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.

>> 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?

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

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

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

> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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".

So, you want to throw out confessions then?

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

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

>> > 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.

Yeah, perjury laws really stopped organized crime, didn't  they? "Yes
your honor, I cannot committ perjury; I killed those 4 people."

Sheesh.

Mike