I've not denied the one happening now, I've criticised it.
Looks like we've come full circle and you've run out of material.
Sure, I'll pay that - as soon as they pay me $15 per month for the data they're stealing from me.
What genocide am I denying? You're a pathetic liar.
Maybe I should've added in that it was specifically referring to the US in my first comment, but I also wanted to use it as an example to show that there is some significant nuance and depth to the subject.
In any case, most of the world does understand US terminology in some manner. For example, the Philippines courts referenced "so-called Miranda rights" when establishing their law.
You can just say “I’m choosing to invoke my right to not answer questions at this time” and as a bonus, that works everywhere that has such a right, including the United States ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That's exactly what I did in the comment you just replied to:
At the initial interaction with police, you should identify yourself, then clearly say you cannot answer questions without first getting legal advice. Then shut up and don’t answer questions.
But that doesn't include the story about the lawyer dog, which seemed relevant to this post with a dog giving legal advice.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criticise
Mine was an alternate spelling, yours had a completely different meaning.
*predicated.
The history is far more complicated than that. Israel wasn't really born out of a desire to ethnically cleanse Palestine, it was born out of a desire for a Zionist homeland and for independence from the British. Immediately afterwards, literally the following day, the Arab nations attacked.
Furthermore, Palestine was never really a country over the last 500 years, not until 1988. It was a region in the Ottoman empire, then it was under British control, then it was proposed to be split such that a nation of Israel and a nation of Palestine could be established - however Palestinians rejected this multiple times. Even in the Palestinian Declaration of Independence they didn't really define their territory, saying "The State of Palestine is the state of Palestinians wherever they may be" but referencing the UN Partition Plan.
By all accounts, when Israel was established in 1948 they wanted their own territory in the region as partitioned by Britain/the UN, they didn't want control over the entire region. It was only after successive fighting between Israel and Palestine that Israel developed the attitude they display today.
Whether or not Zionists, Israel, the British or the UN were right in pushing for the formation of an Israeli state is another matter, but the Israel we have now is a direct result of the wars that were fought, wars that Israel won each time. This is markedly different from colonialism, where one nation rules over another but then later grants independence and goes back to ruling its own territory - Israel do not have any other territory to go back to. Palestine taking an "all or nothing" position, as they have over the last 70 years, just isn't a workable solution as it puts Israel in the same boat.
Yeah that is a concern, however it's one that people studying these systems are well aware of and looking to account for.
Absolutely, however the right to silence is not universal. There are circumstances in some jurisdictions where you can be compelled to say things. In such cases the things you say cannot be used in evidence against you (right against self-incrimination) but they can still lead to evidence that can be used.
Even the US has a bit of this, for example you can be compelled to give over a password. To draw an example, if you were investigated for robbery and had the password "IRobPeople", then the password couldn't be used in evidence against you but any evidence they find when using the password could.
Yes, I would be one of them. However that still doesn't mean what I've said isn't generally best practice, even in areas where it's not fully required per case law. At the initial interaction with police, you should identify yourself, then clearly say you cannot answer questions without first getting legal advice. Then shut up and don't answer questions.
Although, if you really want to get into the nitty gritty, other jurisdictions may have more extensive requirements for what you must say, so shutting up isn't necessarily the best advice everywhere, all the time. There's also subtle differences between the right to silence and rights against self-incrimination.
In the UK, which first started using right to silence in the 17th century (and then spread its law over much of the rest of the world), inferences can be made from silence. No conviction can be wholly based on silence, but it can be the wrong move. In some situations, eg fraud and terrorism, the right to silence is reduced and you may be obligated to answer. In these circumstances you cannot legally remain silent, but you are still protected against self-incrimination.
Here’s a fun country music fact: the son of Waylon Jennings is a NASHVILLE singer/songwriter named “SHOOTER Jennings”.
Nashville shooting?
Edit: yep.
For whoever sees this, the story is about the Nashville shooter's manifesto being released. That info should get you to the story.
Slightly refreshing from them selling your email to spammers as soon as you signed up.