Apparently, hookers are just as bad as rapists and child molestors...

Quote :

Would you be sniping at me if I refused ot watch a half-hour vid on the benefits of drinking your own urine?

No, because you didn't end that sentence with "Because I will UTTERLY REJECT any ideas I don't immediately agree with".

Quote :

So why should I give time to something I consider just as bad a concept?

Constitutional rights=pee drinking
NOW YOU KNOW!

Quote :

I shouldn't and I won't

New ideas are scary u guise DDDD:

You know what? I did eventually watch the thing.

And it was a half-hour of a former defense attorney telling other potential defense attorneys not to let their client talk to the police.

Not only was this a big pile of "Well, DUH! Of course you're going to say that!" (and I'm still not sure what his point was with the lobsters and bony fish), I honestly have no idea how this relates back to anything we've been talking about here.

It was as big a waste of my time as I thought it would be, even if I was wrong about why it would be. I'm never letting you people talk me into anything ever again.

Quote :

And that's all I'm going to say on the subject.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Freezer wrote:

I just wonder how many of you would be taking this guy seriously if his speech was entitled "Why I Stopped Snitchin'?" Because that's what it is.

I'd be nodding my head going "DUH!" just the same. "Snitches get stitches", and fortunately for my sense of moral superiority I can separate "what is" and "what ought".

Freezer wrote:

To put it bluntly: The cops are not out to get you. They want the bad guys, not whoever they can nab.

Blatantly, utterly false. Cops are not shining beacons of morality, nor are they scum worse than what they catch. They're human, with all the good and bad that entails. But if you let slip that you've committed a crime, they have every reason to hammer you for it and very, very few reasons not to. Remember, their job is to arrest people who have committed or are accused of committing crimes. Why do you think they aren't going to do their jobs just because you think they're your friend?

Freezer wrote:

People who take the stance that the few cops we see getting busted are the tip of the iceberg, not the exceptions to the rule are almost as much of the problem as the criminals themselves. And are usually the first to bitch when crimes go unsolved.

Unsupported assertion. Not to mention the despicable opinion that people who know their civil rights are as bad as rapists, murderers, and thieves. I think we have another supporter of the police state in the house!

Freezer wrote:

You want to clam up no matter what if a cop talks to you, it's your right. Just don't bitch when the cops can't crack your case because they can't get a lead, because no one will talk.

They can talk to me through my lawyer, because nobody else is going to be worrying about my rights. When a cop asks you why you think they pulled you over, they are trying to get you to voluntarily surrender your fifth amendment rights. If they come to your door reporting a noise disturbance and ask if they can come in and look around "for safety reasons", they're trying to get you to give up your fourth amendment rights. They are very good at tricking you into giving up your civil liberties, and they sure as hell aren't going to remind you that you don't have to tell them "yes". Nobody is going to look out for your rights but you, and you have a civic duty to make sure they're upheld.

KelinciHutan wrote:

Bamshalam wrote:

KelinciHutan wrote:

Seriously, do not ever talk to cops. Even if you haven't done anything, they can still arrest you. Observe.

I'm seriously hoping that this statement isn't being directed towards witnesses as well.

Well, watch the video and come to your own conclusions.

I may watch it another time when I have more of an inclination to watch a half an hour long piece of propaganda, but I don't really right now, not gonna lie.

That said, having witnessed crimes before, it's really not that big a deal to talk to cops in those instances; they're not going to go out of their way to be dicks to the people trying to help them put criminals behind bars. While I agree that a person should be reasonably guarded when being pulled over or questioned for a crime that the police think they committed (regardless of whether or not they did,) telling people who see crimes happening not to tell the cops is just damned counterproductive.

Quote :

The 5th amendment protects against self
incrimination against the crime you are accused of at the time or any
other unrelated crime you may have been committing (i.e. I couldn't
have killed her because I was at home making pot brownies).

And why should this inherently be a right? What makes this something worthy to be enshrined up there with the rights of the First Amendment?

Quote :

Griffin vs. California makes it illegal for a
prosecutor to draw attention to a defendant's silence during a trial.

But it SHOULD BE LEGAL is what I'm trying to say.

Delcat wrote:

VileCorp wrote:

So, exactly how many times, and with how much violence were you raped?

You know, I've always wanted to know the same thing about you.

I wish, but even as a kid I was so fugly, no one would touch me. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Thanos6 wrote:

Quote :

The 5th amendment protects against self
incrimination against the crime you are accused of at the time or any
other unrelated crime you may have been committing (i.e. I couldn't
have killed her because I was at home making pot brownies).

And why should this inherently be a right? What makes this something worthy to be enshrined up there with the rights of the First Amendment?

Quote :

Griffin vs. California makes it illegal for a
prosecutor to draw attention to a defendant's silence during a trial.

But it SHOULD BE LEGAL is what I'm trying to say.

I'm starting to understand your Scrawn author avatar character a bit better now.

VileCorp wrote:

I wish, but even as a kid I was so fugly, no one would touch me.

It's funny, no one still will touch you.

Not that I've taken the time to read the entire thread like common sense would suggest, but...hasn't anyone noticed that part two of that video starts with a veteran police officer saying "Everything he said is true, and it was right, and it was correct," before going into twenty minutes of explaining why, including a meta-example where he demonstrates how easy it is to get people to incriminate themselves by doing it to the audience?

Quote :

And why should this inherently be a right? What
makes this something worthy to be enshrined up there with the rights of
the First Amendment?

Quote :

But it SHOULD BE LEGAL is what I'm trying to say.

Wow. Fuck you, boyo. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty", you dumb shit? Shutting up isn't exactly conclusive testimony or evidence but if you want to continue to make decisions on baseless assumptions I hope to god you aren't on the jury when someone's life is on the line.

Quote :

but...hasn't anyone noticed that part two of that video
starts with a veteran police officer saying "Everything he said is
true, and it was right, and it was correct," before going into twenty
minutes of explaining why, including a meta-example where he
demonstrates how easy it is to get people to incriminate themselves by
doing it to the audience?

No because the would require people to get off their ass and actually back up their argument. Even I wade through boring legalese to make a point.

The video isn't saying DON'T TALK TO COPS EVER!!!!! but don't talk to cops while you're in custody and then it explains WHY.

Hence my reaction when we hit this topic before:

Penguin wrote:

Thanos6 wrote:

I've always thought the "right" to remain silent was rather suspicious; I'd do away with it if I had the chance.

Would you kindly go and fuck yourself?

My only reply to both Bam and Freezer is, this whole thread we've been talking about people accused of a crime, when we haven't been talking about the original post. The video I posted, with which you both attempted to argue without actually watching it, is about people accused of a crime. To take that single topic conversation and then go "BUT THE WITNESSES!!!" is a leap, to say the least.

Look, I'm quite willing to change my mind if someone will give me a reason why I shouldn't take a defendant's refusal to testify as a sign of implication.

Mafiosa wrote:

No because the would require people to get off their ass and actually back up their argument. Even I wade through boring legalese to make a point.

The video isn't saying DON'T TALK TO COPS EVER!!!!! but don't talk to cops while you're in custody and then it explains WHY.

Don't be messin with maf's Logic

Thanos6 wrote:

Look, I'm quite willing to change my mind if someone will give me a reason why I shouldn't take a defendant's refusal to testify as a sign of implication.

Maybe they're protecting someone.

Or alternatively, maybe if they say something, something that could get them out of this, SOMEONE WILL KILL THEM.

Tell me something, if someone makes a complaint to the police and then withdraws it, does that mean the crime never happened?

Quote :

Look, I'm quite willing to change my mind if someone will give me a
reason why I shouldn't take a defendant's refusal to testify as a sign
of implication.

I gave you a good example, you troglodyte. Accusations of communism ruined people's careers in the 60s. Or you, know, I dunno how about trials involving the Mafia?

Jesus, you really are incapable of thinking beyond yourself aren't you?

Quote :

Accusations of communism ruined people's careers in the 60s.

50s. And that had nothing to do with the law, that was the studios doing it. McCarthy was damned if you do, damned if you don't, you couldn't win against him either way.

Quote :

Or you, know, I dunno how about trials involving the Mafia?

Witness Protection Program.

Thanos6 wrote:

Look, I'm quite willing to change my mind if someone will give me a reason why I shouldn't take a defendant's refusal to testify as a sign of implication.

Also, need I remind you that lawyers are trained at twisting peoples' words and/or actions to make it sound like they said/did something they never did in an attempt to convince a jury of something that may or may not be true? Lawyers aren't exactly renowned for their pursuit of actual justice somuchas their pursuit of a healthy paycheck.

Thanos6 wrote:

50s. And that had nothing to do with the law, that was the studios doing it. McCarthy was damned if you do, damned if you don't, you couldn't win against him either way.

So you admit you're wrong, but refuse to change your mind?

You've proven yourself to have dysfunctional critical thinking skills, and thus your ideas and opinions have no value. You are being ignored henceforth, you worthless failure.

Congratulations, I guess.

LOL Thanos I bet you think restraining orders are magical talismans against all harm too

don't answer my questions btw

Quote :

And that had nothing to do with the law, that
was the studios doing it. McCarthy was damned if you do, damned if you
don't, you couldn't win against him either way.

It was the House Un-American Activities Committee lead by the House of Representatives, mouth breather.

Quote :

Witness Protection Program.

People who testify against the Mafia are usually mobsters themselves. By your logic they should be tossed in jail because they'd refuse to testify on their own involvement in the mob.

Quote :

It was the House Un-American Activities Committee lead by the House of Representatives, mouth breather.

I'm aware of that, but it wasn't HUAC that put them on the blacklist. The studios did that themselves.

Quote :

People who testify against the Mafia are usually
mobsters themselves. By your logic they should be tossed in jail
because they'd refuse to testify on their own involvement in the mob.

Yes, in guarded cells.

Quote :

I'm aware of that, but it wasn't HUAC that put them on the blacklist. The studios did that themselves.

...Seriously, I have to explain this to you.
If HUAC hadn't made the claims in the first place would there have been blacklistings? Who did what is irrelevant when you get to the point of how and why it's good to use the 5th amendment (Read: hollywood may have carried out the blacklistings but the accusations and trials were done by a government agency) but you keep ignoring all the good points I and everyone else is making in favor of trying to look smart by reminding us of trivial and inane bullshit.

Quote :

Yes, in guarded cells.

What's it like, having a childish sense of naivete and selfishness.

Keep talking, I like how the stupidest people keep running their mouths to prove me right.