Shoot first and ask questions later. That’s the mindset a Kansas judge is advocating with a decision in a homicide case. And it’s all because of abortion.
Last May, Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed while serving as an usher at his Wichita church. Accused of first-degree murder in the crime is Scott Roeder, who authorities say objected to the fact Tiller performed late-term abortions.
Roeder has admitted to the killing in court filings and interviews, arguing he shot Tiller to save “unborn children.” Supposedly, Roeder openly confessed in order to use a “necessity defense” in his case, in effect arguing the shooting was justifiable homicide intended to prevent a greater harm.
Sedwick County District Judge Warren Wilbert refused to allow Roeder to present a necessity defense. However, he has ruled that Roeder can seek to have his murder charge reduced to manslaughter. Basically, Roeder will argue he killed Tiller in order to prevent other killings and that this somehow mitigated his actions.
Under Kansas law, a deliberate killing is classified as manslaughter if the guilty party had “an unreasonable, but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force.” Wilbert’s ruling has been appealed by prosecutors, a move that delayed the start of Roeder’s trial, scheduled for jury selection this week.
Let’s think through Wilbert’s decision in the given circumstances. If Roeder’s act was anything less than cold-blooded murder, what’s to stop a doctor or nurse involved in performing abortions from shooting protesters?
After all, one of these protesters could turn violent. And with the courts allowing justification of such actions, wouldn’t it be better to kill before being killed?
To suggest the shooting of Tiller was a somehow defensible act ignores the law. And that includes the law that has pursued Tiller aggressively without success.
Kansas isn’t exactly an abortion-friendly place in its politics. Tiller’s clinic and his activities long had been the legal target of abortion foes. Two state attorneys general unsuccessfully attempted prosecutions, and two months before his death, Tiller was acquitted of charges of failing to get a second opinion on a late-term abortion.
In other words, what Tiller was doing was legal. Some people may not be happy with that fact. But they have neither the right nor the authority to take matters into their own hands.
Wilbert’s ruling changes that. If you don’t like how law enforcement handled an issue of concern to you, just act on your own and attempt to justify it later. The courts will understand.
Wilbert’s decision must be overturned on appeal. Meanwhile, we think it’s worth noting prosecutors alleged that Roeder pointed his gun at two other ushers the day he said he shot Tiller. Those ushers were trying to prevent Roeder from escaping.
Would he have argued justification for shooting them as well?
•••
The New Castle News
New Castle, Pa.
