Now I'm Definitely Never Talking to the Cops

[Spartacus FPV]

[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]

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]

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.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I edited that posted with a quote.

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.

 

[Henrin]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Guy Incognito]

It's a bad ruling because it removes the protection of the fifth amendment. It's pretty cut and dry.

It does no such thing.

 

[Henrin]

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]

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:

 

[MaggieD]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Guy Incognito]

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]

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.