To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 17676
17675  |  17677
Subject: 
Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Sun, 22 Sep 2002 17:45:58 GMT
Viewed: 
323 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
Really?

Yeah, really.

It's hard to imagine how they could possibly know that the sister knows
anything useful.  I mean, do they have video footage of her seeing her
sister do things?  Not likely...

Also, I believe in the right to remain silent -- to choose not to testify
(this has nothing to do with the Fifth Amendment, more with the First and
Ninth Amendments).  I think we have rights as yet undiscovered, or not yet
well-exercised -- rights like the freedom to speak and not to speak.
Y'know, one can always claim "I don't know" or "I don't remember" -- how can
a prosecutor prove such statements false?  The latter is especially good
because the suggestion is that one might have known at one time but has
since forgotten, maybe anyways -- it's TOTALLY subjective! =)

I don't know.

I can't remember.

Yes.

No.

"5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou
shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's
throne:
5:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it
is the city of the great King.
5:36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one
hair white or black.
5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is
more than these cometh of evil." -- Mathew, King James Version

There is a myth that courtrooms are for fact-finding and the production of
"the truth".  What are the odds -- given the process and whatnot...?

...does anyone even know "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth"?  I think not -- and anyone swearing such an oath is basically lying
the instant they utter such an overreaching statement.

I would tend to affirm statements for legal purposes, rather than take an oath.

-- Hop-Frog



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
 
(...) Really? Do you generally think that aiding criminals should have no penalty? There may be issues surrounding this that I haven't thought through, but on first blush, it doesn't seem like a bad general policy to me. I would certainly intervene (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

62 Messages in This Thread:
























Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR