| Zinnar on most things | Avatar by Blameless Cleric
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited June 2010
I completed the racing mission for a friend to stop a genocide of mice and keyboards. That is my diplomatic experience. After that I stopped all wars ever from happening, with my time machine.
Cops still have to tell people they have the right, don't they?
I mean, don't get me wrong, I agree that even small erosions of freedom are bad and it's a poor decision, I just can't see how this significantly changes anything. I can't imagine a scenario where now things will be different. Do we really have people who are just keeping their mouths shut and pretending the cops aren't there without saying "I want to talk to my lawyer" or something to that effect?
yeah i mean its not like you have to verbally invoke the 5th amendment do you?
Thats kinda where the power in that lies isn't it?
Yeah but the 5th is self incrimination, just not talking to police was an implied right and now you have to vocalize it, thats kind of putting in a direction I don't like.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Cops still have to tell people they have the right, don't they?
I mean, don't get me wrong, I agree that even small erosions of freedom are bad and it's a poor decision, I just can't see how this significantly changes anything. I can't imagine a scenario where now things will be different. Do we really have people who are just keeping their mouths shut and pretending the cops aren't there without saying "I want to talk to my lawyer" or something to that effect?
Now, until you explicitly invoke your rights, they can interrogate you as long as they like. And the part of the population that doesn't keep up with news like this won't know that they have to speak up.
Also affects your right against self incrimination.
I feel like I'm missing something here.
He wasn't convicted because he remained silent, he was convicted because he didn't remain silent.
They kept interrogating him. They're supposed to stop if he claims his right to keep silent, which he thought he was doing implicitly by staying silent.
Cops still have to tell people they have the right, don't they?
I mean, don't get me wrong, I agree that even small erosions of freedom are bad and it's a poor decision, I just can't see how this significantly changes anything. I can't imagine a scenario where now things will be different. Do we really have people who are just keeping their mouths shut and pretending the cops aren't there without saying "I want to talk to my lawyer" or something to that effect?
Now, until you explicitly invoke your rights, they can interrogate you as long as they like. And the part of the population that doesn't keep up with news like this won't know that they have to speak up.
But don't they do that anyway?
Like, if the cops think I killed somebody, aren't they going to interrogate me and play good cop bad cop until I tell them "I'm not saying anything until I talk to my lawyer"
Cops still have to tell people they have the right, don't they?
I mean, don't get me wrong, I agree that even small erosions of freedom are bad and it's a poor decision, I just can't see how this significantly changes anything. I can't imagine a scenario where now things will be different. Do we really have people who are just keeping their mouths shut and pretending the cops aren't there without saying "I want to talk to my lawyer" or something to that effect?
Now, until you explicitly invoke your rights, they can interrogate you as long as they like. And the part of the population that doesn't keep up with news like this won't know that they have to speak up.
Can't this also go on your court/case record as being non-cooperative though?
edit: in other news my flatmate's parents are both cops - she's studying law and sometimes the stuff they say they do at work is quite horrible for her (to hear about) cause it's incredibly illegal.
Cops still have to tell people they have the right, don't they?
I mean, don't get me wrong, I agree that even small erosions of freedom are bad and it's a poor decision, I just can't see how this significantly changes anything. I can't imagine a scenario where now things will be different. Do we really have people who are just keeping their mouths shut and pretending the cops aren't there without saying "I want to talk to my lawyer" or something to that effect?
Now, until you explicitly invoke your rights, they can interrogate you as long as they like. And the part of the population that doesn't keep up with news like this won't know that they have to speak up.
not really, they can just continue to not say anything, you cant be convicted due to a null answer
i do think someone needs to come up with a piece of legislation making it illegal to conduct interviews without at least a court appointed attorney present though
Cops still have to tell people they have the right, don't they?
I mean, don't get me wrong, I agree that even small erosions of freedom are bad and it's a poor decision, I just can't see how this significantly changes anything. I can't imagine a scenario where now things will be different. Do we really have people who are just keeping their mouths shut and pretending the cops aren't there without saying "I want to talk to my lawyer" or something to that effect?
Now, until you explicitly invoke your rights, they can interrogate you as long as they like. And the part of the population that doesn't keep up with news like this won't know that they have to speak up.
But don't they do that anyway?
Like, if the cops think I killed somebody, aren't they going to interrogate me and play good cop bad cop until I tell them "I'm not saying anything until I talk to my lawyer"
If I'm understanding it, the default state was you were exercising your right to remain silent and they had to prove you waived it. Now the burden is upon the accused.
I don't think that ruling is going to change much.
It looks like it's basically "We will interrogate you if you do not invoke that right."
Which is kinda how it always happens.
The example given was a man who never request an attorney and answered in an affirmative that he killed someone.
The right to remain silent is just that. You have the right to remain silent. Doesn't mean that if you do say something that what you say can not be used against you.
Cops still have to tell people they have the right, don't they?
I mean, don't get me wrong, I agree that even small erosions of freedom are bad and it's a poor decision, I just can't see how this significantly changes anything. I can't imagine a scenario where now things will be different. Do we really have people who are just keeping their mouths shut and pretending the cops aren't there without saying "I want to talk to my lawyer" or something to that effect?
Now, until you explicitly invoke your rights, they can interrogate you as long as they like. And the part of the population that doesn't keep up with news like this won't know that they have to speak up.
But don't they do that anyway?
Like, if the cops think I killed somebody, aren't they going to interrogate me and play good cop bad cop until I tell them "I'm not saying anything until I talk to my lawyer"
If I'm understanding it, the default state was you were exercising your right to remain silent and they had to prove you waived it. Now the burden is upon the accused.
so wait they just flipped "innocent until proven guilty" into "guilty until proven innocent" in the case of miranda rights?
Posts
i've been tearing off my shirt all day
say what
To use your right to remain silent you must express now that you are invoking this right. I heard it on the radio earlier today.
You have to explicitly state you are exercising your right to remain silent. Simply remaining silent is not enough.
thats not that big of a deal is it?
Erosion of freedom is always small to start.
Also god damned activist judges!
Wonder how long this takes to get blamed on Obama.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I there a link to the context of this? I can't think of a set of circumstances where that doesn't seem utterly bizarre.
fair enough
i always assumed whenever i was exercising that right i was gonna state it anyway
like "i have the right to remain silent, and shall do so"
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-miranda-20100602,0,1344181.story
Also affects your right against self incrimination.
I am so pathetic.
a lot of people just clam up
personally i don't start running my mouth until after the cops are dead
Thats kinda where the power in that lies isn't it?
winky go to the client and click "my games"
I mean, don't get me wrong, I agree that even small erosions of freedom are bad and it's a poor decision, I just can't see how this significantly changes anything. I can't imagine a scenario where now things will be different. Do we really have people who are just keeping their mouths shut and pretending the cops aren't there without saying "I want to talk to my lawyer" or something to that effect?
Yeah but the 5th is self incrimination, just not talking to police was an implied right and now you have to vocalize it, thats kind of putting in a direction I don't like.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It keeps saying "login refused".
Well don't force it rapist!
pleasepaypreacher.net
We're starting a new game fyi.
Now, until you explicitly invoke your rights, they can interrogate you as long as they like. And the part of the population that doesn't keep up with news like this won't know that they have to speak up.
I feel like I'm missing something here.
He wasn't convicted because he remained silent, he was convicted because he didn't remain silent.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I can't get into the client at all.
We could try playing at http://www.strategygamenetwork.com/, I know that one works for sure.
They kept interrogating him. They're supposed to stop if he claims his right to keep silent, which he thought he was doing implicitly by staying silent.
But don't they do that anyway?
Like, if the cops think I killed somebody, aren't they going to interrogate me and play good cop bad cop until I tell them "I'm not saying anything until I talk to my lawyer"
Can't this also go on your court/case record as being non-cooperative though?
edit: in other news my flatmate's parents are both cops - she's studying law and sometimes the stuff they say they do at work is quite horrible for her (to hear about) cause it's incredibly illegal.
i dont know i only have 45 minutes, and this one worked pretty well
not really, they can just continue to not say anything, you cant be convicted due to a null answer
i do think someone needs to come up with a piece of legislation making it illegal to conduct interviews without at least a court appointed attorney present though
really there's not much else to know
If I'm understanding it, the default state was you were exercising your right to remain silent and they had to prove you waived it. Now the burden is upon the accused.
Trying now.
It looks like it's basically "We will interrogate you if you do not invoke that right."
Which is kinda how it always happens.
The example given was a man who never request an attorney and answered in an affirmative that he killed someone.
The right to remain silent is just that. You have the right to remain silent. Doesn't mean that if you do say something that what you say can not be used against you.
so wait they just flipped "innocent until proven guilty" into "guilty until proven innocent" in the case of miranda rights?
I've got an account - called Daxon
ugh no offense but i am gonna be a goose and say
i dont feel like registering for a FOURTH gaming site today