The US Supreme Court has said that you must invoke your right to remain silent. It doesn't seem constitutional, but it is currently the law. (Salinas v. Texas and People v. Tom)
That's not entirely true. They ruled that silence in a non-custodial interview could be admissable at trial. Silence in custodial interviews is still not admissable and they didn't actually decide the question of whether or not silence can be taken as substantive evidence of guilt.
And all the evidence against the government that is practically ignored? The thing about being a whistleblower is that the act of doing what is your “job” is illegal. Yes, what Snowden did was illegal, but that’s beside the point. We shouldn’t sit down and let the government screw us with bad laws.
We have high speed airplanes. Why not make airports and the TSA theater better instead? Airplanes don’t require maintaining thousands of miles of track — or buying up land to put it on. Capitol-centric countries like France do well with trains because Paris is the center of the country in terms of commerce and population, but the US has much lower population density. Who really wants to take a train from Chicago to Los Angeles other than tourists? If we cite China as a counter example, one ought not forget that most trains in China are slow and the population doesn’t have much money. Long distance trains are a 19th century affliction. We should be looking up and not down.
Who really wants to take a train from Chicago to Los Angeles other than tourists?
Pretty much no one. But Chicago to St. Louis? Or Chicago to Minneapolis? Or Charlotte to Atlanta? Or Dallas to Houston? Or LA to San Francisco? Etc/etc? Lots of people. That's here high-speed rail investment helps. High-speed planes are fine, until it snows in Chicago, or thunderstorms in Atlanta, or high winds in Denver and then the whole national air system gets screwed up. Alternatives are good.
There are certainly city pairs where it would make sense, if the rail lines were to be built for free by some genie.
But if you add up all the people who want to travel between Chicago and St Louis in a year, and then multiply by the hour-ish that they might be able to save by catching a high speed train instead of driving, and then divide by the tens of billions that such a railway line would cost to build and maintain, then... is it really a sensible use of funds per man-hour saved?
How many hours are spent stuck in traffic? How much loss is that to society.
Perhaps people would start moving closer along the rail lines, now that frees up land from sprawl. Etc. The same rail line could carry goods (fewer trucks on the road). The rail line could be electrified, now pollution will be down and so on.
Billions of dollars is not all that expensive. The US is a rich country. First time realized this when I saw a small town with 30K population easily built a new high school for 150 million USD - compared to that, the "billions" does not sound all that big if it reconfigures the economy at that extent.
Yes. Because each one going in one car, specially in a american's very popular gas wasting cars is not only super ineffective in terms of energy and costs per trip but also extremely bad for the environment.
Also, you make a good high speed railway, and the demand will appear. In my coutry also nobody used the train, untill they were modernized, suddenly the word started to spread that it was nice, and now too many people ride the trains and we need more.
Air travel contributes greatly to climate change. When we are talking about High-speed rail in the US, no one is really talking about cross country trips like Chicago to LA. They are talking about regional trips like LA to SF or DC to NYC. Ideas like maglev or even the hyperloop are what I consider to be "looking up"
"In some cases, tolling of the statute of limitations may take place. This means that the statute of limitations is temporarily suspended, similar to pausing a timer. This generally occurs when a person who has committed a crime attempts to go into hiding."
It says that, but it’s wrong. California has no statute of limitations on murder. This was recently demonstrated in dramatic fashion when the golden state killer was arrested for murders committed 30 years prior.
That article is confusing. Above the entry you linked to I read this:
> California statutes of limitations are a little different and less complex. Felonies like murder and other offenses that are punishable by life imprisonment or death have no statute of limitations nor does the embezzlement of public money. If the punishment for a crime is eight years or more in prison, the statute of limitations runs out in six years, and other offenses punishable by prison time have a statute that expires in three years.
So I suppose the limitation of 6 years is for lesser degrees of murder? But more severe murder charges (that could result in a life sentence or worse) carry no limitation?
The Golden State Killer is one example where crimes committed over 30 years ago are still fair game for prosecution (and he never went into hiding nor did he leave the state, so no tolling)
