Posted on 04/12/2005 7:20:07 AM PDT by kcvl
So if it was not murder what was it? Also, if someone would have taken a gun to Terri's head and pulled the trigger or given her a lethal injection would that have been murder? If you say yes to that then what is the difference between the two? Either way she dies. The logic of not calling this murder is very twisted logic at best.
One judge found the "she wanted to die" all the other judges accepted his findings as fact. They did not revisit any of the testimony or conduct a new finding of fact - EVER.
Glad you are so easily amused. I'll bet a funeral is a laugh riot.
My computer at home told me something was not loaded thus there was no video. Why would I lie?
Not only do you not know what the hell you are talking about wrt the video link but I have no fear of anything I might see in it. Most of these links I have viewed repeatedly and they do not show what is claimed. This one might but I doubt it. I like to keep up with these lies and distortions so I did try and view it.
I'll bet you were appalled by the selectively edited and shortened Rodney King "video" too and still believe Superman could fly because you saw it in a movie.
The ugly truth is you are lying about my beliefs and don't even care that you are lying.
Selectively edited videos are not proof of much of anything and can be used to make things appear what they are not. Rodney King was not shown attacking the police and resisting arrest yet after the RATmedia did its job it looked as though the police were going apeshiite.
The fact that you have chosen Ira Byock as one of your sources on this tells me all I need to know about your point-of-view. He is closely tied to the former Euthanasia Society of America. ESOA was formed in 1938, then became renamed in 1974 to The Society for the Right to Die. The Society for the Right to Die merged with Concern for Dying in 1991 to form Choice In Dying. In 2000, Choice In Dying became part of Partnership for Caring, which was founded by Ira Byock.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:iNhofGNxArIJ:www.finalexit.org/chronframe.html+euthanasia+society+america&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
http://www.dyingwell.org/writings.htm
http://www.dyingwell.org/wp120698.htm
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Nu2WUDOtCJwJ:www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1377916/posts+Ira+Byock+site:www.freerepublic.com&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Ira Byock is well acquainted with George Felos, Michael Schiavo's pro-euthanasis lawyer. According to George Felos' biography on his publisher's web page,"Felos graduated from Boston University School of Law, has practiced in Pinellas County since 1978, was a founding member of the National Legal Advisors Committee on Choice in Dying, and served as Board Chair of The Hospice of the Florida Suncoast, the largest non-profit Hospice in the world."
http://www.bluedolphinpublishing.com/Felos.htm
You may not know who Byock is, but I do. I wouldn't trust his opinion any further than I could spit.
You don't get it, do you? The fact that Terri does what she does there is proof that according to Florida law, she is not PVS, by the Florida statute definition. I pity you that you do not see cognizant life in that video of Terri.
You really don't understand why complete strangers would support Michael Schiavo? Come on, think about it. Prominent advocates of involuntary euthanasia have stated that hundreds (some say more) of patients per week are euthanized. Somebody is behind each of those killings. Somebody has to sign the papers to euthanize Granny, or Uncle Joe, or whoever is being euthanized today. How many of those people who push for their own relatives to be killed, are going to protest against Michael offing Terri? Puhleeze! They saw the courts' abuse of power as their ticket to an early inheritance, or societal approval for actions they already took. Isn't pretty obvious why they would support Michael?
I get it just fine while you believe a selectively edited snippet of video is good evidence of something I know it is not (other than the cleverness of the editor)? Those who are not blinded by ideology would wonder just how many hours of tape were consumed to get less than two minutes of questionable "proof of awareness?" I have heard six.
I think you were clear. Maybe I wasn't. Those people who present themselves as not having a stake in the outcome, almost certainly do. They are the people who have withheld nutrition and hydration from someone (sometimes more than one person), or they plan to do that in the future. They usually don't reveal these motives, but sometimes they slip up. Don't think for one minute that they really believe torturing a person to death is the best thing for the victim. Nobody in their right mind really believes that. Anyone who wants you to believe it has some kind of motive. Usually it's to gain acceptance for an act they have committed, or hope to commit. It's rarely if ever because they really believe it themselves.
You got it, baby!
It doesn't matter how long it took to get them. The fact is there are X number of minutes of video that show that Terri was responding to commands, to various stimuli, in other words, to her environment. She's not PVS by Florida statute! You may think it's okay to off someone in that condition, however, I don't. I see a living, breathing, human being in those videos...brain-damaged, yes, but on her natural death-bed, no.
that is a good point
I know of one tape that is 5 minutes long all by itself. This is just one little baby step for you, I don't want to push you beyond your limits all at once.
Well, you are partly right -- I guess that's an improvement over most here. We do not have unlimited 'do-overs' in litigation. There has to be a reason for a retrial. I have never met a loser in a litigated matter who didn't think he could do better if he had a 'do-over.' But that is not the rule. We allow retrials only for specific reasons. (BTW, pandering politicians passing midnight bills in Congress is NOT one of them -- as the parents found out.]
One of the most common reasons is insufficiency of the evidence. Thus, appellate courts always review the record for that. So you are wrong that no appellate court 'revisited any of the testimony.' But you are right, absent a finding of error in the conduct of the first trial, there is no second trial. A careful review by five (5) appellate and reviewing courts found no error in the trial court proceeding. Thus, no need for a retrial. But all the appellate and reviewing courts reviewed the trial court record for sufficiency and fairness.
While the lynch mob crazies here would have reached a different result, thankfully, they are not appellate court judges.
It was a death. Not all deaths are murder. Not even all volitional deaths are murder. Proof of that is that when the great miscarriage of justice was brought against Dr. Kevorkian, they had to pass a new statute proscribing "assisted suicide." It was not within the scope of our standard 'murder' statutes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.