That isn't fiduciary responsibility. While I'm sure occasions have happened that a cavalier lawyer focused only on the outcome of the case, an attorney is required by law to have a client's short and long term considerations figured into the situation.

The scenario you've offered here is speculative at best. In your initial point, you argue as if the client is the offender. Here now the offender wants to turn someone else in to "make the neighborhood safer" which sounds suspiciously like "think of the children"..

  And I doubt you'll find many in the legal profession dispensing medical advice on anything other than enormously evident causes like treating substance abuse or food addiction. If a client is observably on a negative path concern food intake, it is their responsibility to inform them of it and failing action by the client to trigger some kind of treatment if possible.

Why do you avoid questions like "Who says that whatever law was broken is actually a moral and just law? Or are you saying that because a law exists it's moral and just?"

You ignore the fiduciary responsibility of the lawyer. If it's in the clients best interest to speak to the police, they are bound to advise such a course on the pain of disbarment.

Remember in general police don't ask for or against leniency, they just testify. About the only "asking for leniency" a typical judge would give serious weight too(in part because it's a case of having CYA) would be if it came from the prosecutor. Prosecutors and police are generally on the same side, but any deal made by one isn't binding on the other and the only one who really matters is what the prosecutor agrees too. So as in any other field, don't give away leverage until you get something for it. Remember the prosecutor isn't after "justice" as one would normally think of it, but rather punitive convictions that will allow for re-elections and advancement. On that topic I recommend the book "The Collapse of American Criminal Justice" or at least the short review of it here:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/nov/10/our-broken-system-criminal-justice/?pagination=false

I don't know what kind of answer this is, but it isn't an answer to the question I asked. It seems you took the opportunity to construct a response that would make your position tenable on maybe some kind of righteous quest. Who says that whatever law was broken is actually a moral and just law? Or are you saying that because a law exists it's moral and just?

I don't care about the minutiae of either side of this argument. What I care about it the truth of a position. The central tenant to wisdom is the ability to rigorously critique and defend any position you might hold eg Socratic thought. When I read your discourse on the morality of the the Fifth Amendment, I see text that was written to support a judgement already made. I don't think you have wrestled with the ramifications of your position enough. A good sit down with some Kafka might cure you of this.

> Do you think Officer Bruch was lying or was Professor Duane wrong?

First take my point on philosophy. You've just committed a false dichotomy. I think the people who "helped themselves" could have done so without risking talking to the police. Considering the number of police questions in the course of history, I'm sure there are at least a small number of cases where a person was able to manipulate outcomes in their favor by talking to police especially if it helped the police nail someone else.

I'll offer a question in return. Lawyers have a fiduciary relationship with their clients and almost universally recommend to not speak to police. In light of your position, why you suppose this is?

Please quit. You're initial analysis was weak, and this rebuttal makes you seem like a much less intelligent person than I think you are. Your rationals remind me of the unrigorous positions of a call-in partisan radio show. If you're going to stick with philosophy, try to understand the fundamentals of forming an argument prior to publicizing this amateur manifesto stuff. Reading more from you is a waste of everyone's time until then.

A lot of devices become incredibly annoying with Jim Beam hand.

Crichton does not merit inclusion in this list. While I did not' wish death on him, I'm glad I won't have to hear about new material from him.

Not even close. OpenSSH owns Apache here and that's not even considering things like BSD sockets.

Perhaps you could quote it to be unambitious. I realize this contrary to Libertarian nature, but you seek this discussion.

Is this an age slur? If so, it's entirely misplaced. I've never participated in it, nor have any intentions of it.

Pray tell, what is it? http://www.thehappyheretic.com/previous/06-01.htm

Sorry for you. You've just attempted answer a question with a paradox. ERR_DIV_BY_ZERO

Sorry, you're "supernatural entity" makes empirical claims. We can quite easily determine if they are valid claims.

First why to capitalize "Agnostic"? Second the agnostic only says "I don't know". Well...what: "I don't know that I haven't taken a group of female astronauts and imprisoned them on Mars" or "Monkeys have destroyed a phone system". Any deity that makes empirical claims we can rule out no prob. Sorry X-Files fans.

Certain people use the term Libertarian to mean "I'm a Republican, but I smoke pot and it should be legalized". For others, it means "I'm really an anarchist but feel uncomfortable with word". Pretty much anyone I've ever met who has used the term to describe themselves does so in an evasive way. It's mostly just a wishy washy nudge nudge way of saying "Hey look, I'm different". The problem with such labels(and agnostic is other of this ilk) is that when a label can mean anything, it means nothing. Just white noise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM

IMO, that is the end of the discussion if "censorship is warranted".

This the is American system. Your words can and will be manipulated against you. This isn't about what is fair. It's about protecting yourself from those who would treat you unfairly. So shut your mouth.

Equating "Appeal to authority" with "Appeal to popularity" is no way to win a logical argument. One has at least bare credentials of evidence, one doesn't.

You are a climatologist who doesn't believe in man made global warming? Or you just think of yourself as "special"?

I am authorized to tell you it's not VB6.

BTW, do you have the MouseWheel addon installed so you can actually scroll your form and module code with minimal effort? I mean it's not like a scrolling mouse was invented long before VB6 appeared.