|
|
|
|
|
|
by ThePowerOfFuet
1520 days ago
|
|
|
>I asserted that 5th amendment should prevent the government from using this coerced testimony. Again, you did no such thing: > Presumably investigating someone over that would violate their 5th amendment rights, no? An investigation can be initiated, and can proceed, without any testimony whatsoever from the accused. Which coerced testimony are you attempting to refer to? The cops show up and ask you about your tax return, and you say "". Either they continue to investigate you or they don't, but you have not been coerced into saying anything at all. |
|
|
> Presumably investigating someone over that would violate their 5th amendment rights, no?
>I asserted that 5th amendment should prevent the government from using this coerced testimony.
This kind of revisionist interpretation, that a poster will engage in to make an altogether different assertion, is not uncommon on HN. Pointing it out gets downvoted, overall making the conversations worse because it's viewed as nitpicking, when it's really just trying to avoid bad faith...wasn't there an article posted about this recently?