Odds and ends »« A day without abusing the Texas SBOE is like a day without sunshine

Guilty, asshat!

That’s what Scott Roeder, murderer of abortion provider George Tiller, just got from a jury after a scant 37 minutes deliberation. Roeder had, of course, hoped to turn his trial into a media circus and referendum on abortion. By arguing a manslaughter defense and hopefully getting away with a mere five years — the thrust of the defense being that Roeder had an “unreasonable yet sincere conviction” that he had to shoot Tiller in order to save babies, because guys like him care so much about the babies — he and his ideological brethren at Operation Rescue hoped to make his trial the first shot across the bow in the war to eventually overturn Roe v. Wade.

The jury, comprised of the sensible Kansans, wasn’t having any. Instead of seeing a valiant superhero of the Lord courageously protecting the unborn, they saw a cowardly, first-class douche canoe who willingly popped a man in the back of the head in public, and handed him a first-degree murder conviction. The prosecutor says she will seek a “hard 50″ sentence, meaning Roeder will have to serve at least 50 years before eligibility for parole. This is effectively the same as life without parole for a man who’s already 51. Once behind bars, if very unlucky, Roeder may have to face an entirely different kind of “hard 50.”

Never fear, Scott. Once they’re done with you in there, at least you won’t need an abortion.

Comments

  1. says

    I'm glad this douchebag was found guilty of murder. That manslaughter thing was pure bullshit.I remember this guy saying not long ago that "only God can take a life" and that by killing the doctor he was protecting life and doing God's work.I believe this guy deserves much worse but at least the jury came back with the proper verdict.

  2. Martin says

    What was so absurd about this "unreasonable yet sincere" language is that if they'd allowed that defense, then people could essentially use it in any situation. Let's say I shot a man, mistakenly thinking he was having an affair with my wife. I could offer a manslaughter defense saying that I had an "unreasonable yet sincere" belief that killing this man was necessary to save my marriage. Utter nonsense.

  3. hellboundsmoker says

    Any chance you could unpack what a 'hard 50' behind bars entails? I've seen enough prison movies that I've got a fair idea, but a hard 9 or 9 1/2 seems a little more realistic =PAnyways, nice to see a little justice getting done!

  4. says

    "I could offer a manslaughter defense saying that I had an "unreasonable yet sincere" belief that killing this man was necessary to save my marriage. Utter nonsense"In effect, it would give carte blanche, or at least mitigating circumstances to every conspiracy freak out there.Consider that Birthers could claim an "unreasonable yet sincere" belief that Obama is born Kenyan, and therefore are compelled to act as if he stole the election…

  5. says

    What was so absurd about this "unreasonable yet sincere" language is that if they'd allowed that defense, then people could essentially use it in any situation.Even more Martin, abortion rights advocates could start shooting hardcore anti-abortion activists on the grounds that they were justified in killing people who might try to murder abortion providers. Bet Randall Terry never thought of that angle!

  6. Wired For Sound says

    This has temporarily restored my faith in Kansans, though I'm sure it won't take long for them to smash it again.

  7. says

    2 things:1) "Unreasonable, yet sincere."Was this actually forwarded as part of a 'legitimate' defence? Wow, talk about setting precedent (as stated by an above commenter).What a, what a, what a…..2)first-class douche canoe!!!Perfect! Martin, you have done the impossible. You have taught me a new silly, nonsensical expression/insult. And here I was thinking I knew them all….;)

  8. says

    I am from Wichita, KS, where this occurred. Our newspaper quoted Roeder saying, "From the time of conception, it is not man's job to take a life." Now… he meant to oppose abortion, but ironically made himself look like an extreme hypocrite (as if that's the worst of his character flaws).

  9. says

    The way I understand it, it has to be an unreasonable yet sincere belief that killing someone will save another life, not a marriage. But yeah, I take your point.

  10. says

    "Blogger Martin said… What was so absurd about this "unreasonable yet sincere" language is that if they'd allowed that defense, then people could essentially use it in any situation. Let's say I shot a man, mistakenly thinking he was having an affair with my wife. I could offer a manslaughter defense saying that I had an "unreasonable yet sincere" belief that killing this man was necessary to save my marriage. Utter nonsense."Beyond that, you could say "I thought he was a wizard who was mind controlling my wife and thus sex with her was rape, therefore I killed him to prevent a crime and save my wife making it justifiable homicide" and THAT be counted as a sincere yet unreasonable defense.The rare instances of schizophrenics snapping and killing someone due to their hallucinations would be "sincere yet unreasonable defense" and MORE valid than this guy's since they literally have no chance of escaping their 'sincere delusion'. A Klan's man lynching would be "sincere yet unreasonable" due to them defending the white race -_-

  11. says

    "hard 50' behind bars entails?"From what I understand Hard 50 means no parole chance until at least 50 years. Save for clemency from a Governor you're guaranteed to do 50. But no they'll be no forced labor.

  12. says

    Jon said… Any chance you could unpack what a 'hard 50' behind bars entails? I've seen enough prison movies that I've got a fair idea, but a hard 9 or 9 1/2 seems a little more realistic =P Anyways, nice to see a little justice getting done!Hard 50 behind bars…hmm, I'm guessing six 7's and an 8.

  13. says

    I'm currently debating with a couple of fundies who think that abortion is muuuuuuuuuurduuuuuuuuuur, and don't you, you atheist you, wish that you had been aborted so you could be closer to the Majikal Sky Pixie?Laugh, cry, or throw up. The choice is not so clear.

  14. says

    I'm not too comfortable for the glee people are taking at implied impeding rape.a) I think the rape as punishment crosses a line in the sand that we as a society are supposed to be above. How is it not hypocritical to be against torture as some of us say we are and be pro inmate rape. Sure you could argue the state's not doing it it's the inmates…but it's no different than Christians arguing that God doesn't punish he's just complacent in demons doing it. I think it's too muchA part 2) As horrible as he is, he's a human being and deserves the rights and dignity that he denied others…the fuckerb) It has an anti-homosexual bent that I don't think we should propagate. C) in all likely hood his religious convictions will aid him in prison as it gives him an instant in with many of the gangs.

  15. says

    From my end, I have no problems at all postulating that this person will suffer abuse in prison, quite likely including rape and that if it happens it is not something I'll cry about.Towards Ing's cogent points:A1) There is a difference between breaking a man's arm, including 'arranging' to have it broken and not caring if he broke it himself. A2) The fucker deserves his rights, but he lost his dignity long before the jury came out.B) I've always considered 'prison sex' to be about dominance and control rather than attraction. It happens and ignoring it doesn't change things.C) Quite possibly, but thats unrelated.

  16. says

    Are you really okay with him being raped in prison? I know this is only implied in your post, but I find it rather offensive. Even murderers don't deserve to be raped.

  17. says

    I was glad to see that Ing criticized the march of people reveling in the idea of him being raped in prison. It is a theme I see in almost all circles whenever a polar enemy is locked up. I was in the middle of forming a reply when I got to his comment, and it was said perfectly. If I can add one thing, the complacency of silence from others when these things are said only keeps them acceptable. I am glad to see that we are progressive and introspective enough as a group to say it isn't appropriate.Thanks Ing, for beating me to it!

  18. says

    If a group expresses "X is wrong," and someone takes that to the extreme of killing someone for it, I generally say, "Well, that's an independent action."But what if the group saying "X is wrong," is actually promoting it as murdering babies, and also asserting that the Authority of the Universe wants it stopped, and that in order to please the authority, you must do what the authority wants; and that if you don't, you may risk hell fire?If a person came up with that on their own, I'd say, "OK, wack job." But considering this man is backed by people who actually do assert all of that, and do their best to convince others of that, and even drive it into the brains of little children as they're growing up. I see this as slightly different than some group being divorced by what this person did.I know there are debates about expressing views that ask or encourage others to kill someone. But since religion really is supported as something most of our society accepts should be believed and obeyed without question, it seems impossible to me to divorce this man's actions from the groups that encouraged them. The language they invoke _does_ imply his murderous response was 'manslaughter.' And many of them do believe and express god is pleased by what this man did.It's one of those hazy lines. But I don't see that the groups who toed the line on this issue–by labeling abortion murder and claiming god hates the US because we allow it, need to be more in the spotlight in this issue. There should be _more_ public dialog that doesn't dismiss this man as a lone-acting wack-a-loon, while there are people supporting what he did as god's bidding…?

  19. says

    "A1) There is a difference between breaking a man's arm, including 'arranging' to have it broken and not caring if he broke it himself.A2) The fucker deserves his rights, but he lost his dignity long before the jury came out.B) I've always considered 'prison sex' to be about dominance and control rather than attraction. It happens and ignoring it doesn't change things.C) Quite possibly, but thats unrelated."A1) by implying that we expect so and so to happen and are glad for it it's the same as forcing him to work on a car with tools we know are sabotaged and then acting like it's not our fault that he got injured. If we're glad he'll be 'have his arm broken'ed then we're implying we are happy with the situation of prison where, seemingly, those keeping order look the other way at rape because it's happening to bad people.B) It's still implying that the homosexual aspects of the act (ie man on man rape) are an inherient humiliation opposed to a say woman on man or a man on woman. I mean if say this Asshat had turned out to be a woman sniper, would we be happy to know that she'd be raped by a prison guard?There's a very strong standard dissonance here.

  20. says

    To refer to the initial post and one or two of the other posts on here, i'm not too happy with terms like douchebag and asshat being used in reference to this man.The words don't seem at all appropriate and only serve to convey a different level of disgust than is surely intended.The likes of Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort are asshats and douchebags. Roeder deserves more venomous scorn.Don't anyone take this the wrong way, but it kind of reminds me a little of when Governor George W Bush pronounced after the 9/11 attacks that he was going to "hunt down and find those folks who committed this act".I think that was on the very same day the towers went down and the world was in shock. I'll never forget my disbelief in hearing him describe mass killing terrorists as "those folks".

  21. says

    Ing wrote – "It's still implying that the homosexual aspects of the act (ie man on man rape) are an inherient humiliation opposed to a say woman on man or a man on woman."I don't think anyone did imply that, did they? You don't have to find gay sex in general humilating for it to be undesirable, just disgusting. That wouldn't make you homophobic.In any case, While there may plenty of men who would be extra humilated by the homosexual aspect of a male on male rape. I don't think there's any point in denying that one of the biggest aspects of the act (homophobic or not) would be the damage it would do to the testosterone charged male ego. I'm sure most of us men can imagine how that would feel. It's just a masculanity thing. An different layer of humiliation if you like.It's kind of like how with two male dogs, one will hump the other (without penetration) not as a sexual act, but as a sign of dominance.

  22. Martin says

    So this is now the second time in the history of this blog that a reader has complained my language is not foul enough.Hey, if you guys want to turn this thread into a contest to see who can come up with names that most thoroughly convey the despicable vileness of Scott Roeder in all its repugnant horror, I won't stop you.

  23. says

    Could we please not have so many prison-rape jokes? The presence of prison-rape as a common occurrence in American prisons is one of many aspects of the American prison system that is simply wretched. The man has been sentenced to jail, not to repeated rape, and the fact that he will likely be subject to that is not a good thing. There are good reasons why much of Western Europe finds both the American prison system and the American attitude about prison in general to be appalling. This is one of them.

  24. says

    Martin said: Hey, if you guys want to turn this thread into a contest to see who can come up with names that most thoroughly convey the despicable vileness of Scott Roeder in all its repugnant horror, I won't stop you.How about…he's a syphilitic chancre on the anus of a leprous warthog?Seriously, this fucker's a maggot.

  25. says

    For a more, shall we say, classy and scientifically/literature aware version of a classicTHE MAN WHO MISTOOK HIS ASS FOR A HAT

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>