About the Scott Roeder conviction

First off, I want to make clear that I am against abortion, both on religious grounds as well as human rights grounds. It is my opinion that abortion should be allowed only in cases of rape or incest, and that the abortion should be accompanied by investigative action on the part of authorities.

That said, I was interested in a thread I saw on Ace of Spades, that was about the conviction, and an earlier one discussing the folly (or not) of allowing the 'necessity' defense.

I thought the judge was correct in allowing the defense, and I thought that Roeder should have pursued that defense anyhow (since I know where he's coming from). I also think that Roeder should also appeal, since the judge (I have since found out) did not allow Roeder to actually put on a 'necessity' defense.

I have been following the drama in Kansas for a while now, beginning with then Attorney General Phill Kline's attempt to prosecute George Tiller for performing illegal abortions. Tiller was essentially accused of violating a provision of Kansas law stating that late-term abortions could be performed, but only with the concurrence of a doctor who is not affiliated with the abortion doctor.

Tiller was using the same concuring doctor, one who had financial ties to Tiller. It was this relationship that Kline was trying to prosecute. Bad thing was, Kline was trying to win reelection and having a particularly bad time with it. I'll spare you the political details, but essentially, Kathleen Sebelius pulled out all the stops to get Kline replaced by someone more .... compliant (Jack Cashill has more). Kline's replacement ended the prosecution of Tiller that Kline had worked so hard to effect.

So now, we come to Scott Roeder's defense. The evidence that Tiller was performing abortions in violation of state law might have won a conviction, had it been allowed to proceed ..... but it wasn't. So now we can reasonably assume that Roeder concludes that going the 'legal' route to stop Tiller is doomed to failure. What is left?

Someone, maybe a lot of someones, thought that Tiller needed to be stopped; someones who had the authority to prosecute Tiller. But those who had authority to do this were stopped.

It's my opinion that Roeder, logically, did the only thing left available to him (or to anyone faced with the realization that the laws will not be enforced). He shot and killed George Tiller.

The judge allowed Roeder to mount a 'necessity' defense, but when his lawyers tried to call Phill Kline to testify, the judge said no.

Just so I have this straight, the judge says "Yes, you can put on a 'necessity' defense", but then won't allow you to call the witnesses who can testify to your 'necessity'?

The legal system (which has nothing, apparently, to do with justice) has gone stark raving mad.

pm

PS - don't try to change my mind; it can't be done! :-)