POLL: the right verdict in slain Kansas abortion doctor case?

January 29, 2010

Scott Roeder in undated booking photograph released to Reuters on 12 June 2009/Wichita Police

A man accused of gunning down one of America’s few late-term abortion providers was found guilty of first-degree murder on Friday after he said he had to act to stop the doctor from performing more abortions. Give us your opinion in the online poll below.

The judge initially allowed Roeder’s defense team to argue for a voluntary manslaughter conviction by proving he had “an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force.”

But after Roeder openly admitted on the stand to shooting Dr. George Tiller to death with premeditation, the judge told the jury it could not consider that option.

One comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Having reasons for murdering someone is not the same as having a defence for murder.

After all, people usually have a reason for murdering someone. Or they wouldn’t have wanted them dead in the first place.

Manslaughter implies an accident, or a temporary loss of sanity. He admits it was no accident, and admits it was premeditated. So the only real option is murder.

Still, at least his judgement will be humane. Which is more then he gave for the man he killed.

Posted by Anon86 | Report as abusive