New Supreme Court Ruling

[Tim C.]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100601/...miranda_rights

Power to the police, not the people in our wonderful country. I hate the Supreme Court.

The smart man only ever has two things to say to a cop. The first is "Am I under arrest?" If not, say nothing else. If you are, the second and only other thing you ever have to say to a cop is "I want to speak to my lawyer."

[standupright]

unless your jaw is broken, how hard is it to say "i invoke my right to remain silent"?

[XigXag]

How hard is it to understand "Anything you say may be held against you in a court of law."
Thats pretty damn explicit.
And if you really want to remain silent, how about trying REMAINING SILENT. Saying "Yes, I pray that God forgives me for that girls death" isn't remaining silent. And sounds like an admission of guilt to me.

[Munjibunga]

If the guy had just remained silent, they wouldn't have gotten the confession out of him, and the issue would have been moot. The point is, if you're going to remain silent, remain silent.

[standupright]

Originally Posted by XigXag

How hard is it to understand "Anything you say may be held against you in a court of law."
Thats pretty damn explicit.
And if you really want to remain silent, how about trying REMAINING SILENT. Saying "Yes, I pray that God forgives me for that girls death" isn't remaining silent. And sounds like an admission of guilt to me.

it isn't hard at all to understand it. but it looks like the law may be changing.

[cheezewiz]

Changed my mind. No need to enter a silly conversation. If anyone REALLY wants a murderer to get off on a technicality, you have more problems than arguing on TB.

[Scottgun]

Some people might be interested in this book: But They Didn't Read Me My Rights!: Myths, Oddities, and Lies About Our Legal System: http://www.amazon.com/But-They-Didnt...5494336&sr=8-1

It has a section on Miranda. And it ain't like in the movies.

[mike_v_s]

Is Miranda that hard to understand? You have the right to shut up. If you don't, and something stupid slips, that's your ass. The end.

Mike

[cap'n crunk]

All posters claiming that "all you have to do is shut up!" to invoke your Miranda right to remain silent under police interrogation either didn't read the new SC decision or did read it and don't understand it. Under the new decision, by not EXPLICITLY STATING to your interrogator(s) that you are invoking your right to remain silent and STOP POLICE QUESTIONING (which they can and will continue for hours upon hours, perhaps not allowing you to eat, drink, or relieve yourself as they do), like this: "I invoke my right to remain silent," you have NOT invoked your right to remain silent ... which means, strangely, that even making EYE CONTACT with the interrogating officers can be used as evidence against you. (Read the article the OP posted.) As long as the interrogation continues, any "communication" -- loosely interpreted, and not just speech -- you make with the officers can be used as evidence against you. So if you want to invoke your Miranda right to remain silent, you now HAVE to SAY SO. "Just shut up!" ain't gonna cut it.

[DeluxeRed]

But you have to ask yourself: is there really any good reason to give the police more power over you, and for you to have fewer rights?

Police work is tough, no doubt. But there's not a police draft, and I don't see any reason to give the cops more powers. If they can't do their job within the constraints of the Bill of Rights, then they're just incompetent cops.

But mainly this lays bare the hypocrisy of the "conservative" movement and the "conservative" court. A true "conservative" is AGAINST giving the government MORE power. A true "conservative" wants to conserve such powers for themselves, We The People. Far off to the Left are the fascists who want the police to rule with an iron fist. So all of you on the Right have no one to blame but yourselves for getting snookered by that previous administration, you know, the one that created humongous government departments and stacked the court with pro-police/anti-citizen clowns.

Sure, I can make you "safer" and more "secure"--just give me all of your rights and let me lock you into your house, and you'll be much safer.

I'd rather see a million "criminals" walk free than have one iota of my rights taken away.

[mike_v_s]

Originally Posted by Scottgun

Some people might be interested in this book: But They Didn't Read Me My Rights!: Myths, Oddities, and Lies About Our Legal System: http://www.amazon.com/But-They-Didnt...5494336&sr=8-1

It has a section on Miranda. And it ain't like in the movies.

This quote from the blurb by Publisher's Weekly does absolutely nothing for it:

For example, it's possible to be convicted of multiple counts of the same crime, despite the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, provided there are multiple victims.

No ****.

mike

[mike_v_s]

Originally Posted by cap'n crunk

All posters claiming that "all you have to do is shut up!" to invoke your Miranda right to remain silent under police interrogation either didn't read the new SC decision or did read it and don't understand it. Under the new decision, by not EXPLICITLY STATING to your interrogator(s) that you are invoking your right to remain silent and STOP POLICE QUESTIONING (which they can and will continue for hours upon hours, perhaps not allowing you to eat, drink, or relieve yourself as they do), like this: "I invoke my right to remain silent," you have NOT invoked your right to remain silent ... which means, strangely, that even making EYE CONTACT with the interrogating officers can be used as evidence against you. (Read the article the OP posted.) As long as the interrogation continues, any "communication" -- loosely interpreted, and not just speech -- you make with the officers can be used as evidence against you. So if you want to invoke your Miranda right to remain silent, you now HAVE to SAY SO. "Just shut up!" ain't gonna cut it.

Oh, I read it. i think maybe some are reading too much into it.

Mike

EDIT: The guy's problem isn't that he made eye contact or neglected to invoke his right to remain silent, it's that he didn't shut up, plain and simple. As the article stated, he continued to answer questions after saying he understood his rights, including answering a question implicating his involvement in the murder. "Just shut up" would have cut it.

[mike_v_s]

Originally Posted by DeluxeRed

But you have to ask yourself: is there really any good reason to give the police more power over you, and for you to have fewer rights?

Police work is tough, no doubt. But there's not a police draft, and I don't see any reason to give the cops more powers. If they can't do their job within the constraints of the Bill of Rights, then they're just incompetent cops.

But mainly this lays bare the hypocrisy of the....(insert political feelings here)

I'd rather see a million "criminals" walk free than have one iota of my rights taken away.

Awesome. I was hoping politics would be allowed in OT again, and now that glorious day has arriv.....wait. What?

Mike

[CapnSev]

Originally Posted by cheezewiz

Changed my mind. No need to enter a silly conversation. If anyone REALLY wants a murderer to get off on a technicality, you have more problems than arguing on TB.

+1

I'm not even going to get started on this one.

[Scottgun]

Originally Posted by mike_v_s

This quote from the blurb by Publisher's Weekly does absolutely nothing for it: No ****.

mike

Well yeah, blurbs are often a book's worst enemy. I should have added that I checked it out at the library and enjoyed it, but wouldn't buy it.

[cap'n crunk]

Originally Posted by mike_v_s

Oh, I read it. i think maybe some are reading too much into it.

Mike

Maybe. Or maybe some aren't reading it closely enough.

[mike_v_s]

Originally Posted by cap'n crunk

Maybe. Or maybe some aren't reading it closely enough.

I'd agree that might be a problem, too. As I edited above, his problem wasn't eye contact or anything else. His problem was that he continued to answer questions after saying that he understood his rights, including a question that implicated his involvement in the murder. That's pretty basic. If say you understand your right to remain silent, and then choose to answer questions, well....

Mike

[cap'n crunk]

Originally Posted by mike_v_s

I'd agree that might be a problem, too. As I edited above, his problem wasn't eye contact or anything else. His problem was that he continued to answer questions after saying that he understood his rights, including a question that implicated his involvement in the murder. That's pretty basic. If say you understand your right to remain silent, and then choose to answer questions, well....

Mike

Righto. While I referenced that particular interrogation in my post, I'm writing more about the SC decision in general and the new way in which one should deal with the unfortunate event of being interrogated by police. Also, not to parse semantics or anything, but (as concerns the new decision) saying you understand your right and invoking your right are two completely different things, especially in the eyes of the police and the courts.

[mike_v_s]

Originally Posted by cap'n crunk

Righto. While I referenced that particular interrogation in my post, I'm writing more about the SC decision in general and the new way in which one should deal with the unfortunate event of being interrogated by police. Also, not to parse semantics or anything, but (as concerns the new decision) saying you understand your right and invoking your right are two completely different things, especially in the eyes of the police and the courts.

Completely agreed. When you continue to talk after saying you undertand your rights, it can be reasonably determined (as in this case) that you have chosen not to invoke your right to remain silent. I'm not sure we needed a SC ruling for that.

Mike

[Happynoj]

To me it sounds like a fairly positive thing - you tell them that you are going to remain silent, they cut the interrogation short. What's the problem here?