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 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.