It was very revealing to see members who I imagined to be free-thinkers, declaring that the court's decision involving Shiavo should not be questioned.
As if a court is infallible?
I don't believe they would apply this blind allegience to any other case.
Are there really people here who blindly accept court decisions? Are you sure? I seem to remember one in 2001, January which I don't think the usual suspects were particularly happy with.
No. But if someone professes that there is no evidence in a case, yet several courts have ruled that there was evidence, I will likely believe that there must have been some evidence.
Arguing about the evidence is certainly fair, and arguing about the interpretation of law is good, but arguing about the existence of evidence is pointless in the case you are talking about.
0 Replies
Lash
1
Reply
Fri 25 Mar, 2005 10:36 am
This is quite tweaking, because it's so hypocritical.
I can well understand someone having the opposing viewpoint on this issue. What I cannot tolerate is for someone to hide behind an unsupportable claim that everyone here knows is a lie.
Hey. Make your case. You can likely make a good one--but jeez. Don't try to paint it as if you believe every court decision is correct--
That is so cowardly and transparent.
Step out and say what you really think. I'd like to know opposers' honest opinions. Why be so quick to off her? Because you think her life has no value in it's present condition? Because you think it is MORE humane than allowing her to linger?
0 Replies
Bi-Polar Bear
1
Reply
Fri 25 Mar, 2005 10:36 am
I, like every other human being believe at my core that what is good for me and mine or agrees with me is what's right, so I guess that depends on whether the decision is in my favor or something I agree with.
Could WE agree to be honest and admit that about ourselves?
0 Replies
Lash
1
Reply
Fri 25 Mar, 2005 10:37 am
Appreciate both of those opinions.
0 Replies
Lash
1
Reply
Fri 25 Mar, 2005 10:38 am
My second post crossed Freeducks, and was not directed at her.
0 Replies
FreeDuck
1
Reply
Fri 25 Mar, 2005 10:39 am
I figured that from the following post. No prob.
0 Replies
DrewDad
1
Reply
Fri 25 Mar, 2005 10:41 am
Complaining about a court decision is fine.
Discussing/arguing about the court's reasoning is fine.
Seeking to change a law, non-violent protests, civil disobedience, etc. are all proper responses to a perceived wrong.
Whining that there is no evidence, when the court has ruled that there is evidence is just, well, whining.
0 Replies
Bella Dea
1
Reply
Fri 25 Mar, 2005 10:43 am
I was going to add my thoughts to this thread but Lash, you made it abundantly clear in the last thread that I wasn't wanted.
0 Replies
Lash
1
Reply
Fri 25 Mar, 2005 10:44 am
Hearsay is not evidence.
At least it's a famous sustained objection in all other cases...
0 Replies
Lash
1
Reply
Fri 25 Mar, 2005 10:45 am
Um...Your Honor, that **** is just HEARSAY!!!!
0 Replies
FreeDuck
1
Reply
Fri 25 Mar, 2005 10:46 am
Lash wrote:
Hearsay is not evidence.
At least it's a famous sustained objection in all other cases...
Oh, but it absolutely is. What evidence do you suppose jailbird informants provide? And there are famous allowances in cases where the person who said the things is not available to testify, as in this case.
0 Replies
Lash
1
Reply
Fri 25 Mar, 2005 10:49 am
The informants are always treated to (rightful) character assasination--and hardly ever believed.
Remember Robert Blake's hired killer? Testimony that Blake had hired him to kill Bonnie Bakely. You'd think that would be good enough evidence, eh?
But, Blake is on the streets. Because it was hearsay from an impeachable witness....
0 Replies
Lash
1
Reply
Fri 25 Mar, 2005 10:52 am
Bella Dea wrote:
I was going to add my thoughts to this thread but Lash, you made it abundantly clear in the last thread that I wasn't wanted.
If I did, it was unintentional. I may have disagreed with your opinion--but I hold no truck with you. (I'll have to go back and see if I owe you an apology. Meanwhile, fire off Bella!! Let's hear it!)
0 Replies
Bella Dea
1
Reply
Fri 25 Mar, 2005 10:54 am
Lash, the post was deleted, along with some others, regarding Brandon and his opinion of me.
Perhaps it wasn't directed at me and if so, I apologize for assuming.
Let's just call it what it is/was/wasn't and move on. Shall we?
0 Replies
FreeDuck
1
Reply
Fri 25 Mar, 2005 10:56 am
Lash wrote:
The informants are always treated to (rightful) character assasination--and hardly ever believed.
Remember Robert Blake's hired killer? Testimony that Blake had hired him to kill Bonnie Bakely. You'd think that would be good enough evidence, eh?
But, Blake is on the streets. Because it was hearsay from an impeachable witness....
The problem wasn't the hearsay, but the integrity of the witness. Simply, the jurors didn't believe him. If it had been hearsay it wouldn't have been allowed in the first place. You may not believe Michael Schiavo, but apparently the judges did. Personally, I don't know him and I don't want to know all of the details of his personal life so I have no way of knowing if he is a liar or not.
0 Replies
Bi-Polar Bear
1
Reply
Fri 25 Mar, 2005 11:01 am
Lash wrote:
The informants are always treated to (rightful) character assasination--and hardly ever believed.
Remember Robert Blake's hired killer? Testimony that Blake had hired him to kill Bonnie Bakely. You'd think that would be good enough evidence, eh?
But, Blake is on the streets. Because it was hearsay from an impeachable witness....
The Blake case provided no opportunites for political gain within ones power base. Apples and Oranges.
0 Replies
Lash
1
Reply
Fri 25 Mar, 2005 11:02 am
Freeduck--
I think we have finally parted the last hair on this. The integrity of the witness. It is just a difference of opinion on that specific thing. And, it's really over, IMO. I don't think she can live much longer in this condition. She's likely past the point of return.
Bella--
I think I know of what you speak--and that was not directed at you. <Already moved on...<smiles>
0 Replies
Bella Dea
1
Reply
Fri 25 Mar, 2005 11:04 am
I think that the court should be questioned, and tested. Otherwise, how would we make any improvements and/or advances in the judicial system? It was created and is run by humans, who are fallible. We need to constantly be questioning and challenging everything.
(I had more to say but completely lost my train of thought....sorry.....)
0 Replies
DrewDad
1
Reply
Fri 25 Mar, 2005 11:06 am
Lash wrote:
Step out and say what you really think. I'd like to know opposers' honest opinions. Why be so quick to off her? Because you think her life has no value in it's present condition? Because you think it is MORE humane than allowing her to linger?
"Quick to off her?" Are you kidding? It's been going on for 15 years.... The fact that it is only a national debate now does not mean there has been a rush to judgement.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace