If we don't deny an animal a drink of water, how do you arrive that it is possible that Terri should be denied a drink of water? Other than that, I liked your response.
If we don't deny an animal a drink of water, how do you arrive that it is possible that Terri should be denied a drink of water? Other than that, I liked your response.
There are facially-valid arguments that such action was legally right and proper. Many of them involve accepting some rather dubious claims as fact, and regarding certain legal theories as compelling over certain others which would seem they should take precedence.
Basically, I would regard that first issue as: if one were to view in the best possible light everything favorable to Michael, Felos, et al., and view in the worst possible light everything favorable to the Schindlers, would it be possible to conclude that Michael's actions were proper.
My interpretation is that if one really stretched the boundaries of "best possible light" and "worst possible light", one might conceivably be able to justify them. It would require stretching credulity to the breaking point, but it might be possible under such terms.
That having been said, my bigger point is that I see no satisfactory justification for the way the Bushes handled this, regardless of whether Michael's behavior was proper or not. It may be that Bush was told that Greer's cops would resist with bloodshed if need be to prevent Terri's rescue. Even if that's the case, I would suggest that bloodshed sufficient to uphold the law would be preferable to allowing open sedition.