Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday March 22 2017, @08:19AM   Printer-friendly
from the better-treatment-than-if-he's-guilty dept.

On Monday, a US federal appeals court sided against a former Philadelphia police officer who has been in jail 17 months because he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. He had refused to comply with a court order commanding him to unlock two hard drives the authorities say contain child porn.

The 3-0 decision (PDF) by the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals means that the suspect, Francis Rawls, likely will remain jailed indefinitely or until the order (PDF) finding him in contempt of court is lifted or overturned. However, he still can comply with the order and unlock two FileVault encrypted drives connected to his Apple Mac Pro. Using a warrant, authorities seized those drives from his residence in 2015. While Rawls could get out from under the contempt order by unlocking those drives, doing so might expose him to other legal troubles.

In deciding against Rawls, the court of appeals found that the constitutional rights against being compelled to testify against oneself were not being breached. That's because the appeals court, like the police, agreed that the presence of child porn on his drives was a "foregone conclusion." The Fifth Amendment, at its most basic level, protects suspects from being forced to disclose incriminating evidence. In this instance, however, the authorities said they already know there's child porn on the drives, so Rawls' constitutional rights aren't compromised.

[...] The suspect's attorney, Federal Public Defender Keith Donoghue, was disappointed by the ruling.

"The fact remains that the government has not brought charges," Donoghue said in a telephone interview. "Our client has now been in custody for almost 18 months based on his assertion of his Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination."

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:35AM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:35AM (#483160)

    >Going after youngsters is abuse of an underdeveloped personality. Given the current state of affairs the age of reason is around 25. Let youngsters go with other youngsters if you feel they need to be sexually liberated. A pity sexual liberation is being documented as an utter failure.

    The God of the Armies says the man is the overlord of the female. He allows the rape of female children and for the man to keep the girl. What is most advantageous for the female is immaterial to he that worships God (rather than Jesus and Jesus' "Heavenly Father") as the female was made for the man and not the other way around (unlike Jesus' teachings where the man is to die for the woman).

  • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Thursday March 23 2017, @03:06PM (9 children)

    by marcello_dl (2685) on Thursday March 23 2017, @03:06PM (#483238)

    "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea."

    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:26PM (3 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:26PM (#483326) Journal

      Yeah I don't think that's what that passage actually refers to, but thanks for quoting it, as I predicted you would. What is the precise Koine word that's translated as "offend" here, and what does it mean in context?

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:46PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:46PM (#483341)

        The context is clearly different from a discussion on sexuality, but logically speaking, if a different kind of offense bears such consequences, sexual assault (assault because the receiver of sexual interest is in a handicapped position due to his scientifically proven immaturity) bears the same consequences or worse.
        I don't think you can argue that the passage does not mean "leave them kids alone" no matter the translation details.

        Also, if you speak about the context, read also the verses that follow, which are more general and still rough.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @11:41AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @11:41AM (#483598)

          God's Law:
          ---
          Men can rape female children and just keep them: Dtrnmy chapter 22, 28-29, in hebrew. (Discussion: http://pastebin.com/mzFJyxea [pastebin.com] )The hebrew refers to a girl (age, say from infancy till adolescence). The worst crime under women's christianity: a man having a nice sweet young girl: fine and endorsed under the law of the God (Not Jesus)

          (Also See Numbers 31, hebrew, notice female children and "take them for yourselves" (in hebrew: devour)

          Furthurmore Dtrnmy says do not go to the right nor the left, and if anyone entices you to follow another ruler/judge/god to kill them.

          It also refers to the man as ba'....(avoiding censorfilter)....al: master, of the female.

          As baalzebub was lord of the flies, the man is lord of woman.
          ---
          Jesus's Preaching:

          "You are of your father - a murderer from the begining" --Jesus talking about someone... seemingly the God of the Armies that we see in dtrnmy.

          "No man nor woman, all one in christ"

          "Do not stone the woman"
          "A man that looks at a woman has committed adultery"
          "Die for the woman"

          All inversions of Dtrnmy.

          "Better a millstone" cry of the american protestant is another one. (though out of context for once)

          Jesus came to free women from men and preach a false inclusive god: to take from men their victory over women and girls.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25 2017, @12:36PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25 2017, @12:36PM (#484082)

            > Men can rape female children and just keep them: Dtrnmy chapter 22

            LOL man, have you actually read it? if somebody rapes a girl then... means raping is against the law, not that it is OK. I guess you have trouble following law books?

            > (Discussion: http://pastebin.com/mzFJyxea [pastebin.com] )The hebrew refers to a girl
            Irrelevant.

            > (Also See Numbers 31, hebrew, notice female children and "take them for yourselves" (in hebrew: devour)
            yeah disprove this first
            http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2333 [apologeticspress.org]

            Furthurmore Dtrnmy says do not go to the right nor the left, and if anyone entices you to follow another ruler/judge/god to kill them.
            Jesus is not another ruler, unfortunately for you, he is one with the father.

            > It also refers to the man as ba'....(avoiding censorfilter)....al: master, of the female.
            God is your master and lets you live free. You just lost the argument.

            > ...
            what?

            > Jesus came to free women from men and preach a false inclusive god: to take from men their victory over women and girls.
            Inclusivity does not exist in the bible as a concept. Man is not against woman except in feminism and in your view, equivalently satanic. Feminists hid it better.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @11:45AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @11:45AM (#483600)

      Jesus can go to hell, marcello_d

      In america and all white societies the woman is the ruler (master) of the man and the man is mastered by the woman.

      The man must be loyal to the woman ("if you look at a woman, you have committed adultery with her in your heart") ("the man must set down his life for the woman"), the woman need not be loyal to the man ("do not stone the adulterous woman"). This is because while a servant (the man) may have but one master, a master, a ba'////al, may have many slaves.

      This is why you were denied entry into the US military. The US and white society exist so enforce the lordship of women over men. They bomb every country where men ruled over women and had child brides.

      This is in direct contradiction to the will of the God of Dtrnmy, whom Jesus hated and seems to have called "a murderer from the beginning, the father of lies". The God of Dtrnmy was the Israeli God of War (Lord of hosts: ie: lord of the armies). He set that the MAN was the ba'///al (master) of the female, that if a man raped a female child, the man paied the father money and kept the sweet qt-pie.
      (Dt 22, 28-29, hebrew (If you wish to argue, here's a refutation of your arguments: http://pastebin.com/mzFJyxea [pastebin.com] )

      Also note: Numbers 31:18, take the female children for yourselves (taph: child. lachem: means to devour in this section)

      White men, men who follow Jesus and reject God, men who say Jesus is god, who follow Jesus' teaching are at war with the remnants of the order God created and promoted.

      You were rejected because you are not a "white" man. Be joyful. White men are the enemies of all men on earth and of God. Be a celt, a gaul, a Roman, a Jew, a Russian. Do not be a white man (a new invention who needed a new lynchpin to keep together: and that is promoting the mastership of women over men and the eradication of "chomos" (men who like girls, somehow white men think this is "gay" (sure: it would make men very happy, to have a sweetiepie)))

      • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Friday March 24 2017, @03:17PM (3 children)

        by marcello_dl (2685) on Friday March 24 2017, @03:17PM (#483678)

        Your POV is unsustainable without implying the scriptures, which put Jesus as the only god, becoming man in every aspect, have been altered. If they have been altered we are discussing about nothingness or about a different religion.

        Yes I know some guys like to think the Bible does not say Jesus is God, but all their objections and theorems I have found inconclusive/trolling. Of course, people are free to believe in whatever set of books.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @09:03PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @09:03PM (#483865)

          The Torah puts the God who said that he is who he is as the only God.

          It existed before Jesus and the New Testament renunciation of the Law.

          Just as the New Testament existed before Muhammed's book.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25 2017, @12:07PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 25 2017, @12:07PM (#484079)

            The NT is the only set of books in continuity with the Torah, The Talmud is not, the Koran bwaahahahahah.
            The NT did not renounce the Law, Mt 7:21, John 14... actually Jesus made it stricter. What you call renunciation is probably the fact that the law never saved anybody BY ITSELF and never took away any original sin. Jesus can.

          • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Monday March 27 2017, @08:37PM

            by marcello_dl (2685) on Monday March 27 2017, @08:37PM (#484852)

            The divine nature of Jesus makes the phrase "God existed before Jesus" utterly meaningless.