Posted on 03/25/2005 7:55:28 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
Hours after a judge ordered that Terri Schiavo was not to be removed from her hospice, a team of state agents were en route to seize her and have her feeding tube reinserted -- but they stopped short when local police told them they would enforce the judge's order, The Herald has learned.
Agents of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement told police in Pinellas Park, the small town where Schiavo lies at Hospice Woodside, on Thursday that they were on the way to take her to a hospital to resume her feeding.
For a brief period, local police, who have officers at the hospice to keep protesters out, prepared for what sources called ``a showdown.''
In the end, the squad from the FDLE and the Department of Children & Families backed down, apparently concerned about confronting local police outside the hospice.
''We told them that unless they had the judge with them when they came, they were not going to get in,'' said a source with the local police.
''The FDLE called to say they were en route to the scene,'' said an official with the city police who requested anonymity. ``When the sheriff's department and our department told them they could not enforce their order, they backed off.''
The incident,known only to a few and related to The Herald by three different sources involved in Thursday's events, underscores the intense emotion and murky legal terrain that the Schiavo case has created. It also shows that agencies answering directly to Gov. Jeb Bush had planned to use a wrinkle in Florida law that would have allowed them to legally get around the judge's order. The exception in the law allows public agencies to freeze a judge's order whenever an agency appeals it.
(Excerpt) Read more at miami.com ...
I know I'm being overly harsh toward the Bushes. Mostly it's just disappointment.
I agree that people here need to calm down. Not everyone here is a *religious* conservative and we need to respect that some of us are, and some of us aren't. I'm sure the DUmmies are looking upon this thread with glee. The simple fact is that the law (read: legislature) ultimately failed Terri. Common sense tells me that there should be numerous safeguards in place before taking anyone's life, including (duh, obviously) checking for any possible conflict of interest. Whatever legistator suggested amending a law to allow a plea for death from a spouse based only on hearsay should be slapped. Talk about a lack of common sense. That's not to say Greer is blameless, but if he has an out for his judgments it's because the legislature gave it to him. That's something that we, the voters, can and must fix. Granted, hindsight is 20/20 and between this and the Scott Peterson case it looks prettu obvious, but now that it *is* obvious there's no reason to get the law done right. There will be future Terri Schiavos and it's important not to fail them. Instead of getting acrimonious *with each other* this is a mission we can take on: make sure our laws are structured to always "err on the side of life". This is a worthy cause and I will be shocked if we don't see a full-court press from George and Jeb on it.
Beautifully stated. I agree.
God put you before that keyboard right now. There are no random things in His creation.
Jeb and George Bush are responsible to God, as was past President Clinton.
Are you sure it wasn't Mayberry vs. Madison?
How did they think a handful of officers was going to succeed here???? They should have sent in twice that many and brought a medical truck replete with a medical team.
Ridiculous.
I have been here long enough to know that even if Jeb Bush did everything these Freepers wanted, he would enjoy no loyalty from them in the future.
The consequences for doing the right thing, from the perspective of History, are generally less severe than the consequences of doing the wrong thing or, in the case of a certain governor of a certain state, doing nothing....
Rather, no reason *not* to get the law done right....
I wonder about the flip side of that--in what case could Dan Abrams and his fellow Dem water carriers say "It's astonishing that the democrats, who stand for (blank) are now standing for (blank)." All kidding aside, the ONLY issue I could see them saying something like that over is abortion. When the dems flipped on welfare, no one called them on their political expediency--that was "going mainstream" or "being politically brave" or whatever. What ARE core dem principals? I'm not interested in flip jokes, I really want to know what that party stands for.
Lots of conservatives like to follow orders and do what they are told.
I have nothing against your sons but I know Florida cops and they are crooked. I know this because my father was one of those crooked cops. They don't report another cop when he does something wrong because that would be going against a brother in blue. Cops are just another gang.
As far a my spelling well, just goes to show you that the public schools are failing.
PS: I have a couple of degrees and the only thing that I ever say to a cop is "do you have a warrant?"
Seriously you say?????......well of course we have to bring up Nazi Germany and you are not the first......and YOU and the disheartened are calling it murder....and I'll not argue that point since it in and of itself would be useless....and I'm talking about the laws that abide within the U.S., not other countries like Islam or England around the Revolutaionay war...I could come up with exceptions and noted dissertations all day playing devil's advocate to knock down any opinion you had.....the whole premise of my arguement is that once settled, GW or Jeb can't run rough shod over the laws they are sworn to uphold....
I have to repeat the Nazi Germany is not germaine to this discussion.......they violated every international law regarding war crimes......not really the same in this case though the Democrats like to bring up "Nazis" all the time too when they don't get what they want'
Please read the following, you might find it illumiating
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it
There's some history behind this. The looie liberal SCOFLAw decided that the Florida constitution with all its emanations and penumbras meant that demonstrating with "clear and convincing evidence" (which through byzantine legal logic includes late remembered hearsay) that a disabled person wanted "medical life support" removed, is sufficient to actually thirst and starve that person to death with no attempt even to feed that person by mouth.
Apart from rebellion against the court when it violates the "thou shalt not kill" commandment as well as Florida statute (which Jeb hasn't yet showed the stomach to do) there would have to be a change in the makeup of the SCOFLAw and/or a constimatushional amendment.
let me ask you....who decides which laws are immoral and which ones are OK?.....being a Christian I can say I may not even want the Christian "right" deciding that all the time....not flaming you..but I"m trying to keep my subjective emotions from scrambling my hopefully objective logic
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.