mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> Eric Takabayashi <etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:
> > 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?
>
> I'm guessing you also have problems with, say, the 9th, and 10th.

Not from reading them. Only parts of the four I've mentioned, the First, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth.

> Sorry, but doesn't fabricating criminals MAKE society (and by extension
> you) a criminal?

Yes, it does. Criminal cops should also be treated as criminals.

> And again, why do you have no objection to fabricated evidence?

Why does support of search and seizure mean support of fabricating evidence?

> > The Fifth is about self incrimination.
>
> Yes it is. Admitting you were at a place at the wrong time can be part
> of self-incrimination, even if you had nothing to do with the event in
> question.

I'd rather put myself in a compromising situation, perhaps with an opportunity to explain myself,
than have the prosecution and mass media reveal it for me as if I were hiding something.

> >> 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.
>
> Sorry, breath tests take a coupla seconds.

Yes, they might. But immediately submitting to one may not be the only way available. Getting a
lawyer or waiting for a blood test or urinalysis may take a while longer. I've never been given or
offered a breath test, BTW. That cop had no clue, if it were his intent to back up his claim I
failed the dexterity test.

> So, you want to throw out confessions then?

No. But getting the wrong DNA from a woman sure beats a confession, as some wrongly jailed men have
found. Thank God for DNA testing. Now we need to find the guys that DNA came from.

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

Oh, good. Just had to be sure.

> I just don't see your way being in any way an improvement.

Then what should law enforcement do in cases we can't "know", because the defendant is sitting on
practically all the information, as in a missing persons/possibly also murder case with few or no
eyewitnesses? Try to base a case on speculation and have it dismissed or have an acquittal? You
don't want too much to be searched. You don't want defendants to have to talk, even if it is the
truth and could actually help them.

> Yeah, perjury laws really stopped organized crime, didn't  they?

You are against perjury being a crime, simply because people break such a law?

> "Yes your honor, I cannot committ perjury; I killed those 4 people."

You know they lied? I'd rather tell people I did something myself, than have it uncovered later as
if I had something to hide.