Supreme Court Bombshell: No Right to Remain Silent

[Lynx]

Im not american but im sure this will piss a lot of people off...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...-remain-silent

"Guilty or not, suspects in the United States no longer have the right to remain silent. If they remain silent, moreover, that silence will now be interpreted as guilt and will indeed — despite what you see on television court and cop dramas — be used against that person in a court of law. Even, in fact, the highest court in the land."

[Joey GT-R]

While this is terrible for American Civil Liberties, what I know I won't like is the politcal fallout that is sure to go entirely to.....you guessed it, the Obama Administration. The justices that actually ruled in favor of the current ruling were appointed during the Reagan and Bush Administrations respectively. The justices that were against were appointed during the Clinton and Obama years.


I'll expect to see quite a few posts on my Facebook timeline ignorant of that fact. Or maybe the conservatives will keep it hush hush if they know what's good for them.

[phatdoughnut]

If you think the miranda rights protected you in the first place you have been sadly mistaken. They all have gained such an upper hand above us that everything is a joke.

What happens when you refuse to allow a cop to search your car? automatically guilty of anything.

These are very sad times.

[reklipz]

This is a bit disturbing. I already knew that to be supremely certain you were invoking your fifth amendment right you were best saying some special phrase. Now it looks like that is the law of the land; just being silent isn't enough, and apparently the words "I plead the fifth" or "I choose to remain silent" etc. are not enough... From TFA:

Another terrifying twist to the Salinas decision is that it imposes on a suspect the necessity of invoking specific language before law enforcement will honor the basic civil liberties of a person who is (or historically, was) innocent until proven guilty.

TFA quotes this as the law-accepted magic expression now:

I expressly invoke the privilege against self incrimination.

The article truly is worth a read if you care about your liberties as a US citizen at all; it does a good job of breaking down what this really means and what the change really entails.

[deevergote]

Silence has long been an admission of guilt anyway. As for Miranda rights... cop dramas have blown that way out of proportion. bcozzi71 explained that in another thread quite well.

I've been falsely accused, and even falsely convicted in the past. It happens. However, I will still stand by my belief that if you are not guilty, you will USUALLY not be found as such. You still have to be proven guilty. A large number of people that complain about such laws are one of two things: 1) people that commit crimes and don't want to lose their loophole, or 2) people that are so caught up in the concept of freedom that they have no regard for the complex machine that is the US government. It is VERY difficult to do things in such a massive (and massively expensive) behemoth.

Also Chad, that website appears to be largely propaganda. The information on there is clearly biased, and worded specifically to elicit a strong reaction in one direction or another.

[toycar]

So what? Oj got off because the gloves didn't fit.







The jury is who you need to be worried about. For atleast 17 years its been known in the "real crime world" that yes, you look guilty when you say nothing, and yes, you say nothing.

Why? If you don't say shit, they don't know shit.


Prosecuting attorneys cannot present a case to move forward without a predetermination that enough "work" so to say has been done in the case and that there is merit in the idea that you will be able to prove guilt.

W/out evidence, their word vs yours will NOT be enough to prosecute. Period end of story.


In my opinion this is related to the IRS official that recently went on to speak to congress and plead the fifth about her knowledge/involvement about the adminstrations involvement in pushing that agenda in the first place. She refused to tell who gave the orders for invasive tax auditing on specific political groups.



I do think that the anti-Obama side of politics are responsible for this change. They have proof of the problem, and now they COULD hold her accountable where in the past they could NOT w/out her testimony using her presumed guilt + evidence.


I think that is all the more this is about, but, it will affect millions of stupid people that will feel compelled to tell the cops some shit or another.


Policy stands folks, IF YOU DON'T SAY SHIT THEY DON'T KNOW SHIT.

[1993 CB7 LX]

this country is going down the tubes. sad to say, but its true in my eyes

[8ball]

I think you have to tell them that you do not wish to speak or answer any questions with out YOUR attorney present.

If you think the miranda rights protected you in the first place you have been sadly mistaken. They all have gained such an upper hand above us that everything is a joke.

What happens when you refuse to allow a cop to search your car? automatically guilty of anything.

These are very sad times.

No shit I just found out that little illegal search of my car, that bastard broke my cup holder and threw it under my seat it's bad enough he broke my door panel and door handle and weather stripping !

[toycar]

I think you have to tell them that you do not wish to speak or answer any questions with out YOUR attorney present.

Nah, they are saying that refusing to give a statement is different than invoking your right to avoid self incrimination.


So basically now you have to admit that you cannot talk about whatever they are asking you-without incriminating yourself. An admission of guilt in itself if you will.


The "silent treatment" is now admissible in court as "evidence of guilt" per the supreme court as of Monday.



It all stems from a guy that was suspected of killing a couple guys in Texas. The cops were questioning him, and mid interview he decided he was going to plead the 5th and start refusing to answer questions.


They said that his timing and the questions he avoided answering illustrated his guilt in the situation. Had he invoked his "right to avoid self incrimination" from square one, they couldn't percieve his timing and specific questions as avoided intentionally-which is why they say it is able to be percieved as guilt. If you answer every question until I ask you did you kill someone, then you refuse and say "I plead the 5th" they say now that your behavior IS admissible in court as guilt and as evidence of guilt.





Doesn't really change shit for me. I've known all along that if you don't say shit they don't know shit.





Sure, I looked guilty in 1990 when I chose to remain silent. The detectives thought I was guilty 23 years ago for remaining silent.


DONT SAY SHIT, THEY DONT KNOW SHIT.

Cops have always viewed you as guilty for getting a lawyer or refusing to comment. Nothing new there.

[Ralphie]

bcozzi71 explained that in another thread quite well.

.

No he didn't lol.

He was 100% wrong lol.

He said it's basically bs like reality tv.

They are not.

[reklipz]

So, does this mean that everytime I wish to speak in public, I need to explicitly (verbally) invoke my 1st amendment right for all to hear before I speak?

A friend presented this, which I thought was revealing:

I can't imagine my mother invoking the 19th every four years to vote. Could I require some IRS agent to invoke the 16th every April 15th, in person.

That's the crux of the issue here, why should one have to invoke a basic right? It should just be there.

And along those lines, another friend had this to say, which I totally agree with:

I have no concerns about "he got squeamish when we asked him questions" testimony being allowed. That's a policeman giving his eyewitness testimony, just like any other eyewitness testimony is has to be evaluated and weighted. On cross or redirect, that can easily be pounded home: "But did he admit anything? Would you get squeamish if somebody accused you of murder?"...

But having to get the legal phrase exactly right, I sure hope not? Saying that my Fifth Amendment rights don't apply until have been arrested? I think that's a horrible interpretation. I shouldn't suddenly get more rights once the cop decides it is time to arrest me. Those aren't rights.

Hell, what if they don't speak English? Will the guy that only speaks Czech have to know that English phrase despite being an American Citizen?

Lastly, these rights are for US citizens. If you're working for the government and they're brought to court, I don't believe your tried on a personal/civilian level, are you? You don't really have the 5th amendment right in that capacity; you aren't there on your behalf, you're there on the government's behalf (on behalf of the US/population...). IDK much about low, but this whole corporations are people too things seems a bit bogus, and any government institution is different from a corporation.

A large number of people that complain about such laws are one of two things: 1) people that commit crimes and don't want to lose their loophole, or 2) people that are so caught up in the concept of freedom that they have no regard for the complex machine that is the US government. It is VERY difficult to do things in such a massive (and massively expensive) behemoth.

I wonder what would happen if it wasn't so big...

[toycar]

So, does this mean that everytime I wish to speak in public, I need to explicitly (verbally) invoke my 1st amendment right for all to hear before I speak?


Great point!


That's the crux of the issue here, why should one have to invoke a basic right? It should just be there.


That is the way it was intended, thats for sure.

The bigger issues that I see with this stuff is that interpretation of the law is so broad, that how can anyone feel like the Supreme court resolves anything?



People are always going to disagree about the specifics, but the supreme court is supposed to interpret the law EXACTLY as it was intended and then apply it to situations that arise.


How the shit can we get 5-4 votes over and over again from them and feel like it isn't some political BS? Look at every single 5-4 vote and it has become clear that personal feelings influence a persons interpretation of the laws-which is NOT how it is supposed to be.


People that are judges, are citizens just like you and I. They don't have any special rights. They are supposedly EXPERTS AT THE LAW and THE BEST OF THE BEST and should just about always agree on the interpretation and application of the law.


HOWEVER, for quite some time now its been politically divided and becoming more and more obvious that PERSONAL FEELINGS influence their decisions. Creating a position of personal authority if you will-rather than ruling specifically on the laws and how they apply to current problems.






There was a 5-4 vote on voters rights this week that is a great example. The southern states that created the need for this provision now have a larger AA voter turnout and more AA's in politics than whites. Not a problem, just a point. Obviously minorites are no longer being opressed through voting rights.


One swing vote in the supreme court, said that he was against it because the law being needed in the first place implies that black people MUST be less capable to get to the booth, and HOW INSULTING THAT WAS.


Then a lady said something like "abonding this law is like selling your umbrella during a rain storm because you are not getting wet"


And she felt like changing the law would reignite the issue in the nation.




WHO CARES ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS





Rule on the damn law, the legality of the law, how it applies to the victims(there has to be a victim in order for the supreme court to rule on anything) and go from there.


I do think that polling stations will be fucked around to give people a hard time when voting. I also think that its time for black people to live EQUALLY in society.


Even if that means they get fucked just like everyone else.



Why one judge views a law protecting minorites as offensive, BECAUSE THEY DON'T NEED PROTECTIN-that is just beyond me. And how the fuck this guy can get personally upset about a LAW he is supposed to rule on unbiasedly is just nuts.



So then Obama chimes in and says,"Today's decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent," he said






So, if history reflects that the highest voter turnout among AA's was during the Obama era, and AA people loose interest all together when there is no AA candidate, couldn't you just as easily argue that voter discrimination happened to BENEFIT a candidate? 93% of the AA vote is a huge number, and the AA voter turnout was the largest in history.



I mean the facts are astounding at the percentage of both voter turnout in the AA community and the % of those votes that went to Obama.


So, 10 years from now, if black voting has gone back to historic levels, couldn't people argue that the turnout was race driven and that YES, a minority candidate benefited from discrimination?

[reklipz]

Yeah, I believe the number of 5-4 votes is telling as well. Clearly political relations and personal gain seem to be driving the majority of all three branches of government, or at least they're the driver behind all of the things we feel the need to voice an opinion about.

I've only heard about the voters' rights stuff in passing, and now a bit from you, so I can't really comment here. Based off of what I gathered from you about it, I agree with you here as well. We'll have to be sure to find the metrics for the next few presidential elections and revive this topic in a few years. Time to go read about this and the *** marriage happenings as well.

[toycar]

Yeah, I believe the number of 5-4 votes is telling as well. Clearly political relations and personal gain seem to be driving the majority of all three branches of government, or at least they're the driver behind all of the things we feel the need to voice an opinion about.

I've only heard about the voters' rights stuff in passing, and now a bit from you, so I can't really comment here. Based off of what I gathered from you about it, I agree with you here as well. We'll have to be sure to find the metrics for the next few presidential elections and revive this topic in a few years. Time to go read about this and the *** marriage happenings as well.

The *** marriage thing is another issue. How can one of the judges openly support *** marriage but then rule on the law unbiasedly? is it coincidence that he ruled in favor of it? Who knows, but judges are supposed to be removed from a situation when their personal feelings cannot help but influence their opinion, and that just doesn't seem to happen anymore in the supreme court.




Why not just call *** marriage *** marriage so that tradtional marriage supporters can feel like their way is still protected, and then allow *** marriages to be viewed just like regular ones-you know, make them equal but allow them to be different?


I don't understand what the big deal is. Why not just add a box to your 1040ez that say same sex married, *** married or whatever?


*** marriage is not the same as traditional marriage. Its not. Its not a bad thing, its nothing people should be scrutinized over, but the truth of the matter is it IS different so why not just let it be different but adhere the same rules, rights and principles? People will be divided over this either way, so why not try and tone down the conversation?




And as far as the ruling goes, if I was ***, I would be pissed. Just because they overturned the DOMA act, doesn't redefine marriage. So, *** people that want to be married, nothing changed for them yesterday unless they already live in a state that allows same sex marriage.


Also, if you live in one of the 35 states that have not only refused to allow it, but put laws in place banning it-if you travel to a state that will marry you-it still doesn't mean shit.


The gov only has to acknowledge you if you reside in a state that allows the marriage. Otherwise, get married in CA and move to NE and get the big fat finger in response. Yeah, your marriage was valid when you lived in CA but now that you live in NE-who cares.


?????


I'd be pissed.


And the prop 8 thing was not ruled on, it was dismissed because the people that challenged the bill were unable to represent the state of CA. They also said that the requirements of a victim were not met, so a ruling would not happen. Not for any reason other than that. Basically, they kicked the bucket down the road on a technicality so they wouldn't have to vote on this too.


So, now a TON of missinformed people think *** marriage is now legal when in fact NOTHING REALLY CHANGED.


Marriage will have to be redefined to include same sex marriage, and this will take LOTS of effort to get anyone in congress to do anything about. IF someone is willing to do something about it, they still have to vote and get it to pass before anything will change.


SO yeah, If I was *** I would be pissed about the basic, pat on the head response the supreme court gave in order to dodge this very serious issue. People all over the nation are celebrating like this was a victory, when in fact it was just a position change that clears the way for effective challenging of the law.


No more no less. Challenging the law does not equal change though. Just because they CAN challenge the law, doesn't mean a 5-4 vote against will not come 2-3 years from now when the supreme court finally has time to deal with this again. In the mean time, people all over the country are acting like they have been set free or something, and in reality nothing really changed except the fed gov now acknowledges *** marriage in the 13 states that allow it.


That is a huge milestone for those few people. The rest of the *** population though, they are still getting the finger.

[steelbluesleepR]

Why not just call *** marriage *** marriage so that tradtional marriage supporters can feel like their way is still protected, and then allow *** marriages to be viewed just like regular ones-you know, make them equal but allow them to be different?

so, separate but equal?