• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Now I'm Definitely Never Talking to the Cops

Spartacus FPV

Better You = Better World
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
14,870
Reaction score
7,126
Location
Your Echochamber
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
[h=2]Supreme Court Rules Fifth Amendment Has to Actually Be Invoked[/h]
In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court ruled today that a potential defendant’s silence can be used against him if he is being interviewed by police but is not arrested (and read his Miranda rights) and has not verbally invoked the protection of the Fifth Amendment.

...

The irony here is that the ruling is yet another reason to actually never cooperate with the authorities, ever, and add an invocation of the Fifth Amendment anytime you are put in a position to speak to one.
The ruling fell along ideological lines, with swing Justice Anthony Kennedy falling in with the more conservative members. Read the full ruling here(pdf).
What.... the... ****.... I can't just not talk to them, I have to explicitly cite the fifth to do so? Sucks for those uneducated about their rights in this new Amerika.

On a related note, I have to be careful what I say in public now in this ****ty state that is Maryland? Surveillance State: Maryland is Listening to You - Reason.com
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
It is a weird ruling. I think I might agree with it sometimes. I cannot believe that any person doesn't have some inkling of what their rights are considering we are inundated with it on TV and in movies.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Supreme Court Rules Fifth Amendment Has to Actually Be Invoked




What.... the... ****.... I can't just not talk to them, I have to explicitly cite the fifth to do so? Sucks for those uneducated about their rights in this new Amerika.

On a related note, I have to be careful what I say in public now in this ****ty state that is Maryland? Surveillance State: Maryland is Listening to You - Reason.com
Woah, did either you or the guy who wrote that article even read the opinion? You are totally distorting it!


To prevent the privilege against self-incrimination from shield-
ing information not properly within its scope, a witness who “ ‘desires
the protection of the privilege . . . must claim it’ ” at the time he relies
on it. Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U. S. 420, 427. This Court has rec-
ognized two exceptions to that requirement. First, a criminal de-
fendant need not take the stand and assert the privilege at his own
trial. Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609, 613–615. Petitioner’s si-
lence falls outside this exception because he had no comparable un-
qualified right not to speak during his police interview. Second, a witness’ failure to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination must be excused where governmental coercion makes his forfeiture of the privilege involuntary. See, e.g., Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S.
436, 467−468, and n. 37. Petitioner cannot benefit from this principle because it is undisputed that he agreed to accompany the officers to the station and was free to leave at any time. Pp. 3−6.
[Emphasis added].
For crying out loud, is all the weed yall smoke making my fellow libertarians paranoid? Just because you fear cops busting you for your illegal hobbies does not mean that every ****ing ruling that makes a cop's job easier is a bad thing for liberty.

This is, yet again, much ado about nothing.
 
Last edited:

Spartacus FPV

Better You = Better World
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
14,870
Reaction score
7,126
Location
Your Echochamber
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Woah, did either you o the guy who wrote that article even read the opinion? You are totally distorting it!
How have I distorted it? What did I say that wasn't true?

The article clearly states "The Court said Salinas simply remained silent and did not “formally” invoke any constitutional right, so prosecutors could offer commentary to the jury. What’s most disturbing about the ruling is its discussion of “burdens.” The plurality put the onus on the individual, not the government."

What did you read that said otherwise?
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So we have the DNA ruling from earlier this month and now this.

Great job making the police more powerful supreme court. :doh

Has the supreme court made one ruling worth a damn all month?
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
How have I distorted it? What did I say that wasn't true?

The article clearly states "The Court said Salinas simply remained silent and did not “formally” invoke any constitutional right, so prosecutors could offer commentary to the jury. What’s most disturbing about the ruling is its discussion of “burdens.” The plurality put the onus on the individual, not the government."

What did you read that said otherwise?
I edited that posted with a quote.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So we have the DNA ruling from earlier this month and now this.

Great job making the police more powerful supreme court. :doh

Has the supreme court made one ruling worth a damn all month?
Why is it a bad thing for cops to be able to do their job well?
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Woah, did either you or the guy who wrote that article even read the opinion? You are totally distorting it!

You're kidding right? Did you read the quote you provided? It basically puts all the burden on the individual and directed it away from the state. We both know that was not the intent of the fifth amendment.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I saw that quote, it wasn't from the article nor did I take kindly to your pot smoking baseless assertion.

You claimed I misrepresented the article, prove how.
Haha. The quote is taken from the case you're on your high horse about. Pun intended.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Why is it a bad thing for cops to be able to do their job well?
It's a bad ruling because it removes the protection of the fifth amendment. It's pretty cut and dry.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You're kidding right? Did you read the quote you provided? It basically puts all the burden on the individual and directed it away from the state. We both know that was not the intent of the fifth amendment.
The burden has always been on the individual when they aren't being coerced. And the burden has not changed when the individual is being coerced. Coercion is the only thing that should be of a concern to a true libertarian. If you are with the cops of your own free will, then you takes your lumps. It's called personal responsibility.

This case is nothing.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The burden has always been on the individual when they aren't being coerced. And the burden has not changed when the individual is being coerced. Coercion is the only thing that should be of a concern to a true libertarian. If you are with the cops of your own free will, then you takes your lumps. It's called personal responsibility.

This case is nothing.
Don't pull that true libertarian crap on me when you are supporting being unprotected by the fifth amendment. It doesn't fly with me.
 

Spartacus FPV

Better You = Better World
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
14,870
Reaction score
7,126
Location
Your Echochamber
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Haha. The quote is taken from the case you're on your high horse about. Pun intended.
How does what you quoted refute anything said in the article, how did I or the author misrepresent the ruling? How was the author wrong?

The fact that one is free to leave does not negate his/her failure to invoke the privilege of the 5th.

It does no such thing.
Yes it does, it shifts the onus to the individual.

The burden has always been on the individual when they aren't being coerced.
Source for that claim?

Whatever makes cops jobs easier :roll:
 
Last edited:

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
How have I distorted it? What did I say that wasn't true?

The article clearly states "The Court said Salinas simply remained silent and did not “formally” invoke any constitutional right, so prosecutors could offer commentary to the jury. What’s most disturbing about the ruling is its discussion of “burdens.” The plurality put the onus on the individual, not the government."

What did you read that said otherwise?
I also don't understand what the big deal is. I'm not surprised at all by the ruling. Officer testifying on stand: "We asked him a number of questions which he answered; when we asked him if ballistic tests would match his weapon, he fell silent." What is so shocking that the prosecution would be able to say that??

As to the onus being on the individual? That's why it's called invoking your right to counsel.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Don't pull that true libertarian crap on me when you are supporting being unprotected by the fifth amendment. It doesn't fly with me.
Being a libertarian does not mean automatically hating the cops, the way you and other superficial libertarians take it to mean. I am so sick of the types who think libertarianism is just a code word for "stoner republican."

This is not a libertarian issue. Real libertarians should cheer this case, since it helps cops do their job effectively. The fifth amendment is a great protection against government coercion, and it still is. But when you voluntarily converse with police, you are not being coerced. This should be fundamental libertarian stuff, to any true libertarian that is.

But hey, since when do all those Ron Paul potheads give a **** about actual libertarian philosophy, anyway?
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
How does what you quoted refute anything said in the article, how did I or the author misrepresent the ruling? How was the author wrong?

The fact that one is free to leave does not negate his/her failure to invoke the privilege of the 5th.



Yes it does, it shifts the onus to the individual.



Source for that claim?

Ever hear of presumed innocence?

Whatever makes cops jobs easier :roll:
The author makes it seem like he was in custody. He wasn't.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It does no such thing.
The quote you provided said it well enough. Anyone with an ounce of sense realizes what that quote means.

It even went so far as to call it a privilege three times which should be insulting to everyone.
 

Spartacus FPV

Better You = Better World
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
14,870
Reaction score
7,126
Location
Your Echochamber
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The author makes it seem like he was in custody. He wasn't.
How so?

Edit: In fact, nevermind... you're bull**** "pot head" comments have already made me disgusted by you and your inability to make a point without insults.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
How so?

Edit: In fact, nevermind... you're bull**** "pot head" comments have already made me disgusted by you and your inability to make a point without insults.
I can't think of any other reason to account for the fact that so many self professed libertarians are reflexively, unthinkingly and uncritically opposed to police in any situation. The dogmatic opposition to cops I see among the stoner-republican types is positively frightening, and an embarrassment to actual libertarians like myself.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Being a libertarian does not mean automatically hating the cops, the way you and other superficial libertarians take it to mean. I am so sick of the types who think libertarianism is just a code word for "stoner republican."

This is not a libertarian issue. Real libertarians should cheer this case, since it helps cops do their job effectively. The fifth amendment is a great protection against government coercion, and it still is. But when you voluntarily converse with police, you are not being coerced. This should be fundamental libertarian stuff, to any true libertarian that is.

But hey, since when do all those Ron Paul potheads give a **** about actual libertarian philosophy, anyway?
There is no reason to think it's different if I freely go with the police. I still have the same rights as I otherwise would. It's just a stupid loophole for the government and a true libertarian would see that.

Btw, I haven't touched pot in over a decade.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The quote you provided said it well enough. Anyone with an ounce of sense realizes what that quote means.

It even went so far as to call it a privilege three times which should be insulting to everyone.
Hoo boy:roll: It technically is a "privilege." Look it up if you don't believe me.
 
Last edited:

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
There is no reason to think it's different if I freely go with the police. I still have the same rights as I otherwise would. It's just a stupid loophole for the government and a true libertarian would see that.

Btw, I haven't touched pot in over a decade.
It's not a loophole. If you voluntarily talk with the police, why should you get the privileges that properly only belong to those who have been coercively taken into police custody? Do you not see the difference between voluntarily talking to police and being in custody??
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Hoo boy:roll: It technically is a "privilege." You've got issues that run much deeper than I am able to address in this thread. Crack open a book sometime.
I wouldn't want someone that thinks we don't have a right to privacy to teach me anyway.
 
Top Bottom