as needed}.
I do understand someone being passionate about issues...we see that a lot around here {I get passionate and very, very angry at humans that do heinous things to animals} but I don't split my ideologies down the middle about what LIFE is all about.

Maybe he's of the limited mental capacity and as his ex-wife did try to get his family to do something about his 'mental state'...but wouldn't that lean more towards a 'insanity defense instead of a necessity defense'?

I am not sure where I said we needed to kill someone, I simply said the person who committed the crime ought to be treated accordingly.

Putting all of that aside however, if it comes to the death penalty, then that is what it will come to. I think that committing a premeditated murder means you forfeit your right to life. The same case can hardly be made that an unborn child forfeits its right to life for anything they have done.

 

[Helicitor]

So if I follow you thoughts on this 'NON-NUT harmless ZEALOT with a mission statement all unto his own agenda...if the PRO-CHOICE wasn't a law he wouldn't have had to murder {shot Dr. Tiller point blank in the head at this place of worship}.

Hmmmm...then in that same mind set wouldn't Timothy McVey have had a 'FREE PASS' for blowing up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City...since he was just reacting to the deaths and destruction of WACO perpetrated by the FBI. I mean come on...all of those innocent men/women/children so horribly burned to death...Timothy McVey was just creating his own unique way to get our government attention and stop the government from becoming such a power house answerable only to themselves

So when/where does this ZEALOT OVERLY REACTIONARY chain of events STOP? What sort of guidelines/rules are we supposed to play by...sure seems highly similar to an 'EYE FOR AN EYE' and I don't think that's what our judicial system allows!

Well, I never realized I said so much. Understanding the causes of violence doesn't mean I support those causes. Zealots are rarely harmless, but history is full of them. All issues seem to attract their fair share. My point is that zealots are not usually "insane" or "crazy" they are typically very focused and deliberate. I believe our democratic process allows most zealots an outlet for their energies that fall short of violence--this is our best hope of stopping the cycle. In the case of abortion, the political route has been short circuited by the court--it should have been left in the people's hands. Because of that, one set of zealots is satisfied and one set is mobilized.

BTW, Timothy McVeigh was also highly motivated by Ruby Ridge. An interesting case study in bad government decision making. There is a good wikipedia article on it. The highlight was an unarmed mother holding a baby being shot in the face by a police sniper. Violence begets violence. I don't approve of Timothy McVeigh, and I didn't approve of my governments actions at Waco or Ruby Ridge.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Biologically speaking, we are omnivores that require meat (or at least nutritional supplements if we choose not to eat meat).

Not true actually, the only thing that people seem to think is lacking would be B12 and all the B12 on Earth is produced by bacteria. The only reason that flesh is a good source of B12 is that bacteria grow on it well. The bacteria will produce B12 on many growing mediums, Spirulina is a vegetable that has lots of B12 in it.

You really didn't answer my question very well, man is the only predator with a choice about whether to prey on others, are we justified in doing so just because we can? Isn't that Might is Right?

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Well, I never realized I said so much.

Oh, you didn't have to say so much...that's usually my hang-up/problem...but given the current 'OLD GUARD MEMBERS' around here, I try to not ASSume anything and get it as clearly stated as possible...don't leave anything up to suppositions/assumptions

Understanding the causes of violence doesn't mean I support those causes. Zealots are rarely harmless, but history is full of them. All issues seem to attract their fair share. My point is that zealots are not usually "insane" or "crazy" they are typically very focused and deliberate.

Agreed...but it seems that historically all we hear about are the ones that have taken themselves entirely too seriously and have a 'martyr complex' and will leave no stone unturned to achieve that ending! And BAM...they are in the national news as well as the enormous casualties and a large body count!

I believe our democratic process allows most zealots an outlet for their energies that fall short of violence--this is our best hope of stopping the cycle. In the case of abortion, the political route has been short circuited by the court--it should have been left in the people's hands. Because of that, one set of zealots is satisfied and one set is mobilized.

And the rights that we women rarely had as our own now have to be monitored by others of whom it is none of their business...but that's for the abortion topic/thread!

BTW, Timothy McVeigh was also highly motivated by Ruby Ridge. An interesting case study in bad government decision making. There is a good wikipedia article on it. The highlight was an unarmed mother holding a baby being shot in the face by a police sniper. Violence begets violence. I don't approve of Timothy McVeigh, and I didn't approve of my governments actions at Waco or Ruby Ridge.

Exactly...I knew that there was another prime example {that made the national news...but I just couldn't remember what ridge it was! There have been quite a few atrocities within the Indian Nations too...but that again is another topic/thread!

 

[Helicitor]

Spirulina is a vegetable that has lots of B12 in it.

I've fed that to brine shrimp, but it didn't look too appealing. I've sure it can be put into something that looks edible.

You really didn't answer my question very well, man is the only predator with a choice about whether to prey on others, are we justified in doing so just because we can? Isn't that Might is Right?

Justified as measured against what moral standard? As you stated, we all have a choice. My personal standard is biblical and can best be expressed as wise husbandry. Adam was intended to tend to God's garden.

Had his chance, muffed it.

Just to tie this back into the thread: as my signature suggests--deciphering each individual's moral framework is important. People's actions become more predictable when you understand their moral framework, which at least gives us a chance (as a society) to either deter or defuse behaviors.

 

[top gun]

courtinsession@cnn.com

The court case just started this morning in the murder case of Scott Roeder who shot Dr. George Tiller point blank in the head prior to church service. 4 Eye witnesses were present when this occurred, Scott Roeder drove his own vehicle/registered to him with his current home address.

He admitted that he did it, plead not guilty due to a defense of necessity. It was premeditated, he had planned this for quite a while, purchased a gun, practiced target shooting with his brother the night before, traveled over 3½ hours, checked into a hotel the previous night, had a website that he had talked about killing Dr. George Tiller on {specifically}.

So the defense is claiming 'NECESSITY'...they declined to have an opening argument...they have tried to have Dr. George Tillers profession be the main stay of the legal argument and the Judge has ruled against that...so how does this all shake down for all of you?

AND PLEASE...WE HAVE A TOPIC ONGOING ABOUT ABORTION, SO COULD WE NOT TURN THIS INTO A DEBATE ABOUT THAT COULD WE KEEP THIS THE LEGAL QUESTION OF MURDER/PREMEDITATED/NECESSITY...HE CONFESSED TO THE ACT...BUT WANTS TO CLAIM THAT HE WAS DRIVEN TO DO THIS.

I understand the thin line of: that old tried / true question of...RIGHT TO LIFE v PRO-CHOICE. Does having a 'mindset about your life's vision' allow you the RIGHT to take a life? Was Scott Roeder justified or just a few bricks shy of a full load {nut-job-whack-o} and needs to be found guilty with the book thrown at him?

That defense can never fly. It's being allowed to limit grounds when there is an appeal.

One cannot claim the "necessity" when the act he is supposedly committing the Capitol Offense because of is perfectly legal in and of itself.

It would be tantamount to MADD murdering people because they were driving away from a bar.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

That defense can never fly. It's being allowed to limit grounds when there is an appeal.

One cannot claim the "necessity" when the act he is supposedly committing the Capitol Offense because of is perfectly legal in and of itself.

It would be tantamount to MADD murdering people because they were driving away from a bar.

The talking heads that are on the 'THE COURT IS IN SESSION' TV series are calling this a 'LANDMARK CASE'...the tap dancing around the defense team trying anything and everything to get the 'ABORTION ISSUE' into the trial is like watching the chess masters trying to best each other in the quickest match of all time!!! They've made this the best viewing for a trial that I've been able to watch...and I'm sure that many a law college will be debating the ins & outs of how each move was accomplished!

I'm just surprised that our local Rev. Fred Phillips hasn't set up a tent around the Sedgwick County Courthouse and has his banner carriers working overtime...maybe he's coming next week

 

[dogtowner]

I am not sure where I said we needed to kill someone, I simply said the person who committed the crime ought to be treated accordingly.

Putting all of that aside however, if it comes to the death penalty, then that is what it will come to. I think that committing a premeditated murder means you forfeit your right to life. The same case can hardly be made that an unborn child forfeits its right to life for anything they have done.

pretty simple concept but some find it tricky to sort out. cant imagine why other than they just want the convenience of tossing aside missteps.

 

[Helicitor]

The talking heads that are on the 'THE COURT IS IN SESSION' TV series are calling this a 'LANDMARK CASE'...the tap dancing around the defense team trying anything and everything to get the 'ABORTION ISSUE' into the trial is like watching the chess masters trying to best each other in the quickest match of all time!!! They've made this the best viewing for a trial that I've been able to watch...and I'm sure that many a law college will be debating the ins & outs of how each move was accomplished!

I'm just surprised that our local Rev. Fred Phillips hasn't set up a tent around the Sedgwick County Courthouse and has his banner carriers working overtime...maybe he's coming next week

I don't see how this court case will result in anything other than a quick conviction. Roeder only wants to use the trial as a platform to attack abortion--ironic that the defendent will be the one to turn this into a show trial. I expect that was part of his plan from the beginning. I'm a bit surprised the judge hasn't found a way to shut him down. There is danger in letting him inspire others to follow his lead.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I've fed that to brine shrimp, but it didn't look too appealing. I've sure it can be put into something that looks edible.

Spirulina has very little flavor, mix it up in a protein shake or tomato juice.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

I don't see how this court case will result in anything other than a quick conviction. Roeder only wants to use the trial as a platform to attack abortion--ironic that the defendent will be the one to turn this into a show trial. I expect that was part of his plan from the beginning. I'm a bit surprised the judge hasn't found a way to shut him down. There is danger in letting him inspire others to follow his lead.

That will be the million dollar question; just exactly how will the defense team keep this 'ZEALOT' from testifying and how will the judge allow him to do that without establishing some ground rules on the specifics that he will be able to spew his rhetoric about.
And even though the State of Kansas has the death penalty...I can't even remember the last time it was used...so he'll have the rest of his life {should he be found guilty} to establish a communication with the 'PRO-LIFE' nut jobs that will use him as their beacon of light!