- Joined
- Apr 19, 2006
- Messages
- 14,870
- Reaction score
- 7,128
- Location
- Your Echochamber
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
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).
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
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].
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?
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?
I edited that posted with a quote.
Woah, did either you or the guy who wrote that article even read the opinion? You are totally distorting it!
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.
Why is it a bad thing for cops to be able to do their job well?
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.
It's a bad ruling because it removes the protection of the fifth amendment. It's pretty cut and dry.
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.
Haha. The quote is taken from the case you're on your high horse about. Pun intended.
It does no such thing.
The burden has always been on the individual when they aren't being coerced.
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?
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.
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:
It does no such thing.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?