Doctor murderer to use "justifiable homicide" defense

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Ravi, Nov 10, 2009.

  1. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,416
    Thanks Received:
    12,697
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,846
    Murder suspect confesses to killing abortion provider -- latimes.com

    Does anyone think his claim has any merit?
     
  2. strollingbones
    Offline

    strollingbones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,657
    Thanks Received:
    15,626
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    chicken farm
    Ratings:
    +31,971
    merit? legal merit? no.

    moral merit? perhaps. if he truly believes that abortion is murder and that killing an abortion doctor would result in saving lives...i can see it...however he has let pure emotions make this decision...

    if either party was truly concerned with doing away with abortion it would have been done by now...abortion is a huge business in the us...no one is gonna stand in the way of profits...
     
  3. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,576
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,993
    No and it just ensures he will get the highest possible sentence. If that State has the Death Penalty one can hope he gets that for cruel and depraved actions.
     
  4. Charles Stucker
    Offline

    Charles Stucker Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2009
    Messages:
    2,071
    Thanks Received:
    225
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +225
    No more than labeling him a terrorist for the action.
    He is a murderer whose motive was to illegally stop abortions.
    - Did someone live as a result? Perhaps.
    No different than a murderer whose motive was to illegally silence a witness.
    - if the lack of a witness derailed a trial with potential capital punishment then perhaps that too would 'save a life'

    Both cases are murder, only the motive is different.
    For extra fun, stipulate that in the witness case presume the witness was a known gangster and the killer knew the defendant was innocent of the charges against them.
     
  5. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,416
    Thanks Received:
    12,697
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,846
    How so?
     
  6. Immanuel
    Offline

    Immanuel Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    16,823
    Thanks Received:
    2,210
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Ratings:
    +2,224
    Abortion is legal while killing a human being is not. In simple terms, I do not see how anyone can justify performing an illegal act against a legal one. Regardless of the fact that I am opposed to abortion, I cannot fathom that he has a snowball's chance in hell of pulling this off... nor do I believe that he should get away with it.

    I take that back. I suppose that if he could pull off getting one person who is very much Pro-Life he could hang the jury, but chances are anyone that Pro-Life is going to be removed from the jury before the trial even begins.

    Immie
     
  7. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    Hell no and I hope the judge doesn't even allow that line of defense.
     
  8. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    I doubt if that argument is going to work, it seems there's not much precedent for it being successful so it sounds as if the defence is desperate.

    The idea of "preborn children" is novel, it makes absolutely no sense in reality though.

    Still, I suppose this means that the defence is going to the jury rather than looking for a plea bargain. Any jury that buys that argument though has to be more than a bit logically challenged.

    But it put me in mind of an old English case which claimed "necessity." Didn't work then either.

    R v Dudley and Stephens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  9. garyd
    Offline

    garyd Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    Messages:
    3,943
    Thanks Received:
    401
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Ratings:
    +401
    Everyone of those idiots have tried it they ahve all been convicted anyway. It doesn't work and it shouldn't.
     
  10. NYcarbineer
    Online

    NYcarbineer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    96,237
    Thanks Received:
    11,274
    Trophy Points:
    2,060
    Location:
    Finger Lakes, NY
    Ratings:
    +30,310
    He's not a terrorist? ...please...
     

Share This Page