Scott Roeder had a Fair Trial

The following is my opinion of the trial of Scott Roeder. I believe the trial was done very well. It was fair and balanced. Scott Roeder should not have expected the judge to allow him (Scott Roeder) to speak or testify about abortion, because anything he would have said about abortion would have been hearsay, because Scott has no formal education on abortion, plus he has never been an eyewitness to an abortion.

Scott was foolish to think he could argue his way out of a conviction with just his testimony. He collaborated nothing he stated with evidence or witnesses. He could have used Kline’s or Disney’s testimony, even if they would have been allowed to testify. Their actions against Tiller were recent and Roeder testified that he was planning and stalking Tiller since 1993; that means for sixteen years, he had been thinking of a way to kill Dr. Tiller.

The law stated that Scott would have to have a sincere and honest belief that he was justified. He presented no evidence and witnesses to substantiate his claim. He not only did not have any witnesses or evidence. He did not plan on having any. He was just going to do the whole thing ad hoc. Scott could not present one witness who would testify that he did any sidewalk counseling, or that he convinced any one from not having an abortion. He never took the time to ever watch an abortion at George Tillers clinic. He never took the time to actually meet the man and find out why he did the abortions. Every detail of his testimony was based upon his assumption of how thing went or what they were called. He presented know documented facts or procedures, such as information from a textbook or an abortion doctor or assistant. He had no witnesses prepared to testify that he had convinced to not have an abortion. He made that statement that one woman had not had an abortion because of his “counseling”, but he made no effort no acquire her testimony. He also stated that he did sidewalk counseling. He produced no witnesses that would have confirmed his claim. He produced no certificate that showed that he was qualified to counsel. He must have thought he was in Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania facing a country judge.

Scott also produced no woman who had not had an abortion, because of his killing of George Tiller. He did not prove and substantiate any of his claim and he made no attempt to do so either. That was Scott’s own fault and not the judge’s fault. The judge did not prevent him from bringing any of the aforementioned witnesses. Scott deserved what he got.

Let me make the following clear, I am not an advocate of abortion. I personally feel the abortion is playing “God”.

Having said that; Scott should suffer the natural consequences for his actions and decisions, and that would be death by the civil authority or the city where he committed the murder.

Scott had no right to take the life of George Tiller. He also had no authority to do it either. The only way he could execute George Tiller was if Scott was a relative of the baby that was aborted. According to conversations with Scott, he had only made two women pregnant and neither of them had aborted his babies. In scripture, only a blood relative could exact justice for a murder. They were considered the avenger of blood in the Scripture; Numbers 35:6 – 34 and Deuteronomy 19:1 – 13. In the Numbers Scriptures it mentions that the avenger of blood could kill a person who killed his relative and the avenger of blood was not guilty of murder.

These Scriptures also explained murder as lying in wait to kill somebody, because he hated him. That describes Scott to a tee. Scott had hate in his heart for George Tiller and he lied in wait to murder him. There were even two witnesses to the murder, enough to get him executed in Scripture. Scott should die for his sin of murder.

Scott also had other things against him besides him testimony and lack of witnesses and evidence. He also had a failing character. He showed no remorse in having to take a life. He never stated any regret for having to kill another human being. He had placed himself in the Creator’s throne and passed judgment on another human being. His Scripture stated that he must be without sin, before he could “throw the first stone” {John 8:7}. If Scott had done some self examination he would have realized his own sins first..

When a couple decided to become man and wife they must make a public confession of their commitment. The commitment must be made before witnesses. The commitment was a contract between the man, the woman and the Creator, and there must a third neutral party to witness the joining. The man and the woman were one party and the Creator was the second party and there needed to be an unbiased third party to witness the contract.

Scott had deceived a woman just to have sex with her. A woman he had no intention of marrying. This woman, at that time, wanted to marry him and had made arrangements to marry him at three separate occasions and he backed out of every single one. He had no intention of marrying her. Not only would he not marry her, but he would not support her or himself while they were living together. Not only would he not support her, but he also failed to support the child he fathered from that union. Somebody else had to step into action to support his child. The Scriptures stated that, “if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an apostate.” 1 Timothy 5:8.

Scott Roeder wants to say he believes in Jesus Christ and is a Christian. His actions tell us a different story. He is a hypocrite, deserving of whatever he receives.

He received a fair trial. He will get a fair sentencing, 50 years minimum, which will mean he will die in prison and never see his family again.

By Mark Archer