Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

But, you are siding with the court's decision, DD.. What do you base that on? Or do you always agree with every court decision handed down?

Surely you have a reason to agree with them.

0 Replies

Brandon -

Quote:

- Michael's older brother, Scott Schiavo, and Michael's sister-in-law, Joan Schiavo, who is married to a different brother, also testified Terri made similar comments to them. Scott said he talked with Terri at a luncheon after a funeral for Scott's grandmother, who had spent weeks unconscious on a ventilator.

"Terri made mention at that conversation," Scott said, "that 'If I ever go like that, just let me go. Don't leave me there. I don't want to be kept alive on a machine.' Pretty much everybody at that table that was in the discussion had made the same comment."

Translation.... you are still a child and won't accept this.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Brandon -

Quote:
- Michael's older brother, Scott Schiavo, and Michael's sister-in-law, Joan Schiavo, who is married to a different brother, also testified Terri made similar comments to them. Scott said he talked with Terri at a luncheon after a funeral for Scott's grandmother, who had spent weeks unconscious on a ventilator.

"Terri made mention at that conversation," Scott said, "that 'If I ever go like that, just let me go. Don't leave me there. I don't want to be kept alive on a machine.' Pretty much everybody at that table that was in the discussion had made the same comment."

Translation.... you are still a child and won't accept this.

Would you please give me a link to the source of that?

0 Replies

Brandon
Brandon, apparently you overlooked some of the people who testified that Terri said she would not want to live in her current state. The following are just a few in addition to several friends of Terri's.

BBB

The matter of Terri Schiavo's life went on trial Jan. 24, 2000.

At that trial, Michael testified he and his wife talked about life support when Terri's grandmother was ill. "She said, 'If I ever have to be a burden to anybody, I don't want to live like that,'" he said.

He also testified the two watched a television documentary about people on life support. "She made the comment to me that she would never want to be like that," he said at the trial. Michael said he told Terri he felt the same way and has since written into his will instructions not to be kept on life support.

Michael's older brother, Scott Schiavo, and Michael's sister-in-law, Joan Schiavo, who is married to a different brother, also testified Terri made similar comments to them. Scott said he talked with Terri at a luncheon after a funeral for Scott's grandmother, who had spent weeks unconscious on a ventilator.

"Terri made mention at that conversation," Scott said, "that 'If I ever go like that, just let me go. Don't leave me there. I don't want to be kept alive on a machine.' Pretty much everybody at that table that was in the discussion had made the same comment."

Those comments are reflected in surveys that show most people say they would prefer death to a life on machines.

0 Replies

It's not just one court decision, though, it's several. Do you think that, without sufficient evidence of her wishes, every single court would side with the husband? Isn't it more likely that evidence of her wishes was provided to the courts?

0 Replies

Translation-- Gullible people would take the word of Micheal's brother and sister-in-law.

I would trust an uninterested party much more readily than a Shiavo, for Pete's sake.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

It's not just one court decision, though, it's several. Do you think that, without sufficient evidence of her wishes, every single court would side with the husband? Isn't it more likely that evidence of her wishes was provided to the courts?

I prefer not to speculate, and want to actually know what the evidence was. Now waiting for a link to the quotations from Michael's relatives that Terry wanted to die under these circumstances.

0 Replies

Okay, Michael says his wife expressed her wish not to live that way. Apparently although the courts are satisfied, many aren't and the tact is it's just Michaels word and he's lying.

I thought our entire American justice system was built on the premise of innocent until proven guilty, but it seems in this case if there's the slightest doubt, that Michael is now guilty of being a liar. This sounds dangerously like turning the judicial concept 180 degrees.

Slippery slope IMO.

0 Replies

Brandon wrote:

Quote:

Would you please give me a link to the source of that?

Translation: I refuse to grow up and admit I was wrong.

I don't think anyone is holding their breath here waiting for you to apologize Brandon but an apology would be an adult thing to do.

0 Replies

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

Okay, Michael says his wife expressed her wish not to live that way. Apparently although the courts are satisfied, many aren't and the tact is it's just Michaels word and he's lying.

I thought our entire American justice system was built on the premise of innocent until proven guilty, but it seems in this case if there's the slightest doubt, that Michael is now guilty of being a liar. This sounds dangerously like turning the judicial concept 180 degrees.

Slippery slope IMO.

It isn't a matter of innocent until proven guilty, since Michael isn't on trial in court for commission of a crime. The question is whether there is credible evidence that she wanted to die, which is an entirely different thing. The word of someone whose motives are a matter for speculation is not much evidence for killing someone. There has been a claim that Michael's family also heard her utterances, and I am waiting for a link to that.

0 Replies

Michael's guilt or innocence is not at issue.

A woman's life or death is.

When people are called upon for testimony in all types of cases, they are free to say their piece, and then their veracity and motives are considered. Shiavo clearly has a conflict of interest--and should not be considered the one and only source of "evidence" that would end a life. His family also has a conflict of interest.

Law 101.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Brandon wrote:

Quote:
Would you please give me a link to the source of that?

Translation: I refuse to grow up and admit I was wrong.

I don't think anyone is holding their breath here waiting for you to apologize Brandon but an apology would be an adult thing to do.

Translation: I will accept the idea that Michael's brother and sister heard her say it too, if you provide a citation. And by the way, should you be able to do so, I will apologize for the great wrong of losing a debating point, right after you apologize for any of the last few times you have lost a debating point to someone. Now, if I can just have that citation.......

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Translation-- Gullible people would take the word of Micheal's brother and sister-in-law.

I would trust an uninterested party much more readily than a Shiavo, for Pete's sake.

But there's a contradiction inherent in that. An uninterested party would have no idea what her wishes were in such a case.

I saw pictures of her before she was injured. She was beautiful, lively, and seemingly happy. If that had been my wife, and she had told me that she didn't wish to live in that state, I'd feel obligated to honor her wishes.

Bottom line, though, is that this is none of our business. We are a bunch of sick voyeurs, as is Congress and the President and the Governor of Florida, and all the other people who never knew Terri and yet feel qualified to opine on this most deeply personal situation and wish to determine her fate. Shame on us as a nation.

<edited for clarity -- gosh you guys are fast!>

0 Replies

I mean, we could all show up saying so and so told me they wanted me to inherit all their money--or told me they wanted to be kept alive on life support...

Anyone can say anything--especially when they stand to benefit.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Michael's guilt or innocence is not at issue.

A woman's life or death is.

When people are called upon for testimony in all types of cases, they are free to say their piece, and then their veracity and motives are considered. Shiavo clearly has a conflict of interest--and should not be considered the one and only source of "evidence" that would end a life. His family also has a conflict of interest.

Law 101.

but the reinsert the tube crowd is hanging Terris life on the fact that Michael is lying about her wishes in order to kill her.

So while I agree with you that this has nothing to do with whether or not Michael is a liar I also contend that whether or not he is a liar is being purposefully made a central issue. That's why we have a court system. And the court system has spoken ad nauseum on this case. At some point people need to listen, let it go and get on with it.

0 Replies

I'm curious why people think the courts have ruled the way they have in this case. The rulings have been consistent - time and time again. Were the judges at the various levels all wrong/corrupt/stupid/whatever?

Are American judges truly held in such disrespect?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

But, you are siding with the court's decision, DD.. What do you base that on? Or do you always agree with every court decision handed down?

Surely you have a reason to agree with them.

No, I don't agree with every decision.

But I generally accept that evidence is actually evidence.

Once the evidence has been found to be credible by the court, I feel the onus then lies on the opposition to disprove the evidence.

(I do feel pleased to be in one of the few places in the US where the prosecuting attorneys decided to voluntarily revisit cases where DNA evidence could (and have) shown convicted folks to be innocent.)

We live in an imperfect world; we cannot know to a certainty what Terri's wishes would have been. We can only do our best to determine them.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

I'm curious why people think the courts have ruled the way they have in this case. The rulings have been consistent - time and time again. Were the judges at the various levels all wrong/corrupt/stupid/whatever?

Are American judges truly held in such disrespect?

Until they are replaced with the kind of judges the current administration wants then yes, the more disrespect they're held in the better. This case is a perfect example of that master strategy.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

I'm curious why people think the courts have ruled the way they have in this case. The rulings have been consistent - time and time again. Were the judges at the various levels all wrong/corrupt/stupid/whatever?

Are American judges truly held in such disrespect?

We're just asking to see some of the evidence.

0 Replies

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

ehBeth wrote:
I'm curious why people think the courts have ruled the way they have in this case. The rulings have been consistent - time and time again. Were the judges at the various levels all wrong/corrupt/stupid/whatever?

Are American judges truly held in such disrespect?

Until they are replaced with the kind of judges the current administration wants then yes, the more disrespect they're held in the better. This case is a perfect example of that master strategy.

This is just a distraction. We are only asking to see some of the evidence.

0 Replies

Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know