Regional May 31, 2012 11:21 AM

Theological Thursdays: Corasanti and Justice

Theological Thursdays: Corasanti and Justice
I have no doubt that the jurors were faithful to their task, and that each attorney did the best possible job.

I also have a general faith in the system.  It may not be perfect, but I doubt anybody could create a better one.

I'm even comfortable with the idea of risking that a guilty person go free, rather than a innocent person be punished.

That said, I have serious doubts about the verdict rendered last night.  I think it is clear that Corasanti was drunk, and hit Alix Rice while driving.  He knew he had hit something, left the scene of the accident, and took steps to conceal his guilt.  I know the jury knows more than I do, and I respect that, but--like many--I am still dissatisfied with the verdict.

It is in situations like this that the idea of God as Judge appeals to me. 

We made our best effort at justice.  It may have failed.  We can't be sure.  And yet, a belief in God as judge allows me to sleep better, because I know that Dr. Corasanti and Ms. Rice will both receive justice. 

Paul, in Romans 12:19-21 wrote: "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord. No, "if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads."  Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

We never like the idea of a judging God when we think of our own shortcomings.  But we need such a God when we cannot make justice ourselves.  This is not to say that Dr. Corasanti will burn in hell, or that the pain for those who miss Ms. Rice will simply go away.  Only that the thing that we yearn for may be in fact be true: it will all be made right.

Until then, comfort for the grieving.  Vengeance belongs to God, not us.

View image

Comments

Leave a comment

Get this out of here.

Score: -11 ( 85 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Seriously. We need a separation of church and website.

replied to incircles
Score: -3 ( 77 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Allow me to turn-it up a notch for you.

The Trevon Martin trail will have a totally different verdict.

Two manslaughter cases involving three different races which will affect the outcome.

Unfortunately, God (believe or don’t believe, your choice) will not be intervening as we were all granted free will.

Let the commentaries begin!

Score: 2 ( 12 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"Seriously. We need a separation of church and website."


I'd prefer a separation of Kornpett and website . . .


Score: 2 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

wait...did the First Amendment get repealed in the last hour and I missed it?!

replied to incircles
Score: 17 ( 29 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I like this article. If you're not interested in theology, then why the hell are you clicking on and reading something called "Theological Thursdays: Corasanti and Justice"? It serves as a good reminder, not just in the Crosanti case, but in many of life's situations.

Believe me, there are plenty of articles on BRO that just don't interest me. But I usually don't click on them, read them, and then take the time to comment that I am not interested in the topic. Seriously, get a life.

replied to incircles
Score: 47 ( 65 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I cant possibly imagine what the Rice family is going through right now. A jury that convicts a coward of a man for DWI and then lets him walk on all other counts is beyond me.

Essentially, the jury believed he was DWI, but didn't think that had anything to do with the events that ended the night. It's an unbelievable injustice, but I guess I wasn't called on to judge his actions and so I speculate. You always hope that what you leave is greater than what you have taken, but this scum of a person has taken more than he will ever be able to give back, accident or not.

Score: 9 ( 17 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Here's whats shocking to me -- no one on this comment thread is discussing the truth. For the crime he actually committed, he was found guilty.

Truth -- The guy who testified before Corasanti stated that he had to swerved to avoid hitting her, on Heim because she was over the white line and in traffic. APD corrorborated based on where she landed, that its true -- she was skateboarding in traffic.

Truth -- Corasanti never swerved. Proof that he never saw her.

Truth -- The bartender testified he only served him 4 drinks.

I'm sorry -- I wanted him to be guilty as much as the next guy. But, given the same information, there's no way you could convict him. And, if you say you can -- then you have no business ever being on a jury.

The facts are the facts, the law is the law -- reasonable doubt exists and lynchmob justice never got anyone anywhere.

replied to AKBuffalo
Score: 12 ( 36 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

If you aren't speeding, texting, drunk, you have the ability to swerve.

Go out on Heim on a clear night, hands at ten and two, and you can see a squirrel from 500 feet (crouched down, or standing upright).

Had he killed her on a moped, in the middle of the road, would he have used the same defense? Interesting that her mode of transportation was such a factor.

replied to BrianWhite
Score: 5 ( 13 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I grew up in Williamsville, son. Don't preach to me about Heim Road. I've driven that stretch, more times than I care to count. Its not well lit in the least bit.

I am not defending Corasanti, but where is this notion that he was drunk come into play? Because the media told you he was, that's why. And the government tells you that .08 means drunk. I weigh 215 lbs and 6 foot. You think I am going to even feel .08 after a brandy and glass of wine? Heck no.

Its a tragic accident and we're all looking for a scapegoat or someone to blame -- so that we can sleep better. So that we can live with it, that we can justify it to ourselves. Fact of the matter still remains -- a little girl with her whole life infront of her is dead and so is the reamining 20 years of a prominent mans life -- think about it. His life is over.

replied to benfranklin
Score: -3 ( 33 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

He's an intelligent man that had no trouble putting the family through a trial. He'll compartmentalize this, just as he would when he makes a mistake in the operating room that costs a patient a life. Her death was really never a factor, just whether it would impact his career. He moved past her death the night it happened.

I don't really need anyone to blame for the poor girls death. Just seems if he's not guilty here, what's the crime in drinking and driving?

replied to BrianWhite
Score: 4 ( 12 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Yeah, I wonder if he really ever cared about the life he took. Like your comment that he moved past her death the night it happened, any emotion spoken of the night of the accident or shown in court was emotion for himself and what he thought he would lose.

replied to benfranklin
Score: 5 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

He was convicted of DWI. By definition, that means the jury determined that there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he was driving drunk.

replied to BrianWhite
Score: 11 ( 11 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Brianwhite:
"I weigh 215 lbs and 6 foot. You think I am going to even feel .08 after a brandy and glass of wine? Heck no."

.08 % is a relative, not absolute, amount. So it makes you relatively as drunk as someone who weighs 100lb.

In other news, ECC is offering remedial math courses this summer.

replied to BrianWhite
Score: 5 ( 11 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

You're 100% right, it is relative. Thank you for further illustrating my point. Just because .10 percent of a persons blood contains alcohol doesn't mean they are going to feel the same way a 100 lb person would, if given the same amount of alcohol.

replied to thewix
Score: -4 ( 10 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"where is this notion that he was drunk come into play"

HE WAS CONVICTED OF DWI. HIS SECOND ONE...

If you feel you didn't hit anything of significance, then you don't go home and lawyer up like a coward and send your wife to see if you killed somebody.

replied to BrianWhite
Score: 8 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

His B.A.C. registered .10 five -- FIVE! -- hours after the fact, "son." As you would say, "truth."

I'm certainly no scientist, but that is a pretty clear indication that five -- again, let's reiterate, FIVE -- hours prior, his B.A.C. was substantially higher.

replied to BrianWhite
Score: 5 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Exactly, no excuse for this, just another OJ case, bought his way out.

replied to benfranklin
Score: 8 ( 10 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

After reviewing the interview with the jury member, it's hard not to conclude that the wealth of the defendant played a deeper role in the case (beyond paying for the defense).

You have a well educated man making a positive impression on the jury (he's had the best education, something the jury probably couldn't afford). He's driving a car that the jury seems to believe is sound proof (no firsthand experience with a 100,000 car).

And you have a victim that's not in the same economic class. Most people making $400,000 a year aren't going to let their kid's skateboard home, let alone work a job at a pizza place.

I'm not attempting to find fault with anyone here. It just seems that 'jury of your peers'.... is that possible when the defendant makes $400,000 per year? Just as there is probably some bias when a middle income jury finds an umemployed minority guilty (...why didn't he have a job?...), I'm afraid something in the opposite direction took place with this case.

If it were a true jury of his peers, they'd probably see through the actions, and say, you knew you were screwed, I've got my attorney on speed dial too, Transit Valley's not so great, you should try Park, and that wine...who drinks that after golf...were you slumming? and by the way, that BMW doesn't have magical sound proofing ... but you should check out my Mercedes... now, go to jail, you're making us look bad.

replied to Black Rock Lifer
Score: 9 ( 15 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

You should get a column. Best comment I've read here or on the News.

replied to benfranklin
Score: 2 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Well, I thought anything above 2 drinks is beyond the legal limit. His blood alcohol level was in the DUI range after 5 hours. The fact he didn't swerve could just as well mean that he was driving while impaired.

replied to BrianWhite
Score: 5 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

venting online does not a lynch mob make. no one is building any gallows.

replied to BrianWhite
Score: 3 ( 9 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

His BAC was a .10 over 5 hours after the accident. He had to be ordered by a judge to give it because he refused. At five hours and a typical persons biology it's reasonable to assume his BAC at the time of the accident was .17. He left the scene, left his house, refuse to submit to a blood alcohol reading. A girl lost her life and he obstructed justice any way he could to save his own skin.

If he didn't know he hit anyone why did he leave his house after he arrived home, not return to the scene and have his wife speak with his lawyer when the police arrived? He knew. Anyone that believes otherwise is naive.

The drive in front saw her. The road was well lit. He didn't because he was drunk. I don't know if you know this but alcohol in your system impairs ones ability to operate a vehicle safely.

I find the fact that the jury was able to come to this conclusion very troubling. I'm not looking for mob justice but I hope the Rice family take every penny he has in a civil suit and that he has his medical license revoked.

replied to BrianWhite
Score: 6 ( 12 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Interestingly, until the late 1920s, if you drove a car and you killed anyone for any reason, you were guilty of manslaughter, drunk or not. The reason is that cars were still fairly new and people walking streets was still very common, and if a car jumped a curb and killed people, then the car driver was defacto at fault. Back then, the streets belonged to pedestrians, not cars.

Seeing that this law would severely hamper the adoption of cars by the general population, the automobile industry mobilized and got those laws removed. They also instituted a new concept, called "jaywalking", which puts the blame for anyone getting killed upon the pedestrian, a complete reversal of the legal assumptions that existed just beforehand.

Score: 18 ( 22 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

There is a great book called "Fighting Traffic" that covers this period of history, and the way the car industry had to redefine the basic concept of what the streets were for and who belonged in them. It's a bit of a dry and academic read in places, but much of it I found fascinating.

Perhaps you've read it, as it tells the story much as you summarize here.

replied to Rand503
Score: 5 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I was not aware of this. Thanks to you and JSmith for the info!

replied to Rand503
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Guilty or not guilty, that girl is dead and that's the real tragedy.

Score: 12 ( 14 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

my conclusion is that those who are encased in two tons of steel have more rights than those who are not (cyclists, joggers, skateboarders, rollerbladers). if you are not encased in steel you have no one to blame but yourself if some rich drunk doctor all but decapitates you and has the smarts to weep on the stand. poor guy.

okay, cyclists, joggers, rollerbladers, skateboarders, this calls for a dignified, unified response. how about a silent ride past the accident site and the corasanti home on the anniversary of her death?

we are *all* alix rice.

Score: 12 ( 30 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Is that loveable band of lunatics - Critical Mass - still around doing their thing. Having those cats ride by my house at 1am drove me nuts. How about going by his house, practice (why would you continue to go to him?) etc. I'll even join in.

I agree with your comment.

replied to grad94
Score: 0 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

The law needs to be written so that the minute you get in a car while drunk you become guilty of any tragedy like this that you cause with your car. Drinking and driving needs to become a serious crime in this country. Hopefully they can at least take away everything the guy has.

Score: 5 ( 23 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

We have that doctrine under the law. It's called the felony murder rule. You become liable for any death that occurs in the course of a felony (kidnapping, burglary, etc.) because you intended a violent act and that intent transfers to any death that occurs. The common example is the person who robs the convenience store and the convenience store owner shoots and kills an innocent bystander; the robber is liable for felony murder. The problem is it is a basic premise of criminal and Constitutional law that punishment should be proportional to one's level of knowledge of their acts and a person should not be severely punished unless they intended a person's death or recklessly disregarded an unjustifiable risk that causes the death. If driving drunk fell under the felony murder rule, a person driving 0.081% may not have their judgment impaired at all and therefore would not be disregarding an unjustifiable risk, but if the person get into an accident and someone dies, they would be liable for murder despite a lack of culpability. This is out-of-step with the fundamental rule that punishment must be proportional to culpability.

The law is not the problem. The justice system is not the problem. The jurors are not the problem. The facts of this case were the problem. Sometimes you just simply are not going to be able to recreate and prove what occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, the same protections that ensure the innocent don't get convicted sometimes form a tremendous hurdle to convicting the guilty. This is an inherent tradeoff of our justice system.

replied to STEEL
Score: 4 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

How about boycotting the Buffalo Medical Group if they allow him back into the practice? If a bunch of people switch doctors and give that as the reason, it may at least cost him his job. No felonies=keep your license. Although I'd bet he's done in Buffalo, but who knows where the narcissism ends.

Score: 4 ( 12 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Reports are he's left this practice, and is renting space associated with Buffalo Gastro... in OP. Some 25 people have requested their charts be pulled from BMG to this new office.

You'd think he'd have to leave town, but all logic appears invalid as it relates to this man. (Interesting that while people bring up the OJ similarities, they don't mention the home in Florida that would be (I think) protected from civil verdict.)

Aside from the tragedy of the young girls death... I can't get over his choice to face a jury, rather than plead... and to be right in his choice.

His abilitly to 'accomplish' served the community well for some 56 years. In the last year he's served himself well, but no one else. The discrepancy is jarring.

replied to Woods79
Score: 0 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

It's not as simple as no felony = keep your medical license. Plenty of physicians lose their license for behavior which may not even be criminal. There is a component of being determined to have the moral standing to be allowed to practice medicine in NY State. The medical licensing board is self - regulating, and listens to public input. If you are unhappy about the prospect of him being allowed to continue maintaining a NY state license, you can write a letter to the board and make your case. If you get enough people doing it, they may strip him of his license.

replied to Woods79
Score: 5 ( 5 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

interesting idea. for those so inclined, here's the contac info:

http://www.op.nysed.gov/contact.htm

replied to pampiniform
Score: 0 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

The family might have another option . A civil trial as was done in the OJ case after Simpson was acquitted. AFA the doctor, he will simply avoid scrutiny by moving to Naples Fla.

Score: 1 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Don't worry, Terry Connors has already got that end worked out. Corasanti will probably have to give them his Heisman trophy. They don't have the interweb in Naples, Florida?

replied to saltecks
Score: -1 ( 7 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

The legal system...however right or wrong in this case is the only system that society has to operate with. The general public, no matter how outraged at the info that was released by the media... will never know what information those 12 jurors made their decision on.
At face value, it too sickens me that a wealthy Dr. beats a wrap..more importantly a young girl is gone... and the family and friends now have to deal with the aftermath.
None of us were there, and wwill never know if Alix Rice ...her actions, contributed to the deadly accident. .
One thing is for sure, laws should be stiffened severely for ANYONE caught DWI!!
It will be interesting to see how Corsanti survives the stigma attached to this... as EVERYONE now knows who he is and the guilt and shame he will carry with him the rest of his life...especially if he decides to continue to reside in WNY.

Score: 0 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Here's what we do: We bust into Corasanti's house, tie him up, and have Roseanne Barr come in and fart on him for all eternity. After that, we build a time machine, travel back in time, and hit the batting cages at Fun 'n Games Park off the Colvin Extension. Maybe catch a movie at the I-290 Drive In. Amirite?

Score: -9 ( 19 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Sedita has to go. He overreached on a relatively weak case, if you know your law. He should of went after lessor charges and got the conviction. James Bargnesi is the reason why the doctor is free. He came across as a sacrastic douche bag and the jury made him pay. Daniels played this one as smotth as you can play it. No winners, except Daniels. Sedita says he is shocked, I wonder if it is his imcompetence that is shocking him.

Score: 8 ( 20 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Nope. His hair style is what's shocking him.

replied to YesSir
Score: 0 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Nope. His hair style is what's shocking him.

replied to YesSir
Score: -2 ( 6 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I never cease to be amazed by the number of legal scholars that come out of the woodwork to criticise a verdict without so much as having heard a single days' worth of testimony, much less the weeks of testimony which the jury heard. Nor do they have the benefit of having heard the judge's charge to the jury, explaining the nuances of the law and how to evaluate the evidence in the context of the law. What I have heard outside of this thread are a multitude of comments which establish a total misunderstanding of our legal system, inaccuracies about the law, assumptions about the facts which are incorrect and an inherent bias against an individual who had the intelligence, determination and ability to become a successful physician.

Moreover, virtually everyone has been at the mercy of the media to sort through what individual reporters think is relevant or important in the days' proceedings, albeit a mere fraction of what was actually heard in court. That, coupled with the overbearing comments on talk radio, had Dr. Corasanti convicted last July without so much as a bit of testimony.

The jury was comprised of twelve individuals who both the prosecution and the defense were willing to accept as reasonable persons willing to give up a month of their lives to sit in judgment on a serious and highly visible case. Give them thanks for having undertaken a job that most of us would avoided at all costs.

No matter the criminal or civil consequences of this tragic event, I think it highly unlikely that any member of the medical profession would ever be the same for having caused the death of another individual and will forever carry a heavy burden.

Score: 10 ( 20 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Heavy burden requires a conscience.

replied to BUFFALOUED
Score: -2 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

>I doubt anybody could create a better one.

Very patriotic. I love America too, but there are almost 200 countries in the world. Why do you think that our criminal law system is the best? Do you know about recent revelations showing that tens of thousands of innocent Americans have been incarcerated? Check out the work of the Innocence Project.

Score: 6 ( 14 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Hmm. A snide remark against patriotism, followed by the infamous 'I love America too,' as a precursor to how other countries' justice systems are so much better than ours. Classic. I suggest checking out the 9-11 conspiracy websites. There's plenty of America-hating facts for you to revel in there too.

replied to KeepItSimple
Score: -3 ( 13 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

every culture thinks it is special and that its ways of doing things are better than everyone else's. just as every religion thinks it is god's chosen people. it isn't america-hating or church-bashing, it is sociological and anthropological reality.

replied to Tim
Score: 5 ( 9 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

True, but it sounds like what you're saying presupposes that there is no Objective truth. It is relativism. If you're ok with relativism that's fine, however if we get into an honest discussion on the subject you will find that relativism has some very uncomfortable conclusions.

replied to grad94
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

the problem is not that there is no objective truth. obviously there is: the sun rose at 5:38 today or it did not. i am sitting at my desk at my computer or i am not. i am a certain age, height, and weight, or i am not. and on it goes.

the problem is that there are no (or darned few) objective human beings.

replied to Tim
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Well said, Rev. Drew.

Score: 0 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

If that were my child I would have a very hard time not putting a bullet in that man's head. I hope he burns in hell.

Score: 0 ( 8 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Whatever happened to commenters like BobbyCat, BurchJP, Pampinform, and that guy who kept using Kang something or other? Did they get blocked, or did they get fed up with the site.

Score: 1 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

The non-wealthy public outcry on this is gigantic on and off the Internet, meaning worldwide! We who would be shunned by Corasanti's defense team CAN show our concern!

Here's my suggestion: On the day of Corasanti's next DWI court date, every single person who feels Corasanti should serve more than the equal of a slap on the wrist (which I suspect is what is going to happen) bring a supply of candles and stand in silent vigil at the courthouse. (Candles need not be a religious symbol but a symbol of warm, caring. compassionate hearts for not only those already suffering but also for those who are going to suffer for yet another DWI crime.)

Everyone world-wide or who otherwise can't be there please send a flower to be placed in front of the courthouse.

If Buffalo Risiing or Rev. Drew want to organize this, Buffalo Rising has several florist advertizers here who could be involved.

This is probably the most worried non-wealthy people can do to show concern and support for all victims of the American legal only if you can afford it system. TY

Score: -2 ( 4 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

To the Williamsville experts. I too lived in Getzville, as a matter of fact 50 feet from where the accident happened. I also worked until my retirement for one of the largest utilities in WNY. For the record, you can read stock quotes from any newspaper at midnight on that stretch of Heim Road. Happen to know what type of street lights are mounted every other pole up and down Heim Road. Matter of fact there is one directly over where she was hit. Now as for a 7 Series BMW. Driven one, and own another BMW. The headlights shine both sides of the road and onto the lawns. Good for hundreds of feet ahead. As for the crouching defense? I've braked for rabbits and squirrels day and night cause I don't want to clean the critters off my vehicle. As for being drunk? Drunk he was. Don't give me that bull story. Maybe a subpeona of someone, maybe an employee at the Country Club? Tough to do, jobs are hard to find these days. The hood of his car? BMW steel. Solid as a rock. Anyone see it? Pictures? Crumpled 50% up the hood. Only way that happens is she was upright. No doubt. Noise? I could have had Van Halen on with the 100 watt stereo with 10 speakers with the volume all the way and it would have jarred me in my seat. How do I know this? I nailed a full bag of grass one night and pulled over to see the damage. Bag of grass was not good. Car was fine. I heard it and felt it. Bottom line? Ran, Lied, texted, drunk, decided on self preservation over another human. Hippocratic Oath? Ha ha ha ha ha. The Jury Foreman? What actually went on during that short 24 hours of deliberation, out of which you deduct sleep, eating, off the clock. Maybe they deliberated 4-6 hours? Hardly enough to digest all that evidence. I enjoyed the witnesses. The scripts, the lies and the heresay. I saw a very interesting segment on Dateline a few weeks ago about "Expert" witnesses. Maybe one of those fellows should look at this debacle. Good Night Folks.

Score: 12 ( 14 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

"I could have had Van Halen on with the 100 watt stereo with 10 speakers with the volume all the way and it would have jarred me in my seat. "

Dear jurors, read Les' comment.

Les: it's because you weren't drunk. If the glove don't fit...

Great comment.

replied to Lester Paul
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Like this comment.

Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

>bought his way out.

Evenly matched. Nobody has more resources than the government.

Score: 0 ( 2 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

actually, with two control boards in place, everyone has more money than the government.

replied to KeepItSimple
Score: 1 ( 1 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

His lack of care for human life makes me wonder if he is fit to be a doctor. If a patient starts to bleed out, he will walk away, say he never saw the patient and call his lawyer.

Score: 1 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Hypocritic Oath...

Score: -1 ( 3 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Leave a comment