The Missouri man accused of killing Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller has confessed.
Fifty-one-year-old Scott Roeder said he was justified in shooting Tiller last May and said he plans to use the "necessity defense" at his January trial.
In American criminal justice, the necessity defense is used to provide justification for breaking the law and perhaps exoneration as a result.
Defendants using this defense argue that their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and thus should not be held liable.
Roeder has said his justification for killing Tiller was to protect the lives of unborn children.
Since some are calling Maj. Nidal Hasan a terrorist because they believe he was driven by his faith and perhaps even instructed by extremists to shoot up Fort Hood, is Scott Roeder also a terrorist who may have had similar associations with religious extremists. Do his acts indict an entire faith? How can those who say that about one not say that about the other?