Roeder could be out in 5

Indeed…

As unbelievable as it may sound, in Kansas it’s possible that a guy could walk into a church, plant a bullet in someone’s head right in front of numerous witnesses, confess to the killing, and end up getting as little as 4 years for it:

The judge presiding over Scott Roeder’s murder trial said he could consider giving the jury an option of choosing a less severe charge than murder in the killing of a Wichita abortion provider.  [...]

Wilbert told lawyers Friday that he couldn’t imagine a scenario that would allow Roeder to argue he was defending the lives of others. But the judge stopped short of legally ruling it out.

Under a conviction on voluntary manslaughter, Roeder could face four to six years in prison, compared to a life sentence if convicted of murder.

It’s an unlikely scenario, but even the fact that there’s a *chance* it might happen is pretty outrageous; I guess it all depends on the sanity of the jury (ie. whether it’s infested with fetus fetishists).   This judge has already denied Roeder’s attempt to use the “necessity defense“, so at least there’s that…??  Good grief.

31 Responses to “Roeder could be out in 5”


  1. 1 deBeauxOs Saturday, January 9, 2010 at 4:07 pm

    … a less severe charge than murder …

    Let’s see. It was premeditated, willful and carried out with threats to the people around Dr Tiller that if they tried to stop the shooter, he would kill them too.

    5 years. Unbelievable. Is the fact that he used a gun – somehow a protected right in the US of Crazy? – less serious than if he’d used an explosive device?

  2. 2 fern hill Saturday, January 9, 2010 at 5:00 pm

    Yay! JJ is back.

    This circus begins next week. I’ve got something in the hopper. Phill — that’s Phill with two l’s, or as his fans (not) in Kansas spell it, Philllll — may be a witness for Roeder.

  3. 3 Bruce Saturday, January 9, 2010 at 6:40 pm

    Maybe I’m missing something.

    But isn’t voluntary manslaughter the very same thing anti-abortionists accuse abortion providers of every day?

    I suppose I could carry on about double standards, but…

  4. 4 deBeauxOs Saturday, January 9, 2010 at 6:56 pm

    But Bruce, the Fetus©™ fetishists would be happy if women and doctors and everyone involved in the medical provision of an abortion were sentenced to prison for at least 5 years.

  5. 5 Bruce Saturday, January 9, 2010 at 7:14 pm

    I would think they should be delirious, but wouldn’t it would rob them of their hobby? Justice served can never be so sweet as justice imagined, to some people.

  6. 6 JJ Saturday, January 9, 2010 at 7:48 pm

    deBeauxOs – I’m pretty sure the 2nd Amendment only protects the right to own firearms, not to shoot people with them. (Although, you never know…)

  7. 7 JJ Saturday, January 9, 2010 at 7:51 pm

    fern hill – I read earlier in the week that the defense is calling Phill Kline. I don’t see how that can really help Roeder, since Kline’s jihad against Dr.Tiller was ultimately a failure, at least in legal terms. (I’m sure Dr.Tiller must have gone through thousands of dollars just to defend himself from Kline’s scurrilous charges.)

    But as you say, the circus starts this week and we’ll see what happens. I wonder if Operation Scum will be showing up.

  8. 8 JJ Saturday, January 9, 2010 at 7:56 pm

    Bruce – Given that the fetus is apparently more important than the woman carrying it, and FAR more important than the doctor terminating it, in their view the murder of Dr.Tiller was “justifiable manslaughter”. Meanwhile, they considered what Dr.Tiller did to be “Murder”.

    You can’t expect logic from the Fetus Fetishists, but that’s an approximation.

  9. 9 Bina Saturday, January 9, 2010 at 10:07 pm

    What’s the matter with Kansas? It’s fucked up, is what’s the matter. Must be something in the groundwater.

  10. 10 Patrick Ross Saturday, January 9, 2010 at 11:28 pm

    Scott Roeder should be strung up by his heels like any other terrorist.

    If this judge reduces his charges, he should be dis-barred and removed from the bench as quickly as humanly possible.

  11. 11 JJ Sunday, January 10, 2010 at 12:27 am

    Hi Patrick

    Agreed, wholeheartedly. I find it a little hard to believe that he could be convicted of anything less than 2nd Degree Murder — manslaughter is what people get charged with when they kill someone in a car accident, it’s a significantly lesser charge.

    But you never know. The trial starts soon, so we will find out. I can’t wait to hear what his line of defense is.

  12. 12 JJ Sunday, January 10, 2010 at 12:29 am

    Bina – It’s a question for the ages, to be sure. Books have been written about it. We may never know the answer.

  13. 13 Patrick Ross Sunday, January 10, 2010 at 10:38 am

    Even 2nd degree murder would be an unacceptable reduction. The man is clearly a terrorist, and he should be facing terror charges.

  14. 14 JJ Sunday, January 10, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    Patrick – Right you are.

    But unfortunately, a 2nd degree murder conviction is probably about the best that can be hoped for in this case. 1st degree is usually reserved for cop killers and serial killers like the Beltway sniper — Roeder may have qualified if he killed a few more doctors, but just one probably doesn’t make the cut (even though he stalked the guy and generally behaved as a terrorist).

    And now that the possibility of manslaughter has come up, wow :shock: The trial should be interesting, if nothing else.

  15. 15 Patrick Ross Sunday, January 10, 2010 at 12:48 pm

    A miscarriage of justice is a miscarriage of justice. Unless I’m mistaken, premeditated murder is first degree murder.

    It’s unbelievable to me that there would be such reluctance to enforce the letter or the spirit of the law in Kansas.

    Then again, the United States has always been alarmingly soft on domestic terrorism. Sadly, this is nothing new. I sincerely wish I could say it was.

    (By the way, Robert Peter John Day says you’re off the reservation in even talking with me. Even in the course of as civil and agreeable a conversation as this one. Any thoughts on that?)

  16. 16 JJ Sunday, January 10, 2010 at 1:00 pm

    Patrick – You know, when you use that name, it always takes me a few seconds to realize who you’re talking about — can’t you just save a few pixels and call him CC?

    That said, I haven’t seen the post in question yet, so I’ll “reserve” comment for now.

  17. 17 Patrick Ross Sunday, January 10, 2010 at 1:04 pm

    Nope. Personally, I want as many people as possible to know who he is, so they can meet him in real life to say “ew. Just, ew.”

  18. 18 JJ Sunday, January 10, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    Well okay dude, whatever floats your boat.

    So, I read the post you linked to and I’m still not exactly sure what’s going on, who else is involved in this little fracas etc., but bottom line is it looks like you might have finally pissed off CC a little too much.

    Tsk tsk.

    Why, Patrick, why? Why do you take delight in irritating people?

  19. 19 Patrick Ross Sunday, January 10, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    I don’t think there’s any such thing as pissing off Robert Peter John Day too much.

    JJ, you can be implicitly honest: Robert Peter John Day is the lowest form of scum on the Earth, and we both know it.

  20. 20 JJ Sunday, January 10, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    Patrick – :shock: OMG, hyperbole much?? :roll:

    You want implicit honesty? Okay: I read CC every day, and whatever it is you’re seeing that’s so horrific, it’s escaped me.

    You picked a fight with him and it didn’t work out. It’s your issue to resolve.

  21. 21 Patrick Ross Sunday, January 10, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    Hmmmm.

    So his attack on Wanda Watkins wasn’t horrific.

    So his approval of the tasering of Andrew Meyer wasn’t horrific. Nothing wrong there.

    So his scheme to stalk Richard Evans’ children wasn’t horrific.

    I wish I could say this surprises me.

  22. 22 JJ Sunday, January 10, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    Careful Patrick, you’re creeping dangerously close to libel territory.

    As you well know, CC apologized for the WW thing, and there was no “scheme to stalk” Evans’ kids. (I don’t even recall the Andrew Meyer thing.)

    Look dude, if you expect to agree with and/or approve of everything everyone says all the time, you’ll be pretty frustrated. You have interesting things to say — you should quit wasting your time on this dumb blog war.

  23. 23 Patrick Ross Sunday, January 10, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    Dear lord, JJ.

    It isn’t libel if it’s true.

    If Robbie wants to try to supress the truth in court, in invite him to try. I look forward to the opportunity to make him defend that little scheme in a court of law — in a public place.

    In the meantime, JJ, I suggest you acquaint yourself with the definition of “stalking”, then take a closer look at the psychopath you’re so eager to defend.

    Beyond that, he did not apologize for the Wanda Watkins incident. He used the death of his cat as an excuse.

    Think about this for two seconds, he was mourning his cat. Wanda Watkins was mourning her son. He never admitted that what he did was wrong, and if you think offering a “dead cat” excuse gets him off the hook, you’re as deluded as he is.

  24. 24 JJ Sunday, January 10, 2010 at 6:55 pm

    Whatever floats yer boat, kid.

  25. 25 fern hill Sunday, January 10, 2010 at 7:20 pm

    JJ, your patience is amazing. Are you God?

  26. 26 Patrick Ross Sunday, January 10, 2010 at 8:08 pm

    Well, I shouldn’t be surprised. You sold your soul to that cancer a long time ago, didn’t you JJ? Didn’t you, Fern?

  27. 27 JJ Sunday, January 10, 2010 at 9:08 pm

    Patrick, don’t drag me into your little blog war with CC, that’s between you guys and it’s got nothing to do with me. (You’re still commenting here, aren’t you? Behave.)

  28. 28 JJ Sunday, January 10, 2010 at 9:10 pm

    fern hill — No, I am not God. But I’ve got the patience of Job.

  29. 29 deBeauxOs Monday, January 11, 2010 at 8:14 am

    Patrick Ross said: Well, I shouldn’t be surprised. You sold your soul to that cancer a long time ago, didn’t you JJ? Didn’t you, Fern?

    There’s Patrick Ross dropping his Mr Niceguy mask: lying, vicious and irrational.

  30. 30 JJ Monday, January 11, 2010 at 9:32 am

    deBeauxOs – Patrick is trying to involve everyone in his little blog war with CC. I’d rather not humour him at this point.


  1. 1 Ten years for massaging meat « unrepentant old hippie Trackback on Friday, November 23, 2012 at 5:22 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Mac Security Portal
Rose's Place
Blogging Change

Incoming!

  • 615,922
[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

Archives


%d bloggers like this: