Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

WTF? Really? Only in the US...

MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 6:42:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I hate to use msnbc as a source but I didn't feel like looking for this story somewhere else..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

Basically, a little while ago some lunatic thought it would be a noble idea to bring a .22 cal revolver, to his church no less, and kill a man execution style who was a doctor known to be a provider of late-term abortions. Quoting:

"But what had been expected to be an open-and-shut murder trial was upended Friday when a judge decided to let Roeder argue he should be convicted of voluntary manslaughter because he believed the May 31 slaying would save unborn children."

I hope I'm not the only one (especially theist) out there that thinks this is F*CKING INSANE!!!! As much as I hate the thought of late-term abortions, and as much as I question their legality, Seriously... WTF? Since when does premeditated murder, with a confession no less, suddenly not qualify as such? (yes i realize the irony in that question to anyone who equates abortion to murder, let's not get into that)

"Spitz acknowledged that the possibility of a voluntary manslaughter defense may influence some people who in the past wouldn't kill abortion providers because of the prospect of a sentence of death or life imprisonment. "It may increase the number of people who may be willing to take that risk," he said."

I'll spare you a page long rant because I just don't think words can explain how retarded this is... now excuse me while i go throw up.

Discuss. If you think its worth it.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 6:47:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
This really is stupid. However, it could also be on whether or not his mental stability is in question, which would be a serious question in a trial like this.

However, if it isn't, then it is absolutely stupid. It would be condoning murder simply because of "conscience." It would be a travesty of justice that would only further the goals of fascist Christian dominionists in the US. It must be stopped.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 6:58:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If he really believed that abortion was murder and had strong reason to suspect that this individual would perform an abortion, it is perfectly understandable why he would act in such a fashion. This certainly does not justify his actions however.

I also find it odd why he must answer to the state to an offense committed only to the individual he murdered and the church as well I suppose. It should be the heirs of the doctor and the church that should bring the charges and seek compensation.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 7:00:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 6:58:34 PM, Reasoning wrote:
If he really believed that abortion was murder and had strong reason to suspect that this individual would perform an abortion, it is perfectly understandable why he would act in such a fashion. This certainly does not justify his actions however.

I also find it odd why he must answer to the state to an offense committed only to the individual he murdered and the church as well I suppose. It should be the heirs of the doctor and the church that should bring the charges and seek compensation.

I was hoping this wouldn't get derailed into Libertarian ideology... however it's a valid thought, I suppose.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 7:01:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 6:58:34 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I also find it odd why he must answer to the state to an offense committed only to the individual he murdered and the church as well I suppose. It should be the heirs of the doctor and the church that should bring the charges and seek compensation.

It wouldn't be impartial, which is what modern justice systems are built upon.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 7:05:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 7:03:42 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Hahahaha. And people try to say only islamic extremists are violent...

Well, they aren't the only ones who are violent, but they certainly are quite violent, and there is quite a lot of violent radical Muslims as well, which are condoned and pushed by quite a lot more imams in a quite more fundamentalist religion.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 7:06:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 7:01:44 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/11/2010 6:58:34 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I also find it odd why he must answer to the state to an offense committed only to the individual he murdered and the church as well I suppose. It should be the heirs of the doctor and the church that should bring the charges and seek compensation.

It wouldn't be impartial, which is what modern justice systems are built upon.

They have lawsuits all the time.

"A lawsuit is a civil action brought before a court of law in which a plaintiff, a party who claims to have received damages from a defendant's actions, seeks a legal or equitable remedy." - Wikipedia[1]

That seems like a far better system. Then the doctor's family could at least receive some compensation.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 7:10:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 7:06:42 PM, Reasoning wrote:
That seems like a far better system. Then the doctor's family could at least receive some compensation.

Then let them sue the person that committed the action. However, its going to be quite hard to sue someone who doesn't have much, let alone trying to put a monetary number on a human life seems like something that most people don't wish to pursue directly after the loss of a loved one.

It also fails to answer the question of what to do with the suspect. Does he become a slave, or is he killed outright? Both things are decisions that fly in the face of human and legal rights upheld by the state, as well as impartial judicial decisions, especially if the person is mentally handicapped.

Maybe in anarcho-topia such a system could be implemented, but not modern judiciaries.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 7:20:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 7:10:47 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/11/2010 7:06:42 PM, Reasoning wrote:
That seems like a far better system. Then the doctor's family could at least receive some compensation.

Then let them sue the person that committed the action.

That's what I'm saying.

However, its going to be quite hard to sue someone who doesn't have much,

Do we know that he doesn't have much?

let alone trying to put a monetary number on a human life seems like something that most people don't wish to pursue directly after the loss of a loved one.

The subjective theory of value proves that it is impossible to equate values in any objective fashion.

It also fails to answer the question of what to do with the suspect. Does he become a slave, or is he killed outright?

Well, I think the Blockian theory applies here. The heirs of the doctor have the right to kill the murderer and they also have the right to bargain with the murderer for his life. In this way we can establish a market price.

This is assuming of course that it is conclusively proven that he is indeed the murderer.

Both things are decisions that fly in the face of human and legal rights upheld by the state, as well as impartial judicial decisions, especially if the person is mentally handicapped.

How does this have anything to do with the partiality of judges?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2010 7:35:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 7:20:13 PM, Reasoning wrote:
That's what I'm saying.

Then we have no issue, do we?

Do we know that he doesn't have much?

I remember seeing a news source talk about Roeder's past a little, but I can't find it now, so I don't know really.

The subjective theory of value proves that it is impossible to equate values in any objective fashion.

Indeed.

Well, I think the Blockian theory applies here. The heirs of the doctor have the right to kill the murderer and they also have the right to bargain with the murderer for his life. In this way we can establish a market price.

Well, I don't necessarily agree with the "Blockian theory," even if it does seem satisfying in most respects. I would prefer impartial justice, with the victim's family having the chance to sue for damages, if there is any worth there, of course. I don't think establishing a "market price" for judicial matters is in the interest of impartial law, though this is just my opinion.

This is assuming of course that it is conclusively proven that he is indeed the murderer.

That is where it would become tricky, though, wouldn't it. Maybe not in this case, where the evidence is pretty clear cut, and there was a confession - but in other, more indeterminate cases, this would be extremely tricky, and if given that the current judiciary already has enough problems with innocent convictions, I couldn't imagine the havoc in a Blockian system.

How does this have anything to do with the partiality of judges?

Legal rights/code has a lot to do with judicial partiality. This is the system by which they can determine the case, as well as punishment.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 3:15:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Well, the abortion doctor couldve just as well been saving millions of lives, as the child he helps abort could grow up to be the next Hitler. Courts should not be concerned with what WOULD have happened, but rather what DID happen. This is why ATTEMPTED murder is not the same as murder.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 8:49:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/11/2010 7:35:42 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/11/2010 7:20:13 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Well, I think the Blockian theory applies here. The heirs of the doctor have the right to kill the murderer and they also have the right to bargain with the murderer for his life. In this way we can establish a market price.

Well, I don't necessarily agree with the "Blockian theory," even if it does seem satisfying in most respects. I would prefer impartial justice, with the victim's family having the chance to sue for damages, if there is any worth there, of course. I don't think establishing a "market price" for judicial matters is in the interest of impartial law, though this is just my opinion.

I think you may misunderstand. I was not arguing for private arbitration courts. Though I think they would be preferable that is anther issue. I was merely saying that I think that the heirs of the doctor should be able to bring a lawsuit against the murderer in a state-run court and seek compensation.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 8:53:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/12/2010 8:49:09 AM, Reasoning wrote:
I think you may misunderstand. I was not arguing for private arbitration courts. Though I think they would be preferable that is anther issue. I was merely saying that I think that the heirs of the doctor should be able to bring a lawsuit against the murderer in a state-run court and seek compensation.

I would agree then. However, if this accused has no estate to speak of (not as if they could really access it anyways), or if the accused has a mental disability that doesn't place responsibility for their actions, where is the compensation taken from, given that the family can't order slavery or execution or the like?
Sylux
Posts: 290
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 9:04:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
What is... I don't even...
Whatever happened to separation of Church and- oh wait...
http://cheezburger.com...
"Can you see? Do you know?
The string behind you, it's shiny and pretty.
Where is my string.
Give me because I don't know.
Give me your string.
Give me everything."
-grasshoppa
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 9:17:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Lemme guess, next thing ya know there'll be "saving the victim's immortal soul" defenses.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Alex
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 9:39:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Last night I went to a switchfoot concert (which was awesome) and while standing outside in line, there was an "evangelist" who had a megaphone shouting that we were all going to hell because switchfoot is not labeled a "Christian band" I hate being represented by such morons. Obviously i'm referring to select individuals when saying that.
Why kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?
Alex
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 9:39:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Oh and this story is pretty old if its the Tiller murder, it wasn't "a little while ago"
Why kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 10:15:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't understand why one, even with such crazy belief, would plead to be charged with voluntary manslaughter rather than murder. How is that legally different, aren't they the same thing?
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 10:43:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/12/2010 10:15:48 AM, Marauder wrote:
I don't understand why one, even with such crazy belief, would plead to be charged with voluntary manslaughter rather than murder. How is that legally different, aren't they the same thing?

Manslaughter is i believe 15 to life, whereas murder is 25 to life, or a potential death sentence. The difference here is intent and premeditation. Was it an act of emotion, or was it planned before? Im damn sure this is closer to first degree murder though.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 10:49:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
If it's intent and premeditation than the case "I was gonna save little children" is evidence in favor of murder as opposed to manslaughter :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 10:56:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/12/2010 10:49:32 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If it's intent and premeditation than the case "I was gonna save little children" is evidence in favor of murder as opposed to manslaughter :)

Not exactly. He could always say "I never intended to shoot anyone that day, but when i heard that this abortion doctor would be coming, and as soon as i saw him stand up on that podium, my blood boiled and i couldnt help myself."
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 11:03:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/12/2010 10:56:33 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/12/2010 10:49:32 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If it's intent and premeditation than the case "I was gonna save little children" is evidence in favor of murder as opposed to manslaughter :)

Not exactly. He could always say "I never intended to shoot anyone that day, but when i heard that this abortion doctor would be coming, and as soon as i saw him stand up on that podium, my blood boiled and i couldnt help myself."

He brought his gun to church, I think that proves premedit....wait never mind mabey a person is pro-gun right activist enogh to be packen heat in church cause he's afriad he might need to use it cause of some ignorant reason.
But 'I was gonna save' is a thought, not a blood boiling impulsive emotion.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 11:05:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/12/2010 11:03:15 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 1/12/2010 10:56:33 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/12/2010 10:49:32 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If it's intent and premeditation than the case "I was gonna save little children" is evidence in favor of murder as opposed to manslaughter :)

Not exactly. He could always say "I never intended to shoot anyone that day, but when i heard that this abortion doctor would be coming, and as soon as i saw him stand up on that podium, my blood boiled and i couldnt help myself."

He brought his gun to church, I think that proves premedit....wait never mind mabey a person is pro-gun right activist enogh to be packen heat in church cause he's afriad he might need to use it cause of some ignorant reason.
But 'I was gonna save' is a thought, not a blood boiling impulsive emotion.

He researched the fact the doctor performed abortions. Premeditated enough for me.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 11:19:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/12/2010 11:17:27 AM, Koopin wrote:
He is just as bad as the abortionist.

No, if abortion is legal (Which it obviously was) then the murderer is in the wrong.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 11:22:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/12/2010 11:19:58 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 1/12/2010 11:17:27 AM, Koopin wrote:
He is just as bad as the abortionist.

No, if abortion is legal (Which it obviously was) then the murderer is in the wrong.

As an abortion supporter I must unfortunately note that your argument is invalid. Illegal=/= wrong. :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 11:23:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/12/2010 11:22:07 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/12/2010 11:19:58 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 1/12/2010 11:17:27 AM, Koopin wrote:
He is just as bad as the abortionist.

No, if abortion is legal (Which it obviously was) then the murderer is in the wrong.

As an abortion supporter I must unfortunately note that your argument is invalid. Illegal=/= wrong. :)

It's wrong in the eyes of the law, who coincidentally are doling out the punishment.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 11:23:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/12/2010 11:23:12 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 1/12/2010 11:22:07 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/12/2010 11:19:58 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 1/12/2010 11:17:27 AM, Koopin wrote:
He is just as bad as the abortionist.

No, if abortion is legal (Which it obviously was) then the murderer is in the wrong.

As an abortion supporter I must unfortunately note that your argument is invalid. Illegal=/= wrong. :)

It's wrong in the eyes of the law, who coincidentally are doling out the punishment.

"x sees it this way, therefore must be this way." ????
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2010 11:30:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/12/2010 11:23:54 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/12/2010 11:23:12 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 1/12/2010 11:22:07 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/12/2010 11:19:58 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 1/12/2010 11:17:27 AM, Koopin wrote:
He is just as bad as the abortionist.

No, if abortion is legal (Which it obviously was) then the murderer is in the wrong.

As an abortion supporter I must unfortunately note that your argument is invalid. Illegal=/= wrong. :)

It's wrong in the eyes of the law, who coincidentally are doling out the punishment.

"x sees it this way, therefore must be this way." ????

You should take it into consideration if prison is the outcome.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.