SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Wednesday March 22 2017, @11:53AM (22 children)
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.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday March 22 2017, @04:16PM (10 children)
You don't have any morals anyway so on what basis do you make this judgment? Anyone who refers to non-Christians as "your team" and espouses a combination of "might makes right" and "fuck you Cthulhu does what he wants" is in no position to be making claims about what's right or wrong. You showed your true colors amply.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by ragequit on Wednesday March 22 2017, @08:51PM (5 children)
Did you reply to the wrong person or something? marcello_dl seems to be on your side. Likewise, your response doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with what he wrote...
Besides, Cthulhu does not do what he wants as Cthulhu is still trapped in R'lyeh and lies dreaming.
The above views are fabricated for your reading pleasure.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 23 2017, @02:18AM (4 children)
Oh no, not at all. In a previous thread he's gone on a looooong, spergy serial sociopathic dump as to why no one can judge the Christian God because it's like characters in a novel judging the author (and stubbornly refusing to see the category error there no matter how many times I point it out). He also refers to non-Christians as "your team," and invokes the "God knows more than you so you can't judge his actions" defense any reasonably perceptive third grader can think his or her way around. I smell smug, arrogant triumphalism.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:32AM (2 children)
The christian god is Jesus and "his heavenly father". Christians have rejected the law of God (the one who said "I Am" when asked his name) and God's laws. They see God as "the adversary" and pine for Jesus and Jesus' "Heavenly Father", whomever that is.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:34PM (1 child)
Matthew 5:17-20 "Think not that I have come to abolish the Law. I have come not to abolish, but to fulfill. I tell you truly, whoever keeps these commandments shall be called great in heaven, but whoever breaks the least of them, and teaches others to do so, the same shall be called least in heaven."
Jesus is on your side (and you can ALL go to Hell...).
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @12:08PM
He speaks that one passage when he's trying to spare his kneck.
Before (and his followers after) constantly negate and deride the law in the written Torah.
They see the Law as now being ret-conned into "Grace", or just false and a forgery (like the muslims see it).
Christians totally reject any pro-child marraige laws as invalid.
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Saturday March 25 2017, @02:28PM
> as to why no one can judge the Christian God
Read again.
No one is logically able to judge ANYTHING in the hypothetical domain for which this reality is a creation. That includes ANY god.
In practice everybody judges all gods including the absent one, but that is a matter of opinion. Seems ABC to me.
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Thursday March 23 2017, @03:19PM (3 children)
Except mine was not a moral speech.
Let's put it this way, arm wrestling of a full grown adult with a child will result in the child being injured. Weight lifting, ditto.
Cue the "but that youtube video of the child weight lifter..." Yes. So? there are 12 years old that can perfectly drive a car, better than you and me, and whose personality would enable them to be responsible drivers. So what? are we going to reduce the driving age to 12 because of a few corner cases? Does not work that way.
Besides, what are we discussing?
If you really love that young person, and it is truly reciprocal, you could wait till the young gets 40, or it ain't love. If it ain't love it's sex. If it's sex a mismatch of sexual organ age is still wrong, mechanically.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:26PM (2 children)
Your God, as Kvaratskhelia continuously pointed out, had no problem whatsoever with rape, underage marriages, and sexual slavery or abuse. For all the bitching he does about Jesus supposedly being at odds with Yahweh, nothing is further from the truth. Jesus never once spoke a (recorded) word, anywhere, about not doing this. So you and Mikee are in precisely the same position here, even if he's too damn biblically illiterate to know that.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @11:55AM
As for the New Testament, in one breath Jesus declares the Law valid, and in the other he condemns circumcision ("I made him ever whit whole"), stoning of adulteress women, and proclaims himself the arbitor of all things, proclaims the father of the Jews as the adversary, and parodys a greek tyrants law against lewd acts against women and boys ("any man that offends a free woman or a boy is to be executed or fined by the assembly", now Jesus: "any man that offends one of these children it is better if a millstone were tied around their kneck and they thrown into the sea" -- the greek reader would recall the tyrant's laws and see a double meaning: just as modern christians do). He completely rejects the old order in one breath, and affirms it in the next when his kneck is on the line. So one can say anything any which way when it comes to Christianity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 24 2017, @12:01PM
>So you and Mikee are in precisely the same position here,
marcello_dl rejects the Law and the will of the God of the Armies.
I do not. I want that God's Law to become what we live and die by again, and I want many to die by it, so men may have female children again as brides. And the 50 percent of white men who are proud protectors of women and children; who will return with their shields or on it (while "their" women fuck whomever they wish, and if the men lose the women fuck the victors), who oppose, I want those white men to be murdered in a cruel manner.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @10:35AM (10 children)
>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)
"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)
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)
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)
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
> 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)
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)
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)
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
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
The divine nature of Jesus makes the phrase "God existed before Jesus" utterly meaningless.