There’s an interesting article about the Tiller murder. More precisely, it’s about how the legal team is going to defend Scott Roeder, the murderer of the abortionist George Tiller.
From the article:
“It’s a variation of a Twinkie Defense,” said legal expert Jonathan Turley. “They will attempt to connect Mr. Roeder’s heavy intake of Bill O’Reilly combined with a talk-radio hate-speak rush to prove that Roeder did not have the capacity to make a rational decision when he shot Dr. Tiller. “The deluge of ‘Tiller is a Nazi, mass murderer, baby killer’ verbiage by Mr. O’Reilly surely can drive one into a state of what we in the legal profession call ‘righteous assassination.'”
Those in the psychology community support the defense.
So the idea is that Mr. O’Reilly’s comments caused Mr. Roeder’s rational decision-making to be skewed. As wacky as this is, the next part gets crazier:
O’Reilly refused comment but sent his producer Jesse Waters out to ambush Tiller’s widow.
What intrigues me is that O’Reilly refused to comment. Why didn’t he comment? If I wrote a book or an article on something philosophical and some crazed fantatic goes on a rampage and claims that it came from me, I would immeidatley denounce that person. However, O’Reilly refuses to comment. Why would he do that? It seems that he loses nothing if he commented that Roeder is crazy and had nothing to do with O’Reilly’s comments.
I can only guess based on these alternatives:
- If O’Reilly refuses to comment, then it’s synonymous with not condemning what Roeder did. Of course, it’s also not condoning it either. But the refusal to speak seems odd since it would clear up O’Reilly’s name. If his words did bring about harm, then surely he’d want to clear up the air. But he didn’t. It seems that he had no problem with Roeder’s actions. In this case, O’Reilly knew what he was doing and was basically egging people like Roeder on. In which case, O’Reilly is guilty.
- If O’Reilly comments, then all he can say is that his words didn’t cause Roeder to act as he did. But the legal defense could easily reply that his words have incited violence as stated in the article: “It stands to reason that in repeating incessantly that Dr. Tiller is a mass murderer, someone would step up to stop the killings. Rather than an assassin, the defendant might see himself as a hero.” Thus, if O’Reilly commented, he would be lying.
These are the alternatives: O’Reilly is guilty or lying. Anything that I’m missing?