It won't help if they're all corrupt, but even having a few who are not corrupt allows the 5th Amendment to be used to mitigate the circumstances under which an individual may be falsely prosecuted and convicted.
So no, not even close to the same boat, but then you've obviously never had any real experience inside a courtroom, let alone dealt with a separate Appellate court to which a lesser, more corrupt judge may end up having their ass handed to them.
You cannot come up with a specific scenario which ends up differing based on the 5th Amendment, because the 5th Amendment is just words. The different outcomes depend on external factors related to the function of the legal system. Your test is fundamentally flawed because it rests on a completely false presumption that the 5th Amendment can or cannot directly change the outcome of certain situations. The 5th Amendment may only indirectly affect the outcome; the real determination is if someone in a position to change something throws out or allows evidence, either in the primary case or on appeal, based on whether it violated the 5th or not. Not only that, but the 5th will invariably change the behavior of borderline corrupt cops or prosecutors. Without it, they may or may not do things differently. No example can have concrete results, but all you need to do is look at history to know that the 5th Amendment changed the behavior of certain individuals in the justice system so that things did not proceed in the same manner as the King's courts. You either didn't read history, or you did and have jack all common sense. Neither of those cause anyone with actual sense (or little sense but a decent understanding of history) to look favorably on your "challenge."
People who want to make a positive difference are frequently more of a problem than those who are corrupt, since that "positive difference" usually ends up as their personal interpretation of "how things should be." That's often very narrow-minded and rigid, and ends up harming anyone they contact who might fall even slightly out of their concept of how exactly one should behave.
In addition, the power that comes from being able to control others based solely on the group one belongs to is incredibly corrupting. It can easily turn otherwise rational humans into the sleaziest, nastiest people you'd ever have the misfortune to meet.
On the flip side, the OP being obtuse has provided repeated opportunities for those who will actually read the comments to come to the conclusion they shouldn't talk to the police if they didn't know that already. So the OP beating a dead horse may actually help make more people exercise care when interacting with armed agents of the State, even if that's the opposite of what the OP seems to want.
We don't need no stinkin' Constitutional amendments to change the Constitution. We just need a bunch of people to say "but please think of the poor (whatthehellever)!"
Unless they have hardware exploits I'm unaware of, they present exactly the same attack vectors based on the software installed. If you're running a Linux-based router, it'll have the same vector profile as a Linux-based PC router.
Since embedded devices frequently are far behind the update curve, they can actually present far more of a risk than a PC-based router.
If it was coercion into physical sexual contact between the blackmailer and the victim, it would be rape. That's not what happened. Rape requires actual physical contact between the perpetrator and the victim. Anything else is not rape, and attempting to redefine the word strictly for shock factor is intellectual fraud.
>$$$$$= lose your customers to a company that had neutral actuaries. Unless you wish to provide evidence of complete marketplace collusion between every single insurer covering a given type of property. No? Didn't think so...
Except insurance premiums won't cover the actual losses. Insurers only make money when the premium averages exceed loss payouts. That's why they typically absolutely refuse to cover certain circumstances. When the actual average risk of loss outweighs the area's premiums, it's a fundamentally stupid idea to cover those areas.
It requires all insurers to raise their rates to the same level. If some overestimate for the same level of coverage, it's pretty easy to switch insurers and save a ton on premiums. That means fewer dollars to the companies raising their rates.
Again, for your statement to be true, every single insurer who provides a specific type and level of insurance must raise their rates at the same time.
All areas have disasters. It's pretty easy to tell that building on a mountain in California where dozens of houses have collapsed from unstable geology defines "bad place to build." So does building on a coast which is actively eroding, or building within a 10-year-average flood plain.
There are eminently "good" places to build, in that they are not almost guaranteed to be destroyed by predictable (in the average, not in specifics) natural phenomenon.
The warming is at the poles at the very least. For the first time in recorded history there existed an open-water path between the Atlantic and the Pacific.
Yes, those events have happened and continue to happen. The quantity and severity averages, however, have changed.
People are typically denied payout on coverages because they don't understand the policies for which they are paying. Otherwise they leave themselves open to class action lawsuits.
Slashdot Mirror
He's already at strike three; He's out of the game.
It won't help if they're all corrupt, but even having a few who are not corrupt allows the 5th Amendment to be used to mitigate the circumstances under which an individual may be falsely prosecuted and convicted.
So no, not even close to the same boat, but then you've obviously never had any real experience inside a courtroom, let alone dealt with a separate Appellate court to which a lesser, more corrupt judge may end up having their ass handed to them.
You cannot come up with a specific scenario which ends up differing based on the 5th Amendment, because the 5th Amendment is just words. The different outcomes depend on external factors related to the function of the legal system. Your test is fundamentally flawed because it rests on a completely false presumption that the 5th Amendment can or cannot directly change the outcome of certain situations. The 5th Amendment may only indirectly affect the outcome; the real determination is if someone in a position to change something throws out or allows evidence, either in the primary case or on appeal, based on whether it violated the 5th or not. Not only that, but the 5th will invariably change the behavior of borderline corrupt cops or prosecutors. Without it, they may or may not do things differently. No example can have concrete results, but all you need to do is look at history to know that the 5th Amendment changed the behavior of certain individuals in the justice system so that things did not proceed in the same manner as the King's courts. You either didn't read history, or you did and have jack all common sense. Neither of those cause anyone with actual sense (or little sense but a decent understanding of history) to look favorably on your "challenge."
People who want to make a positive difference are frequently more of a problem than those who are corrupt, since that "positive difference" usually ends up as their personal interpretation of "how things should be." That's often very narrow-minded and rigid, and ends up harming anyone they contact who might fall even slightly out of their concept of how exactly one should behave.
In addition, the power that comes from being able to control others based solely on the group one belongs to is incredibly corrupting. It can easily turn otherwise rational humans into the sleaziest, nastiest people you'd ever have the misfortune to meet.
If the new page layout is actually rolled out, I will stop visiting Slashdot completely.
On the flip side, the OP being obtuse has provided repeated opportunities for those who will actually read the comments to come to the conclusion they shouldn't talk to the police if they didn't know that already. So the OP beating a dead horse may actually help make more people exercise care when interacting with armed agents of the State, even if that's the opposite of what the OP seems to want.
Every traffic stop is backed up by the threat of deadly force being used against you. There is always a threat from the police.
The US government is designed to prevent majority rule, because majority rule is frequently a very bad thing.
We don't need no stinkin' Constitutional amendments to change the Constitution. We just need a bunch of people to say "but please think of the poor (whatthehellever)!"
Actually, without a severability clause, it would render the entire Act void.
Propositions work pretty well in Washington, but there are fewer uninformed idiots here than in California apparently.
But it's only a "democratic action" if it supports my pre-conceived notions of what's the right course of action! Anything else is not democratic!
Only if he caps the speech by shooting himself in the head with it.
Actually, there are a lot of people who would like to see a default, particularly if it lead to the dissolution of the US.
It's too bad the US doesn't work that way. (And I really do mean it's too bad.)
Unless they have hardware exploits I'm unaware of, they present exactly the same attack vectors based on the software installed. If you're running a Linux-based router, it'll have the same vector profile as a Linux-based PC router.
Since embedded devices frequently are far behind the update curve, they can actually present far more of a risk than a PC-based router.
The word used was "teenager," not "child." Someone who is 19 is still a teenager, since the number ends with the suffix "teen."
If it was coercion into physical sexual contact between the blackmailer and the victim, it would be rape. That's not what happened. Rape requires actual physical contact between the perpetrator and the victim. Anything else is not rape, and attempting to redefine the word strictly for shock factor is intellectual fraud.
I've never met a creative hipster. Hipster culture is just a giant circle jerk of conformity to yet another arbitrary set of social rules.
>$$$$$= lose your customers to a company that had neutral actuaries. Unless you wish to provide evidence of complete marketplace collusion between every single insurer covering a given type of property. No? Didn't think so...
That's the problem so many whiners miss in this thread. It requires collusion to "raise rates and make more profit, muahaha."
Except insurance premiums won't cover the actual losses. Insurers only make money when the premium averages exceed loss payouts. That's why they typically absolutely refuse to cover certain circumstances. When the actual average risk of loss outweighs the area's premiums, it's a fundamentally stupid idea to cover those areas.
It requires all insurers to raise their rates to the same level. If some overestimate for the same level of coverage, it's pretty easy to switch insurers and save a ton on premiums. That means fewer dollars to the companies raising their rates.
Again, for your statement to be true, every single insurer who provides a specific type and level of insurance must raise their rates at the same time.
All areas have disasters. It's pretty easy to tell that building on a mountain in California where dozens of houses have collapsed from unstable geology defines "bad place to build." So does building on a coast which is actively eroding, or building within a 10-year-average flood plain.
There are eminently "good" places to build, in that they are not almost guaranteed to be destroyed by predictable (in the average, not in specifics) natural phenomenon.
The warming is at the poles at the very least. For the first time in recorded history there existed an open-water path between the Atlantic and the Pacific.
Yes, those events have happened and continue to happen. The quantity and severity averages, however, have changed.
People are typically denied payout on coverages because they don't understand the policies for which they are paying. Otherwise they leave themselves open to class action lawsuits.