But what had been expected to be an open-and-shut murder trial was upended Friday when a judge decided to let Roeder argue he should be convicted of voluntary manslaughter because he believed the May 31 slaying would save unborn children. Suddenly, the case has taken on a new significance that has galvanized both sides of the nation's abortion debate.
So, a person can plan and carry out the assassination of fertility specialists or Ob/Gyns who only perform deliveries but have a high C/S rate and argue manslaughter because of a belief that the slaying would save already born female patients. In other words, just the fact that a person holds whatever personal belief is a good enough justification for manslaughter?
Prosecutors on Monday challenged the ruling, arguing that such a defense is not appropriately considered with premeditated first-degree murder when there is no evidence of an imminent attack at the time of the killing, and jury selection was delayed. A hearing was scheduled for Tuesday afternoon to give the defense time to respond.
How can a safe, effective, consented, and legal medical procedure be considered an attack?
What legal sleight of hand am I missing here?