Roeder is no MLK, Jr.

Was someone killed? Check.

Were they killed intentionally? Check.

And was it premeditated? Most certainly, check. Scott Roeder brainstormed elaborate schemes to reach his end goal: sneaking into his victim’s home and killing him, crashing a car into him, and even cutting off his hands. Ultimately, however, he decided to walk into the Reformation Lutheran Church, put a gun to Dr. George Tiller’s forehead, and pull the trigger.

Could this case have been anything but first-degree murder?

While thankfully the jury thought not, many “pro-lifers” are upset with the verdict.

Some abortion opponents have argued that the killing of an abortion provider can be justified and that, because the judge did not permit descriptions and images of aborted fetuses to be used as evidence, the trial was unfair. Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue, described the trial as a “scam” because Roeder had not been allowed to “really tell his side of the story.”

Judge Warren Wilbert undoubtedly did the right thing by keeping the trial focused on the facts of the case and not allowing his courtroom to be morphed into a graphic Right to Life ad.

But the shamelessness of defense attorney Mark Rudy was truly astonishing. Not only did he make a logically flawed and ignominious case that “no one should be convicted based on his convictions,” he distastefully compared Roeder to leaders who “stood up for their beliefs” – including the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. They were “celebrated individuals (who) stood up and made the world a better place,” Rudy asserted. “They leave their marks based on their words and deeds.”

Not only is the mention of a staunch advocate of nonviolence incontestably out of place here, but the use of a cultural hero like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to further the agenda of a murderer and the violent movement behind him is also sick.

King fought for racial equality and prided himself on his resistance to violent means. The radical group supporting Roeder is arguing for its right to be the next Boondock Saints – except instead of killing Russian mobsters, they want to undermine the law to take out legally practicing physicians. Given that they honestly believe deadly force is justified, of course.

The defense hinged on a Kansas law that states intentional killing can be considered manslaughter if the act is committed “upon an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force.” Those who believe that Roeder’s actions were justified are clinging to this scrap of legislation.

It’s clear, however, that this statute was intended not for strongly held convictions like Roeder’s but for mental illnesses and other such cases.

For instance, I’m sure Sirhan Sirhan passionately believed Robert Kennedy’s death would prevent imminent harm and therefore killing him was justified. I’ll bet John Wilkes Booth thought the same about Abe Lincoln. Would we have considered manslaughter for their verdicts?

You know who else’s assassin unreasonably, but honestly, believed circumstances existed that justified deadly force? I’m certain James Earl Ray, the man who pulled the trigger ending the life of Martin Luther King, Jr., felt circumstances justified his own actions.

The name-dropping of Martin Luther King, Jr. goes to show how off-base the supporters of Roeder are. Law enforcement should take the lessons from Dr. Tiller’s murder and be more proactive about protecting law-abiding citizens involved in the practice of abortion.
 

E-mail: akames@indiana.edu