Schiavo Thread Part the Third

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Kalius


But there is no tangible proof. A written document, a tape, just testimony. You cannot convict someone on the basis of pure testimony or we fall into a To Kill a Mockingbird situation.

Convict?

Look, this was not a criminal trial nor was there a conviction nor a death sentence.

Stop mischaracterizing the whole thing.

[Frozzy]

Many child custody cases are *****es too. That doesn't mean the system isn't constructed to try to get the best result.

They come to a result not everyone agrees with, and many deem them highly unfair. This is no different.

[Ned]

The Federal judge also said the sufficiency of evidence to establish "clear and convincing" was a state matter, not a federal matter, in considering the issue of "due process." I think this is crap. Not only is this relevant in on this issue, I also think the adequacy of legal representation is at issue.

I think it would shock the conscious of the oridinary person to say that the testimony of Michael Schiavo alone was sufficient under the circumstances of this case where he had such great adverse financial and personal interests.

[Frozzy]

Convict?

Look, this was not a criminal trial nor was there a conviction nor a death sentence.

Stop mischaracterizing the whole thing.

I'm talking about judicial process as a whole, not specifically this case. Put any word in for convict and it holds. A court should only rule in favour of tangible evidence supporting the case at hand. In the absence of that, the case should be thrown out.

There is no evidence that Terri wanted to stay alive, and so that side cannot be supported by the courts.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kalius
But there is no tangible proof. A written document, a tape, just testimony. You cannot convict someone on the basis of pure testimony or we fall into a To Kill a Mockingbird situation.

There is not less then five eye witnesses. It never ceases ti amaze me how religious fundimentalists can build their entire belief structure around the words written by one man (Paul) and claim that is enough but when five people all say they heard her say the same thing at the same time then they just can't believe it. It's not like this story has changed over the last 15 years. It's been the same since day one.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kalius
There is no evidence that Terri wanted to stay alive, and so that side cannot be supported by the courts.

Ugh!

The burden of proof in the issue is on those who would pull the plug. They need clear and convincing evidence before a state can pull the plug.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin


There is not less then five eye witnesses. It never ceases ti amaze me how religious fundimentalists can build their entire belief structure around the words written by one man (Paul) and claim that is enough but when five people all say they heard her say the same thing at the same time then they just can't believe it. It's not like this story has changed over the last 15 years. It's been the same since day one.

Oerdin, I really would appreciate a link to anything on the evidence presented.

However, there are people who say that Michael Schiavo often said long prior to the trial that he had no idea what Terri's wishes would be.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Capt Dizle


Convict?

Look, this was not a criminal trial nor was there a conviction nor a death sentence.

Stop mischaracterizing the whole thing.

There was a death sentence.

[Frozzy]

I think it would shock the conscious of the oridinary person to say that the testimony of Michael Schiavo alone was sufficient under the circumstances of this case where he had such great adverse financial and personal interests.

That's why I referred to To Kill a Mockingbird earlier. Bob Ewell has gread adverse personal interests in convicting Tom Robinson, yet it is on his testimony that he dies. There is no tangible proof of the matter.

However, in this case there are a number of people backing up Mr. Schiavo as Oerdin pointed out, and even in the absence of such proof, it's more convincing than the family's case. Besides, the court has to make a choice, however fair or unfair.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ned
David Bois tonight said that Terri's parents did make the right argument in the second case that her fundamental right to life was being denied by state action her in that her parents are being denied by the state courts of Florida any right to feed their daughter in absence of any sufficient evidence of her intent on the consent issue.

It is so farsical how vocal death penalty advocates in the Republican Congress are suddenly claiming every person has a fundimental right to life; meaning they cannot refuse medical care if they wnat to. Luckily, the fundies, as ussual, have it wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled time and again that people have a right to refuse medical care and that the there is no "fundimental right to life". It is just so funny to watch the pro-death penalty red staters squarm over their claims that no one can be put to death or choice death.

[Frozzy]

There is not less then five eye witnesses. It never ceases ti amaze me how religious fundimentalists can build their entire belief structure around the words written by one man (Paul) and claim that is enough but when five people all say they heard her say the same thing at the same time then they just can't believe it. It's not like this story has changed over the last 15 years. It's been the same since day one.

Oerdin: There's no tangible proof. The courts have to make a decision though, and it's more likely that five different, non-related people's word against the family's is more convincing. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant, the point is it's more convincing, and that's all it comes down to.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ned


There was a death sentence.

Wrong as usual. There was only Terri finally getting her wishes honored. To bad bastard right to lifers had to keep playing politics with this woman's last request.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kalius

Oerdin: There's no tangible proof.

The courts say you are wrong.

[Frozzy]

David Bois tonight said that Terri's parents did make the right argument in the second case that her fundamental right to life was being denied by state action her in that her parents are being denied by the state courts of Florida any right to feed their daughter in absence of any sufficient evidence of her intent on the consent issue.

IIRC there was a test case in the EU about this, and it was decided that just because people do not feed you doesn't mean you are being denied your human rights... if you can't feed yourself that's your problem, not anybody else's.

Morally a bit iffy, but I think the courts basically thought "Just because they can't do it themselves doesn't mean the upkeep of their life falls onto unwilling people"

[Frozzy]

The courts say you are wrong.

How Testimony != tangible proof however you twist it... like I said in the rest of the post though, they made the right choice because it was the more convincing case.