The Miranda Right to Remain Silent ...

[finnbow]

...but only if you speak up (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/06/01/us/politics/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Miranda-Rights.html?_r=1&hp).:confused:

Let me get this straight. A cop tells you that "you have the right to remain silent." So, you remain silent, but in doing so you no longer have that right.

I agree with Sotomayor's take on this one.

[merrylander]

Right, a simple "Fuck off and stop bothering me" should do it.

[Fast_Eddie]

But, if you say "I'd like to invoke my right to remain silent" do they have to stop questioning you? If so I'm okay with it.

[finnbow]

But, if you say "I'd like to invoke my right to remain silent" do they have to stop questioning you? If so I'm okay with it.

Apparently yes. However, I'm not sure how you are supposed to know that.

It just seems counterintuitive to say that one must affirmatively say out loud "I am invoking my right to remain silent." It just touched my irony bone.:rolleyes:

[d-ray657]

If you invoke your right to remain silent, the authorities may resume questioning at a later time. However, if you invoke your right to counsel, they cannot engage in any further questioning without the presence of counsel.

This is incrementalism of the worst kind. Push the rights back a little bit here and a little bit there, then it's time to push them just a little bit more here. A drip by drip erosion of liberty.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

Don't tell 'em shit...the first thing cons learn at the joint.

Even if you're not a con, don't tell 'em shit.

Chas

[d-ray657]

Don't tell 'em shit...the first thing cons learn at the joint.

Even if you're not a con, don't tell 'em shit.

Chas

And if the prisoner just says "I ain't telling you shit'" this court would probably say that wasn't good enough because he didn't use the magic words.:(

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

But Tuesday's majority said that suspects must break their silence and tell police they are going to remain quiet to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

It looks to me that the SC has too much time on their hands if they have nothing better to look into than this.

Are we dealing with mutes?

Chas

[Sandy G]

Hehehehehe...I like what Ron "Tater Salad" White had to say about it- "I had the RIGHT to remain silent, but not the ABILITY..."

[Grumpy]

Hehehehehe...I like what Ron "Tater Salad" White had to say about it- "I had the RIGHT to remain silent, but not the ABILITY..."


You and me both :D

[whoaru99]

I don't think it's asking to much to have someone say clearly state "I wish to remain silent", or something similar, when asked if they understand the Miranda.

[finnbow]

I don't think it's asking to much to have someone say clearly state "I wish to remain silent", or something similar, when asked if they understand the Miranda.

Provided, of course, that they're informed exactly what words they need to utter in conjunction with the Miranda warning.

[Boreas]

This is incrementalism of the worst kind. Push the rights back a little bit here and a little bit there, then it's time to push them just a little bit more here. A drip by drip erosion of liberty.

Regards,

D-Ray

And this is precisely what the Right Wing Justices are committed to.

John

[whoaru99]

Provided, of course, that they're informed exactly what words they need to utter in conjunction with the Miranda warning.

I don't think it will need to be as technically precise a statement as some are implying or even as I stated for example, but I guess we'll see.

Wouldn't surprise me at all to see a call for the Miranda to include the necessary response options, and I think that's fine. Maybe even a good idea just so the clarity is there.

[BlueStreak]

I recently got a "Next time you decide to run your mouth..." from our plant manager the other day. So, Me Too.:D

[d-ray657]

I recently got a "Next time you decide to run your mouth..." from our plant manager the other day. So, Me Too.:D

I don't believe it. I can't imagine that you would ever say what is on your mind, Dave. It must have been some nasty rumor. Couldn't have been you.

Crap, got you mixed up with Clark Kent.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

As long as Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia are there the Supreme Court is a joke. Where Scalia gets off interpreting the Constitution amazes me, he only got on the Court because he is Italian.

[Fast_Eddie]

I've never been arrested. Pretty straight arrow most of the time. If I get pulled over for a traffic violation I'm curtious and cooperate as much as possible with the office. Cops have tough jobs and I'm not out to make them any tougher.

But if I ever got arrested for anything I'd not say a word. I think those things get out of hand from time to time and I doubt many of them ever believe they could arrest someone who was innocent -even though 100% of them are, at leat until proven guilty.

Nope, I'd be invoking my right in pretty absolute terms and would want a decent lawyer there asap.

[piece-itpete]

And that's the thing - the guy was told his rights, and confessed anyway! From where I sit he's the dumbass, the cops did their job.

Pete

[Boreas]

As long as Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia are there the Supreme Court is a joke. Where Scalia gets off interpreting the Constitution amazes me, he only got on the Court because he is Italian.

Scalia got on the Court because he's a Right Wing operative and Opus Dei. Being an Italian American may have been advanced as an "affirmative action" argument (don't remember) but it was never the actual reason he was selected.

By the way, Scalia's son was a partner in the law firm representing Bush in Bush v. Gore. "Nino" should have recused himself as a result. I think he could be impeached for that.

John

[BlueStreak]

I don't believe it. I can't imagine that you would ever say what is on your mind, Dave. It must have been some nasty rumor. Couldn't have been you.

Crap, got you mixed up with Clark Kent.

Regards,

D-Ray

One of his stool pidgeons had told him of a comment that I had made the previous day. A statement that I really didn't think was too far out of bounds---well, maybe....? Anyhow, the next thing I said after he got done was; "Saunders, right?" (Surprised look on his face) "Tattle-tales are like carrier pidgeons, if you want to know who they are just pin a note to them and see if it comes back." He didn't like that. People like that don't like having their game turned around on them.

I can't help it, it's a old habit.:D

Regards,
Dave

[whoaru99]

Nope, I'd be invoking my right in pretty absolute terms and would want a decent lawyer there asap.

By "absolute terms" do you mean literally not saying anything, or by clearly and unequivocally stating you choose to remain silent?

[Charles]

By "absolute terms" do you mean literally not saying anything, or by clearly and unequivocally stating you choose to remain silent?

Not being the sharpest implement in the rack, I've always assumed that the right to remain silent meant that you didn't have to answer any questions the police asked concerning your arrest.

And D-Ray is correct, once you ask for an attorney, the shows over.

Chas

[whoaru99]

Not being the sharpest implement in the rack, I've always assumed that the right to remain silent meant that you didn't have to answer any questions the police asked concerning your arrest.

And D-Ray is correct, once you ask for an attorney, the shows over.

Chas

Now you have to assume no longer.

Besides, I was asking Fast_Eddie to clarify his remark because I wasn't sure if that's what he meant or not.

[noonereal]

Don't tell 'em shit...the first thing cons learn at the joint.

Even if you're not a con, don't tell 'em shit.

Chas

If you remain silent and you are innocent the police will look no further than you and frame a case around you.

We have seen this over and over again.

[Charles]

If you remain silent and you are innocent the police will look no further than you and frame a case around you.

We have seen this over and over again.

Or you can open your mouth and give them some ammunition to use against you.

This is so simple. If you don't say anything, then they don't have your own words to use against you.

Framing a bogus case is different than using your own statement to incriminate you. They are not the same.

Chas

[Charles]

Now you have to assume no longer.

Besides, I was asking Fast_Eddie to clarify his remark because I wasn't sure if that's what he meant or not.

Excuse me for being so forward.

Chas

[whoaru99]

No big deal, really.

I guess I'm just not too worried about being required to say I choose to remain silent (or something clearly of that meaning). It may even get them off my back sooner than saying absolutely nothing.