The tense standoff in America between extreme anti-abortion protesters and doctors who provide abortions has been ruptured by a judge's ruling in Kansas that the killer of a doctor will be allowed to argue in court that he believed he was justified in trying to save unborn children.Yes, and..?
The ruling spread dismay among abortion clinics across the US and warnings that it would encourage further violence. Anti-abortionists, however, hailed the decision as a step to natural justice.I fail to see the reasoning here; this loon will have his day in court, and then he’ll be reminded by a jury of his peers that it doesn’t matter what bizarre rationalisation you’ve invented for yourself, murder isn’t how philosophical disagreements are resolved in a civilised society.
Judge Warren Wilbert dismissed prosecution objections and refused to bar Roeder from presenting to the jury his belief in the legitimacy of violence.This eminently sensible, not to say just decision, has gone down like a cold cup of sick with the various factions plugging abortion:
"This is absolutely insane," said Charlotte Taft, director of the Abortion Care Network, which represents about 70 independent clinics. She said her members were "highly afraid" that a courtroom diatribe by Roeder could spark copycat acts.Why..?
Is he some known, charismatic orator? Does he have strange, hypnotic powers like some deranged Derren Brown?
What is everyone so afraid of? They are just words. This is the land of the free, after all…
The murdered man’s lawyer has also got in on the act:
In legal papers, Thompson has also ridiculed the idea that Roeder should be allowed to plead voluntary manslaughter, saying it was equivalent to permitting a terrorist to argue in court that they believed they were duty bound to kill a soldier to protect civilians dying in Iraq.They can argue that if they want. Why not?
It’s clearly not a legitimate reason, and it’s down to the prosecution to ensure the juries know that.