mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> So, basically, you disagree with the Bill of Rights.

Also the First Amendment. That makes three, or I should say, PARTS of three amendments. Why do
you say basically, as if I support throwing it all out?

> As for the search and seizure, well, that should be obvious, given that
> things can "find" their way into your possession if a cop is so
> inclined. As for pleading the 5th, why should an  innocent person help
> build a prosecutor's case

So we can know as much as we can. Why should a criminal go free because prosecutors aren't
allowed to know enough, or perhaps near nothing?

> by admitting to things that do not necessarily indicate you committed a crime?

The Fifth is about self incrimination. Lawyers can still debate what questions are actually
irrelevant.

> > or to have lawyers keep them from revealing practically any information, relevant or
> > irrelevant, such as, Police officer: "Were you drinking tonight?" Drunk, driving
> > suspiciously: "I don't have to answer that." or "I want to call my lawyer"? Why must the
>
> No, you don't; you must submit to a breath  test, though.

Not only a breath test, if you so choose. But the clock is ticking, while people delay.

> An interesting article the other day in the paper; man released after 40
> years imprisonment for a "confession" gotten without an attorney
> present.
>
> I know, it doesn't bother you...

It does. Which is why a better examination must be made, such as with improved technology, to
"know".

Does it bother you that other criminals actually walk, because prosecution is not allowed to
"know"?

> > something I've done, I'll damn well tell them, even if it was something wrong or
>
> Well, that's nice.
>
> I'm sure everyone would do the same, yes?

If they were required by law (and perjury still a crime), it would be an improvement.