I found this comment disrespectful.
(1) I would not consider Michael Schiavo to be Terri's husband. He has forsaken his vows for another woman with whom he has started a family. She has been reclaimed by her parents, and it is that relationship that I respect by law.
Perhaps I should have used the term "HINO" instead of hubby.
If Michael disagrees, I would ask him to show me the contract that bound him. Then I would show him where he breached his contract to "forsake all others" and to love his wife in sickness. You cannot enforce a contract on others that you are not upholding for them. Thus it is void.
Agreed 100%. (2) Terri's family wishes no harm or ill will toward Michael. They have offered to pay him whatever amount of money he would have received from life insurance. They have wished the best for him and his new family. I doubt that they would have taught Terri to be hateful or vengeful.
I happen to believe that Terri's husband has taunted her about how he intends to kill her and there's nothing she's going to do about it. And how her trust fund has bought a nice diamond for his new sweetie pie. And many other things too obscene to print.
I think Terri would also think more positive than negative.
I would say not wanting someone to get away with what I think she knows Michael was trying to get away with is more positive than negative.
(3) The family's absolute obedience to Christian teachings on loving one's enemies, even those who persecute and oppress, is part of the reason they were subjected to such injustice. I am appalled that their faith in Christian obedience to civil authority was abused in this case. However, Christians are taught to be thankful if their obedience serves as a witness to truth, and persecution will make them stronger. That is fine to believe, but in the end, I should think that the point is to find out how to correct the injustices to prevent them in the future.
If Terri's guardian works to expose what's been going on, I suspect he'll find things are pretty rotten. I strongly doubt that this is the first case where Felos and Greer have conspired to murder someone. IMHO, putting people like Schiavo, Felos, and Greer in prison is a very positive thing, in that it prevents them from continuing in their murderous ways and it helps show the world that certain things cannot be gotten away with.
My solution is to raise the standard, requiring consent of parties in religious disputes under law. That way the religious freedom of all parties is protected equally. If this case had been governed under the rule of consent, all this nonsense could have been nipped in the bud.
Even appointing a guardian ad litem would have probably been sufficient to save Terri from this ordeal.
If a joint solution were required, Michael Schiavo would not waste time trying to manipulate or hide facts, as he would know the Schindlers would never agree. The reason he tried to abuse the law to cover up, is that the court permitted one side to win over the other. If consensus were the standard, such tactics would only prolong the process and thus be discouraged.
Michael was trying to hide facts, I believe, because he was hoping to cover up earlier crimes. It he knew consensus would have been required, he might have determined beforehand the risks were too great. This was not a case, though, of competing legitimate interests; this was a case of a criminal wanting to get away with murder to cover his tracks.
This process could only work when both parties seek equal rights and freedoms for each other. The Schindlers never wished ill on Michael, but wanted to resolve this for the best. Thus, I believe Terri would think more like they do.
The Schindlers had to make sure their actions would be seen in a positive light. I think they wanted to make it abundantly clear to anyone who wasn't blind or corrupt that Michael did not have Terri's best interests at heart, and they could make that more clear by avoiding any appearance of vengefulness.
If Michael illegally looted Terri's trust fund, nothing the Schindlers could have done would have protected him from discovery if he ever lost guardianship, or if she'd been granted a guardian ad litem after the first one was fired for being too nosey. Therefore, no offer they could have make could possibly have led Michael to spare her life.
And that is why they are being honored and rewarded, as they have acted sincerely while Michael has not. This proves that in the end you get what you wish for yourselves and others equally. If you wish ill, that is what you reap.
I do not think it is wishing ill to want an attempted murderer to be tried and convicted for his crime, or for a couple of what may be actual murderers (Felos/Greer) to be tried for theirs. Call it a hunch, but I don't think Terri's the first person Felos/Greer have tried to 'off'. She may be the first to have resisted the attempt, however.