Roeder May Not Be Able to Use “Necessity” Defense
Attorneys for Scott Roeder, the man accused of killing Dr. George Tiller, may not be able to use the defense that Roeder acted “out of necessity.” According to the Associated Press:
[Roeder] told The Associated Press on Nov. 9 that he shot Tiller to protect unborn children and he planned to present a necessity defense at his trial. He also said one of his two public defenders, Mark Rudy, had given him the “green light” to talk to the media about it.
But the following day, lead defense attorney Steve Osburn told reporters the necessity defense did not exist in Kansas law and the defense team did not plan to present that strategy.
“We have explored that possibility,” Osburn said at the time. “That does not seem to be the approach that is viable, nor is it the approach we intend to use.”
A hearing is set for December 22nd to officially decide if a “necessity defense” may be introduced when Roeder actually goes to trial on January 11th.
The idea of a necessity defense is the same as calling something a “justifiable homicide.” Although other anti-choice zealots have tried to use this as a defense in other murder cases, it has never been successful. First of all, the idea of a “justifiable homicide” belongs in the same dust-bin as a “just war.” Murder is murder, there’s nothing that makes it excusable. Second of all, if you were a quarterback and your team kept running the same, tired play game after game and you never won the football game, wouldn’t you think it was about time to try a different tactic? I would. That’s just me, though.
For all of you readers who live in Kansas, do any of you plan on attending Scott Roeder’s trial in January? If so, what is your motivation? I’d love to hear from you. For more info about Roed’er potential defense strategy, check out this article from Roeder Watch.
