This is my first flame of a specific person in here…well, I did have one that was a collective one before but man I wanna slap this person so hard I could scream.
AvenueB, what the fuck gives you the right or anyone else for that matter, to determine when a parent should back off and let the system drug test a kid without any fucking foundation. You need to look around you and realize that there is a majority of people that are law abiding and the fact is, you seem to think that it’s okay to assume guilt before innocence. You need a civics class, or I assume that you are in a liberal school where they only teach you socialist views.
Your assumptions that it is teaching “cheating” or breaking the law is so far fucking out there you make me want to punch you.
Obviously your parent brought you up into thinking that the only way is what the law says, that never under any circumstances should you question a law or a rule. That you should be spineless and never speak out to things you think wrong…
WTF.
Fine, live in your fascist state, but keep me and my family (although I don’t have kids I do have nieces and nephews) out of your views as I prefer to live in a nation that allows freedom based on personal responsibility…
Hey techchick, wow you are mad. Can you post a link to the thread you are flaming about? I’d like to check it out.
Anything that pisses you off so much has got to be worth perusing.
Snoogans.
how did it start? well i don’t know i just feel the craving. i see the flesh and it smells fresh and it’s just there for the taking…
VvvV
You know it Lexicon…I rarely get pissed off, but this turd can’t see that his views are so gawd damned fascist is unbelieveable.
Okay, next will be that it’s okay to drug test everyone before they enter a fucking library or any public place for that matter…that we all submit to a drug test 4 times maybe 6 to prove we aren’t on drugs…
If it weren’t for the fucking drug laws, drugs wouldn’t be a fucking problem.
We don’t EARN rights, we are born with them damnit…shit, what does it take for you to understand this?
You earn a priviledge, not a right…two VERY different things.
“Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance.” --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770.
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” --Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791.
“It is not only vain, but wicked, in a legislator to frame laws in opposition to the laws of nature, and to arm them with the terrors of death. This is truly creating crimes in order to punish them.”
–THOMAS JEFFERSON, 1779
I am at NYU, I assure you they do not “only teach socialist views” here. I also am very well acquainted with civics and if I need need help I doubt I would go to you.
As for “what gives me the right”: listen up, ignoramus : THEY ARE ALREADY DOING IT! The ENTIRE FUCKING TOWN has already agreed to do this. What part of this do you not grasp? It is legal. No one is “assuming guilt before innocence”. They are being TESTED to see if they are guilty. If they do not pass the test, they are guilty THEN. If they refuse to take the test, there is a penalty. This is very fair. And if they pass the test, they are innocent.
Listen, who says: “I’ll take the Fifth Amendment.”? Innocent people? No, because there answers would not incriminate them. ONLY GUILTY PEOPLE. Who says: “The search violated my rights.”? Innocent people? ONLY GUILTY PEOPLE. Innocent people weren’t charged with anything because of the search. You have to admit this. These are defenses that are designed for GUILTY people to take advantage of.
I admit they are legal. But let’s not fool ourselves that they are helping a good cause when people use them.
Excellent choice, since your arguments are so lacking, and violence is the only way you’ll be able to win. But don’t worry, maybe when the cops arrest you for assault they will forget to include a comma in reading your rights and you will go free.
I speak out when things are wrong - what do you think I am doing now, against almost everyone on this board? What is WRONG is parents who teach kids to dodge consequences. What is WRONG is people afraid to walk through Washington Square at night. What is WRONG is honest people cowering in there apartments while CRIMINALS roam the streets. That is wrong.
How did it get that way? I think that before you and your crowd came along to give criminals all there new “rights” we didn’t have this problem. Before Miranda no one had to say a magic phrase to every criminal, and guess what? There was less crime. You tell me, HONESTLY: are we better off then before now, or worse?
Again look what your idea has actually made happen. “Freedom based on personal responsibility.” Code words for = “I can get away with anything and the law won’t stop me.”
I hope you never have to find your nieces and nephews beaten or abused, and the cops catch the guy who did it, and don’t read him his rights, and he gets away scott free. How would you feel if that happened? I don’t even wish that fate on you, because it would be your innocent family that paid the price for your hopeless worldview.
It is a very simple issue. No one has a “right” to education. That is paid for by my tax dollars. So if you want to go to school, either pay for it your damn self or agree to take a drug test. There is nothing wrong with that.
GOD DAMN, you piss me off! Look at the world!!! Look where it is today. THIS is what your policies have done, damn it! YOU have created this depth of stinking hell of crime and drug use and waste, human waste that walks and talks, in our streets, Maybe in your home town it is different, but even though Guiliani has cleaned up ssome it is still a cesspool here. Why? Ask yourself why. Is it because my way is being used? Nope, don’t think so. It’s because you and your tribe, hurrying into the scene waving your ACLU cards and screaming that some lowlife SCUM’s rights were violated.
If we start our children thinking the right thing to do is stonewall the police we tear down the walls of society. I hope no one whose given there kids that advice finds themselves with there kids hindering a major investigation of someone ELSE’S kids being dead. Because for criminal’s RIGHTS that are preserved, there is a VICTIM out there, try imagining your kids as that for change.
GOD DAMN IT!! You people shouldn’t even be parents!! Why don’t you just give your kids a fucking spray can and tell them to go tag a wall? Anything to hurry along the end of civil order, right?
I was all setup to respond to this thread, but this new breathtaking display of idiocy has since left my hands numb. So I’ll say that, since thoughts of “personal liberty,” “constitutional rights,” and “innocent until proven guilty” are so abhorrent to you, Ave, I suggest you renounce any citizenship you may have in the USA and join a country with similar views such as yourself. I believe North Korea and China would be suitable.
Uh. What was the polite term I learned to describe this sentiment? Oh, yeah. HORSESHIT.
I know of several people who have pleaded the Fifth who were, indeed, innocent–and who were later exonerated by the prosecuting attorney to whom they refused to reply. There are many reasons for availing oneself of the protection of the Fifth Amendment. That is why we have the Fifth Amendment.
Illegal searches and seizures can also be found throughout the history of the U.S.
And I hope that you never find your nieces and nephews abused by the cops and locked up on false charges because the cops didn’t like their looks and decided to search them for no reason and then “find” whatever they wanted to. That goes on today with our current protections. I really don’t want to return to an era when we did not even have those protections.
HORSESHIT to you! That is 100% FALSE. No one can take the Fifth unless what they would say incriminates them. There is a guy down the hall who is a law student at Fordham, and I just asked him to be sure, and he said and I quote, “The Fifth Amendment is only available as a privilege against testifying if the testimony is incriminating.”
What you don’t know about this could fill a warehouse.
If you say there are plenty of cases then cite even one. Or shut up.
Like you, I had a response for this diatribe, but realized it would be a waste of time explaining it to some one with no concept of what freedom means. Let me leave it at this - I would rather live in a country that treated children like adults than one that treats adults like children.
If you won’t question what you think, why call it thinking?
And you are unaware, of course, that “incriminating” does not mean “I am guilty but I don’t have to admit it,” right? I thought not.
Incriminating evidence can easily be along the lines of a person who fits the general description of a perpetrator and who was in the general area of a crime who chooses to not admit that they were in that area because the prosecutor is building a case on circumstantial evidence. Incriminating evidence can be a person choosing to not reveal that they were convicted of a similar crime ten years ago because the DA wants to show that they are “likely” to do it again, even though they only did it once as a teen and have never repeated the offense.
There are many forms of incriminating evidence that do not require that a person be guilty. You claim to be a college student. I hope you are a freshman because you have an awful lot to learn.
There are a lot of people who object to unreasonable searches–especially innocent people who have been abused by plainclothes policeman serving “no knock” warrants (meaning the police do not identify themselves until they have overwhelmed the occupants, then justify shooting anyone who was defending their home on the grounds that they were police–even though the homeowner could not know that they were police).
These stories are the natural outgrowth of your intended policy to turn the cops loose without Constitutional restraint because “only the guilty” have anything to fear.
Even I know that there are cases that Tom refers to, and I’m not an American.
You can be innocent and still plead the Fifth. It doesn’t take a great deal of thought to imagine all kinds of scenarios for that.
It’s a fundemental right in America not to be forced to testify against yourself. This is not only to ensure a fair trial, but to ensure that the prosecution doesn’t twist your words. A forced testimony may show immorality, and this could influence a jury, even though immorality often has little to do with legality.
This is clumsily worded because I’m not a lawyer, but I believe it’s essentially true.
Goodness AvenueB, you really are an idiot. You are also apparently quite the little fascist. Here in America we have this ideal that we like the call “innocent until proven guilty”. We also, as addressed above, have the fifth amendment, which does not, as you seem to believe, imply guilt. (I refer you to the above posts, which are far more erudite than I could ever hope to acheive myself.)
Now, if you don’t like this, you can always move to another country.
(sigh, you have no idea how long i’ve waited to have to opportunity to say that to some fascist bastard. Looks like the shoe is on the other foot now, don’t it)
A classic example is the desire to prevent previous convictions from becoming known to the jury. While a prior crime isn’t relevant to the issue of guilt of the current crime (I expect even AvenueB would understand that deciding a person is guilty of arson because they once bounced a check is wrong) if you testify in your own behalf, the prosecution is quite properly able to impeach your credibility by bringing up those old crimes - not, theoretically, for the purpose of showing that you committed the instant crime, but rather to show you might more easily lie.
Our system of justice recognizes that jurors might be swayed into making those impermissible inferences, however. So we don’t force an accused to take the stand, and even if he chooses to, we still caution the jury that a previous felony should only be considered as evidence of the witness’ truthfulness, not his arsonistic tendencies.
A quick read of the Fifth Amendment might suggest that AvenueB’s idea is correct: that it’s meant to shield the guilty. But its protections are more subtle - and noble - than that. In pertinent part, the Fifth says no person can:
That means that the prosecution cannot call the witness as part of their case, and elicit from him damaging evidence… even if he is ultimately not guilty of the charged crime. A prosecutor can’t force you to admit you were at the murder victim’s house, and then let the jury draw the wrong conclusion… he’s got to prove you were there. Admittedly, this is helpful to the murderer who left no clues… but it’s a godsend to the innocently accused guy who wandered in a moment too late.
There are a lot of fascinating dimensions to the problem of self-incrimation – I could ramble for two pages on use immunity as opposed to transactional immunity – but for the purposes of this discussion, I would advise AvenueB to trot back down the hall and advise his law student buddy that the Fifth Amendment gives rise to the privilege of self-incrimination, but is not coterminous with it.
In simpler words, the Fifth Amendment provides for much more beyond self-incrimination.