A jury convicted Scott Roeder of first degree murder for the death of George Tiller, a doctor that provided abortions. Scott Roeder shot George Tiller while he was attending church. He faces a life sentence in prison. Scott Roeder's lawyers had called for an acquittal during the trial. His lawyers said that Roeder had such strong feelings about his religious faith and was so against abortion that he felt compelled to shoot Dr. Tiller to save "the children". Roeder said in his testimony, "I did what I thought was needed to be done to protect the children. I shot him... If I didn't do it, the babies were going to die the next day." His lawyers also tried to argue that his beliefs about abortion warranted a voluntary manslaughter conviction, and that there was an "an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force (as Kansas law defines it)." The judge ruled that he would not instruct the jury to consider a lesser charge than first degree murder when they began their deliberations. In addition to being convicted of first-degree murder, he was also convicted of two counts of aggravated assault for pointing a gun at two other church members as he tried to get away after the shooting. (Full Story)
I really liked what a prosecutor told the jury: That they are here to uphold the law, not Mr. Roeder's views on abortion. Abortion is such a contentious and personal issue, and I'm glad that Roeder was rightfully convicted of first degree murder -- and that political views of the jurors didn't get in the way of that.
"Abortion rights supporters lauded the ruling, saying it sends a strong, unambiguous message to others who believe that violence against abortion doctors is justified that such acts will be punished. Some abortion opponents, meanwhile, said that Mr. Roeder had not received a fair trial, and that the outcome would only encourage more violence." I don't know how they could possibly say he didn't receive a fair trial. He admitted to killing Dr. Tiller. In my opinion, there's no way he should have been acquitted or even convicted of voluntary manslaughter. There was definitely malice and premeditation. He said he was planning to kill Dr. Tiller since 1999, and that he first thought about killing Dr.Tiller as early as 1993. He said he bought a gun, took target practice, learned Dr. Tiller's habits, his home address, his schedule, his security precautions. A year before the shooting, he even went to Dr. Tiller's church with a gun intending to shoot him, but Dr. Tiller was not there that day. He admitted to killing the doctor and said he was not remorseful about it. Instead, he said he felt relief. He knew exactly what he was doing and the murder of Dr. Tiller was absolutely not justified. The jury got it right. And the fact that abortion opponents said that this ruling would only encourage more violence is quite concerning. What a terrible thing to say or even promote.
Human Rights Watch , a U.S.-based human rights group, has stated in a report that Hamas targeted civilians during last year's three-week Gaza war against Israel. During the war 1,400 Palestinians (mostly civilians) and 13 Israelis were killed. Human Rights Watch said their recent criticism of Hamas is a response to Hamas' internal report, where they said that their rocket and mortar fire were directed solely at military targets and that any civilians casualties were accidental. A researcher for HRW said, "Most of the rocket attacks on Israel hit civilian areas, which suggests that civilians were the target. " He added that statements made by Hamas leaders during the fighting indicated that they intended to harm Israeli civilians. The HRW report also stated that Hamas committed war crimes by launching rockets from populated areas, which put the local population at risk by raising the likelihood of Israeli retaliation. The researcher said they fired rockets near civilians to "shield themselves from counterattacks".
Some say the new claims against Hamas could carry extra weight since they came from the Human Rights Watch, which is a group that has been very critical of Israel's actions. Israel has accused the group of unfair bias. HRW has released three reports on Israel's war time actions. For example, they accused the Israeli army of misusing white phosphorus (an agent that can cause severe burns to people) and unlawfully shooting civilians as they waved white flags. However, critics of the bias claim by Israel say that HRW is not one-sided and that they have also released two reports criticizing Hamas' actions during the Gaza war.
An earlier U.N. report also accused Hamas of firing rockets indiscriminately towards communities in Southern Israel. The U.N. report also accused Israel of disproportionate force and targeting civilians. The U.N. called on both sides to conduct investigations into the allegations. Both Israel and Hamas have a deadline of February 5 to respond to allegations. Neither have delivered a formal response yet, and both have indicated that they will not comply. By rejecting calls for an independent inquiry, both Israel and Hamas could face international war crimes proceedings. (Full Story)
No comments:
Post a Comment