To: Mr Ramsbotham
I like your point. Can you force someone to plead guilty to something? No, it is their choice. So how can you force someone to "write a letter of apology"? If he is not sorry he tried to help Terri, how can he be Constitutionally forced to say he is?
Considering the fact that NOTHING in Terri's case made any sense - why would anything about this make sense?
Why would they consider Joshua's rights and consult the Constitution, when they didn't give a rip about it regarding a starving, dying woman? JK
posted on 09/01/2005 10:37:14 AM PDT
by Just Kimberly
(Always proud, Always American, Always Trust in God...HOOAH!!( and Terri - we will never forget.))
Exactly. The story implies he apologizes for his actions, when really he didn't. He gave a Kerryesque "I am sorry that you didn't like that..." that didn't imply any regret for his actions.
He's learned deception and oblique-speak well from his Government-Intrusion Leftie idols.
posted on 09/01/2005 10:38:26 AM PDT
(I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
posted on 09/06/2005 9:31:42 AM PDT
by floriduh voter
(www.conservative-spirit.org Daily Newsfeeds & Weekly Update)
Apologies are commonly ordered when THE DEFENDANT PLEADS GUILTY in a deal to avoid more severe punishment. The kid and his parent had already admitted to guilt in open court when the letter of apology was ordered.
posted on 09/12/2005 3:23:55 PM PDT
(The dumber the troll, the longer the thread)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson