It was wrong to kill her. [JimRob on Terri Schiavo]

FreeRepublic ^ | April 3, 2005 | Jim Robinson

[Future Useless Eater]

Jim Robinson is the founder and operator of FreeRepublic.com. He posted this editorial on Terri Schiavo, Sunday April 3rd.
	I said it was wrong to kill her. That is my opinion. Nothing can change it. No list of "facts" will ever change it. And I put "facts" in quotes because most of the so-called "facts" posted here were in fact "opinion." Whether it was a poster's opinion, a reporter's opinion, her husband's opinion, a relative's opinion, a supporter's opinion, a detractor's opinion, a politician's opinion, a lawyer's opinion, a doctor's opinion, the president's opinion, the governor's opinion, or even the judge's opinion - they were and are all opinions. And none of them are incontrovertible or indisputable fact. In fact, they continue calling in more doctors and more experts to give their opinion even after it's all said and done. In this battle of press, public, politicians, doctors, lawyers and "experts" the side with the most thumbs down votes won and she was killed. What was it, two out of three or three out of five? How about we go for seven out of twelve? How about one "no" vote out of twelve and you don't execute? The last I heard, in this country when you are on trial for your life, if there is one doubtful juror, you don't receive a death sentence. The accused receives the benefit of the doubt. Of course, Terri did not even receive the benefit of a trial much less the benefit of the doubt. She was simply snuffed out per a judge's order based on three out of five expert "opinions." It's a shame and a disgrace and a mockery of justice. 4,413 posted on 04/03/2005 7:18:29 PM EDT by Jim Robinson

[Future Useless Eater]

From Larry King Live, Fran Casler, and Sheri Payne 3/31/2005

KING: Let's go to Pinellas Park. Sheri Payne and Fran Casler are standing by. They are close friends of the Schindlers. Is it true, Sheri, did you see Terri yesterday? SHERI PAYNE, FRIEND OF THE SCHINDLERS: Yes, Larry, I saw her three times yesterday, the last time being 10:00 last night. KING: What did you observe? PAYNE: She looked very tired. Her cheeks were sunken. She seemed cold to me. But she still, when I spoke to her, she looked right at me, and I talked to her about different things that we used to do, even though she did not make the noise or trying to speak to me like she did the other night, she still looked me right in the eye, and I'm very thankful for it. KING: Fran, how are the Schindlers doing? Have you spoken to them since? FRAN CASLER, FRIEND OF THE SCHINDLERS: Oh, yes, Larry. The Schindlers are a remarkable family, and it's a privilege to have known them for 25 years. They're very strong, and they feel that Terri's gone to a better place, and she's got a higher purpose in life. KING: Where are they tonight, Fran? (CROSSTALK) CASLER: Well, I understand that Bob Schindler, the dad, was at the memorial service. I know that Mary is at home with family, and Bobby and Suzanne are, I believe, around here, or they just went home. KING: Do you think there's any chance, Sheri, of some sort of some reconciliation, where all these people could gather in a memorial service or a funeral? Sheri, do you think that's possible? PAYNE: Definitely not. Are you talking about with the Schiavo family, the Schindlers with the Schiavos? KING: Yeah. PAYNE: Never, never in a million years. KING: They all loved the same person. PAYNE: I realize that, but Michael stopped that love. That was his decision. It's over. I can't say anymore about what he did. He is not a friend of mine. KING: Fran, do you feel the same way, that this is irrevocable? CASLER: It is irrevocable. And we'll never -- they will never be reconciled. Michael Schiavo is a liar, and we can prove it, and I just hope that there's a criminal investigation on this. KING: Are you glad, Fran, there's going to be an autopsy? CASLER: Yes. PAYNE: Oh, yeah. CASLER: Oh, yeah. PAYNE: Definitely. I think the family has a right to know what happened to their daughter and why she has so many broken bones. It didn't happen with physical therapy or rehab. KING: And you're -- what if it shows that that -- what if it shows there were no violence? CASLER: Oh, it's already been proven that she had broken bones. PAYNE: Oh, it's been proven. PAYNE: It's on the record. There was a bone scan done, and it's in the records. KING: Thank you both very much. I'm sorry. Sheri Payne and Fran Casler, thank you very much.

[Future Useless Eater]

From Larry King Live, Dr. Jay Carpenter 3/31/2005

KING: Dr. Jay Carpenter is the internist who observed Terri a number of years ago and concluded that she was able to swallow. Meaning what, Doctor? DR. JAY CARPENTER, INTERNIST: Well, just that. She was able to swallow. CARPENTER: I would like to just respond to what was just said, that the rules in this case were followed. That's exactly right. The rules of the law were followed. That does not mean that the right thing was done, however. The fact of the matter is that Terri was determined to be in a persistent vegetative state when the facts are very much in dispute. CARPENTER: At the first trial, Terri's parents did not have money enough to hire a lawyer that had -- she did not get any medical testimony. There was no medical testimony given at Terri's first trial about her medical condition. And Mr. Schiavo had this money, the $700,000 that he was supposed to spend on rehabilitating her. He had enough money to buy lawyers -- I'm sorry, physicians, that were pro-euthanasia, that said that she was in a persistent vegetative state. CARPENTER: I think what your viewers need to know, that the diagnosis of persistent vegetative state is very tenuous; 43 percent of the time, it is wrong. People that are given the diagnosis turn out to be wrong, 43 percent. In another study, it was 53 percent. KING: So, what are you saying the courts should have done? CARPENTER: Well, here's the -- yes, here's the problem. CARPENTER: The courts should have erred on the side of life. They should have looked further. What they looked at, they had -- they should -- basically, they should have examined her for a more prolonged period of time.

[freepertoo]

I am sorry about your mother-in-law, very.

And I like your screen name (THE woman).

[Bella_Bru]

when there is doubt, we must err on the side of life.

Except when it comes to the death penalty, right? Then you aren't truly pro-life.

[Scenic Sounds]

Except when it comes to the death penalty, right? Then you aren't truly pro-life.

You really raise an excellent point.

Can those who think that our justice system failed Terri Schiavo remain confident that our justice system isn't occasionally making mistakes in death penalty cases? When we grant our judicial system the power to make life/death decisions, don't we just have to accept that there will be some occasional mistakes? Is it more or less moral of us to, because of an honest mistake, kill a perfectly healthy, but innocent human being by lethal injection than to, because of an honest mistake, kill a less than perfectly healthy, but innocent patient by starvation?

Maybe Terri Schiavo's death was just an honest mistake. ;-)

[Bella_Bru]

I asked because I always hear about people being staunchly pro-life, but apparently only pro-life for certain circumstances.

[Scenic Sounds]

I asked because I always hear about people being staunchly pro-life, but apparently only pro-life for certain circumstances.

I understand and, as I said, I think you raised a very important question. My understanding is that the late Pope reexamined these issues and withdrew whatever tetative and occasional support he had once expressed for the death penalty.

And, quite aside from the Terri Schiavo case itself, can anyone who thinks our judges are "out of control" really believe that they become infallible when they handle death penalty cases? Many people oppose the death penalty not out of any sympathy for criminals but because they just aren't comfortable about the inevitable mistakes when the consequences are life and death.

Like I said, your question is a good one. ;-)

[freepertoo]

Oh, if that isn't a liberal thing to say! A criminal who is being punished for a crime is a far cry from a bed ridden, handicapped woman being starved to death just because she IS handicapped. And criminals, at the very least get the lethal injection. Count to ten and you're gone. Terri went 13 days without food and water.

If you're going to argue, you're going to have to do better than Lib 101 dialogue.

[Bella_Bru]

Actually, I am not against the death penalty at all. It's just I like consistency. So, say you are pro-life, but not for criminals, ok?

[beezdotcom]

pro-INNOCENT life.

[pc93]

Tell the Media to report the REAL Schiavo polls!

http://capwiz.com/sicminc/issues/alert/?alertid=7351686&type=ME

My account, etc. of Terri Schindler's Funeral Mass:

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com

[freepertoo]

I'm just very tired of the argument. Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying. Pro-death abortionists are always throwing that question at me and it makes me want to absolutely scream! How one can equate a killer being punished with an innocent baby or someone in Terri's condition is horrifying. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

[Bella_Bru]

That's better.

[This Just In]

When you have a culture that communicates by way of catch phrases and text messaging, and who shows very little interest in the true definition of words, one can only expect individuals to accept such language.

Let's not forget about "Is." And this from the former president of The United States.

[Jeff Head]

No, actually the burden of proof in any death penalty cases is set at "beyond a reasonable doubt". If that standard had been applied here, Terri would be alive.

So, from that perspective, clearly I feel exactly the same about any death penmalty case...if there is doubt, you cannot convict. Therefore your assertion about me is false. If there is no reasonable doubt about a heinious killer or criminal, that you should convict. That is the law and it is a good one.

As rtegards life in geenral, my feeling is that innocent life must be preserved at all costs. Terri was innocent, the unborn are innocent.

[k2blader]

Terri Shindler's death was *not* an "honest mistake."

It was a deliberate killing. Murder, for the morally unsqueamish.

And there is nothing inconsistent about being pro-Life and pro-death penalty.

[k2blader]

I wonder why certain people refuse to grant reasonable doubt in the case of murdering Terri?

[Future Useless Eater]

>>No, actually the burden of proof in any death penalty cases is set at "beyond a reasonable doubt".

I think that was Jim Robinson's point too... and I agree...

"The last I heard, in this country when you are on trial for your life, if there is one doubtful juror, you don't receive a death sentence."

>>pro-INNOCENT life.

dittos, beezdotcom

[Jeff Head]

Bingo. Terri was innocent and was killed in spite of significant doubt...on the orders of a faithless and adulterous husband and a Judge who was himself conflicted hoplessly (IMHO) with the attorney of the husband and the very hospice that carried out his dreadful and fatal judgement. A horrific travesty and a styain and a blight on this land of the brave and the free.

[Scenic Sounds]

Terri Shindler's death was *not* an "honest mistake."

Well, now, not so fast, k2!! Some people thought that a mistake was made about her status. Not everyone thought she was in a "persistent vegetative state." Some people felt that she was just in a diminished state of consciousness and that she might even benefit from rehabilitation. And I'll bet there are others who still think it was a mistake for the court to conclude as it did about about "what Terri said she wanted" under these circumstances.

My point is perhaps just a minot one. If we want to give courts the power to make life or death decisions that depend upon findings of fact, we have to accept that mistakes will be made from time to time. However, I'll be the first to admit that most of the time, the judicial system does get most of the facts right. It's not a perfect system for finding truth, but it's usually pretty darned good!

It was a deliberate killing. Murder, for the morally unsqueamish.

I think it was a judicial homicide and, after several years of litigation, I guess it has to be described as deliberate. I thought it extraordinary that the court ordered her death. The court didn't just make a determination that, under these circumstances, Mr. Schiavo would be justified in removing the feeding tube. The court went beyond that and actually ordered him to pull the tube. Specifically, the court:

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that absent a stay from the appellate courts, the guardian, Michael Schiavo, shall cause the removal of nutrition and hydration from the Ward, Theresa Schiavo, at 1:00 P.M. on Friday, March 18, 2005.

It was, like you say, a very deliberate act, but deliberate acts are often based upon honest mistakes as to the underlying facts.

And there is nothing inconsistent about being pro-Life and pro-death penalty.

Agreed, they aren't necessarily inconsistent. Even with the occasional mistakes, the operation of a death penalty might, on balance, save lives in the long run. If, for example, the death penalty does deter others from criminal acts, it will serve as a deterrent without regard to whether the person executed is actually guilty or innocent. Some people, though, just aren't very comfortable with those kinds of calculations. ;-)