The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: cavegal on June 01, 2010, 11:24:07 AM
-
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g0h1F81MI0Bkk-APutBxmT82_QCAD9G2I0EO1
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down."
A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.
The ruling comes in a case where a suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before implicating himself in a Jan. 10, 2000, murder in Southfield, Mich. He appealed his conviction, saying that he invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent.
But Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the decision for the court's conservatives, said that wasn't enough.
"Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police," Kennedy said. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements,
I am curious to see what you all think on this one.
-
I'm thinking this may be yet another instance of poor cases making bad case law.
This is the part that stands out to me.
The ruling comes in a case where a suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before implicating himself in a Jan. 10, 2000, murder in Southfield, Mich. He appealed his conviction, saying that he invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent.
If you're going to rely upon your right to remain silent, then for God's sake, moron, SHUT THE **** UP. Failing that, you'll deserve whatever heap of shit you bring upon yourself.
-
No sympathy for him here. Mere silence without anything more has only an ambiguous meaning, it does not convey an unmistakable intent to invoke the Fifth Amendment right.
-
Tough titty for the murderer
-
The DUmmies don't like it. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8462349
-
The DUmmies don't like it. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8462349
If they do not like it.........I have my answer!!!! :cheersmate:
-
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g0h1F81MI0Bkk-APutBxmT82_QCAD9G2I0EO1
I am curious to see what you all think on this one.
If you don't tell them, you got sit through hours of interrogation... but if you tell them then its over??
Sounds like a good idea. heh. Saves everyone some time.
-
Someone should find the DU thread on this topic, I can only imagine.
-
Someone should find the DU thread on this topic, I can only imagine.
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8462349 and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4406739
Someone else can read them. I'm busy. :-)
-
And guess who wrote the dissention to the majority opinion?
The "wise Latina" herself.
-
If I was caught, I would stay silent. Doesn't take a stupid person to realize that.
-
If I was caught, I would stay silent. Doesn't take a stupid person to realize that.
This didn't invalidate the Miranda requirement in any way. As I understand it, once the suspect is read their rights, they can be questioned until they say they don't want to talk.
-
This didn't invalidate the Miranda requirement in any way. As I understand it, once the suspect is read their rights, they can be questioned until they say they don't want to talk.
Yes, I know. It is just common sense to remain silent or if speaking out with a lawyer.
-
Yes, I know. It is just common sense to remain silent or if speaking out with a lawyer.
The point being, unless and until the suspect says he will not answer any questions without a lawyer, the cops can question him as long as they like, considering he's Mirandized at least a couple of times--in my conversations with police they say they'll read a suspect their rights upon apprehension/arrest and prior to any questioning.
-
bad ruling.
-
Don't want to implicate yourself in a crime? The solution is real friggin simple:
[youtube=425,350]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie"
value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6wXkI4t7nuc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6wXkI4t7nuc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]
Don't remain, "mostly silent": Shut the **** up.
-
Exactly, DefiantSix. It's a basic 'Shit or get off the pot' thing. The guy had a choice to make, and he wouldn't get off the dime. He did this to himself, it is not the cops' fault.