setsneedtofeed

I'd think so too, but Columbine shooting was 1999. Movies still used it unironically for another few years. In media I think it mostly went away because it got parodied to death.

This movie is exactly of its era. Blasting 80s nostalgia that's been filtered through a neon color grade with a snappy pace is exactly something that would come out in 2016.

There was also that short sliver of the late 90s through early 2000s where the slick black trenchcoat and sunglasses look was considered unironically cool.

The Matrix, Blade, Underworld, and Equilibrium all being in this era. Any movie where characters dress like this to be cool and it isn't treated with at least a wink to the audience probably either came from this time or is a sequel to something from this time.

John Wayne's 'The Green Berets' is an oddity. While it's not out of its time, since the 1960s was packed with war movies, the fact that it's a Vietnam movie rather than a WW2 movie gives it a surreal quality. It is filmed with the same tone, style, and music as something like 'The Longest Day' but it's about Vietnam making it a million miles away from the style of most Vietnam movies.

Standout scenes include a green beret ranting at a strawman reporter, and the scene where John Wayne smashes an obviously toy rifle to pieces.

Uh, whenever you notice something like that- a wizard did it.

The "lawyer dog" case did not hinge on that.

The suspect,Warren Demesme, did not unequivocally demand a lawyer. He said: “If y’all, this is how I feel, if y’all think I did it, I know that I didn’t do it so why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog cause this is not whats up.”

The finding was that he asked a question rather than making a statement. The "dog" was completely irrelevant in the decision, but you know Internet pop news sites are going to be Internet pop news sites.

You can still think the outcome was expecting too much precision by a suspect and disagree with it, but let's at least be accurate in criticism/discussion instead of perpetuating meme tier inaccuracy.

The knowledge of the location of the paper is a content of the mind. The defendant does not have to answer any question.

A person is free to not answer any question. They can sit there completely silent.

Or contents of a piece of paper.

In the context of the discussion, I don't know what you are getting at here.

But compelling someone to say or type in a password is something where they could assert the 5th. If the police find the password written down on a piece of paper and then type it in themselves over the protest of the defendant, that is not a 5th amendment violation. That's just using a piece of physical evidence.

Outrageous. This is taking away the defendant’s rights. Nobody can ever believe that he made this decision if his own free will.

This was my speculation on how I imagine it could possibly happen, as you say you have seen it written about. I have never seen it happen as a condition this way, but if you provide more detail I can be more precise in answering.

But if it is say in another hypothetical, a condition on a deferred sentence, then at that point guilt has already been established and a the deferment is an alternative option from the baseline of prison. Again, some specific links to this happening would really help sort what it is you're seeing.

You can indeed stay silent. However, if you want the police to stop asking you questions, you have to affirmatively say you are asserting your right. If you just clam up, the cops can keep asking and asking you things. Similar to getting a lawyer- you have the right to a lawyer, but when you are in police custody you aren't going to get one until you ask for it during the questioning.

Circumstances? Passwords are contents of the mind, and therefore protected under the 5th. Someone in a situation where they are accused or under investigation has the 5th to fall back on.

There have been cases recently about the legality of forcing thumbprints on biometrically locked phones, under the theory that a thumbprint is a physical attribute and not something kept in the mind (so you know, lesson there is to keep using a old fashioned passcode). Otherwise, someone on bond or parole or something may have a condition of their arrangement be to allow their devices to be searched. Refusing that is a matter of breaking an agreement made in court.

7th amendment applies to civil suits.

In the Federal system it does. At the state level, a jury for a particular civil matter is not guaranteed. Judges regularly end up as the finders of fact in state civil cases.

criminal defendants must consent to bench trial

Not always. If the case is not serious enough, a jury trial is not guaranteed. This SCOTUS case found 6 months to be the cutoff for a serious enough crime.

by not contesting any of the facts

A bench trial where no one is contesting the facts can happen, in that case the defendant is probably contesting the constitutionality of the law, so therefore doesn't need any dispute any of the facts. But, as in the above link, a case may happen where either the defendant is not guaranteed a jury because the punishment falls below the threshold establsihed, or they waive the jury and the judge sits in as the finder of both law and fact.