Roeder Convicted in Abortion Doc Slay
Updated at 1:12 p.m. EST
A man who said he killed prominent Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller in order to save the lives of unborn children was convicted Friday of murder.
The jury deliberated for just 37 minutes before finding Scott Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Mo., guilty of premeditated, first-degree murder in the May 31 shooting death.
He faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years when he is sentenced March 9. Prosecutor Nola Foulston said she would pursue a so-called "Hard 50" sentence, which would require Roeder to serve at least 50 years before he can be considered for parole.
Roeder had confessed publicly before the trial and admitted again on the witness stand that he shot Tiller in the head in the foyer of the church where the doctor was serving as an usher. He testified he felt the lives of unborn children were in "immediate danger" because of Tiller.
Roeder also was convicted of aggravated assault for pointing a gun at two ushers at Tiller's Wichita church after the shooting.
Roeder sat straightforward as the verdict was read, showing no visible reaction as he moved his head toward the judge and to the jury as each juror confirmed the verdict.
Tiller was one of the nation's few providers of late-term abortions, and his Wichita clinic was the focus of many protests. It also had been under investigation by a former state district attorney who accused Tiller of skirting Kansas' abortion laws.
Roeder's attorneys were hoping to get a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter for Roeder, but the judge ruled that the jury could not consider such a verdict.
District Judge Warren Wilbert also refused to allow jurors to consider a second-degree murder conviction, which does not involve premeditation, because the evidence - and Roeder's own testimony - clearly showed Roeder planned the shooting.
Prosecutors were careful during the first few days of testimony to avoid the subject of abortion and to focus on the specifics of the shooting. Wilbert said he did not want the trial to become a debate on abortion, but he did allow Roeder to discuss his views on the subject because his attorneys said they were integral to their case.
Through their attorneys, Tiller's family thanked the jury, prosecutors and law enforcement officials involved in the case.
"At this time we hope that George can be remembered for his legacy of service to women, the help he provided for those who needed it and the love and happiness he provided us as a husband, father and grandfather," the family statement read.
Roeder testified he told no one of his plans and targeted only Tiller. But he acknowledged talking mostly to "like-minded" people about his belief, which he began to hold in the late 1990s, that killing abortion providers was justified.
Roeder was the sole defense witness after the judge barred testimony from two state prosecutors whom the defense subpoenaed in a futile bid to show Roeder believed Tiller was performing unlawful abortions and was frustrated charges against the doctor had been dismissed in one case. Jurors in the other case acquitted the doctor.
Roeder testified that he considered elaborate schemes to stop the doctor, including chopping off his hands, crashing a car into him or sneaking into his home to kill him. But in the end, Roeder told jurors, the easiest way was to walk into Tiller's church, put a gun to the doctor's forehead and pull the trigger.
"Those children were in immediate danger if someone did not stop George Tiller," Roeder told jurors.
Roeder testified he went to Reformation Lutheran Church on three other occasions to kill Tiller: once the evening before and once the week before Tiller was shot, and once in 2008, but Tiller was not at the church on those occasions.
CBS/ AP A man who said he killed prominent Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller in order to save the lives of unborn children was convicted Friday of murder.
The jury deliberated for just 37 minutes before finding Scott Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Mo., guilty of premeditated, first-degree murder in the May 31 shooting death.
He faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years when he is sentenced March 9. Prosecutor Nola Foulston said she would pursue a so-called "Hard 50" sentence, which would require Roeder to serve at least 50 years before he can be considered for parole.
Roeder had confessed publicly before the trial and admitted again on the witness stand that he shot Tiller in the head in the foyer of the church where the doctor was serving as an usher. He testified he felt the lives of unborn children were in "immediate danger" because of Tiller.
Roeder also was convicted of aggravated assault for pointing a gun at two ushers at Tiller's Wichita church after the shooting.
Roeder sat straightforward as the verdict was read, showing no visible reaction as he moved his head toward the judge and to the jury as each juror confirmed the verdict.
Tiller was one of the nation's few providers of late-term abortions, and his Wichita clinic was the focus of many protests. It also had been under investigation by a former state district attorney who accused Tiller of skirting Kansas' abortion laws.
Roeder's attorneys were hoping to get a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter for Roeder, but the judge ruled that the jury could not consider such a verdict.
District Judge Warren Wilbert also refused to allow jurors to consider a second-degree murder conviction, which does not involve premeditation, because the evidence - and Roeder's own testimony - clearly showed Roeder planned the shooting.
Prosecutors were careful during the first few days of testimony to avoid the subject of abortion and to focus on the specifics of the shooting. Wilbert said he did not want the trial to become a debate on abortion, but he did allow Roeder to discuss his views on the subject because his attorneys said they were integral to their case.
Through their attorneys, Tiller's family thanked the jury, prosecutors and law enforcement officials involved in the case.
"At this time we hope that George can be remembered for his legacy of service to women, the help he provided for those who needed it and the love and happiness he provided us as a husband, father and grandfather," the family statement read.
Roeder testified he told no one of his plans and targeted only Tiller. But he acknowledged talking mostly to "like-minded" people about his belief, which he began to hold in the late 1990s, that killing abortion providers was justified.
Roeder was the sole defense witness after the judge barred testimony from two state prosecutors whom the defense subpoenaed in a futile bid to show Roeder believed Tiller was performing unlawful abortions and was frustrated charges against the doctor had been dismissed in one case. Jurors in the other case acquitted the doctor.
Roeder testified that he considered elaborate schemes to stop the doctor, including chopping off his hands, crashing a car into him or sneaking into his home to kill him. But in the end, Roeder told jurors, the easiest way was to walk into Tiller's church, put a gun to the doctor's forehead and pull the trigger.
"Those children were in immediate danger if someone did not stop George Tiller," Roeder told jurors.
Roeder testified he went to Reformation Lutheran Church on three other occasions to kill Tiller: once the evening before and once the week before Tiller was shot, and once in 2008, but Tiller was not at the church on those occasions.
Popular on CBSNews.com
- Children rescued from two elementary schools in Oklahoma 18 Photos
- Oklahoma tornado leaves dozens dead, including many children 107 Comments
- More severe weather expected after monster tornado
- Oklahoma tornado carves trail of destruction Play Video
- Oklahoma tornado as seen by storm chasers Play Video
- Tornado's destructive path 12 Photos
- Severe tornado tears through Oklahoma City suburb Play Video
- Mile-wide tornado rips through Oklahoma City area 60 Comments
Is believing that a fetus is not a baby, similar to the tooth-fairy or santa claus ?
just kidding, why are we arguing all of this anyway.....Roeder just made a choice, that's it....after all, it was HIS body to incarcerate himself or not....and his choice.....as the doctor was inconvenient and not wanted and was aborted much later in life.......(sarcasm)..that's the attitude about life that the left engages in.
I am curious, though - I am against welfare, and think that many unwanted kids are placed in very bad circumstances, albeit by irresponsible parents. I certainly wouldn't wish such a life on a child, personally.
That's a bit part of my problem with the anti-choice crowd - they want birth, but are unwilling to support the life afterward. I don't support welfare, so don't see a problem avoiding it in such cases.
If humans were endangered, I'd probably have a different view, but it's quite the opposite. If anything, we're an unchecked plague.
Why were back-alley abortions such a problem?
There was no birth control.
---
You CAN'T be THAT ignorant....
There was no birth control.
The stigma of having an out of wedlock child was so awful that people thought it would "ruin" their life, their family's reputation, etc.
Today neither of those conditions exist.
We have birth control that is excellent. There is no reason why any woman who is engaging in voluntary sexual activity should get pregnant.
And if she does, there's no reason why she can't just bear the child and give it up for adoption. We aren't going to stone her family.
this website is screwy
But you might seriously want to actually read what Margaret Sanger wrote before you champion her as if she were some sort of friend to the poor.
Like most humanists, Sanger not only rejected the Golden Rule, but actively embraced her right to do unto others things that she would NEVER want done unto HER.
I was talking about Sanger and Planned Parenthood in terms of her stated goals as far as putting "defectives" into camps and/or stopping them from breeding (with the understanding that defectives cannot be trusted with the right to decide for themselves).
Sanger's "defectives" were those suffering from "disorders" - poverty, illiteracy, promiscuity, moral failure, substance abuse, mental illness, etc. They couldn't be entrusted with human rights because, scientifically, they weren't human. They were defectives.
I mean, they were HUMAN*, but they weren't HUMAN.
*(humanoid-like creatures may not qualify for full benefits. See store for details.)
Sort of like how nobody can explain how a fetus isn't human? It's not human, but nobody can explain how a not-human becomes human.
Who ever said a fetus isn't human???
Here's an easy example for you: A redwood seed is a redwood, but it isn't a tree.
.
So you'd take us back to the days of back-alley abortions with knitting needles.....
_______________________________________________________
No, there would be no way to legally get an abortion without there being a letitimate threat on the life of the mother.
The fact that they were illegal did not stop the practice.
Read and inform yourself.
What we DON'T have is the shame and stigma, that having an out of wedlock child can "ruin" your life, your family's standing in the community, etc.
There's no reason to support or justify "back alley abortions".
In my own personal opinion, the only time abortion should be okay if the fetus is a direct threat to the life of the mother, or both the mother and the fetus. Otherwise, accident or not, it was your own fault that you decided to risk it, you should live with it. Besides, for most people, a baby will be the freatest joy you will ever know.
by KPeters_from_UK February 1, 2010 11:04 AM EST
by cidaia February 1, 2010 6:32 AM EST
As far as the "we will decide what's best for you" lifestyle, that is exactly what liberals have been doing in the USA ever since Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) and other scientists of her ilk decided that they needed to manipulate the gene pool to get out the "defectives", and that America would somehow be better if "defectives" were "Fixed" - which would, of course, have to be against their will, since defectives (by which she specified poor and uneducated people) by definition don't know what's good for them.
Sanger's solution was to put the defectives in camps.
We never actually did that HERE - though other nations did, a decade or so later in the 1930s-1940s - but we DID enact state programs that involuntarily sterilized people, did experiments on people, etc.
There was an article in the news about South Carolina mulling a formal apology for the involuntary sterilization. I understand they hit thousands of poor people over the decades, usually without even telling them.
I understand that one woman took the case to court but the court decided that the state was justified on the grounds that she was "white trash".
The difference between us & Iran isn't that our elites are less controlling. It is that we are guided by a set of ethics that derives its power from the belief that ALL men are created equal. That is precisely why it is so upsetting that people like you think that some people (your people) should have the right to decide which people may be classed as "disposables".
Besides what Margaret Sanger did accomplish for women was the freedom to break away from the traditional role of the bearer of children. There were less worries of unwanted pregnancies, unwanted mouths to feed, and less dangerous illegal abortions, and at that time less pregnancies that resulted in the mother?s death. Remember until recently childbirth was the number one cause of female morality rate. She saved thousands of women?s lives. Good for Margaret Sanger!
We know when someone doesn?t want to discuss a debate in a mature manner when insults, exaggerations, terms deemed as offensive and the big one, Hitler is thrown about: ?defectives.... other nations did, a decade or so later in the 1930s-1940s ... involuntary sterilization..... Iran...... elites.
You tried to connect these overstated examples to issues that are far from them, such as birth control and the choice to have a legal abortion to the forced sterilization programmes. I don?t see how you can connect a choice to something being forced. In my mind a lifestyle is what you voluntarily make for yourself. A true lifestyle is not dictated by a government. How did you get from lifestyle to forced sterilization and ?medical experiments? in the Nazi concentration camps?
You, not I, are the one linking unconnected things.
by KPeters_from_UK February 1, 2010 12:01 PM EST
I wrote a hour ago but you haven't responeded back. __________________________________________________________
by KPeters_from_UK February 1, 2010 11:04 AM EST
by cidaia February 1, 2010 6:32 AM EST
As far as the "we will decide what's best for you" lifestyle, that is exactly what liberals have been doing in the USA ever since Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) and other scientists of her ilk decided that they needed to manipulate the gene pool to get out the "defectives", and that America would somehow be better if "defectives" were "Fixed" - which would, of course, have to be against their will, since defectives (by which she specified poor and uneducated people) by definition don't know what's good for them.
Sanger's solution was to put the defectives in camps.
We never actually did that HERE - though other nations did, a decade or so later in the 1930s-1940s - but we DID enact state programs that involuntarily sterilized people, did experiments on people, etc.
There was an article in the news about South Carolina mulling a formal apology for the involuntary sterilization. I understand they hit thousands of poor people over the decades, usually without even telling them.
I understand that one woman took the case to court but the court decided that the state was justified on the grounds that she was "white trash".
The difference between us & Iran isn't that our elites are less controlling. It is that we are guided by a set of ethics that derives its power from the belief that ALL men are created equal. That is precisely why it is so upsetting that people like you think that some people (your people) should have the right to decide which people may be classed as "disposables".
_____________________________________________________________
Besides what Margaret Sanger did accomplish for women was the freedom to break away from the traditional role of the bearer of children. There were less worries of unwanted pregnancies, unwanted mouths to feed, and less dangerous illegal abortions, and at that time less pregnancies that resulted in the mother?s death. Remember until recently childbirth was the number one cause of female morality rate. She saved thousands of women?s lives. Good for Margaret Sanger!
We know when someone doesn?t want to discuss a debate in a mature manner when insults, exaggerations, terms deemed as offensive and the big one, Hitler is thrown about: ?defectives.... other nations did, a decade or so later in the 1930s-1940s ... involuntary sterilization..... Iran...... elites.
You tried to connect these overstated examples to issues that are far from them, such as birth control and the choice to have a legal abortion to the forced sterilization programmes. I don?t see how you can connect a choice to something being forced. In my mind a lifestyle is what you voluntarily make for yourself. A true lifestyle is not dictated by a government. How did you get from lifestyle to forced sterilization and ?medical experiments? in the Nazi concentration camps?
You asked where I got that idea. I got that idea from the Guardian.
And from the Syclorian Williams case, or whatever her name was. The girl who is suing the abortion clinic because her baby was born live and they killed it and now she feels traumatized or whatever.
You can say whatever you like, but your saying something does not make it so. If you cannot justify the idea that a fetus is somehow not a baby, and if you must run and hide behind troll-like behaviors whenever the tough questions come up, then your law lacks legitimacy, and is being artificially propped up. It's not a question of if but when the entire thing crumbles.
We have already seen that pro-choice types will dodge the question rather than answer uncomfortable questions about just how you justify picking an arbitrary point for when a person "becomes" human. Apparently we don't say a not-human thing becomes human at this point therefore it is okay to kill it before this point. We do the reverse - we say it is okay to kill it before this point, so therefore it must be a not-human until we say otherwise.
But that is problematic because it's the equivalent of starting a govt based on the idea that all human beings are created equal (it is my understanding the term "men" is supposed to refer to all human beings), but then voting to let the govt have the right to decide who does and does not qualify as human.
It misses the point to say "all humans have equality before the law" and then to deny some humans equality before the law by simply coming up with a word to describe humans who aren't human.
We need a single standard based on when a not-human becomes human - one that is equally acceptable to mothers who love the babies in their womb as to the mothers who don't want the baby.
You cannot say that if I poison Marie's unborn baby, then I am guilty of a crime, but if Marie kills Marie's baby, no crime has been committed. To refuse justice to Marie is wrong: if I kill her baby, I have committed a crime.
I can't help educate you if you're intentionally ignorant.
.
Abortion is legal, and the definitions I use are the ones the law uses.
_______________________________________________
Yes, there are emergency c-sections. My son was born that way and you know what everyoen did fine. However, c-sections or natural births are sometimes notan option inorder to save the mother's life. Late term abortions are very very rare and need to happen because the mother will not survive the birth. The abortion is slightly safer. It is about degrees in which doctors are willing to take. That's one reason why you need two doctors to agree before the late term abortion is performed.