Replies

"It’s an ‘act’ of omission analogous to a policeman ‘looking the other way’ when a crime is being committed and, therefore, hard to prove."

This is not what we are facing here. What we are facing is telling a policeman, with a camera rolling as we do so, that his job is to prevent crime and in fact over there in that building we think we just saw a burglar entering the back window of the bank, then he ignores us.

I'm working on another angle of attack as well as this one, all from a Constitutional perspective. Stay tuned.

...his job is to prevent crime and in fact over there in that building we think we just saw..."

And therein lies the problem in a huge nutshell. His job is NOT to prevent crime. His job is to investigate the crime afterwards, and prosecute the criminal(s) if there is enough proof a criminal can/will be found guilty. I THINK doesn't get it. A PROVEN, ACTUAL crime has got to be committed first or a policeman cannot act, and it must be pursued as a crime by criminal investigation. There must be independent PROOF that a criminal is guilty because a criminal cannot be forced to incriminate him/herself.
As I said before, the Fifth Amendment has created a paradox in this situation. I don't have time right now to go into this deeper, but I will later.