WTF? Must SAY "I choose to remain silent"???

[mrsleeve]

Intresting that all the conservative judges were in favor of this..... it does not give power to the govt,, it takes power away from the defense attorneys who are able to have confessed criminals go free due to technacalities on miranda rights.

Miranda is Miranda, You shut the fuck up or dont. You have been told in Plain kings English that ANY THING YOU SAY CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU. Then asked if you understand those rights.

You open your yap, with out representation, or in general thats your fault for not understanding your rights or waving them.

I have a RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. You can be damm sure I will be using that right and wont be informing anyone of my intent to use it. ITS MY RIGHT I dont need to inform anyone to use a right.

[naplesE30]

Thats basically what ruling said so I dont understand why your upset and against it.

""If Thompkins wanted to remain silent, he could have said nothing in response to [the detective's] questions, or he could have unambiguously invoked his Miranda rights and ended the interrogation," Justice Kennedy wrote, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito"

[mrsleeve]

NO NOW YOU HAVE TO INFORM THEM THAT YOU INTEND TO REMAIN SILENT, rather than just doing it,

[Atreus]

mrsleeve your font can get as big as you want it to, but i don't think naples will get it.

[naplesE30]

If the court had ruled THE OTHER WAY, this is what would have been implied. If you are interogated anything and everything you say CAN NOT BE USED IN THE COURT OF LAW because everything would violate your rights regardless. It would automaticaly plead not guilty for you as you could retro actively say you pleaded the 5th. Thus eliminating all evidence collected in interogations. It would in effect end interagations period. The ACLU's dream. In this case the guy who shot a child never pleaded the fifth nor asked for an attorney etc. He then aswered a question and then after the fact said he wanted to envoke Miranda protection. The court basically said if you wanted plead the 5th you should have said so or just not answered any questions.


Dont worry I did the thinking for you.

[naplesE30]

The guy didnt remain silent, didnt plead the 5th and thus evidence he GAVE them was used against him!!


The court said if he wanted to remain silent all he had to do was REMAIN SILENT I think your the one who isnt understanding it.


Once again from the ruling ""If Thompkins wanted to remain silent, he could have said nothing in response to [the detective's] questions"

NO NOW YOU HAVE TO INFORM THEM THAT YOU INTEND TO REMAIN SILENT, rather than just doing it,

[ForcedFirebird]

You have the right to remain silent, if you choose to do so, anything you say CAN AND WILL be used against you in the court of law

I think it's pretty black and white now, thanx bai

[naplesE30]

Not trying to be a prick but this has serious implications if the court ruled the other way.... Think about it, if he remained silent and didnt answer any question there would have been no evidence to use against him. The court simply said you have two options
1 Dont answer any questions OR
2 Inform the police of your intent to use the 5th to end the interogation..


Since this guy did NEITHER the evidence collected was permisable in court and led to his conviction of shooting a child.

The liberal judges wanted to throw out evidence even though he NEVER invoked his right to remain silent by
1 Not informing anyone of his intent to envoke the 5th, thus not stopping the interogation.
2 Not remaining silent, he answered questions.

[LBJefferies]

Isn't it funny that you have to speak to remain silent?

[mrsleeve]

Holy fuck h0lmes gets it, Why cant you naples

[joshh]

Isn't it funny that you have to speak to remain silent?

Hallelujah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Naples needs a jarring of the head my god.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Good god people.

[mrsleeve]

What ????????????????????????????

[Raxe]

Makes some sense.

You can sit there and be completely silent for 5 hours while they beat around the bush and hope that you'll eventually say something.

or

You can tell them right off the bat that you invoke your Miranda rights and won't be answering any questions. Interrogation over.

[naplesE30]

Thank you someone gets it!

The ruling empowers both the accused and the police. The court HAD to rule in this way......

The ruling is much larger then this one case. In effect anyone who had ever confessed would be allowed a new trial had they ruled for the defendant. All they would have to say was I didnt mean to confess I intended to remain silent, and the confession would have to be thrown out.

The accused are empowered by after stating they intend to remain silent, even if they were to talk afterward it would be considered a coerced statement and not permissable in court.

The police are empowered by being able to use satements as evidence from anyone who DOES NOT make their intent to remain silent known... however if they remain silent there would be no evidence.

Again you have to think about the larger implications with any case that goes before the supreme court. Simply stating you wish to remain silent is not evidence that can be used against you, it is a RIGHT which you still have.

It just saves a lot of time, and possibly self incrimination if you make your intent known.

One can still not say anything at all, but you will be interogated for hours on end if you dont express your intent! Which the guy in the case never did, even when given the opportunity to do. Obviously, since he answered questions, one can argue he never intended to remain silent.


The worst part about this ruling is that it was so close 5-4.

Makes some sense.

You can sit there and be completely silent for 5 hours while they beat around the bush and hope that you'll eventually say something.

or

You can tell them right off the bat that you invoke your Miranda rights and won't be answering any questions. Interrogation over.