新未名空间

在美国你试试去银行无预约取3万

上次看个段子 就是取钱柜员盘问 事主就说“我取钱是为了存对面的银行，因为对面银行不像你这么事儿逼！”

放着杨兰兰几千亿的不管，专门严管老百姓的的一两万块钱

adadsk 写了： 昨天 11:50

真要宁可错杀三千不能放过一个，就会先抓起来在问。现在并没有抓你，就是问你，你越是抗拒，越是对你不利。你也可以不存银行，不过你整天拎着钱去交易，哪天真可能上公安局黑名单。

对了给共狗提个醒，中国的司法系统是没有沉默权的，也就是说在中国警察抓了你就算你什么都不说他们可以用沉默为理由定你的罪。你最好祈祷你的家人不会哪天这样被莫须有定罪，毕竟这种事在中国历史上并不少见。

Dahuaidanyimei 写了： 昨天 12:49

在美国你试试去银行无预约取3万

我试过，很多次，只需要分行经理过来签个字，10分钟取走毫无压力。

geniushanbiao 写了： 昨天 16:08

对了给共狗提个醒，中国的司法系统是没有沉默权的，也就是说在中国警察抓了你就算你什么都不说他们可以用沉默为理由定你的罪。你最好祈祷你的家人不会哪天这样被莫须有定罪，毕竟这种事在中国历史上并不少见。

其實在美國保持沉默也是有條件的，AI就是好用啊。。。

In the U.S. legal system, remaining silent generally cannot be used as direct evidence of guilt in a criminal trial, provided you properly invoke your Fifth Amendment right. However, simply staying mute without explicitly stating you are exercising this right (especially when not in custody) can, in some limited circumstances, be used against you.
The Right to Remain Silent
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants individuals the right not to be compelled to be a witness against themselves, which is commonly known as the right to remain silent. Key aspects include:
No Adverse Inferences in Criminal Court: A prosecutor cannot argue to a jury that a defendant's silence in police questioning or refusal to testify at trial implies guilt. A judge will typically instruct the jury not to draw any negative conclusions from a defendant's silence.
Miranda Warnings: When a person is in custody and subject to interrogation, police must inform them of their Miranda rights, including the right to remain silent and to have an attorney present. If the police fail to do so, any statements made are generally inadmissible in court.
Invocation Requirement: A critical nuance is that you must explicitly state that you are invoking your right to remain silent (e.g., "I am exercising my right to remain silent and I want a lawyer"). The Supreme Court, in cases like Salinas v. Texas (2013) and Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010), has ruled that merely remaining silent without an explicit invocation, particularly during a non-custodial interview, can potentially be used as evidence.
How Conviction Can Still Occur
Remaining silent is a powerful protection, but it does not prevent the justice system from proceeding with a case or obtaining a conviction based on other evidence:
Physical Evidence: Police can still gather evidence from other sources, such as DNA, fingerprints, surveillance footage, or forensic evidence.
Witness Testimony: The testimony of other witnesses can be used to build a case against a suspect.
Other Information: Law enforcement officers can use other legally obtained information to pursue charges.
Civil Cases: In a civil case, a judge or jury can draw an "adverse inference" of liability if a party invokes their right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination.
Identification: In some jurisdictions with "stop-and-identify" laws, you may be required to provide your name and address, even while otherwise remaining silent.
In sum, remaining silent is a constitutional right intended to protect against compelled self-incrimination, but it does not provide absolute immunity from investigation or prosecution if other sufficient evidence is available to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Legal experts strongly advise that anyone questioned by police explicitly state they are exercising their right to remain silent and request a lawyer immediately.

adadsk 写了： 昨天 11:22

英达蚂蚁搬家存取现金，为了逃避监管。他每次都是存取额略低于银行监管额度，多次这么干，就露馅了。这个例子说明，北美银行也是要查大额现金交易。你逃避这个监管，也是红灯。那个律师也是略低于5万元监管线。估计干了多次，触发警报了。

银行可没拦着英达，不让他完成交易。银行能做的就是向FBI或者IRS报告，让执法部门去调查。而在中国，银行需要清楚自己的权力边界在哪里。

magagop 写了： 昨天 18:36

其實在美國保持沉默也是有條件的，AI就是好用啊。。。

In the U.S. legal system, remaining silent generally cannot be used as direct evidence of guilt in a criminal trial, provided you properly invoke your Fifth Amendment right. However, simply staying mute without explicitly stating you are exercising this right (especially when not in custody) can, in some limited circumstances, be used against you.
The Right to Remain Silent
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants individuals the right not to be compelled to be a witness against themselves, which is commonly known as the right to remain silent. Key aspects include:
No Adverse Inferences in Criminal Court: A prosecutor cannot argue to a jury that a defendant's silence in police questioning or refusal to testify at trial implies guilt. A judge will typically instruct the jury not to draw any negative conclusions from a defendant's silence.
Miranda Warnings: When a person is in custody and subject to interrogation, police must inform them of their Miranda rights, including the right to remain silent and to have an attorney present. If the police fail to do so, any statements made are generally inadmissible in court.
Invocation Requirement: A critical nuance is that you must explicitly state that you are invoking your right to remain silent (e.g., "I am exercising my right to remain silent and I want a lawyer"). The Supreme Court, in cases like Salinas v. Texas (2013) and Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010), has ruled that merely remaining silent without an explicit invocation, particularly during a non-custodial interview, can potentially be used as evidence.
How Conviction Can Still Occur
Remaining silent is a powerful protection, but it does not prevent the justice system from proceeding with a case or obtaining a conviction based on other evidence:
Physical Evidence: Police can still gather evidence from other sources, such as DNA, fingerprints, surveillance footage, or forensic evidence.
Witness Testimony: The testimony of other witnesses can be used to build a case against a suspect.
Other Information: Law enforcement officers can use other legally obtained information to pursue charges.
Civil Cases: In a civil case, a judge or jury can draw an "adverse inference" of liability if a party invokes their right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination.
Identification: In some jurisdictions with "stop-and-identify" laws, you may be required to provide your name and address, even while otherwise remaining silent.
In sum, remaining silent is a constitutional right intended to protect against compelled self-incrimination, but it does not provide absolute immunity from investigation or prosecution if other sufficient evidence is available to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Legal experts strongly advise that anyone questioned by police explicitly state they are exercising their right to remain silent and request a lawyer immediately.

这就是我说的啊。说白了，在美国你可以remain silent，这时候检方就需要有足够的证据证明你commit crime。当然多数时候remain silent是为了防止说错话，所以让律师来handle毕竟人家律师是专业的。但是你只能选择一样，要么remain silent，要么配合。

但是国内是没有remain silent的权利的，警察找你喝茶默认你必须配合，任何的不配合都可能被认为“因为心虚而拒绝配合”而因此被定罪。这种规定是非常不要脸的，直接给警察提供了诱供的条件。

具体可以看这。
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%B7%98 ... 8%E6%AC%8A
“中国大陆对沉默权的态度并不明确。据《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》第120条规定，犯罪嫌疑人对侦查人员的提问应当如实回答，但该条同时规定，犯罪嫌疑人对与案无关的问题，有拒绝回答的权利；第52条规定，不得强迫任何人证实自己有罪；第55条规定，只有被告人供述，没有其他证据的，不能认定被告人有罪和处以刑罚。”

还有这里
https://www.zhihu.com/question/27994331
“我国没有赋予犯罪嫌疑人、被告人沉默权。... 而在我国，不仅没有赋予犯罪嫌疑人、被告人沉默权，相反还在刑事诉讼法中规定：犯罪嫌疑人对侦查人员的提问应当如实回答。这一规定不仅使犯罪嫌疑人、被告人面对指控时无权保持沉默，而且给了侦查人员以强制犯罪嫌疑人、被告人按其预断交代的权力。因为判断回答是否如实的权力是由侦查人员掌握的，一旦他们认为回答不合其预断，就难免进行刑讯逼供以获得他们预期的口供。”

geniushanbiao 写了： 昨天 19:45

这就是我说的啊。说白了，在美国你可以remain silent，这时候检方就需要有足够的证据证明你commit crime。当然多数时候remain silent是为了防止说错话，所以让律师来handle毕竟人家律师是专业的。但是你只能选择一样，要么remain silent，要么配合。

但是国内是没有remain silent的权利的，警察找你喝茶默认你必须配合，任何的不配合都可能被认为“因为心虚而拒绝配合”而因此被定罪。这种规定是非常不要脸的，直接给警察提供了诱供的条件。

具体可以看这。
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%B7%98 ... 8%E6%AC%8A
“中国大陆对沉默权的态度并不明确。据《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》第120条规定，犯罪嫌疑人对侦查人员的提问应当如实回答，但该条同时规定，犯罪嫌疑人对与案无关的问题，有拒绝回答的权利；第52条规定，不得强迫任何人证实自己有罪；第55条规定，只有被告人供述，没有其他证据的，不能认定被告人有罪和处以刑罚。”

还有这里
https://www.zhihu.com/question/27994331
“我国没有赋予犯罪嫌疑人、被告人沉默权。... 而在我国，不仅没有赋予犯罪嫌疑人、被告人沉默权，相反还在刑事诉讼法中规定：犯罪嫌疑人对侦查人员的提问应当如实回答。这一规定不仅使犯罪嫌疑人、被告人面对指控时无权保持沉默，而且给了侦查人员以强制犯罪嫌疑人、被告人按其预断交代的权力。因为判断回答是否如实的权力是由侦查人员掌握的，一旦他们认为回答不合其预断，就难免进行刑讯逼供以获得他们预期的口供。”

不同体制系统，各有利弊。

过于强调程序正义，就会加大平民的法律成本。

中国，这是某些诈骗等非法行为高发的地区，才有这样的基层治理的“严苛规定”。

、

在国内确实很麻烦，存个钱都要给审犯人一样

C999 写了： 昨天 20:03

不同体制系统，各有利弊。

过于强调程序正义，就会加大平民的法律成本。

中国，这是某些诈骗等非法行为高发的地区，才有这样的基层治理的“严苛规定”。

、

直接承认自己是人治社会就得了

楼上说的对，明着无视几千亿的杨兰兰，却“严苛规定”普通民众，傻子都知道你就是只许州官放火

TheMatrix 写了： 昨天 09:30

对。是这个问题。

中国政令执行不下去啊。

中央是好的，各级官员恶意执行。这是什么问题啊？

"中央是好的，各级官员恶意执行。这是什么问题啊？" -- 几千年都这样， 皇帝是好的， 坏的是底下官僚。

你信了吗？

电闸的信息搞不好都是从银行来的。电闸分子的钱怎么不被冻。

qxc 写了： 昨天 23:35

"中央是好的，各级官员恶意执行。这是什么问题啊？" -- 几千年都这样， 皇帝是好的， 坏的是底下官僚。

你信了吗？

这话说的没错。但是这个问题的解决，需要更深层次的改变。