Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
Gun control in the USA
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
I have. Repeatedly. To quote you; "you just don't like my answer"
Except I gave you an answer as to why your initial response didn't make sense and you haven't even tried to elaborate on it.The one you built pretending you are interested in having an actual discussion about the right to silence.
I'm only pretending to be interested in this? I'm pretending for awfully long time.
Under State law in my state, no police officer can question me other than to establish my permit to carry such a firearm unless he has probable cause that I may have committed a crime. Even then I have the right to silence. You may not like that fact, but that is the law.
The parts in bold contradict each other. Are you saying that even though your state requires a permit to carry a gun, that you don't actually have to present it when a policeman asks to see it? You can just stay silent and he cant do anything about it? How does the state determine if you actually have a permit? How is that not open to incredible levels of abuse?As I explained, it is not a weapon until used as such. In the case of a guard, I have a right to silence, which follows from innocent until proved otherwise. If I chose to remain silent, I may ask the guard on what basis he is detaining me, and if he has no substance I am free to go. You are forgetting that he has no right to search me unless he gives a reason.
Saying that you have the right to silence is not justification for that right. That's circular reasoning.Or do you not have a case to make?
I dont have to make a case if you can't justify yours.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Mark Hamill wrote: »Except I gave you an answer as to why your initial response didn't make sense and you haven't even tried to elaborate on it.
Care to quote that? You have a habit of alluding to something ages and pages back.
But not so interested that a separate thread on the right to silence is appropriate as we are massivelt off-topic? Right. I'm only pretending to be interested in this? I'm pretending for awfully long time.
That's not what I said. I said I have the right to silence - I can silently hand over my CCW permit. All of that is irrelevant anyway if the gun is on my hip in plain sight. I'm in an open carry state.The parts in bold contradict each other. Are you saying that even though your state requires a permit to carry a gun, that you don't actually have to present it when a policeman asks to see it?
I don't need a permit for open carry. I have the right to silence. I have the right to own and carry a gun. What abuse?You can just stay silent and he cant do anything about it? How does the state determine if you actually have a permit? How is that not open to incredible levels of abuse?
Your reasoning is circular. I give you a reason and you say it is not a reason and then ask for a reason.Saying that you have the right to silence is not justification for that right. That's circular reasoning.
I have shown you how the right to silence proceeds from the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, do I need to 'prove' why innocent until proven guilty exists? What exactly is this justification you are looking for? A discussion on Hammurabi's law codes?
I keep giving you examples and you ignore them.
I gave you a study of innocence and interrogation and you ignored it.
I give you first principle answers and you ignore them
I give you natural law reasons and you ignore them
I give you constitional reasons and you ignore them
Now for the sixth and final time - because I am sick of your disingenuous nonsense - answer my question:Which is exactly what you are doing.
You want to argue against a major tenet of the justice system, yet absolutely refuse to give any reason for the removal of the right to silence.
If you want an argument from first principles it necessarily flows from "innocent until proven guilty" - The right to silence exists as it necessarily follows from the fundamental principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proof of the alleged crime beyond reasonable doubt and that no defendant is required to prove his or her innocence.
Now show me, intelligently, how this is wrong.I dont have to make a case if you can't justify yours.
You mean you cannot see a way out of the corner you painted yourself into, i have justified my position over and over. Grow a pair and justify yours.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »No. I'm not even looking for an all encompassing justification for the right to silence. A justification in relation to carrying a concealed weapon will do.
When did the two things become confused in your mind. That's right, when you asserted that someone who did carry a concealed weapon was up to no good unless they proved they were innocent.
Increasingly, in the US the law disagrees with you.
Now explain why I should have to justify a legal right to you?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Mark Hamill wrote: »For the last time: I didn't propose a position, so I have nothing to expound upon.
In the words of Quentin Tarantino "Oh yes you did, yes you did!"
You said
andMark Hamill wrote: »Guilt can be inferred from silence.
Are you just going to pretend you didn't say these? No attempt to justify them? Glossed over?Mark Hamill wrote: »Why exactly shouldn't guilt be implied from silence?
Come on, man up. Admit you only said that to interrogate my position and that in fact when it comes to this whole debate on the right to silence you are as dishonest as it gets. You don't believe this at all because you know it is indefensible and to argue that it is loses you the debate.
Refusing to defend your own statements is making you look foolish. And as your argument is that appearances of guilt are also guilt, it makes you a fool.
I would hold that is no evidence you are a fool, but according to your system of extablishing guilt you have declared yourself a fool.
And I am supposed to defend my points ad neausum? Do we get to declare a winner on points?I wouldn't start another thread as I am only interested in the right to silence as far as it relates to the points you've made on this thread.Now this is getting confusing. Way back when, you said "Under State law in my state, no police officer can question me other than to establish my permit to carry such a firearm". Now you are saying that in your state, you don't need to have a permit. Can you make up your mind which state you are from? And then can you answer th question about having a permit to own the gun in the first place (would present that, if asked, right?).
If you actually read New Mexico gun law it would not be confusing.
No permit needed to own a handgun
No permit needed to Open Carry a handgun
A Concealed Carry permit is required to Concealed Carry.
The questioning happens if the officer sees me carry in a concealed manner, he can then request to see that permit.
I should have been specific about the type of carry originally, apologies.
The law is not about 'appearances' Murray v. United Kingdom in the European Court of Human Rights makes it clear that a court can make no inference from the silence of a suspect who has not the benefit of legal counsel.As I already explained, staying silent wont protect you from corrupt cops (it just makes you look completely indistinguishable from a criminal not cooperating with genuine cops).
Mark, your naïveté in this makes me go D'awww! but you have clearly never been arrested. You don't get to pick your cop like Cilla giving you a choice of three, honestly I don't know where you get this from, but it is bordering on delusional.They might fake a statement from you, or fake evidence that gets you charged (evidence more likely to be disregarded if you made clear statements from the beginning). A better method in that situation is to request an impartial cop because you believe the interviewers are compromised in some way.
How is it paranoid? It is simply a fact. A guard is not asking for the good of his health and your answer may detirmine if they decide to arrest you.You may not use the word, but you describe a paranoid observation (that a guard asking a question is making an implicit accusation).
Common law proceeds from the fact that a Guard may not detain someone they suspect of committing a crime "for questioning" - however they will question as suspect for as long as he/she voluntarily gives up information. A guard asking questions about an item is detention that you consent to. That consent can be withdraw at any time.
Why do you think cops used to "ask you to accompany me to the Station to assist with our enquiries" - there is no obligation to do so unless you are under arrest.
If it is not paranoid to ask, why do you persist in using that word. You have no basis to do so.Again with the paranoia.
And yet Shari'ah law also presumes that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. It seems that the Natural Law is the same there. How strange.I didn't point out a perceived flaw, I asked for a clarification because I didn't know what you meant.
The problem with natural law is that it is incredibly subjective. Natural law for you is not the same as natural law in, say, Saudi Arabia. Just because someone says it is natural law (in their opinion) doesn't mean it doesn't need justification.
No others? You are just my shadow are you, a little devils advocate.My conviction is that you are wrong in this debate.
Please. What a pathetic response.
And here we go...as predicted.And here we see the problem with this debate in one little paragraph.
Firstly: Questioning something is not the same as saying you don't believe it.
Yawn.
Pedantic semantics to avoid answering the questions put to you. Cosy in that corner is it?
Of course there is, and it is the subject to much debate. But you wanted to argue first principles not the exceptions - and you have not, and will not justify "guilty until proven innocent.Secondly: There is always middle ground because there is always the question of application of rights, and the responsibilities of rights.
Then admit that you actually do believe in the right to silence and it is just the application of that right in specific circumstances that you object to and we can move on. You put yourself in that corner not me.You see, thats why I question you and not make a separate thread on the right to silence. I don't want to question the right, I just want to question your application of it.
I haven't once mentioned the Magna Carta. But if you want to talk about individual's rights in relation to the law, you cannot simply ignore their basic human rights.Your habit of redirecting my questioning of your perspective of the right onto the right in general (not to mention completely unrelated rights or topics like the constitution or the Magna Carta :rolleyes:) is what is making these posts and this topic so long.
Mark, if you can't be honest enough to give a genuine account of your own position in relation to the right, then it doesn't bode well for us to have a genuine debate. If your position is entirely dependent on how well I argue mine in your mind then I think you are are getting entirely too personal in this thread.I questioned that to you, to see if you even understood the right to silence in general. If you can't explain it in general, then it doesn't bode well for the specific situations applicable under this thread.
Under the law they are already presumed innocent so they don't have to.An innocent person would declare their innocence.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution, 'casting' is not the same as proving beyond reasonable doubt.Evidence that cast suspicion upon an innocent person will only continue to do so if they don't explain it.
Now you are the one reaching for circumstances beyond the one we originally discussed. The right to silence extends only to questioning by police - not in a court of law.
On the street, without legal counsel, the wise man shuts up.
Is this your best argument? I can now see why you don't wish to try and justify your statements.
On the contrary, what I have been repeatedly asked that if you are going to question society, you better provide a good reason for change. In the absence of reasoned change the status quo is the default position.So, society shouldn't do X because society doesn't do X? Well done, you have just successfully argued for the complete stagnation of human society.Well you would have, if that wasn't a massive logical fallacy. Because we don't is not a justification for why we don't. Try again.
Contrast with your position that I am wrong because I am wrong. Or that I am wrong because I cannot explain my position to your (impossible) satisfaction.
In answer to your question,
Hallelujah!! Praise Jesus!
Under what statute in Irish law "non-cooperation" a crime?well its no so much that silent people should be assumed to be 100% guilty (although non cooperation with the police is a good starting point)
The onus is on the prosecution to explain in court why that evidence proves they are guilty. "He looked shifty, yer honour" is not acceptable in a court of law.but that whatever it is that first makes a person look guilty, that doesn't disappear if they don't explain why it doesn't make them guilty.
If you have some (scientific) evidence that appears to point to someone's guilt, wouldn't they be foolish to say anything until they have had the (scientific) opportunity to examine (or have their counsel examine) it properly and not whilst under the stress of interrogation.Think about it scientifically, if you have some compelling evidence that implicates someone (makes them appear guilty) and they will not explain it (despite the opportunity) is there any reason to disregard that evidence?
They do not have to give any explanation until questioned in a court of law. In my view, that is as it should be.
The rules of evidence govern this - the evidence is not ignored if a suspect says nothing about it. What an absurd proposition, it is entered into evidence and the suspect will be examined on it in court.
This is basic TV drama level law for heaven's sake.
You keep using that word 'look'. A suspect is not convicted on looks, but on proof beyond reasonable doubt. If they were I would have been banged up long agoStaying silent, at best, leaves them looking equally as guilty.
0 -
Come on, man up. Admit you only said that to interrogate my position and that in fact when it comes to this whole debate on the right to silence you are as dishonest as it gets. You don't believe this at all because you know it is indefensible and to argue that it is loses you the debate.
I explained both of those statements (in the posts you quote and subsequent ones), they were not what you were referring to when you said that I wasn't letting you question me (you were referring to the times you kept asking me to justify rejecting the right to silence). This is the problem when you change the goalposts as much as you do. You even forget what point you were making.Refusing to defend your own statements is making you look foolish. And as your argument is that appearances of guilt are also guilt, it makes you a fool.
I would hold that is no evidence you are a fool, but according to your system of extablishing guilt you have declared yourself a fool.
Bull****, I have never made that argument. I have said that staying silent makes you look guilty, but I never said it makes you guilty.And I am supposed to defend my points ad neausum? Do we get to declare a winner on points?
Just once, if you do it successfully.The law is not about 'appearances' Murray v. United Kingdom in the European Court of Human Rights makes it clear that a court can make no inference from the silence of a suspect who has not the benefit of legal counsel.
The law is entirely about appearances. As much as we legislate to say that courts should pass judgement objectively, the people involved (judges and juries) are still very fallible humans who will prejudices sway them.
Also note that you example stretches to silence in the absence of legal counsel. Meaning inferences can be made if silence is kept after legal counsel sis obtained. Making your original paper an argument for the right to legal counsel (to protect against coercive cops).Mark, your naïveté in this makes me go D'awww! but you have clearly never been arrested. You don't get to pick your cop like Cilla giving you a choice of three, honestly I don't know where you get this from, but it is bordering on delusional.
Never said you could, I offered it as an alternative system. If you believe your interrogator is compromised, better to make that statement from the start, rather than half way through.How is it paranoid? It is simply a fact. A guard is not asking for the good of his health and your answer may detirmine if they decide to arrest you.
A guard has to ask questions to get any idea of an incident. Assuming that a guard who asking people "what happened" is actually accusing them is paranoid.A guard asking questions about an item is detention that you consent to.
So if a guard pulls you over for a random breathalyser test, you would declare you right to silence, not cooperate and expect to be let go?If it is not paranoid to ask, why do you persist in using that word. You have no basis to do so.
Your selective quoting is horrible. The very next sentence explains what I meant: I didn't point out a perceived flaw, I asked for a clarification because I didn't know what you meant.And yet Shari'ah law also presumes that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. It seems that the Natural Law is the same there. How strange.
I though you were presenting yourself as in someway knowledgeable in natural law? Natural law is not just the one point of "innocent until proven guilty" its mo... wait a minute why the hell are you going on about innocent until proven guilty? I never questioned that. More fecking goalpost moving :rolleyes:No others? You are just my shadow are you, a little devils advocate.
Please. What a pathetic response. Seriously now, who else has posted in this thread, on your side of the debate? (besides jank, who has just been your parrot).
And here we go...as predicted.
Yawn.
Pedantic semantics to avoid answering the questions put to you. Cosy in that corner is it?
Pointing out that you knew where I was going to point out the flaw doesn't make it any more of a flaw. It does kinda question why you would stick to the flaw despite seeing it yourself though.
Also, I've answered the questions, and its not semantics, its plain English.Of course there is, and it is the subject to much debate. But you wanted to argue first principles not the exceptions - and you have not, and will not justify "guilty until proven innocent.
As I already explained, I wanted to see if you could explain first principles seeing as you can't justify your particular application.
And again, I never proposed "guilty until proven innocent", drop the blatant lies.Then admit that you actually do believe in the right to silence and it is just the application of that right in specific circumstances that you object to and we can move on. You put yourself in that corner not me.
What corner? I never put myself in any corner because I've not proposed any of things you've said. For instance, the thing you want me to admit know, is what I just said in the sentence you quoted.I haven't once mentioned the Magna Carta. But if you want to talk about individual's rights in relation to the law, you cannot simply ignore their basic human rights.
Maybe it was jank who said Magan Carta, but that was after you mentioned the constitution.
Rejecting your proposed application of a right is not the same thing as rejecting the right itself, at all. But thats what you imply I have done, each time you ask me to justify rejecting the right to silence in general, or the constitution or something else dishonest.Mark, if you can't be honest enough to give a genuine account of your own position in relation to the right, then it doesn't bode well for us to have a genuine debate. If your position is entirely dependent on how well I argue mine in your mind then I think you are are getting entirely too personal in this thread.
Is english not your first language? Thats the only reason I can see for how you misread almost everything I post. To give this response to that paragraph is just baffling.Under the law they are already presumed innocent so they don't have to.
But it benefits them too declare (explain) their innocence. Staying silent benefits the guilty more than the innocent.The right to silence extends only to questioning by police - not in a court of law.
Thanks for proving my point. My point that you don't enough about the right to silence to making assertions about it. The right to silence does not stop with police, it extends into the court of law.On the contrary, what I have been repeatedly asked that if you are going to question society, you better provide a good reason for change. In the absence of reasoned change the status quo is the default position.
But I'm not questioning society. I'm questioning you.Contrast with your position that I am wrong because I am wrong. Or that I am wrong because I cannot explain my position to your (impossible) satisfaction.
You are wrong because your arguments are a fallacious.Under what statute in Irish law "non-cooperation" a crime?
Didn't say it was a crime, I said it made you appear guilty.The onus is on the prosecution to explain in court why that evidence proves they are guilty. "He looked shifty, yer honour" is not acceptable in a court of law.
Never said it was acceptable (your interpretations of my posts are getting worse by the minute) in fact, the prosecution explaining why the evidence makes someone guilty is part of my answer. The prosecution will try to explain how some evidence removes reasonable doubt (makes someone look guilty). An early explanation in police custody is more effective than a last minute explanation in court at restoring reasonable doubt.If you have some (scientific) evidence that appears to point to someone's guilt, wouldn't they be foolish to say anything until they have had the (scientific) opportunity to examine (or have their counsel examine) it properly and not whilst under the stress of interrogation.
They do not have to give any explanation until questioned in a court of law. In my view, that is as it should be.
The rules of evidence govern this - the evidence is not ignored if a suspect says nothing about it. What an absurd proposition, it is entered into evidence and the suspect will be examined on it in court.
This is basic TV drama level law for heaven's sake.
Because court room dramas make good tv. But why put yourself through that in real life? Why waste everyones time and effort if you can just explain yourself when you are first questioned. Even if you do want to wait for your legal counsel, wouldn't it be better to explain yourself then, then to drag everything out to a court date, possibly spend a night or two in lock up?You keep using that word 'look'. A suspect is not convicted on looks, but on proof beyond reasonable doubt. If they were I would have been banged up long ago
When I say "look" I mean based on evidence, not physical appearance. Is there not a semi-cliched phrase in cop dramas along the line of "he looks good for the crime" (ie the evidence points to him)?0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »I explained both of those statements (in the posts you quote and subsequent ones), they were not what you were referring to when you said that I wasn't letting you question me (you were referring to the times you kept asking me to justify rejecting the right to silence). This is the problem when you change the goalposts as much as you do. You even forget what point you were making.
Frankly I'm not the one changing goalposts. We were discussing gun control, you seem to have lost sight of that and wrapped yourself up in some frottage about how well I can argue the right to silence. Seriously, take a minute to ask yourself 'what the ****'.
Frankly, lies. Blatant ones too.Bull****, I have never made that argument. I have said that staying silent makes you look guilty, but I never said it makes you guilty.
andMark Hamill wrote: »Guilt can be inferred from silence.Mark Hamill wrote: »Why exactly shouldn't guilt be implied from silence?
Now I suppose you will come back with some supposed semantic bullcrap about how "inferring" is not the same as actually being guilty. Or "implied" means a ferret is guilty not a human.
You are possibly the most dishonest poster on boards I'm engaged with.
Oh I see, the Mighty Mark Hamill will pass judgement as he sees fit. Seriously, get the fuck over your inflated sense of self-importance.Just once, if you do it successfully.
The law is entirely not about appearances. The onus on the prosecution is entirely about proving through objective evidence their case beyond reasonable doubt.There are plenty of people found standing over their spouses holding bloody knives who were innocent. If the law were about appearances, we would not have the axiom "appearances can be deceptive".The law is entirely about appearances. As much as we legislate to say that courts should pass judgement objectively, the people involved (judges and juries) are still very fallible humans who will prejudices sway them.
Mark, you cannot just jump to an illogical corollary like that from a test of the law, proving that nothing can be inferred from silence under rule of law does not prove that something can be inferred after counsel has been obtained. The law simply doesn't work that way. Otherwise I could obtain ownership of property by proving that my neighbour doesn't own it.Also note that you example stretches to silence in the absence of legal counsel. Meaning inferences can be made if silence is kept after legal counsel sis obtained.
Have you read it yet? Point me to that conclusion in it.Making your original paper an argument for the right to legal counsel (to protect against coercive cops).
Arguing with you is like wrestling a six stone politician slathered in baby oil. Slippery doesn't do it justice.Never said you could, I offered it as an alternative system.
You said:Mark Hamill wrote: »A better method in that situation is to request an impartial cop because you believe the interviewers are compromised in some way.
I said that it doesn't work that way, that the cops don't give you a choice. And when that fact is pointed out to you, you respond with "I offered it as an alternative system" So now you are proposing some kind of right to a "beauty contest" a suspect can have in choosing their interrogator. What a stupid idea.
I expect now you will play your usual line of I said "offered" not "proposed" they don't mean the same, "I never said that".
And that statement would involve invoking the right to silence, except Opps! better not do that you might "look" bad.If you believe your interrogator is compromised, better to make that statement from the start, rather than half way through.
Why did you change the question? The question we were discussing was "Why do you have that?" It is an implicit accusation because the wrong answer (in the eyes of the guard) gets you arrested.A guard has to ask questions to get any idea of an incident. Assuming that a guard who asking people "what happened" is actually accusing them is paranoid.
You have this bizarre notion of the right to silence as some kind of meta "get out of jail free" card. In your example you would be arrested not for keeping silent but for failing to provide a specimen. No where in that encounter do you need to say anything, and silence would not equal "failure to provide" - not blowing in the bag would be the "failure to provide".So if a guard pulls you over for a random breathalyser test, you would declare you right to silence, not cooperate and expect to be let go?
EDIT: Answer the question; Under what statute in Irish law is "non-cooperation" a crime?
So in the process of asking for clarification, you describe the situation as 'paranoid' even though you didn't fully understand what I meant. Wow.Your selective quoting is horrible.
The very next sentence explains what I meant: I didn't point out a perceived flaw, I asked for a clarification because I didn't know what you meant.
I see you didn't dispute that "Common law proceeds from the fact that a Guard may not detain someone they suspect of committing a crime "for questioning" - however they will question as suspect for as long as he/she voluntarily gives up information. A guard asking questions about an item is detention that you consent to. That consent can be withdraw at any time. "
Well, you were clearly ignorant of the fact that "innocent until proven guilty" also forms part of Shariah law. As you were telling me how natural law is so very different in Saudi Arabia, tell me again how wrong I am about that. Care to pick another country? North Korea perhaps?I though you were presenting yourself as in someway knowledgeable in natural law?
I'm moving the goalposts? Seriously, have a talk with yourself.Natural law is not just the one point of "innocent until proven guilty" its mo... wait a minute why the hell are you going on about innocent until proven guilty? I never questioned that. More fecking goalpost moving :rolleyes:
"I never questioned that"
ORLY?
Care to explain your suspicious activity with a spade and a goalpost?Mark Hamill wrote: »I never proposed the removal of the right of silence, I questioned it being there in the first place.
Oh dear Mark. An argumentum ad populum? Really? Times must be tough. Seriously now, who else has posted in this thread, on your side of the debate? (besides jank, who has just been your parrot).
Firstly, you have become so byzantine in your contortions of what your actual viewpoint really means, I][SIZE="1"]not this but that, not support but questioning, but not questioning it's something something.[/SIZE][/I that people have just stopped listening to you.
As to trying to make this a popularity contest, you yourself identify someone supporting my viewpoint, and then (pathetically) go on to insult them as a "parrot" - I'm sure jank is capable of independent thought. Unless you are suggesting jank is a sock puppet account, in which case, feel free to have the mods investigate. I'm sure you will look fetching with egg dripping down your face.
But, if you do want me to make an argumentum ad populum, I can simply remind you that the right to silence is the way we as a society have agreed to do things, and to abide by that way of doing things. All very well arguing with me about my belief in it, but that will not change the agreement reached by society to do it now will it?
I could say gray was a colour and you would start into colour theory and the physics of light. Fact is, you simple don't want an honest debate.Pointing out that you knew where I was going to point out the flaw doesn't make it any more of a flaw. It does kinda question why you would stick to the flaw despite seeing it yourself though.
In all these posts you have made one weak attempt to justify your position, and I showed you where it does not support your case. You even bizarrely are under the impression that a suspect staying silent means evidence is ignored, I have no idea where you got that from.Also, I've answered the questions, and its not semantics, its plain English.
Do I need to explain the laws of thermodynamics if I assert that this kettle is a good one?As I already explained, I wanted to see if you could explain first principles seeing as you can't justify your particular application.
Then admit what you actually believe. It is not hard.And again, I never proposed "guilty until proven innocent", drop the blatant lies.
Do you believe your statement "Guilt can be inferred from silence." or not? If a silent person may be presumed guilty then he is "guilty until proven innocent".
I'm quoting what you said, not making it up.
You know admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery...What corner? I never put myself in any corner because I've not proposed any of things you've said.
The thing in the sentence? If we are going to multi-quote lets be specific, confusing for everyone now...For instance, the thing you want me to admit know, is what I just said in the sentence you quoted.
*Sigh* Pointing to the fact that the right to silence exists in the majority of the constitutions of the world is a dubious argument now is it? Dear me.Maybe it was jank who said Magan Carta, but that was after you mentioned the constitution.
We apply the right generally A right not applied generally is a privilege not a right. We have very, very few exceptions to that right and they are fiercely challenged.Rejecting your proposed application of a right is not the same thing as rejecting the right itself, at all. But thats what you imply I have done, each time you ask me to justify rejecting the right to silence in general, or the constitution or something else dishonest.
Now I would accept that you might challenge the application of a right, if you would honestly lay out your position as to why that application should be an exception. But you have not done that. You have asked me to justify the right to your satisfaction and then consistantly not accepted my justification. And that is why it is you that is being dishonest in this debate.
Is civility not in your vocabulary?Is english not your first language?
You are baffled that I would ask you to be straightforward about your position when you have ducked and dived over and over. You might remember I posted this:Thats the only reason I can see for how you misread almost everything I post. To give this response to that paragraph is just baffling.
Here's a space:
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
Fill it with reasons to why the right to silence should not exist
After all you said:Mark Hamill wrote: »I never proposed the removal of the right of silence, I questioned it being there in the first place.
So what if you think that? The law is there to protect the innocent - is that hard to grasp?But it benefits them too declare (explain) their innocence. Staying silent benefits the guilty more than the innocent.
Thanks for proving my point. My point that you don't enough about the right to silence to making assertions about it. The right to silence does not stop with police, it extends into the court of law.
Well, well. Except that very link identifies the very cases were an individual may be compelled to testify. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Grand_juryBut I'm not questioning society. I'm questioning you.
Wow. Do you not see how stupid that sounds. First you whine about my "redirection"Mark Hamill wrote: »I don't want to question the right, I just want to question your application of it. Your habit of redirecting my questioning of your perspective of the right onto the right in general (not to mention completely unrelated rights or topics like the constitution or the Magna Carta :rolleyes:) is what is making these posts and this topic so long.
Then you propose we have a discussion about my "perspective", but that general discussion of the right itself and society's acceptance of it, and common law, the bill of rights etc is off limits.
Freaky.
Oh, I thought it was my perspective that we were discussing.You are wrong because your arguments are a fallacious.
Here's my perspective again. The right to silence exists. The right to silence is a good thing and should remain part of the legal code. End of. Problem?
And I have shown you repeatedly that the appearance of guilt is irrelevant under the rule of law. I can appear in a clown suit in court and it will make me appear ridiculous, but I am no more guilty in the eyes of the law than the guy in a suit.Didn't say it was a crime, I said it made you appear guilty.
If you don't want me to mis-interpret your posts, be precise. Saying someone 'looks' guilty is not appropriate language to prove guilt. A racist may conclude a person looks guilty based on their colour.Never said it was acceptable (your interpretations of my posts are getting worse by the minute) in fact, the prosecution explaining why the evidence makes someone guilty is part of my answer. The prosecution will try to explain how some evidence removes reasonable doubt (makes someone look guilty).
Evidence is evidence, if the prosecution have evidence then a suspects silence is irrelevant, however if the evidence is flawed they may not fall back on the suspect's silence as proof that he (as you would say) looks guilty.
Firstly, the example we have been discussing all along (street search) is not custody. Secondly, that's quite an assertion "more effective" -do you have any objective evidence for that, or is it, y'know like, just your opinion, man.An early explanation in police custody is more effective than a last minute explanation in court at restoring reasonable doubt.
Because court room dramas make good tv. But why put yourself through that in real life?
I only maintained you have the right to do so. I'm agnostic as to what a person actually does.
Without legal counsel? What a dumb idea.Why waste everyones time and effort if you can just explain yourself when you are first questioned.Even if you do want to wait for your legal counsel, wouldn't it be better to explain yourself then, then to drag everything out to a court date, possibly spend a night or two in lock up?
The law allows that it (for example) depends how much you want your wife to find out where you actually were on that night, explaining yourself whilst might have a perfectly innocent explanation may also compromise your personal life. Doesn't mean you are guilty though.
There is also the point of view that the suspect was so drunk he cannot remember what he did that night, so fears his guilt, when he is in fact completely innocent.When I say "look" I mean based on evidence, not physical appearance. Is there not a semi-cliched phrase in cop dramas along the line of "he looks good for the crime" (ie the evidence points to him)?
Cop drama language is good enough for TV, not for the law of the land.
Let's have a proper debate Mark, everyone is sick of this back and forth. Fill in the box, lets have a look at your perspective on the right to silence. Preferably in a new thread so we can get this one back on topic.0 -
I'm done MadsL. I'm just too sick of your bull****. You want to know what pushed me over? It wasn't the constant strawmen of my position, it wasn't that you clearly knew how you were wrong in several places (and tried to hide it by announcing how I was going to contradict you). It was this series of posts:Mark Hamill wrote:My conviction is that you are wrong in this debate.MadsL wrote:[No others? You are just my shadow are you, a little devils advocate.
Please. What a pathetic response.Mark Hamill wrote:Seriously now, who else has posted in this thread, on your side of the debate? (besides jank, who has just been your parrot).Oh dear Mark. An argumentum ad populum? Really? Times must be tough.
Firstly, you have become so byzantine in your contortions of what your actual viewpoint really means, I][SIZE="1"]not this but that, not support but questioning, but not questioning it's something something.[/SIZE][/I that people have just stopped listening to you.
As to trying to make this a popularity contest, you yourself identify someone supporting my viewpoint, and then (pathetically) go on to insult them as a "parrot" - I'm sure jank is capable of independent thought. Unless you are suggesting jank is a sock puppet account, in which case, feel free to have the mods investigate. I'm sure you will look fetching with egg dripping down your face.
But, if you do want me to make an argumentum ad populum, I can simply remind you that the right to silence is the way we as a society have agreed to do things, and to abide by that way of doing things. All very well arguing with me about my belief in it, but that will not change the agreement reached by society to do it now will it?
You accuse me of picking on you and when I point out that you and I are the only ones in this debate, you accuse me of trying to make it a popularity contest.
You are insane. Thats the only conclusion I can make. You are like Cartman in that South Park episode with Kanye West and the fish sticks joke. Everything gets twisted in your head to fulfil your own superior view of yourself. Everything put to you is so obnoxiously misinterpreted that it has to be as a result of an impulse you just can't control, because no sane person, regardless of honest or dishonest intent, could go to such lengths. The best trolls couldn't do what you do.
So I'm done. I don't care any more because after pages and pages of trying, there just is no discussion to be had with you.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement