ChangoLanzao 0 #1 June 1, 2010 5-4 of course CLICKY Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dj123 0 #2 June 1, 2010 Quote 5-4 of course CLICKY It is every Citizens' duty to know their Rights and enforce them. Otherwise Freedom will be lost. Blue Skies, dj1223 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #3 June 1, 2010 This is a non-partisan comment: The people who, with some justifiable cynicism, say that it doesn't really matter which party's f-ing tool gets elected President are only partially right. Regardless of whether one is conservative, moderate or liberal, here's a perfect example of where who the President is (or, at a crucial time in history, was) really does make a genuine difference, and a lasting one at that: the composition of the Supreme Court. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #4 June 1, 2010 He was told of his right to remain silent, I think that is accepted to have happened, however he didn't remain silent. What is the controversy? He slipped up and in effect confessed, so it is good that he got caught. It seems like they are saying that if you say, "I want to remain silent" that the cops have to stop questioning you. I wasn't aware of that, I thought the cops could keep asking even if you say nothing. Supreme Court decisions so often are not what the headlines in the paper make them to be. It takes analyzing the whole written decision to really understand what happened and how it will affect the future.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,588 #5 June 1, 2010 Here and here are other articles about the original appeals court decision. To me, intent-wise, it's murky territory. Miranda is supposed to tilt the playing field a little more evenly (without it, it's tilted heavily in favor of the police -- with it, it's still tilted in favor of the police, just not as heavily). This definitely reduced the tilt, but dang -- he did answer some questions during that time. It sounds like he was tricked into answering an incriminating question. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #6 June 1, 2010 QuoteWhat is the controversy? If there was no real controversy, then most, if not all, of the 13 Federal judges who weighed in on this case would have ruled the same way. As it is, 6 Federal judges held for the prosecution (1 trial judge + the 5 majority SCOTUS justices) and 7 Federal judges held for the defendant (3 Court of Appeals judges + the 4 dissenting SCOTUS justices). Now, I'm not saying the 5 SCOTUS justices are not the last word in this case (they are, of course); I'm simply pointing out that a virtual statistical dead heat among 13 highly-trained Federal judges means that there most certainly is a very arguable controversy. Put another way, any layperson who thinks that, intellectually, this case is a slam-dunk, would be way over-simplifying the issues. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dj123 0 #7 June 1, 2010 QuoteHe was told of his right to remain silent, I think that is accepted to have happened, however he didn't remain silent. What is the controversy? He slipped up and in effect confessed, so it is good that he got caught. It seems like they are saying that if you say, "I want to remain silent" that the cops have to stop questioning you. I wasn't aware of that, I thought the cops could keep asking even if you say nothing.Quote Of Course they can! They can even waterboard until they get the answers they want. What's wrong with that? Blue Skies, dj123 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChangoLanzao 0 #8 June 1, 2010 QuoteToday's decision turns Miranda upside down. Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent—which, counterintuitively, requires them to speak. At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChangoLanzao 0 #9 June 1, 2010 Quote Quote What is the controversy? If there was no real controversy, then most, if not all, of the 13 Federal judges who weighed in on this case would have ruled the same way. As it is, 6 Federal judges held for the prosecution (1 trial judge + the 5 majority SCOTUS justices) and 7 Federal judges held for the defendant (3 Court of Appeals judges + the 4 dissenting SCOTUS justices). Now, I'm not saying the 5 SCOTUS justices are not the last word in this case (they are, of course); I'm simply pointing out that a virtual statistical dead heat among 13 highly-trained Federal judges means that there most certainly is a very arguable controversy. Put another way, any layperson who thinks that, intellectually, this case is a slam-dunk, would be way over-simplifying the issues. I couldn't agree with you more. What we really need is a lot more liberal judges throughout our system Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Southern_Man 0 #10 June 1, 2010 Based on the very brief facts reported with that article the defendant was not actually invoking his right to be silent by being silent. He was periodically answering questions. This case may not have much value as precedence, as the facts may not support the claim of the defendant. Hard to tell without knowing a more complete history and reading the decision."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChangoLanzao 0 #11 June 1, 2010 QuoteBased on the very brief facts reported with that article the defendant was not actually invoking his right to be silent by being silent. He was periodically answering questions. This case may not have much value as precedence, as the facts may not support the claim of the defendant. Hard to tell without knowing a more complete history and reading the decision. Yes. When you read the background, you'll see that this case is about police power and the Fifth Amendment. As Justice Sotamayor pointed out in her dissent: "suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so" The police WILL abuse this loophole from now on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #12 June 1, 2010 QuoteHe was told of his right to remain silent, I think that is accepted to have happened, however he didn't remain silent. What is the controversy? . The controversy is that under the new rules our rights are denied by default.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #13 June 1, 2010 Quote If there was no real controversy, then most, if not all, of the 13 Federal judges who weighed in on this case would have ruled the same way. As it is, 6 Federal judges held for the prosecution (1 trial judge + the 5 majority SCOTUS justices) and 7 Federal judges held for the defendant (3 Court of Appeals judges + the 4 dissenting SCOTUS justices). I think the bigger picture question on this topic is certainly complicated and the Justices have to think about the end consequences of the decision. But when I read this article's detailing of what happened to the murderer, I don't feel like his rights were trampled. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #14 June 1, 2010 The dirtbag is claiming after the fact that he wanted to remain silent, but he answered questions through the interview/interrogation. If he had stayed silent, then he wouldn't have problems. If he had said "I don't want to talk to you," or "I want to remain silent" or anything else, the police would have had to leave him alone until they were ready to process him. He answered the questions. He's an idiot. He deserves the time he got. And all you people bitching about rights being denied to you by default, look at that in the mirror. If every officer automatically assumed that you were invoking your right to remain silent, then they could never interview you or offer you the Miranda warnings. Why bother when you are invoking tem by default? Ridiculous, right? It's the same as the lawyer bit. If you don't clearly ask for a lawyer, then the police are not going to assume you want one.\ Here is a much better brief analysis of the case: Berghuis v. Thompkinswitty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skyrider 0 #15 June 1, 2010 QuoteHe was told of his right to remain silent, I think that is accepted to have happened, however he didn't remain silent. What is the controversy? He slipped up and in effect confessed, so it is good that he got caught. It seems like they are saying that if you say, "I want to remain silent" that the cops have to stop questioning you. I wasn't aware of that, I thought the cops could keep asking even if you say nothing. Supreme Court decisions so often are not what the headlines in the paper make them to be. It takes analyzing the whole written decision to really understand what happened and how it will affect the future. My understanding is that they only have to stop asking when you say , "I want a lawyer" then all questions must stop! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #16 June 1, 2010 Quote My understanding is that they only have to stop asking when you say , "I want a lawyer" then all questions must stop! Well, yeah; but most people's understanding is from the outside looking in! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #17 June 1, 2010 Quote Quote My understanding is that they only have to stop asking when you say , "I want a lawyer" then all questions must stop! Well, yeah; but most people's understanding is from the outside looking in! In this case I think it follows that his idea of Miranda.....was skewed at best. You have the right to remain silent. ( but you probably won't because you are a dumbass) Anything you say will be used against you in a court of law. ( DUDE... they can and will do anything to screw you since they already believe you are guilty and they want to make it look like they are doing something other than just writing tickets day in and day out) You have the right to an attorney during interrogation; ( Better to ask SOONER than LATER) if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. God help you if you can't pay for a decent attorney Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #18 June 1, 2010 QuoteThe dirtbag is claiming after the fact that he wanted to remain silent, Dirtbags have rights too. His dirtbaginess is not relevant. He should have his rights by default. He should not have to claim them explicitly Quote He answered the questions. He's an idiot. He deserves the time he got. It is even more important to ensure the rights of idiots, since they are generally unable to stand up for themselves.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #19 June 1, 2010 Quote He should have his rights by default. He should not have to claim them explicitly You mean unless they want to purchase and own guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChangoLanzao 0 #20 June 1, 2010 QuoteHere is a much better brief analysis of the case: Berghuis v. Thompkins "Although the majority clearly intended to use this case to make broad new declarations about Miranda rights, the specific facts case gave them the opportunity to do so. " Nobody is arguing whether the guy is a scumbag or not. That isn't what the case is about. The problem is that the court has turned Miranda upside down by this overly broad ruling. The balance has now been tilted in favor of the police, which is NOT a good thing. They will abuse it. The article you cite did point out that many police departments already take the extra trouble to make sure the defendants really know they are waiving their right to remain silent. But this overly broad ruling will give abusive interrogators just what they need in order to trample the fifth amendment rights of detainees. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #21 June 1, 2010 http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100504085142AAHVegv Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #22 June 1, 2010 QuoteQuote He should have his rights by default. He should not have to claim them explicitly You mean unless they want to purchase and own guns. I think any sane non-felon should be able to purchase and own a gun. If you think loonies and felons should be allowed guns, please tell us so we know where you stand.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #23 June 1, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote He should have his rights by default. He should not have to claim them explicitly You mean unless they want to purchase and own guns. I think any sane non-felon should be able to purchase and own a gun. If you think loonies and felons should be allowed guns, please tell us so we know where you stand. It's the part about being able to get guns by default, without having to get explicit permission first where you stray course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #24 June 1, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote He should have his rights by default. He should not have to claim them explicitly You mean unless they want to purchase and own guns. I think any sane non-felon should be able to purchase and own a gun. If you think loonies and felons should be allowed guns, please tell us so we know where you stand. Do you think loonies and felons should be allowed to have guns by right?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChangoLanzao 0 #25 June 1, 2010 Quote Quote He should have his rights by default. He should not have to claim them explicitly You mean unless they want to purchase and own guns. Nice hijack! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 1 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
ChangoLanzao 0 #8 June 1, 2010 QuoteToday's decision turns Miranda upside down. Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent—which, counterintuitively, requires them to speak. At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #9 June 1, 2010 Quote Quote What is the controversy? If there was no real controversy, then most, if not all, of the 13 Federal judges who weighed in on this case would have ruled the same way. As it is, 6 Federal judges held for the prosecution (1 trial judge + the 5 majority SCOTUS justices) and 7 Federal judges held for the defendant (3 Court of Appeals judges + the 4 dissenting SCOTUS justices). Now, I'm not saying the 5 SCOTUS justices are not the last word in this case (they are, of course); I'm simply pointing out that a virtual statistical dead heat among 13 highly-trained Federal judges means that there most certainly is a very arguable controversy. Put another way, any layperson who thinks that, intellectually, this case is a slam-dunk, would be way over-simplifying the issues. I couldn't agree with you more. What we really need is a lot more liberal judges throughout our system Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #10 June 1, 2010 Based on the very brief facts reported with that article the defendant was not actually invoking his right to be silent by being silent. He was periodically answering questions. This case may not have much value as precedence, as the facts may not support the claim of the defendant. Hard to tell without knowing a more complete history and reading the decision."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #11 June 1, 2010 QuoteBased on the very brief facts reported with that article the defendant was not actually invoking his right to be silent by being silent. He was periodically answering questions. This case may not have much value as precedence, as the facts may not support the claim of the defendant. Hard to tell without knowing a more complete history and reading the decision. Yes. When you read the background, you'll see that this case is about police power and the Fifth Amendment. As Justice Sotamayor pointed out in her dissent: "suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so" The police WILL abuse this loophole from now on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #12 June 1, 2010 QuoteHe was told of his right to remain silent, I think that is accepted to have happened, however he didn't remain silent. What is the controversy? . The controversy is that under the new rules our rights are denied by default.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #13 June 1, 2010 Quote If there was no real controversy, then most, if not all, of the 13 Federal judges who weighed in on this case would have ruled the same way. As it is, 6 Federal judges held for the prosecution (1 trial judge + the 5 majority SCOTUS justices) and 7 Federal judges held for the defendant (3 Court of Appeals judges + the 4 dissenting SCOTUS justices). I think the bigger picture question on this topic is certainly complicated and the Justices have to think about the end consequences of the decision. But when I read this article's detailing of what happened to the murderer, I don't feel like his rights were trampled. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #14 June 1, 2010 The dirtbag is claiming after the fact that he wanted to remain silent, but he answered questions through the interview/interrogation. If he had stayed silent, then he wouldn't have problems. If he had said "I don't want to talk to you," or "I want to remain silent" or anything else, the police would have had to leave him alone until they were ready to process him. He answered the questions. He's an idiot. He deserves the time he got. And all you people bitching about rights being denied to you by default, look at that in the mirror. If every officer automatically assumed that you were invoking your right to remain silent, then they could never interview you or offer you the Miranda warnings. Why bother when you are invoking tem by default? Ridiculous, right? It's the same as the lawyer bit. If you don't clearly ask for a lawyer, then the police are not going to assume you want one.\ Here is a much better brief analysis of the case: Berghuis v. Thompkinswitty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #15 June 1, 2010 QuoteHe was told of his right to remain silent, I think that is accepted to have happened, however he didn't remain silent. What is the controversy? He slipped up and in effect confessed, so it is good that he got caught. It seems like they are saying that if you say, "I want to remain silent" that the cops have to stop questioning you. I wasn't aware of that, I thought the cops could keep asking even if you say nothing. Supreme Court decisions so often are not what the headlines in the paper make them to be. It takes analyzing the whole written decision to really understand what happened and how it will affect the future. My understanding is that they only have to stop asking when you say , "I want a lawyer" then all questions must stop! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #16 June 1, 2010 Quote My understanding is that they only have to stop asking when you say , "I want a lawyer" then all questions must stop! Well, yeah; but most people's understanding is from the outside looking in! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #17 June 1, 2010 Quote Quote My understanding is that they only have to stop asking when you say , "I want a lawyer" then all questions must stop! Well, yeah; but most people's understanding is from the outside looking in! In this case I think it follows that his idea of Miranda.....was skewed at best. You have the right to remain silent. ( but you probably won't because you are a dumbass) Anything you say will be used against you in a court of law. ( DUDE... they can and will do anything to screw you since they already believe you are guilty and they want to make it look like they are doing something other than just writing tickets day in and day out) You have the right to an attorney during interrogation; ( Better to ask SOONER than LATER) if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. God help you if you can't pay for a decent attorney Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #18 June 1, 2010 QuoteThe dirtbag is claiming after the fact that he wanted to remain silent, Dirtbags have rights too. His dirtbaginess is not relevant. He should have his rights by default. He should not have to claim them explicitly Quote He answered the questions. He's an idiot. He deserves the time he got. It is even more important to ensure the rights of idiots, since they are generally unable to stand up for themselves.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #19 June 1, 2010 Quote He should have his rights by default. He should not have to claim them explicitly You mean unless they want to purchase and own guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #20 June 1, 2010 QuoteHere is a much better brief analysis of the case: Berghuis v. Thompkins "Although the majority clearly intended to use this case to make broad new declarations about Miranda rights, the specific facts case gave them the opportunity to do so. " Nobody is arguing whether the guy is a scumbag or not. That isn't what the case is about. The problem is that the court has turned Miranda upside down by this overly broad ruling. The balance has now been tilted in favor of the police, which is NOT a good thing. They will abuse it. The article you cite did point out that many police departments already take the extra trouble to make sure the defendants really know they are waiving their right to remain silent. But this overly broad ruling will give abusive interrogators just what they need in order to trample the fifth amendment rights of detainees. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #21 June 1, 2010 http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100504085142AAHVegv Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #22 June 1, 2010 QuoteQuote He should have his rights by default. He should not have to claim them explicitly You mean unless they want to purchase and own guns. I think any sane non-felon should be able to purchase and own a gun. If you think loonies and felons should be allowed guns, please tell us so we know where you stand.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #23 June 1, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote He should have his rights by default. He should not have to claim them explicitly You mean unless they want to purchase and own guns. I think any sane non-felon should be able to purchase and own a gun. If you think loonies and felons should be allowed guns, please tell us so we know where you stand. It's the part about being able to get guns by default, without having to get explicit permission first where you stray course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #24 June 1, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote He should have his rights by default. He should not have to claim them explicitly You mean unless they want to purchase and own guns. I think any sane non-felon should be able to purchase and own a gun. If you think loonies and felons should be allowed guns, please tell us so we know where you stand. Do you think loonies and felons should be allowed to have guns by right?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #25 June 1, 2010 Quote Quote He should have his rights by default. He should not have to claim them explicitly You mean unless they want to purchase and own guns. Nice hijack! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
