Scott Roeder case

News you want to discuss. Threads should start with a reference or fact. Straight opinion is better housed in "The Lounge" below.
temma
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:53 am

Scott Roeder case

Postby temma » Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:33 am

Referencing Judge Warren Wilbert's decision to allow testimony from the defense based on the belief that Mr Roeder believed he was justified in commiting murder because a life was in imminent danger. Does this mean that if a person who overhears someone making a threat to harm an abortion provider, murders the person making that threat - based on the belief that the abortion provider is in imminent danger - that the murder is justified?

User avatar
dejapig
Site Admin
Posts: 6773
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:36 pm
Location: Houston & Phoenix

Re: Scott Roeder case

Postby dejapig » Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:29 am

Welcome to the forum, temma! :wave
Be who you are & say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter & those who matter don't mind. --Dr. Seuss
Keith Olbermann rocks! --dejapig

temma
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:53 am

Re: Scott Roeder case

Postby temma » Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:33 pm

Michael wrote:The whole concept of bypassing the legal system and deciding to execute someone in a pre-meditated way because you disagree with them strikes directly at the foundation of civilized society. Exactly, if Roeder was "justified" to murder the Doctor at Church, then you would have been "justified" to murder Roeder to prevent the murder, and Roeders friends would have been "justified" to murder you to prevent the murder of Roeder <etc>.


Exactly Michael. I am tired of "activist judges" running our judicial system based on their personal beliefs. Roeder is mentally ill, delusional and as such does not really deserve the attention he is getting. The bigger point is the Catholic activist Judge. What happened to separation of Church and State.

Another example is the Supreme Court's latest decision to allow unlimited campaign contributions from corporations and the reversal of almost 100 years of policy governing campaign financing by corporations. The Supreme Court's assertion that corporations like individuals are entitled to the same rights, is bogus. Corporations and Unions don't vote. Pretty soon America will be a corpocracy. Scary.

Hoppy49
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Scott Roeder case

Postby Hoppy49 » Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:11 pm

To an open minded observer,there is no difference between what Roeder did and what terrorists have been doing for years.I certainly dont want anyone who is not Christian to believe all Christians are homicidal maniacs based on the act of this 1 puke.Yet,as a nation we treat all Islams as tho they are terrorists because of the terrorist acts of the few who are homicidal.I question why this 'conservative Christian' (self delusional as it must be)is being given special treatment.Are we going to allow the 9/11 terrorists to put forward their warped view of religion and social justice in a court of law?A terrorist is a terrorist and should be treated accordingly.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster...When you look into an abyss,the abyss also looks into you.-Nietzche-

Hoppy49
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Scott Roeder case

Postby Hoppy49 » Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:28 am

The conservative condemnation is deafening.Just as one is shamed for ones family when a senile uncle acts out in
public,conservatives ignore the shame and alibi their own consciences with the lame argument that when an individual acts in response to calls for seditious,criminal activity,the instigator has no responsibility in the crime.Apparently,in conservativeland shouting fire in an auditorium is ok if it aids an elitist agenda.The individual life means nothing if it promotes the good of the movement.And they call moderates/liberals communists!Imagine the political & literal lynchings if a liberal leader called for the death of a CEO of a large corporation or conservative leader and some idiot did it?
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster...When you look into an abyss,the abyss also looks into you.-Nietzche-

FrankB
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:22 am

Re: Scott Roeder case

Postby FrankB » Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:28 am

If Scott Roeder is successful in his justifiable homicide defense does this mean that a precedent for legal execution by any citizen against any person that potentially offers a threat to others. The doctor was legally performing abortions, but Roeder and many religious fundamentalists believe that the law is wrong, so that somehow allows him the right to operate in some sort of a quasi-legal reality whereas there is some sort of unwritten spiritual sovereignty which trumps the written laws such as the constitution. It's screwy. If a precedent like this is allowed to stand how are we supposed to know what the law is? Should we all simply pray, and do what God tells us to do?
ME: "Honest, God told me to rob that bank."
THE JUDGE: "Oh alright. You can just go then."

Hoppy49
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Scott Roeder case

Postby Hoppy49 » Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:59 pm

Good point Frank.Being a reformed secular humanist I assure you the heathens will looooove this sentiment,excused homicide for free & w/o those pesky religious tenets to overcome.To finish the logic,only religious believers kill for consciencious reasoning,hence religious believers are dangerous to us all,so a rational interpretation of the new law,killing believers would not only be acceptable,but promoted as patriotic and necessary.The he deserved killin' defense.Isnt that the rationale the terrorists use when they murder women and children.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster...When you look into an abyss,the abyss also looks into you.-Nietzche-

temma
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:53 am

Re: Scott Roeder case

Postby temma » Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:47 pm

Firstly speaking and acting on behalf of God is insulting and disrespectful to God. What fundamentalists are saying in essence, is that God really doesn't have the power to affect change without their help. I have never thought that people who speak on behalf of God or do things because "God wants them to" are true believers. Rather they are egomaniacs who use God to justify their despicable behavior and need to control other people. I would like to be a fly on the wall when they finally meet their Maker and have to explain why they thought that God was not powerful enough to effect the changes he/she wanted made. It's insulting.

I will make allowances in Roeder's case because he is mentally ill and probably has a chemical imbalance in his brain but on the other hand, there are so many treatments for these people. They don't take their meds because it is easier to act out and talk on behalf of God, as though God needs them to do his/her bidding, than to take responsibility for their crazy actions. They are obviously the ones who do not "believe". In my opinion that applies to anyone who speaks on behalf of God -Christians, Jews, Muslims etc.

Personally I believe that humans have it all wrong. I think that all God wants from us is to learn to treat each other with dignity and respect before we die. I believe that the degree to which we are welcomed into the Kingdom of the Lord will depend on how much we have done to help our fellow man not hurt him and that includes people that we do not necessarily agree with.

I suspect that God has a special place for people like Pat Robertson, Osama Bin Laden, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Tim McVeigh and on and on, who in life took it upon themselves to speak on behalf of God. They might die only to discover that not only will they not get their "72 virgins" but that their cruel, violent, destructive and manipulative ways have incurred the wrath of God.

Who knows, since I am fantasizing about what God would do [because none of us knows for sure] maybe God will send them back to Earth as the people they most despised and tried to change, to learn a lesson? I think we are all just being metaphorically "recycled" until we "get it", that our egos often triumph and back we come to learn the lessons that we so stubbornly resist and keep from learning. We are like hamsters on a giant perseverative loop.

User avatar
dejapig
Site Admin
Posts: 6773
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:36 pm
Location: Houston & Phoenix

Re: Scott Roeder case

Postby dejapig » Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:28 pm

I agree, temma, that the Golden Rule is the only "religion" any of us need. If everyone treated others with the dignity and respect they themselves want, the rest would take care of itself.
O:)
Be who you are & say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter & those who matter don't mind. --Dr. Seuss

Keith Olbermann rocks! --dejapig


Return to “What Story Are YOU Talking About?”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests