26-03-2005 14:48									#61
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: 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.

	26-03-2005 14:53									#62
	Tired of ads?

quote: 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.

	26-03-2005 14:54									#63
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

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.

	26-03-2005 14:56									#64
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: 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.

	26-03-2005 14:58									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: 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.

	26-03-2005 14:58									#66
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

	26-03-2005 15:00									#67
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: 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.

	26-03-2005 15:01									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: 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.

	26-03-2005 15:02									#69
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: 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.

	26-03-2005 15:03									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: 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.

	26-03-2005 15:05									#71
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: 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.

	26-03-2005 15:06									#72
	Got spare money?

quote: 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.

	26-03-2005 15:07									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Kalius Oerdin: There's no tangible proof.

The courts say you are wrong.

	26-03-2005 15:08									#74
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: 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"

	26-03-2005 15:10									#75
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: 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.

	26-03-2005 15:20									#76
	Inflate your Upload Space

I found this in today NYTimes:

"In 1998, when Mr. Schiavo asked a court's permission to remove his wife's feeding tube, the Schindlers challenged, leading to a trial. That is when Michael and Scott Schiavo and their sister in-law Joan Schiavo testified that Ms. Schiavo had told them never to prolong her life artificially.

Scott Schiavo testified that after his grandmother was on life support at the end of her life, Ms. Schiavo had told him: "If I ever go like that, just let me go. Don't leave me there."

Judge George Greer of Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court found the testimony constituted "clear and convincing" evidence of Ms. Schiavo's wishes, and her feeding tube was removed in April 2001. It was reconnected days later, after a former girlfriend of Mr. Schiavo called a radio station to say he had told her he had no idea whether his wife would have wanted life-prolonging measures."

"That led to new testimony, but it did not change Judge Greer's mind, partly because the girlfriend recanted."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/26/n...ted=3&th&emc=th

The three withness who testified were all Schiavo family members. Their testimony was contradicted by a girlfriend who later recanted. However, there are other witnesses who were present when Schiavo made the statement to the former girlfriend who support the original statement of the girlfriend.

	26-03-2005 15:25									#77
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Kalius 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.

I think there were only three witnesses, all of who were adversely interested to Terri continued existence.

There also appear to be people who flatly contradict the Schiavos who have no interest whatsoever.

As to the decision by the Florida Court, other states have ruled that parol testimony alone is insufficient to establish the facts by "clear and convincing" evidence. Alan Duruswitch, Harvard law, agrees that permitting the issue to be establish by parol testimony is "wrong."

	26-03-2005 15:26									#78
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin 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.

David Bois and Alan Duraswitch are bastard right to lifers?

Also, there clearly was a death sentence. The only way this passes constitutional muster is if Terri consented to it. THAT issue must be established by clear and convincing evidence under Florida law. The question whether that issue was established sufficiently in this case is the very issue before the federal courts now.

	26-03-2005 15:32									#79
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kalius 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.

Kalius, I would hope in the future this issue could be tried to a jury with adequate legal representation for the victim. I would be more comfortable that due process was observed.

	26-03-2005 15:34									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Kalius 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"

Kalius, did that test case also consider whether it was a violation of human rights to deny a parent the right to feed their daughter in absence of a clear expression by her that she did not want to be kept alive?

	26-03-2005 15:38									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Kalius, I would hope in the future this issue could be tried to a jury with adequate legal representation for the victim. I would be more comfortable that due process was observed.

The former, yes, the latter... is impossible because what you are trying to represent is the basis of debate in the first place.

quote: Kalius, did that test case also consider whether it was a violation of human rights to deny a parent the right to feed their daughter in absence of a clear expression by her that she did not want to be kept alive?

I cannot recall the exact details of the case (I only remember it vaguely), but I'll try to find out tommorow for you. I think it went to a number of courts though... I'm tired *yawn*.

	26-03-2005 15:38									#82
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Also, I can only imagine the outcry if Rummy ordered the prisoners at Gitmo to be starved to death regardless of their consent.

	26-03-2005 15:42									#83
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Kalius The former, yes, the latter... is impossible because what you are trying to represent is the basis of debate in the first place.

Kalius, the role of the attorney is to assume that the victum wants to live and force those who say otherwise to prove it with competent evidence.

	26-03-2005 19:27									#84
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Wow, your conspiracy theory just is a 180 compared to CNN's coverage. Now I must decide if I trust CNN or that website you linked. decisions, decisions.

Like I've told other people, I can't really help you if your main source of news is the television. Not even worth talking to you if that is the case.

And I fail to see how pointing out Michael Schiavo's obvious conflict of interest equates to engaging in conspiracy theories. I'm not saying he definitely has ulterior motives, just that there is definitely reason to doubt his portrayal by some as an ideal husband and guardian.

	26-03-2005 19:32									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: 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.

I was certainly shocked.

quote: David Bois and Alan Duraswitch are bastard right to lifers?

Don't forget Ralph Nader. Can't believe he and George W. Bush agree on something...

	26-03-2005 19:57									#86
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

www.footballfansfortruth.com



Drake, your sources are pure garbage. Don't embarass yourself further by posting any more bullshit.

	26-03-2005 20:03									#87
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither It isn't up to the attourney which way to argue. It is up to the guardian, like with kids in tough cases. In a case like this the guardian needs to spend a very large amount of time becoming familiar with the pateint, her life, her friends, and her caregivers. Then the guardian may advise/instruct a lawyer which way to go.

In other words, the guardian should do the judge's job, instead of the judge.

	26-03-2005 20:05									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither It behooves the state to try to get to know her wishes before flipping the switch.

That's what the state did.

	26-03-2005 20:09									#89
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ned The Federal Judge denied most of Terri's Federal Claims in part on the basis that their was no state action.

Terri has no claims. Terri doesn't exist. Those are Terri's parents' claims. And Terri's parents have been shown to be liars.

	26-03-2005 20:12									#90
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by 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.

Even if he told the truth, does this not open the door to some husband in the future offing his incapacitated wife for the insurance money or convenience or whatever? I.e. his wishes, not hers?

When my granma died, it was amazing how half the people argued to pull the plug because of the drain of taking care of her or implication of putting her in a home. Other half argued to let her live because of enjoying companionship. NOONE asked what her wishes were. It was like...sorry...you're 88...you got more than the average already anyhow.