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This discussion has been archived.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, @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.