Voluntary manslaughter?

[solarbird]

So please tell me how this is different from any other terrorist's justification for their actions:

Sedgwick County District Judge Warren Wilbert ruled Friday that attorneys for [Scott] Roeder can argue that he shot [Dr. George] Tiller to protect the lives of unborn babies -- and, therefore, could be guilty of voluntary manslaughter instead of first-degree murder.

The judge said Roeder could not argue that the killing was actually justified but rather that he had an unreasonable but honest belief that the circumstances justified deadly force.

A political assassination as voluntary manslaughter? Seriously? Yes. Apparently.

Comments

[jessie-c.livejournal.com]

This in turn opens up a huge can of worms that may allow anyone at all to claim they're protecting a third party by murdering someone. Perhaps the Judge is trying this gambit to allow the proisecution to take this argument to its extremes and therefore show that allowing this argument is absurd?

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

I'd love to find an informed legal opinion on this; I'm hoping that this is the judge saying “You want to claim what? Go ahead, make my day.”

[l33tminion]

I can't claim to be that informed, but I did look up the relevant law and wrote up what I found. The usual disclaimers apply.

[actourdreams.livejournal.com]

I mentioned this to a friend in law school, and she was absolutely boggled, saying that any lawyer who thought this was valid probably didn't deserve their credentials.

[shadesofmauve]

Is this another step on that damned "Everyone's belief is equally valid, even if it involves killing people and denying their rights" crap? Really. This is why I could never get behind moral relativism -- you'd have to be okay with shit like that.

[phillipalden.livejournal.com]

It's outrageous, and will likely cause a mistrial and hopefully an appeal.

[epawtows.livejournal.com]

Not being a lawyer, I'm not at all clear the significance of being "allowed to argue" something.

If he had asked to argue that mind-controlling aliens from Returan 9 made him do it, would the judge have 'allowed' that?

[403.livejournal.com]

A friend of mine who's recently passed the bar exam tells me that "allowed to argue" means just that. You're allowed to try to make a case for whatever-it-is to the jury.

[kensaro.livejournal.com]

Like I said (in jest obviously) in another forum.

At least if this stands we can then go around killing pro-lifers and using voluntary manslaughter as a defense because I was fearing that they'd kill more abortion providing medical professionals.

[dogemperor.livejournal.com]

One thing I do have to wonder re the judge is if he has any known connections with dominionist orgs (whom have, within their own circles, been promoting this "justifiable homicide" bunk for ages).

Because the only two possibilities I can think of are:

a) He's a dominionist and sympathiser to the Army of God domestic terror network (sadly, they *have* been working at infiltrating not only law enforcement but the legal system, particularly targeting district court judgeships) and is essentially working to get a Dred Scott-esque decision that would essentially legalise dominionist domestic terrorism

OR

b) He's essentially setting up for a Dover vs. Kitzmiller School District-esque epic legal bitchslapping of WIN to permanently debunk the entire concept of "justifiable homicide" by domestic terrorists, possibly even setting up for the Army of God to be declared a domestic terror organisation proper.

Needless to say, I'm hoping for b) and very, very worried that it may be a).