Who's worse? Abortion doctor or abortion doctor killer?

[larrymcg421]

Not really verbatim. Molson left out a bit at the end.

Under voluntary manslaughter it says this:

(b) upon an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force under K.S.A. 21-3211, 21-3212 or 21-3213 and amendments thereto.


And if we go to 21-3211:

21-3211. Use of force in defense of a person; no duty to retreat.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Not really verbatim. Molson left out a bit at the end.

Under voluntary manslaughter it says this:

(b) upon an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force under K.S.A. 21-3211, 21-3212 or 21-3213 and amendments thereto.


And if we go to 21-3211:

21-3211. Use of force in defense of a person; no duty to retreat.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force.

So yes, the very idea that they wanted it dropped to manslaughter was fucking absurd.

Can't wait for this guy to buy it. Glad to see the jury wasn't insane.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Not really verbatim. Molson left out a bit at the end.

Under voluntary manslaughter it says this:

(b) upon an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force under K.S.A. 21-3211, 21-3212 or 21-3213 and amendments thereto.


And if we go to 21-3211:

21-3211. Use of force in defense of a person; no duty to retreat.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force.

I just cut and pasted a line from CNN and didn't look at the source statute, but yes, good call, there's no way he can argue that he had honest belief that the doctor was doing anything unlawful. It goes to show how ignorant mainstream news media sources are about the law.