Supreme Court Decides the right to remain silent exists only if you speak up!

[wolfriverjoe 1,346]

Quote

Quote

Quote

ANd in this case, he was a dirtbag.

However, the fact that he's actually a dirtbag is irrelevant. Really. While it's more satisfying (and it is), from a legal standpoint the guilty are entitled to just as much justice as the innocent.

BTW -- I'm not trying to pick on you.

Wendy P.

White-collar criminals, for example, tend to bathe quite regularly. It's how they, you know, keep their collars white.

Andy 9.

But they are still dirtbags. They just keep the outside of the bag the dirt is in cleaner.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

defense attorneys would argue against the admissibility of ANYTHING the suspect said after a given period of silence saying 'he exercised his right, and the police continued their interrogation to where he broke'.

Quite right! How long would it take to constitute exercising the right? 10 seconds, 10 minutes?

It was reported yesterday that the guy was given a written version of the Miranda rights, repeated them verbally and I believe even signed them. If he's stupid enough to talk after that, then too bad.

He did have the right to remain silent, and did for a while. Nobody forced him to talk. He chose to talk. Tough luck.

He also had the right to have an attorney present during questioning. How should the police know he wants to exercise that right? Perhaps some period of choosing to not have an attorney present should be taken as an expression of the desire to exercise that right?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Kennedy 0]

A pretty good summation

The SCPTUS Decision (if you can wade through it; it's not a mccain feingold, but it's not an easy reading decision either)

edeit to add:

Quote

Thompkins’ silence during the interrogation did not invoke his right to remain silent. A suspect’s Miranda right to counsel must be invoked “unambiguously.” Davis v. United States, 512 U. S. 452,
459. If the accused makes an “ambiguous or equivocal” statement orno statement, the police are not required to end the interrogation, ibid., or ask questions to clarify the accused’s intent, id., at 461–462. There is no principled reason to adopt different standards for deter-mining when an accused has invoked the Miranda right to remain si-lent and the Miranda right to counsel at issue in Davis. Both protectthe privilege against compulsory self-incrimination by requiring aninterrogation to cease when either right is invoked. The unambigu-ous invocation requirement results in an objective inquiry that “avoid[s.] difficulties of proof and . . . provide[s.] guidance to officers” on how to proceed in the face of ambiguity. Davis, supra, at 458–459. Had Thompkins said that he wanted to remain silent or that he didnot want to talk, he would have invoked his right to end the question-ing. He did neither.

Before I even read the decision, THAT'S what I'VE been saying.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

A pretty good summation

The SCPTUS Decision (if you can wade through it; it's not a mccain feingold, but it's not an easy reading decision either)

edeit to add:

Quote

Thompkins’ silence during the interrogation did not invoke his right to remain silent. A suspect’s Miranda right to counsel must be invoked “unambiguously.” Davis v. United States, 512 U. S. 452,
459. If the accused makes an “ambiguous or equivocal” statement orno statement, the police are not required to end the interrogation, ibid., or ask questions to clarify the accused’s intent, id., at 461–462. There is no principled reason to adopt different standards for deter-mining when an accused has invoked the Miranda right to remain si-lent and the Miranda right to counsel at issue in Davis. Both protectthe privilege against compulsory self-incrimination by requiring aninterrogation to cease when either right is invoked. The unambigu-ous invocation requirement results in an objective inquiry that “avoid[s.] difficulties of proof and . . . provide[s.] guidance to officers” on how to proceed in the face of ambiguity. Davis, supra, at 458–459. Had Thompkins said that he wanted to remain silent or that he didnot want to talk, he would have invoked his right to end the question-ing. He did neither.

Before I even read the decision, THAT'S what I'VE been saying.

This is a bunch of double-speak. The police can easily avoid this "ambiguity" by simply asking the suspect, "do you wish to remain silent?"

[Bolas 5]

Quote

How far do we go to protect the rights of the stupid and improvident?

That right there is the slipperiest slope of all...

To what extent should a gov't try to protect an individual from their own stupidity and what effect will that protection have on society as a whole?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[wolfriverjoe 1,346]

Quote

This is a bunch of double-speak. The police can easily avoid this "ambiguity" by simply asking the suspect, "do you wish to remain silent?"

Right. But they don't have to.

You have the right.

You have to assert that right. You have to specifically say "I don't want to answer any more questions". By signing and initialing all the spaces on the form they have, you are clearly stating that you understand your rights. They usually ask a question along the lines of "With these rights in mind, do you wish to answer any questions?"

If you don't say "NO", then they can ask you the questions. Not answering the question isn't the same as saying "NO".

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[wmw999 2,129]

Quote

This is a bunch of double-speak. The police can easily avoid this "ambiguity" by simply asking the suspect, "do you wish to remain silent?"

and if he doesn't answer, what does it mean? How long do you give him? What if he doesn't answer, but then says that yes, he'd like a coffee.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

This is a bunch of double-speak. The police can easily avoid this "ambiguity" by simply asking the suspect, "do you wish to remain silent?"

and if he doesn't answer, what does it mean? How long do you give him? What if he doesn't answer, but then says that yes, he'd like a coffee.

Wendy P.

I'd say if he doesn't answer that question, he's probably very confused about what his rights are You should probably stop asking him questions and go back to your desk and make sure that all the evidence you've gathered is good so that you can prosecute him without the need to compel him to testify against himself.

[Kennedy 0]

Do you understand what the word compel means?

Asking a question doesn't meet the definition. Especially when all you have to do is say "I don't want to talk." Five little words make the mean old police man leave you alone.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Southern_Man 0]

This guy had two different, but equally effective ways to exercise his right to remain silent:

1) tell them he wanted to remain silent
2) remain silent.

He did neither. I have no sympathy for him.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

This guy had two different, but equally effective ways to exercise his right to remain silent:

1) tell them he wanted to remain silent
2) remain silent.

He did neither. I have no sympathy for him.

Making law around the circumstances of one dirtbagperson is not generally a good idea.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Making law around the circumstances of one dirtbagperson is not generally a good idea.

I did not call him a dirtbag. He is a defendant (or suspect at the time) and he has rights.

The only way the Supremem Court makes case law is in the context of particular cases. Sometimes they tailor their rulings very narrowly and sometimes more broadly but they always make law around the circumstances of particular cases.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Quote

This guy had two different, but equally effective ways to exercise his right to remain silent:

1) tell them he wanted to remain silent
2) remain silent.

He did neither. I have no sympathy for him.

Making law around the circumstances of one dirtbagperson is not generally a good idea.

Like in the case of John W. Terry?

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

This guy had two different, but equally effective ways to exercise his right to remain silent:

1) tell them he wanted to remain silent
2) remain silent.

He did neither. I have no sympathy for him.

Making law around the circumstances of one dirtbagperson is not generally a good idea.

That's the nice thing about the Supreme Court, they tend to take the bigger picture into account (of course, they're not infallible and I don't always agree, but hell you can't get nine lawyers with decades of experience to agree on much of anything).

However, I'm still waiting for you to explain how you would put your option into effect in realilty. Would you just amke it illegal for police to talk to people?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Do you understand what the word compel means?

Asking a question doesn't meet the definition. Especially when all you have to do is say "I don't want to talk." Five little words make the mean old police man leave you alone.

When a police officer asks you questions, repeatedly, for hours on end while holding you prisoner against your will in order to get information of you that can be held against you, it is compelling.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

However, I'm still waiting for you to explain how you would put your option into effect in realilty. Would you just amke it illegal for police to talk to people?

The police officer should ask you if you wish to remain silent, rather than just telling you that you have the right. If you don't answer, the default should be for him to assume that you do and stop questioning you until you have a lawyer. If the officer has the evidence, he should not keep asking you in order to compel you to incriminate yourself.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Do you understand what the word compel means?

Asking a question doesn't meet the definition. Especially when all you have to do is say "I don't want to talk." Five little words make the mean old police man leave you alone.

When a police officer asks you questions, repeatedly, for hours on end while holding you prisoner against your will in order to get information of you that can be held against you, it is compelling.

Umm - wrong definition.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

When a police officer asks you questions, repeatedly, for hours on end while holding you prisoner against your will in order to get information of you that can be held against you, it is compelling.

You do realize that this entire conversation only applies to peoplein custody, right? THat is peope under arrest or serving a sentence. Yes, you're "held against your will" but don't act like the suspect was snatched off the street for no reason.

The supreme court and every respectable, recognized legal authority disagree with you. If a suspect is so weak that simply asking a question a few times when they are under arrest qualifies as "compelling" them, that's their problem.

You know what, it's not even worth explaining this to you because you have no idea how interogation actually works, have no idea what law enforcement actually does, and have no interest in hearing anything other than "cops are all evil." If that's the pathetic little world you live in, it's your problem. You are no different from thousands of other fanatics who have decided to hate something for no reason.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

When a police officer asks you questions, repeatedly, for hours on end while holding you prisoner against your will in order to get information of you that can be held against you, it is compelling.

You do realize that this entire conversation only applies to peoplein custody, right? THat is peope under arrest or serving a sentence. Yes, you're "held against your will" but don't act like the suspect was snatched off the street for no reason.

The supreme court and every respectable, recognized legal authority disagree with you. If a suspect is so weak that simply asking a question a few times when they are under arrest qualifies as "compelling" them, that's their problem.

You know what, it's not even worth explaining this to you because you have no idea how interogation actually works, have no idea what law enforcement actually does, and have no interest in hearing anything other than "cops are all evil." If that's the pathetic little world you live in, it's your problem. You are no different from thousands of other fanatics who have decided to hate something for no reason.

Alrighty then.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

When a police officer asks you questions, repeatedly, for hours on end while holding you prisoner against your will in order to get information of you that can be held against you, it is compelling.

You do realize that this entire conversation only applies to peoplein custody, right? THat is peope under arrest or serving a sentence. Yes, you're "held against your will" but don't act like the suspect was snatched off the street for no reason.

The supreme court and every respectable, recognized legal authority disagree with you. If a suspect is so weak that simply asking a question a few times when they are under arrest qualifies as "compelling" them, that's their problem.

You know what, it's not even worth explaining this to you because you have no idea how interogation actually works, have no idea what law enforcement actually does, and have no interest in hearing anything other than "cops are all evil." If that's the pathetic little world you live in, it's your problem. You are no different from thousands of other fanatics who have decided to hate something for no reason.

Alrighty then.

YOU ARE A SPY









oops sorry... wrong venue

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

In the USA, dirtbags have rights too.

I can't understand why the Republicans have such a problem with dirtbags having rights.

You know, I just figured out why you two are having such a hard time with this. You expect someone else to do everything for you and provide the world on a silky pillow witha satin bow (the essence of being Far Left). So you actually expect someone else to exercise your rights for you, as well.

Just so there is no misunderstanding (except by you two, because that's what you do), I believe in individual rights, including being allowed to make a mistake. It's hard to find an individual right that I don't support. I can't say the same for you two. So which of us has problems with people having rights? Hint: it's not me.

1) Whoosh; you didn't get it.

2) Kid with manicured nails, if you saw my job and how greasy I get before your bagel luncheon, you'd abruptly retract that. You have all the niceties and HC, I do not. It's laughingly pathetic to read you act as tho I am pampered and you the real tough guy.

>>>>>>> It's hard to find an individual right that I don't support.


1) Gay marriage

2) Abortion

3) Miranda

4) 14th Amendment

5) 8th Amendment

Edited to add: Geneva convention right to protection from torture.

Have a nice day, kid.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

1) Gay marriage

2) Abortion

3) Miranda

4) 14th Amendment

5) 8th Amendment

Edited to add: Geneva convention right to protection from torture.

Have a nice day, kid.

1) Show me where that is specifically in the Bill Of Rights
2) You believe it is a right to murder an innocent while saying it's not OK to murder someone that has killed others and made concious decisions to do thgose murders?
3) Miranda is a WARNING, and something to be understood - think you missed the mark here
4) You are saying he against immigration and naturalization?
5) Where do you get the idea that he is against the 8th amendment. Have you even read it?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

1) Gay marriage

2) Abortion

3) Miranda

4) 14th Amendment

5) 8th Amendment

Edited to add: Geneva convention right to protection from torture.

Have a nice day, kid.

1) Show me where that is specifically in the Bill Of Rights
2) You believe it is a right to murder an innocent while saying it's not OK to murder someone that has killed others and made concious decisions to do thgose murders?
3) Miranda is a WARNING, and something to be understood - think you missed the mark here
4) You are saying he against immigration and naturalization?
5) Where do you get the idea that he is against the 8th amendment. Have you even read it?

A) I think he can speak for himself

B) He wrote: It's hard to find an individual right that I don't support.

An individual right is a very lose term, he didn't say Constitutional or otherwise. Civil rights, human rts, rts based upon the state Const or US Const, the Geneva Convention, etc. He was global with his assertion, so was I.

Quote

>>>>>>>> 1) Show me where that is specifically in the Bill Of Rights.

--> Show me where slavery abolition is in the BOR's.

--> Also, see B) above.

Quote

>>>>>>>> 2) You believe it is a right to murder an innocent while saying it's not OK to murder someone that has killed others and made concious decisions to do thgose murders?

--> It isn't about me, he made the assertion about rights, Im calling him on it.

--> SCOTUS said abortion, 1st term and some other exceptions, isn't murder and is legal.

--> CP sucks as it catches the occassional innocent, most DRers deserve to die, I'm for the rts of the few inncoent people, you know, just like Kennedy claims to be.

Quote

>>>>>>>>>> 3) Miranda is a WARNING, and something to be understood - think you missed the mark here

--> It's a right/protection under the 4th, 5th and 6th in various elements, YOU COMPLETELY MISSED THE MARK. Miranda can apply to at least: searches, seizures, self-incrimination and right to counsel, so as much as Miranda is a warning, it goes FAR DEEPER than just a warning as if to mitigate it to a warning on a cup of coffee telling you that contents are hot.

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>> 4) You are saying he against immigration and naturalization?

--> Again, your lack of understanding of the US Const is clear. The 14th is the equal protection Amendment; carding all brown people, as I'm sure Kennedy is pro, is a violation of the 14th.

Quote

>>>>>>>>>> 5) Where do you get the idea that he is against the 8th amendment. Have you even read it?

I have a BS in Justice, you figure it out. I don't think Kennedy defines cruel and unusual punnishment the same as most people. AKA: he couldn't care less about prison abuses from, as he calls them, DIRTBAGS. Hell, that's for pre-convict arrestees, just think how he feels about convicts.

What, no address of: Edited to add: Geneva convention right to protection from torture.

I'll take that acquiescence as thumbs up for torture. Or are we going to redefine torture not to include waterboarding?

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

You do realize that this entire conversation only applies to peoplein custody, right? THat is peope under arrest or serving a sentence. Yes, you're "held against your will" but don't act like the suspect was snatched off the street for no reason.

How many times a day, across the entire US, do you think an innocent person is arrested?

I know the police like to think they only arrest people that they know are guilty but A) you're wrong, you're just not that good and B) even if you're right, the presumption of innocence still exists in terms of what protections the suspect gets from the system.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

When a police officer asks you questions, repeatedly, for hours on end while holding you prisoner against your will in order to get information of you that can be held against you, it is compelling.

You do realize that this entire conversation only applies to peoplein custody, right? THat is peope under arrest or serving a sentence. Yes, you're "held against your will" but don't act like the suspect was snatched off the street for no reason.

The supreme court and every respectable, recognized legal authority disagree with you. If a suspect is so weak that simply asking a question a few times when they are under arrest qualifies as "compelling" them, that's their problem.

Actually, no. As someone who has worked in, studied, practiced, researched, written on and taught criminal justice for over 30 years now, I can tell you that there are many respectable, recognized legal authorities who agree with him. 7 out of the 13 highly-trained federal judges who reviewed this case agree with him. 4 out of the 9 Supreme Court justices agree with him. But many legal authorities agree with you, too, as do the 5 deciding SC justices.

But I'll reassert what I said up-thread: this case, and the issues presented, are a close case, with good arguments on both sides. Anyone who thinks that this case is a "slam dunk" just because he or she happens to feel strongly one way or the other is a fool.

Quote

You know what, it's not even worth explaining this to you because you have no idea how interogation actually works, have no idea what law enforcement actually does,

Well, I certainly do, and that's why I've said what I've said.