Replies

I said it was wrong to kill her. That is my opinion. Nothing can change it. No list of "facts" will ever change it.

And I put "facts" in quotes because most of the so-called "facts" posted here were in fact "opinion." Whether it was a poster's opinion, a reporter's opinion, her husband's opinion, a relative's opinion, a supporter's opinion, a detractor's opinion, a politician's opinion, a lawyer's opinion, a doctor's opinion, the president's opinion, the governor's opinion, or even the judge's opinion - they were and are all opinions.

And none of them are incontrovertible or indisputable fact.

In fact, they continue calling in more doctors and more experts to give their opinion even after it's all said and done. In this battle of press, public, politicians, doctors, lawyers and "experts" the side with the most thumbs down votes won and she was killed. What was it, two out of three or three out of five? How about we go for seven out of twelve? How about one "no" vote out of twelve and you don't execute?

The last I heard, in this country when you are on trial for your life, if there is one doubtful juror, you don't receive a death sentence. The accused receives the benefit of the doubt. Of course, Terri did not even receive the benefit of a trial much less the benefit of the doubt. She was simply snuffed out per a judge's order based on three out of five expert "opinions." It's a shame and a disgrace and a mockery of justice.

I said it was wrong to kill her. That is my opinion. Nothing can change it. No list of "facts" will ever change it.

You are certainly entitled to that opinion, many agree with it, even many on this thread.

I think what we are upset about is the breakdown in civility that was allowed to continue. It seemed that half the posts made, including many of mine, were personal invective, not argument.

In the past when issues became contentious, you always suspended as many people as necessary to restore order.
This time, it seems to me that the pro Terri people were allowed to say absolutely anything about anyone, even advocate armed insurection, with impunity, while the Pro Michael/Legal posters had to be very careful or be 'timed out'.

I'm waiting around to see how things shake out.

So9

"The last I heard, in this country when you are on trial for your life, if there is one doubtful juror, you don't receive a death sentence. The accused receives the benefit of the doubt. Of course, Terri did not even receive the benefit of a trial much less the benefit of the doubt. She was simply snuffed out per a judge's order based on three out of five expert "opinions." It's a shame and a disgrace and a mockery of justice."

Well said, Jim.

It is your forum and you may run it as you see fit. You are entitled to your opinion also. I am interested to know. Do you still believe that the President should have sent in the Federal Marshalls as you stated?

I appreciate the reply.

I said it was wrong to kill her. That is my opinion. Nothing can change it. No list of "facts" will ever change it.

If I may way in, although I'm one of the radical "Jesus Freaks" and "A Charter Member of the St. Terri Battallion," both of which I would be proud of to be, I have some thoughts on all of this. The crux is that this is the life of someone here, a life and death issue. I know we can argue about things like welfare, gun control, WMD's, the Iraq war, pollution, population, and so on. Are they Consitutional, legal, should we do it or not, how much money we should allocate to and so on, we can fight over that with the liberals and yes even amongst ourselves, but the issue of life and death, there are only two choices, right or wrong.

The last I heard, in this country when you are on trial for your life, if there is one doubtful juror, you don't receive a death sentence. The accused receives the benefit of the doubt. Of course, Terri did not even receive the benefit of a trial much less the benefit of the doubt. She was simply snuffed out per a judge's order based on three out of five expert "opinions." It's a shame and a disgrace and a mockery of justice.

Exactly. Again with life and death, you also had a time factor here. Jim Quinn had a good analogy of Terri being like a plane in trouble who declares "MAYDAY." When that happens, the powers that be move Heaven and Earth to save your and anyone else's lives. You get bumped to the top of the stack and the rulebook gets tossed out for the time being. You are the top priority, the rest of the planes can wait, no matter if they are the President or the Pope. Then when you are down and safe, the normal rules resume. I think Jeb blew it, he should have sent State Police or if need be, the National Guard to take over and then deal with the fallout afterwards right at the moment the feeding tube was pulled.

I do agree with you that Terri was denied due process and personally I lack faith in the justice system. I always liked Barry Goldwater's quote, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice ....... and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Terri's liberty was in jeopardy with the threat to her life and as we know, it was taken away. Justice failed her as well. Even death row inmates get more consideration from the justice system. We are falling down on the job here.

I think that a good measure of a society is how well it treats its weakest members, well we are going down on the road to where they and all of us could be in jeopardy. Here, again, we are falling down on the job. I can go on, but it is hard typing on a laptop with a 16 year old, 13 pound, grey and white cat sitting on my lap and computer. B-) She won't move either.

Of course, Terri did not even receive the benefit of a trial much less the benefit of the doubt. She was simply snuffed out per a judge's order based on three out of five expert "opinions." It's a shame and a disgrace and a mockery of justice.

Well, I see when it suits your purpose you'll cite "facts" to buttress your position, but you don't wish others to point to any points of facts within the actual opinions offered?

I do believe the post that prompted your "facts" don't matter response was the poster making an effort to clarify the record of which expert actually said what in their testimony before the court. A factually sound way of debating an issue that has always in the past been the basis of discussion here at FR rather than "just because" type arguments.

I, too, didn't see why her parents couldn't and shouldn't have been granted guardianship since they were begging for it, however that does not justify making things up or hyping an argument to the unacceptable tone and commentary that has been allowed to run rampant here.

I said it was wrong to kill her. That is my opinion. Nothing can change it. No list of "facts" will ever change it.

*****************

Agreed. There are many who believe this is merely a legal issue. In my opinion, they have missed the most significan aspect of the Schiavo case. What was done to Terri was morally wrong.

"Of course, Terri did not even receive the benefit of a trial much less the benefit of the doubt."

Well, your beginning of this sentence with "of course" does not make it true. There was a trial.

There was a trial. There were subsequent evidentiary hearings. There were appeals upon appeals, including one where the appellate court did a de novo review it did not have to do.

No guardianship case has ever received the degree of due process and attention from the courts that this one received. To say there was no trial is, simply stated, a falsehood.

You're just a troll or a disrupter here Jim, to use their slanderous terminology.

Their rules require that the WPPPPFFFFT! members shall not respond to your post, as that would simply be feeding another troll or disrupter. So hypocritical of those seeking *enlightenment*...I have found the lot of 'em small-minded and bigoted.

I wish you'd nuke 'em, but it's not my site. I've repeatedly encouraged them to start their own site - the idea being that maybe then they'd realize not only how tough it is to establish something great, but also to illustrate exactly the kinds of people on the political spectrum who would be attracted to their groupthink. Chirp, chirp chirp. Alas, nobody took my advice....yet.

They are doing nothing to advance the goals of FR.

"And I put "facts" in quotes because most of the so-called "facts" posted here were in fact "opinion."

You are indeed correct. I think what most people took exception to was the rumor, innuendo, misinformation, disinformation etc.

It is a fact that doctors gave their opinions that she had a cardiac arrest episode. To post that these doctors said she had a hear attack is incorrect.

Sure there may be different opinions where such and such doctor thinks it was a heart attack or he is intentionally being misleading, but I think most here were trying to stick with the testimony or documents of the court.

Such misinformation gives a false impression and only confuses a very emotional issue.

It is wrong to kill her is a moral issue that each must answer for themselves.

But, attending to that issue, we still have to deal with the judicial system within the context of what occurs.

Example, abortion is morally wrong, but it is legal.
Some feel capital punishment is morally wrong, but it is legal.

Similarly, killing Terri may be morally wrong, but it appears to be legal?

I can't speak for everyone, but think most here were struggling to understand how it could be legal and if so what are the circumstances that make it so. IMHO