Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire What are the cops thinking outside Terri's deathbed?

That is exactly what scares me. You and many others prefer life over death, be it a baby or an adult.

Her family is keeping her from being killed by her husband. She is on no life support - she only needs help to eat. I sure hope that someday when I'm not a my best, my family doesn't say, screw him, let him die - cut off his food supply. You wouldn't do that to a dog. The constituion guarantees the right to life, liberty, and property. Apparently neither our courts or our society have any respect for the constituion.

Hold on there big guy!

She only needs help to eat? and pooh, and bath, and well, everything!!!!

Being killed? She's been this way for 15 years. I think you're running away with the facts.

When EVERY judge finds the case to be sufficient to allow her to die with dignity, its more than judicial misconduct, it is the system working.

BTW, the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness stuff is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Read all of the documents before you vote!

First - life, liberty, and property is in the Constitution. 14th Amendment, Section 1. This is what I'm talking about. It seems that people don't have respect for the Constitution, including the judges. When is the last time you read the Constitution?

Second - We should just go ahead and kill all alzheimer's and parkinson's patients and any other individuals that can't contribute to society. It is not your right or any other person's right to kill another innocent individual.

Life is obviously not as sacred to you as it is to me.

I will say one more time. THIS IS FOR THE FAMILY AND GOD. IT IS NONE OF OUR DAMN BUSINESS EITHER!!!!!

AJ300mag

4 years US Navy, engineroom snipe, shellback, back and forth through the suez, E5.

AND I stood up to bullshit that came down from up above in the chain of command. It took balls. People that go along and get along.... that don't take no balls.

Its not just a law I disagree with like emissions tests for exhausts... this innocent woman is being put to death without a trial without having committed a crime.

Man... did you listen to that nurses testimony? That woman is alive by all definitions. She ain't no vegetable. And hearsay provided by her husband is going to kill her???? I mentioned to my wife that I wanted a new Toyota Tacoma last month, but I never signed a written contract to make payments. Can my wife take that to court and force me to make payments on a new vehichle? NO. Contracts involve signatures. How much more so when it is life and death.

I appreciate any lawman's view on this, thanks T Lee. The judges are screwed up and it is going to get worse. I just wonder how the BATF guy is going to work it out in his mind and conscience just before he kicks in my door under Hillary's administration. I am serious. A cop or a soldier or a sailor has to draw a line somewhere and mutiny against tyranny or unlawful orders. Where that line is drawn is the controversy in my mind, and it is the controversy in this case. Jeb ought to just order the tube in, he is the exectutive.

Are these two bit, Clinton appointed judges gods??? HELL NO

David--if that's the standard we can kill all infants, too.

Of course, the left has no problem with killing infants or full term fetuses either. Which is the underlying issue here, and the reason the big media are so freaking gung ho to get this lady dead---right now. Can you imagine the outcry if, say some minority murderer were being rushed to the needle the way they are rushing to starve this woman to death, without even looking at any new evidence.

The only thing I know is, if I ever get to the point I can't wipe my own ass, I hope to hell someone pulls the plug or puts a bullet in me! Some things in life are far worse than death!

pwking,

Actually, it says, and of course I quote:
[color:"blue"] Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
[/color]

A prudent person would recognize all state judicial review and all federal judicial review coming up with the same conclusion as meeting the requirement for "due process of law."

Also, I'm not saying kill anyone, as suggested in your point #2. I am saying the rights you have outlined also allow this woman to dictate the circumstances under which she chooses to be allowed to die. YOU are advocating government intrusion into her personal business, and personal choices.

I am advocating she get to choose.

You will state that her will remains unknown. I will counter that all these judges and courts coming up with the same conclusion leads one to think her will is knowable, and known.

Finally "Life is obviously not as sacred to you as it is to me."

Like most of your logic, this one missed the mark.

When you have as many saves as me (8 at last count), and have stood watch as long as me (over 28 years), you will see things differently.

Or not. It changes nothing relative to her situation.

see also http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt14.html

After 15 years, they would not be infants, they would be teenagers. Anyone that has a few can relate to wanting to kill them sometimes.....

This post makes no sense ... first you state you are afraid of death and I state I'm not ... then your scared because I prefer life to death?? When and where did I say that?

TLee has it right .... If what the husband is doing is truely murder in the eyes of the Lord ... He'll answer for it on the other side!! It is none of Big Brother's business nor ours.

That's heresay spread by her "husband." To my mind it has been pretty well refuted by the sleaze bag's actions, testimony from friends and family, and the lack of any sort of document attesting to it.

"So, if we can find one knucklehead that says she is not vegetative, when all of the doctors treating her for 15 years say she is, we should listen to the knucklehead, and prolong her pain?"
That's the point, she hasn't been "treated" since 1992. Ever since the husband cashed in on the malpractice suit, she has been in hospice care. One isn't sent to hospice for treatment, you go there to be made comfortable and await death.

"There's a lack of "full set" here, but it is not the cops allowing a woman to die with dignity in the manner she expressed."
Heresay propegated by a sick man with something to gain. His tesytimony has been contradicted on multiple occasions.

"Its all of the arm chair quarterbacks who are so afraid of death, they will not allow this woman to pass in peace."
I'll let this pass without comment

"It is cowardly to let her suffer more, IMHO."
It is cowardly to pull a feeding tube and let her starve and dehydrate. A supporter of euthanasia with a set of balls would take an action that resulted in a quick, painless, merciful death. This is totally different from disconnecting a vent which would allow an already unconscious person to expire within 5 minutes.

"BTW, before someone asks, I have signed 2 do not resuscitate orders, one for my father, one as a counter/witness for my sister-in-law. I was there and held both of their hands when they died."
I understand it is natural for people to personalize the Schiavo case, that should be avoided. I have no detail on what you have provided above, but doubt that they involved unitlateral action on behalf of you, against the wishes of the rest of the family. You did not cite a protracted legal battle. You did not stand to gain financially by those deaths.

I would not want to live in the condition that she is in, but if I could be rehabilitated I would much prefer that. I would like somebody to try and rehab me at that age, but if I had already lived a long full life then yes let me go. Don't starve me to death. I agree with those that say a needle or a bullet would be kinder and if your going to take the feed tube the result is the same.

I have an aunt that is suffering from alzhiemers. She can't feed herself, wipe her own ass, and talks to her dead sister. Sould we let her starve to death?

I do not trust or believe her husband. There has to be a reason other than "her wishes" that he wouldn't allow any attempts at rehab. The whole situation does stink but I believe he is condemning an innocent woman to death.

Guys, this seems to hinge on whether or not the husband is lying, and if he is, if all of the courts and all of the judges are too dumb to discover the lie, or too ball-less to stand up to the lie.

The fact he is lying seems probable. However, it seems there must be some record of her wishing to die absent the husband's testimony, or the courts would have sided with the mother and father.

There's just too many judges lining up on the one side for me to believe they were all hoodwinked...

To believe otherwise is to think ALL of the system, local, state, federal, has failed. If this is the case, the Republic is doomed.

And please quit extrapolating this case to your mom, or aunt or whom ever unless they have expressed a credible wish to die, and you're keeping them alive in spite of their wishes.

It has nothing to do with infirmity. It has everything to do with this woman's expressed wish and right to die with dignity.

Its her choice, and she apears to have made it.

The husband as scumbag has NOTHING to do with her right to die.

"A prudent person would recognize all state judicial review and all federal judicial review coming up with the same conclusion as meeting the requirement for "due process of law."
How much faith do you have in the Florida courts? I assume you are a conservative, were you this supportive of them in Novemember and December of 2000?

Also, I'm not saying kill anyone, as suggested in your point #2. I am saying the rights you have outlined also allow this woman to dictate the circumstances under which she chooses to be allowed to die.
"Allowed to die" that's a clever phrase being bandied about by many these days. You presume to know that she wants to die. I presume nothing save for my belief that she did not receive a fair shake by the judicial system, and that there exists evidence contrary to the husband's claim that has not been considered. Since I presume nothing, let me tell you what I know. I know that the leading leading medical expert who provided testimony in the case is an avowed supporter of eugenics/euthanasia, and a political hack with a left-wing axe to grind. I know that he has spent a total of four hours examining Terri. I know that she has never received a PET or CAT scan, nor an MRI. I know that many on the left are eagerly awaiting her demise because: It demonstrates the power of the Judiciary over the Legislative and Executive branches; nothing they love more than activist judges. They are supporters of eugenics/euthanasia. Their ideology revolves around personal convenience. They fear (irrationally so) that her survival might have some possible negative implication for their favorite sacred cow - abortion. It's a chance to stick it to conservatives, to hand them a loss.

Would not a "prudent person" question the following:
1. The circumstances of her collapse are fishy. The events leading up to it have never been fully investigated. At best, it can be said that Terri Schiavo had a deep seated insecurity about her weight and an eating disorder, and Micahel Schiavo was a control freak who neddled Terri constantly about her weight. That doesn't explain the broken bones or bruises, nor the fact that the responding officers originally belived they had a violent crime scene on their hands.

2. Michael Schiavo pulled a John Edwards before a jury and sobbingly swore to take care of her for the rest of her days to win a big malpractice suit.

3. After cashing in, Michael stopped any and all treatment and moved her from a rehab facility to hospice.

4. The loving and caring husband who promised to care for Terri for the rest of her days, is at present shacked up with another woman (read common-law wife), sired one (deleted, by author, decorum), and has another on the way. It would seem to me that any "prudent person" would reconsider the opinion that Micahel is in fact the most suitable guardian for Terri, that he truly has her best intrests at heart.

"YOU are advocating government intrusion into her personal business, and personal choices."
No, not at all. I want to see an out of control, activist Judiciary brought under control. Who better to do that than the Executive and Legislative branches?

"I am advocating she get to choose."
Choosing to die in this case would mean the following:
Signing a DNR at some point in your life. Video-taping yourself leaving instructions. Instructing your primary care physician. Leaving a handwritten note with your PCP for inclusion into your medical record. Creating a living will.
Having a witnessed conversation in which you leave clear instructuions, not just pontificate. Terri did not do any of these things, would not a "prudent person" consider that perhaps she may have felt otherwise? Could a "prudent person believe that just maybe Michael's recollection, after 7 years, of a supposed conversation is BS?

"You will state that her will remains unknown. I will counter that all these judges and courts coming up with the same conclusion leads one to think her will is knowable, and known..."
I think you should do a more thorough, dispassionate review of the case.

"When you have as many saves as me (8 at last count), and have stood watch as long as me (over 28 years), you will see things differently.

Or not. It changes nothing relative to her situation."
Why must you constantly flout your bona fides? Do you feel that your opinion is more learned? Somehow more valuable? Do you feel beating your own chest reinforces your arguement?

None of the above.

How do you KNOW all that stuff? Were you there?

You chastise me for using secondhand knowledge, and then KNOW things you were not present for....

Curious, that.

And yes, I have faith in the courts. Between all of the judges and justices that reviewed the case there's plenty of left, right, center, and off-center judges. A consensus out of such a crowd points toward an underlying truth.

I don't know if my opinion is learned or not. Perhaps you do?

I'm back from work trying to play catch-up



To prove what? She is breathing on her own. No question she has some brain function.



That was totally unnecessary. The child is not a bastard, he has a father. He didn't asked to be born into this mess! Your credibility has just went to zero. IGNORE MODE ON!!!!!!!!!

Gentleman, I'm just not sure how we can be arguing this, we really don't know the facts, just what both sides are spewing forth.
I don't know what she wanted, I don't know the type of man the husband is, I don't know how much money (if any) he stands to gain.

"how would you like to live that way?"

If it is true as many of you say that she is a vegatable, then she doesn't even know she is living the way she is living.

If the parents can foot the bill I don't see the harm, maybe given enough time they will come to the same conclusion that her husband did, and decide to end it....I just don't see the harm in letting them do it their way if it isn't effecting anybody else other than a patient who you say doesn't know one way or the other. Why not show a little compassion and let the parents have a say, it is their daughter, they gave her life. I would want a say.

David,

From my earlier post on page 1. It was on Hannity and Combs. Hammesfahr was nominated for a Nobel prize for his work with brain injury and stroke patients.

HAMMESFAHR: I was not paid. Now, if you look at the people who are on Terri's side and stepped forward, at last count, two weeks ago, 33 M.D.s, brain injury specialists from around the country, places like UCLA, Tulane, LSU, Boston University --Thirty-three physicians has stepped forward to say that this person can be rehabilitated. She's not in PVS, not in a coma. And the -- Judge Greer ignored this.

We do not know what she wanted, we only have the suspect word of an over-controlling husband. Her parents are willing to assume guardianship. There is no reason to pull the tube right now, especially when there are many who believe she can be rehabilitated.

As was pointed out, so far nobody has really tried to help her get better. Now if it turns out--after a serious effort--she is really PVA, then go ahead and put her to death, but not via starvation.

I think the reason the judges have so quickly reached consensus is because this is not a matter that belongs in the legal system. I also am unimpressed with both the Florida legislature and the US Congress. What needs to happen for the Florida legislature to pass a law allowing the husband to divorce her w/o her consent, and then allow the parnts to assume guardianship.

"How do you KNOW all that stuff? Were you there?
You chastise me for using secondhand knowledge, and then KNOW things you were not present for....
Curious, that."

There exists an enormous amount of information about this case. Research it, everything I've stated is a part of the public record. Hell, if you don't want to read anything, watch Hannity and Colmes, they're doing an excellent job of covering this case

"And yes, I have faith in the courts. Between all of the judges and justices that reviewed the case there's plenty of left, right, center, and off-center judges. A consensus out of such a crowd points toward an underlying truth."
That is a generaltiy and not an answer to the specific question I asked. What about Bush V. Gore in the Florida courts? That went before multiple judges up to and including the Florida Supreme Court. Should the ruling that the Folrida courts produced allowing for the Gore-requested recount of four targeted counties have been allowed to stand? Were the courts fallible then? Might they be fallible now?

"I don't know if my opinion is learned or not. Perhaps you do?"
I'm not the one tooting my own horn, or adding my own experiences as a way to bolster my arguement. I've researched this very difficult issue and come to the conclusion that letting this woman starve to death is inhumane and cruel. If I treated my dog in like manner, I'd go to jail, and rightfully so.