Edwynn
Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote:
If the "right to remain silent" were not intended to be implemented with out automatically 'assigned guilt' in the process, then it would be useless and not enacted in the first place. You would think so, but not so, according to SCOTUS. The miasma is in this thread: http://www.collarchat.com/m_4483319/mpage_1/tm.htm I won't disagree as to the assertion, and likely, the fact of such adjudication, being as that I have to avoid such 'information' as might make me to "go postal," as they used to say. I haven't had a TV for over 20 years, for good reason, as that is to benefit to society and myself both. When the 'output' of the scotus has become even more absurd than any congress or president could conjure, I tend to delve into more meaningful things, wherever to be found. I don't dispute your word, nor even sentiment in the matter, one way or the other. But I must reiterate that I don't care if "Dr. Z" walks free, does 20 years, or whatever. I know enough of what happened. Unless we're in an alternate universe as presented by, e.g., Heinlein, or the 'defenders of the shooter.' I don't care if the defenders of the shooter defend the shooter, I'm just tired of all this complete social norm inversion on their part that being followed by a nut case is all of a sudden a 'normal' thing, as opposed to centuries and recent decades and recent years of reality in contravention thereby.
< Message edited by Edwynn -- 7/12/2013 2:56:37 PM >
|