Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jack Cashill can't quite bring himself to critize Scott Roeder for killing abortion doctor George Tiller. Back in June, Cashill appeared to justify it by calling it inevitable and "a kind of crude frontier justice," blaming not Roeder for pulling the trigger but, rather, former Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius for not running Tiller out of the state before Roeder had a chance to kill him.
Cashill's Nov. 12 WorldNetDaily column again revels in Tiller's death and refuses to hold Roeder accountable:
Scott Roeder, the accused murderer of late-term Wichita abortionist George Tiller, admitted killing Tiller earlier this week in an interview with the Associated Press.
Roeder told the AP that the shooting was provoked by "the fact [that] preborn children's lives were in imminent danger." He plans to plead "not guilty" and hopes to use this "necessity defense" at trial.
Roeder's public defenders, however, were quick to disown this strategy if for no other reason than that the Kansas Supreme Court rejected a similar defense in an abortion clinic trespassing case in 1993.
Indeed, were Tiller legally performing a state sanctioned service, however malevolent, it is hard to imagine that Roeder's hoped-for strategy would have much of a chance.
Got that? Cashill doesn't find Roeder's "necessity defense" morally reprehensible; he merely regrets it won't hold up in court.
Cashill goes on to once again blame the victim: "Say what one will, Roeder was not a terrorist. There was nothing random about his actions. Nor was Tiller an innocent victim. Far from it." And again, Cashill blames politicians: "Had Tiller gotten the trial he deserved, he would be where Roeder is today, but at least he would be alive."
If Cashill is truly offended by the act of murder, shouldn't he be bothered by Tiller's murder as well? Or is he laying the groundwork for a "necessity defense" of his own? After all, he's been using that argument to defend killer Steven Nary.
