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 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.