Dr. Tiller's killer won't go to trial until next year
Scott Roeder, the man who shot and killed Dr. George Tiller, won't see trial until next year.
Roeder was scheduled to go to trial today, but both prosecutors and Roeder's lawyers wanted it moved to a later date.
Related posts: Esteemed Doctor and Friend of George Tiller to Provide Late Term Abortion Care in Kansas, Thank you Dr. Tiller, Vigils for Dr. Tiller
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Dr. Tiller's killer won't go to trial until next year.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16106
By your very admission Scott Roeder has not been tried in a court of law. He has not been proven nor declared guilty of the crime you convict him of by the legal processes most find legitimate for doing so. I'm presuming (based on previous blogging) you didn't witness the murder yourself.
There would have been an abundance of ways to compose your original post to take this into account. I'm just curious as to the intentionality of the phrasing and what it may demonstrate.
Absolutely love the rest of today's postings.
What planet are your from? He may not have been convicted in a court of law, but he's admitted as much to the papers...and certainly the police. His supporters don't even dispute this. Really, what planet are you from?
Innocent until proven guilty *in a court of law*
I do not believe this is a courtroom and I can come to my own conclusions based on what evidence I have seen so far. Just as everyone else outside the courtroom. :)
Our Constitution guarantees, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." The words "innocent" and "guilty" do not appear. The fact that Mr. Roeder cannot be fined, imprisoned, or executed without due process does not address his guilt or innocence.
From the tone of your post, Ubat, I suspect that you think Mr. Roeder is innocent by definition because it is not a crime to kill an abortion provider. Am I right?
Posting 6 times does not make your point more important. Please refrain from spamming, it just makes it harder to read.
I'm sorry if you read some kind of tone in my earlier post. I didn't intend to have a tone. I wanted to seem more neutral. I especially don't see how you got the impression that I "think Mr. Roeder is innocent by definition because it is not a crime to kill an abortion provider". Where in my post did I say ANYTHING along those lines? I didn't even make a statement of whether I thought he is guilty or innocent, let alone make such a horrible claim.
I guess I wasn't clear enough... but all I meant was that the general public are not bound by any oath, such as a judge or jury are, and can come to their own conclusions, no matter what conclusion it may be. Jessica has every right to believe Roeder is guilty, just as Taken has every right to believe he is innocent. People are entitled to their own opinions, but that doesn't mean you should try to force people to change their views because you disagree. I hope I was clearer this time :\
And just to be extra clear I didn't meant to have any kind of tone with this post either. Except for at the very top.. cause spamming ticks me off.
Our Constitution guarantees, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." The words "innocent" and "guilty" do not appear. The fact that Mr. Roeder cannot be fined, imprisoned, or executed without due process does not address his guilt or innocence.
From the tone of your post, Ubat, I suspect that you think Mr. Roeder is innocent by definition because it is not a crime to kill an abortion provider. Am I right?
Our Constitution guarantees, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." The words "innocent" and "guilty" do not appear. The fact that Mr. Roeder cannot be fined, imprisoned, or executed without due process does not address his guilt or innocence.
From the tone of your post, Ubat, I suspect that you think Mr. Roeder is innocent by definition because it is not a crime to kill an abortion provider. Am I right?
Our Constitution guarantees, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The words "innocent" and "guilty" do not appear. The fact that the government cannot execute, imprision, or fine Mr. Roeder without due process does not mean he is innocent.
From the tone of your post, Ubat, I suspect you think Mr. Roeder is innocent by definition because it is not a crime to kill an abortion provider. Am I right?
Our Constitution guarantees, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The words "innocent" and "guilty" do not appear. The fact that the government cannot execute, imprision, or fine Mr. Roeder without due process does not mean he is innocent.
From the tone of your post, Ubat, I suspect you think Mr. Roeder is innocent by definition because it is not a crime to kill an abortion provider. Am I right?
Our Constitution guarantees, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The words "innocent" and "guilty" do not appear. The fact that the government cannot execute, imprision, or fine Mr. Roeder without due process does not mean he is innocent.
From the tone of your post, Ubat, I suspect you think Mr. Roeder is innocent by definition because it is not a crime to kill an abortion provider. Am I right?