Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Salty, Jun 2, 2010.
and how long is that right valid for?
Remember these words: "I am invoking my right to remain silent, and my right to consul."
Boggles my mind how anyone in the US can NOT know that.
The individual knew that, and refused to answer any questions - but since he had not verbally said he wanted to remain silent - the SCOTUS has ruled the police can now legally keep questioning him. What happened, after three hours of interrogation ...
<The officers in the room said Thompkins said little during the interrogation, occasionally answering "yes," ''no," ''I don't know," nodding his head and making eye contact as his responses. But when one of the officers asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for "shooting that boy down," Thompkins said, "Yes.">
So according to the court, by remaining silent, he gave up his right to remain silent?
George Orwell would be proud.
You have the right to remain silent - anything you say may be used against you.
Answering "yes" is not remaining silent.
Answering "yes" may be used against him.
Strange ruling by conservative court justices. I thought conservatives did not like activist judges.
Why is this a strange ruling?
You must envoke your right to an attorney.
Why is it not logical then that someone should have to envoke their right to remain silent?
Is it logical to say that by remaining your forfeit your right to remain silent?
What does this sentence mean?
Is it logical to say that remaining silent you forfeit your right to remain silent?
What's the point of reading the maranda rights then? It's obvious.
Saying "yes" or "no" or anything else is not "remaining silent".
What is obvious?
That a person has a right to remain silent and to have an attorney present. which means he doesn't have to say anything and if he wants an attorney he can ask for one. There is no reason he has to state his intention on remain silent. Its an afforded right. On the other hand he can request an attorney which is a right he also has. If he doesn't want an attorney he can give a waiver just like if he wants to forego his rights of remaining silent he can waiver it by talking freely.
My understanding (limited though it may be) is that the police only have to stop questioning the suspect when he says ."I want a lawyer." If he/she continues to talk and incriminates him/herself, that's just plain stupidity and perhaps pride at what he/she did. Just because the suspect chose not to talk, that doesn't mean the police can't--unless the suspect asks for a lawyer of course.
Jon has it in a nutshell - simply tell the police you have nothing else to say until your lawyer arrives. By saying "yes" to wanting to remain silent does not make you guilty -.
The police are not required to stop asking questions until you inform them.
Some people are taking 'right to remain silent' way too literally. As a legal matter it refers to the right to not answer questions or volunteer statements concerning crimes that you are being questioned about. It doesn't mean not saying a single word about anything. Are the police supposed to be mind readers? They can't know if you want a lawyer unless you tell them, and invoking your right to 'remain silent' works the same way. Their job is to question the suspect unless he invokes his right not to be questioned. That has to be communicated SOMEHOW, for goodness sake. Saying you are invoking your right to remain silent still leaves you being completely silent about what you are being questioned about. That's all Miranda is about. Let's not turn an important Constitutional right into a silly word game here.
My brother "The Lawyer" has taught me well. "If you ever have the handcuffs on...SHUT UP ! Let your Lawyer do his work...you ain't a lawyer...only an unlucky soul that is UNDER arrest.
No, not logical at all. He had the right to remain silent. But he didn't remain silent. He spoke. He didn't have to. No one forced him to.
The right to remain silent is just that, a right to remain silent. All he had to do was remain silent. He gave up that right by speaking. Even then all he had to say was, "I am remaining silent. I will not answer your questions. I want a lawyer." But he didn't. He gave up his right to remain silent by speaking and then failed to ask for a lawyer. And he was even advised of his rights, so it's not like he didn't know them.
The idea that this is activist is confusing beyond measure. How in the world is it activist?
The fact that someone has a right does not mean that they have to exercise that right. But if they want to exercise the right, then they have to exercise it. This is a ruling that shows that Sotomayor was very unqualified for the court. She has no business being there, much less writing decisions. There's an old line about it being better to remain silent and let someone think you're a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. This is one where Sotomayor should have exercised her right to remain silent.