roeder believed the killing was justifiable homicide, he is convicted of first-degree murder. this could open the door to investigating/prosecuting similar cases. hopefully.
I'm glad Roeder got to make the defense he wanted to make and that he was convicted anyway. I think it's a little unfortunate that the judge instructed the jury that voluntary manslaughter could not be considered in the end and the jury didn't get a chance to reject that argument themselves. But, since the judge rules on the law and the jury only on the facts, I suppose that may be the appropriate process.
Based on the article, apparently there has to be an imminent danger as well, so it makes sense that this doesn't apply. Although if he had found his way into the clinic and shot him just before a procedure, I wonder how far that defense would have gotten him.
I am wondering if Roeder could appeal on the basis that he was denied being allowed to make a voluntary manslaughter defense?
He was allowed to make it. The judge just ruled that he didn't make it sufficiently to allow it to be presented as an option to the jurors.
Kansas law defines voluntary manslaughter as the "honest but unreasonable belief" that the use of force was necessary in defense of another. It's called the imperfect self-defense. Read more: http://www.kansas.com/news/story/1134123.html#ixzz0e1reNFUo Going to a church, seeking an unarmed man out, pulling the trigger without a struggle ... nah, premeditated murder.
