Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: winstonchurchill
"No one here is proposing imprisoning anyone and forcibly depriving them of food. That would be "murder". In this instance, Terry is permanently incapable of maintaining herself; no one is preventing her from getting her own food. Obviously, she cannot do so."

Oh, my gosh, HOW nit-picky can YOU get??? SO, because SHE cannot get her own food, we let her starve to death??

"The decision as to whether to provide such extraordinary measures to a loved one who cannot decide for himself is, absent circumstances not proven here, upon the husband -- not the state."

AND, what IF her "husband" were trying to KILL her???

672 posted on 03/17/2005 12:12:30 PM PST by jackibutterfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 670 | View Replies ]


To: jackibutterfly
AND, what IF her "husband" were trying to KILL her???

OK, quick lesson on our system. The court's rely on the opposing party to present the very worst evidence against their opposition which they can. In this instance, I suspect that if the parents had evidence that the husband was trying to kill his wife, they would have presented that evidence. [Maybe they did, I don't know.] One thing I know (knowing lawyers as I do), the parents' lawyers made the best arguments against the husband that they could -- and they weren't good enough to carry the day.

Moreover, we have lots of police and other investigatory agencies and lots of public prosecutors. If any of them thought they had a whiff of a case of attempted murder which would stand up in court, they would have pursued it.

Doesn't that give you just a little pause in making such allegations?

674 posted on 03/17/2005 12:22:56 PM PST by winstonchurchill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 672 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson