4 ms·

They have the right to question, but I don't have to testify to anything, that's what the fifth ammendment is for. As usual, Europe doesn't care about internal

by 0x3f 8mo ago

They have the right to question, but I don't have to testify to anything, that's what the fifth ammendment is for. As usual, Europe doesn't care about internal consistency when it comes to rights. They just legislate (or rule) whatever 'works' for the current definition of 'works'. > If someone shot a person with your gun, you gonna say it wasn't you and expect them not to question you further? Not very no-brainer, is it? Nobody has said you can't be questioned.

throwaheyy 8mo ago
It’s a very typically American opinion to argue that you don’t have to be personally responsible for your actions if the law legally allows you not to.
- arijun 8mo ago
  When you say personally responsible, do you mean legal repercussions? Because, yes, that is definitionally what the law is. Or do you mean some extra-judicial responsibility? Because GP (and this whole chain, for the most part) is only talking about law.
- 0x3f 8mo ago
  The state is so powerful that inviduals should be given such affordances, and should be allowed the put the state to strict proof. Europe is a nonsense in this regard: you have rights, except all the special cases when you don't. You have a right to free speech, except for all the ways in which you don't. You have the right to silence, except when you don't. Which is also true in the US, after all they restrict obscenity as a form of speech. It's just that they have much fewer exceptions.
- elteto 8mo ago
  How very typical of non-Americans to misrepresent Americans!
cromka 8mo ago
> As usual, Europe doesn't care about internal consistency when it comes to rights. Sure. And you advocate that in exchange in US you get havoc on the roads because anyone can say "it wasn't me speeding 50 miles over the limit, bite me"? Is that the freedom you want?
- 0x3f 8mo ago
  The US has a comparable per-mile road fatality rate. There's no 'havoc'.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - cromka 8mo ago
    No, it doesn't! It's 2 to 10 times more! But that's irrelevant; what we're talking about here is a hypothetical scenario where this gets challenged in Supreme Court and, as a result, police in US cannot assume fault in such cases.
    - 0x3f 8mo ago
      > No, it doesn't! It's 2 to 10 times more! It's literally not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r... > Belgium 7.3 > Slovenia 7.0 > US 6.9 > France 5.8 Never mind all the other countries that do have presumption of guilt, which are also comparable in per-mile road deaths. And the ones with presumption but which _are_ 10x worse. Allowing the presumption is very clearly not well-correlated with safety.
      - crote 8mo ago
        You are conveniently leaving out some European countries, such as Norway being at 3.0 per 1B km. You are also conveniently leaving it the per-capita figures, with US being at 14.2 per 100k while countries like Norway, Sweden, and Finland being at 2.x, and Europe as a while being at 6.7. So sure, "10x more" might be an exaggeration, but "2x more" is fairly accurate and even a claim of "7x more" is arguable.

by 0x3f 8mo ago

throwaheyy 8mo ago

It’s a very typically American opinion to argue that you don’t have to be personally responsible for your actions if the law legally allows you not to.

arijun 8mo ago
When you say personally responsible, do you mean legal repercussions? Because, yes, that is definitionally what the law is. Or do you mean some extra-judicial responsibility? Because GP (and this whole chain, for the most part) is only talking about law.
0x3f 8mo ago
The state is so powerful that inviduals should be given such affordances, and should be allowed the put the state to strict proof. Europe is a nonsense in this regard: you have rights, except all the special cases when you don't. You have a right to free speech, except for all the ways in which you don't. You have the right to silence, except when you don't. Which is also true in the US, after all they restrict obscenity as a form of speech. It's just that they have much fewer exceptions.
elteto 8mo ago
How very typical of non-Americans to misrepresent Americans!

cromka 8mo ago

> As usual, Europe doesn't care about internal consistency when it comes to rights. Sure. And you advocate that in exchange in US you get havoc on the roads because anyone can say "it wasn't me speeding 50 miles over the limit, bite me"? Is that the freedom you want?

0x3f 8mo ago
The US has a comparable per-mile road fatality rate. There's no 'havoc'.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- cromka 8mo ago
  No, it doesn't! It's 2 to 10 times more! But that's irrelevant; what we're talking about here is a hypothetical scenario where this gets challenged in Supreme Court and, as a result, police in US cannot assume fault in such cases.
  - 0x3f 8mo ago
    > No, it doesn't! It's 2 to 10 times more! It's literally not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r... > Belgium 7.3 > Slovenia 7.0 > US 6.9 > France 5.8 Never mind all the other countries that do have presumption of guilt, which are also comparable in per-mile road deaths. And the ones with presumption but which _are_ 10x worse. Allowing the presumption is very clearly not well-correlated with safety.
    - crote 8mo ago
      You are conveniently leaving out some European countries, such as Norway being at 3.0 per 1B km. You are also conveniently leaving it the per-capita figures, with US being at 14.2 per 100k while countries like Norway, Sweden, and Finland being at 2.x, and Europe as a while being at 6.7. So sure, "10x more" might be an exaggeration, but "2x more" is fairly accurate and even a claim of "7x more" is arguable.