Without the rule of law, we cease to be America. That is why murdering abortion doctors not only goes against the core of what pro lifers proclaim about themselves, it strikes at the very heart of liberty. And now, a judge has ruled properly that the killer of the odious George Tiller cannot use “necessity” as a defense. From the story:
A judge ruled Tuesday that Kansas law does not allow a so-called necessity defense in the trial of a man charged with killing one of the nation’s few late-term abortion providers. The decision was another blow to lawyers for 51-year-old Scott Roeder, who has confessed to shooting Dr. George Tiller on May 31 and says it was necessary to save “unborn children.” In his ruling, Judge Warren Wilbert cited a 1993 criminal trespassing case involving an abortion clinic. The Kansas Supreme Court found in that case that allowing a person’s personal beliefs to justify criminal activity to stop a law-abiding citizen from exercising his rights would “not only lead to chaos but would be tantamount to sanctioning anarchy.”
Quite right. We can’t just be against terrorism in causes with which we disagree, we must be against terrorism. Indeed, it might be more important to oppose violence in causes with which one has great sympathy.
Lincoln said, “Right makes might,” a truism that everyone involved in roiling public controversies should always keep in mind.
December 23rd, 2009 | 11:53 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: No “Necessity” Defense to Murder of Late Term Abortion Doctor is Correct Ruling » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things … http://shar.es/aOewL [...]
December 23rd, 2009 | 1:37 pm
So much for watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots. I figured nobody here seriously believed that. My view is that if you’re going to incite an armed uprising in defense of the innocent, be prepared to plead guilty to your deed and accept your punishment with grace. Because you can’t expect the authorities to exonerate you until you’ve actually won the war.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Jefferson’s comment is pernicious. It was written when he was in the thrall of the French Revolution. The better approach is in the Declaration of Independence that justifies violence only under the most extreme circumstances.
December 23rd, 2009 | 2:03 pm
The comment was pernicious and disingenuous. He was vehement that the tree of liberty should never be “watered” with the blood of plantation owners – the fear of such a bloodbath was behind just about every argument he made against abolition of slavery.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Stephen: And look what happened after Nat Turner.
December 23rd, 2009 | 5:19 pm
It is wrong to kill another human being, and unborn infants are indeed human beings. Although US law permits these murders, it does not make them non-murders.
The rejection of the necessity defense is merely a legal system payrollee, defending the legal system. It has nothing to do with seeking justice.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Justice doesn’t come from the bad end of a gun, fired at an unarmed man in a church. Justice comes from courts and the law. It often doesn’t, of course. But if we take it into our own hands, it is mere vigilantism and we are doomed.
December 23rd, 2009 | 8:38 pm
The thing is, I am both a “practical pacifist” and a believer in the legitimacy of vigilantism (blame it on my upbringing watching Batman movies). I endorse violence of any kind only under the most extreme circumstances, but I do not rule out vigilantes as the rightful instruments of said violence.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Just remember what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
December 24th, 2009 | 8:41 am
Wesley: I agree with you completely. The last thing we need is for people to start killing others because they believe “my cause is just.” George Tiller’s assassination was wrong, and so was Jim Pouillon’s. Isn’t there enough animosity between pro-lifers and pro-choicers without adding murder to the mixture? Has whatever dialog exists become so poisoned?
December 24th, 2009 | 8:58 pm
For me, it’s also a question of whether your violent act will acheive your intended goal. Don’t lash out just to lash out. You need to ask whether the war is just, and also whether the war is winnable and what it will take to win. For instance, the American Revolution was winnable, and didn’t take all that much to win because Britain wasn’t willing to throw its full weight against us. However, the “justness” of that war was highly debatable.
On the other hand, if I lived in an Islamic state and the government was about to arrest and execute my family because of their faith, I would kill to save their lives and take them to a safe shelter, even if I knew I had almost no chance at all of winning.
December 25th, 2009 | 4:31 am
I would never sanction a killing like the one perpetrated by Roeder.
However, has anyone noticed that when leftists(Che Guevara, Mao Tse-Tung, the Black Panthers, the Weather Underground) use violence, the media sympathizes, and when far-righties use violence, they are portrayed as altogether brutally subhuman? Maybe it shouldn’t annoy me so much, but it does.
December 26th, 2009 | 4:05 pm
Jeff,
What the media say or don’t say is not at issue. What’s at issue here is the validity of the so-called “necessity defense.”
But since you bring it up, which of the major media can you cite that actually sympathized with the depredations of common thugs like the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground? As for Mao Zedong and Che Guevara, comparisons of the Cuban and Chinese Revolutions to vigilante-style one-on-one murder is really kind of silly. What would you have said of loyalists in the America of 1776?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact