Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 54

Thread: Being Silent is Guilty

  1. #1
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258

    Being Silent is Guilty

    i think i did see this discussed one time on this forum before. but i couldn't find it

    but here goes. a recent ruling has made being silent, a admittance to being guilty. so if you are asked if you did something, and you remain silent, it will be issued in court that you were silent, and YOU can be convicted of what ever they want

    i have a big problem with this, and i believe it is totally wrong.

    http://www.usacarry.com/miranda-righ...6a05a-48909189

    i would like to know what you all think of it
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Black_water's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    On The Border in AZ
    Posts
    152
    Seems you have to tell the cops you have a right to remain silent in order to have the right.

    Seems like more complication if you ask me. If I have a right to something, it's mine, whether I say I want it or not.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Here is a summary of the facts of the Salinas v. Texas case. Police in Houston, Texas questioned Genovevo Salinas during a murder investigation. Salinas answered all of their questions until the police asked whether he thought that casings found at the murder scene would match the shotgun the police found in his house. In response, Salinas remained silent. He looked down at the floor, shuffled his feet, bit his bottom lip, clenched his hands in his lap, and began to tighten up. After a few moments of silence, the officer asked additional questions, which Salinas answered. Later, he was charged with murder, tried, and convicted partially on the basis of evidence that he had remained silent during police questioning before he was arrested and given his Miranda warnings.
    This is one of those 'totality of the circumstances' things. In this case,I don't see anything wrong with the Court's decision.
    Mr Salinas answered questions freely until the question might have implicated him.
    Mr Salinas refused to answer that question.
    Mr Salinas' physical reactions to that question were noted.
    Mr Salinas answered other following questions.

    In Court, Mr Salinas' actions when questioned were presented. It's not unreasonable that a man who suddenly and inexplicably refuses to answer questions that might point to his guilt might be of guilty conscience. It's not that he remained silent, but that he suddenly changed from cooperative to silent on specific questions.

    You are free not to answer any particular question, or any questions at all, but until the police have been put on notice that you wish to remain silent, they aren't required to take notice of your silence and may continue to ask.



    What's the old adage, "Silence gives consent"?, if you don't say that you won't answer questions they are free to assume that you don't mind them asking even if they don't get answers.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 11-08-2013 at 03:55 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    What have we said here so many times and in so many different threads?

    Invoke your right to remain silent and not answer any questions without the presence of your lawyer. Once you have invoked that right, shut up!

    There is something about the human animal, and that subspecies, the American human animal, that feels the necessity to fill an absolutely perfect silence with something. Watch different people who are having a conversation. The moment silence falls, someone is going to feel moved to fill that void. Police, and, indeed, any professional interrogator, to include psychiatrists, are trained to exploit that weakness.

    What you, the subject of interrogation, must do after having invoked your rights and clammed up, is to exercise more patience than your interrogator. Yes, it is both a contest of will and a war of nerves. Winning both is definitely to your advantage.
    "Happiness is a warm shotgun!!"
    "I am neither a pessimist nor a cynic. I am, rather, a realist."
    "The most dangerous things I've ever encountered were a Second Lieutenant with a map and a compass and a Private who was bored and had time on his hands."

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    What have we said here so many times and in so many different threads?

    Invoke your right to remain silent and not answer any questions without the presence of your lawyer. Once you have invoked that right, shut up!

    There is something about the human animal, and that subspecies, the American human animal, that feels the necessity to fill an absolutely perfect silence with something. Watch different people who are having a conversation. The moment silence falls, someone is going to feel moved to fill that void. Police, and, indeed, any professional interrogator, to include psychiatrists, are trained to exploit that weakness.

    What you, the subject of interrogation, must do after having invoked your rights and clammed up, is to exercise more patience than your interrogator. Yes, it is both a contest of will and a war of nerves. Winning both is definitely to your advantage.
    That's right ...

    Otherwise they'll keep on asking your questions ... and replying with "your mother!" to every question gets old

  6. #6
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    This is one of those 'totality of the circumstances' things. In this case,I don't see anything wrong with the Court's decision.
    Mr Salinas answered questions freely until the question might have implicated him.
    Mr Salinas refused to answer that question.
    Mr Salinas' physical reactions to that question were noted.
    Mr Salinas answered other following questions.

    In Court, Mr Salinas' actions when questioned were presented. It's not unreasonable that a man who suddenly and inexplicably refuses to answer questions that might point to his guilt might be of guilty conscience. It's not that he remained silent, but that he suddenly changed from cooperative to silent on specific questions.

    You are free not to answer any particular question, or any questions at all, but until the police have been put on notice that you wish to remain silent, they aren't required to take notice of your silence and may continue to ask.



    What's the old adage, "Silence gives consent"?, if you don't say that you won't answer questions they are free to assume that you don't mind them asking even if they don't get answers.
    Well put. +1

    This is another take a small piece (he was silent) leave out a big piece (that he was answering everything else and that he had PHYSICAL REACTIONS to questions) then shove it out and make it seem bad.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    This is one of those 'totality of the circumstances' things. In this case,I don't see anything wrong with the Court's decision.
    Mr Salinas answered questions freely until the question might have implicated him.
    Mr Salinas refused to answer that question.
    Mr Salinas' physical reactions to that question were noted.
    Mr Salinas answered other following questions.

    In Court, Mr Salinas' actions when questioned were presented. It's not unreasonable that a man who suddenly and inexplicably refuses to answer questions that might point to his guilt might be of guilty conscience. It's not that he remained silent, but that he suddenly changed from cooperative to silent on specific questions.

    You are free not to answer any particular question, or any questions at all, but until the police have been put on notice that you wish to remain silent, they aren't required to take notice of your silence and may continue to ask.



    What's the old adage, "Silence gives consent"?, if you don't say that you won't answer questions they are free to assume that you don't mind them asking even if they don't get answers.
    Dare we allow government to take back that ground?

    It took almost six hundred years from the Norman Conquest to recognition of the right against self-incimination. Along the way, people were burned, hanged, pilloried, dispossessed of property, and exiled.

    In Tudor England*, when government suspected a person of religious non-conformity, he was examined ex officio. Meaning, church officials came "out" of their "office" as church officials, and became interrogators. The suspect was required to swear the oath ex officio--to tell the truth to every question before knowing what the questioning was even going to be about. Oaths were taken a lot more seriously then, and for some, lying under oath meant damnation. Here's where the history connects: if a person refused the oath, he was convicted on the spot pro confesso. That is to say, as if he had confessed. The rationale: if he was innocent, he should have no reservations about answering questions truthfully.

    Its only one short step back to silence being considered guilt, conviction pro confesso.

    In our country today, there are already tons of people who think the 5th Amendment is a refuge for the guilty. They do not know skillful questioning and twisted answers can be used to distort and present the apparency of guilty; it never even crosses their mind.

    Dare we let government take back a piece of the ground that was purchased very dearly indeed, literally with blood and treasure?


    Note: Recognition of the right by government in England didn't happen until about 1650 between Charles I and Charles II. Even today we get weasel decisions out of our courts. For example, there is a court case floating around somewhere that says the right against self-incrimination is a "fighting right", meaning the suspect has to invoke it. Yeah, suuuure. Only because government refused to recognize it more fully. Government only conceded as much as it had to, nothing more. It is a "fighting right" because government made it so, rather than just respect it even when the suspect doesn't "fight" with it.

    For comparison and perspective, consider ancient Hebrew courts where nothing--nothing!--said by the suspect could be used in evidence against him. There was no weaseling around about whether the suspect had been properly Mirandized, or had answered some questions and then stopped. Flat out, front to back, nothing the suspect said could be used against him. Period. No loopholes for prosecutors or cops to exploit and chisel away at everybody's rights after that. Nothing the suspect said could be used against him. The courts would not allow it. How's that for government recognition of a right?

    Most of the history I've given in this post comes from a Pulitzer Prize winning book by Leonard Levy, Origins of the Fifth Amendment, the Right Against Self-Incrimination.
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-08-2013 at 10:31 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Dare we allow government to take back that ground?

    It took almost six hundred years from the Norman Conquest to recognition of the right against self-incimination. Along the way, people were burned, hanged, pilloried, dispossessed of property, and exiled.

    In Tudor England*, when government suspected a person of religious non-conformity, he was examined ex officio. Meaning, church officials came "out" of their "office" as church officials, and became interrogators. The suspect was required to swear the oath ex officio--to tell the truth to every question before knowing what the questioning was even going to be about. Oaths were taken a lot more seriously then, and for some, lying under oath meant damnation. Here's where the history connects: if a person refused the oath, he was convicted on the spot pro confesso. That is to say, as if he had confessed. The rationale: if he was innocent, he should have no reservations about answering questions truthfully.

    Its only one short step back to silence being considered guilt, conviction pro confesso.

    In our country today, there are already tons of people who think the 5th Amendment is a refuge for the guilty. They do not know skillful questioning and twisted answers can be used to distort and present the apparency of guilty; it never even crosses their mind.


    Dare we let government take back a piece of the ground that was purchased very dearly indeed, literally with blood and treasure?


    Note: Recognition of the right by government in England didn't happen until about 1650 between Charles I and Charles II. Even today we get weasel decisions out of our courts. For example, there is a court case floating around somewhere that says the right against self-incrimination is a "fighting right", meaning the suspect has to invoke it. Yeah, suuuure. Only because government refused to recognize it more fully. Government only conceded as much as it had to, nothing more. It is a "fighting right" because government made it so, rather than just respect it even when the suspect doesn't "fight" with it.

    For comparison and perspective, consider ancient Hebrew courts where nothing--nothing!--said by the suspect could be used in evidence against him. There was no weaseling around about whether the suspect had been properly Mirandized, or had answered some questions and then stopped. Flat out, front to back, nothing the suspect said could be used against him. Period. No loopholes for prosecutors or cops to exploit and chisel away at everybody's rights after that. Nothing the suspect said could be used against him. The courts would not allow it. How's that for government recognition of a right?

    Most of the history I've given in this post comes from a Pulitzer Prize winning book by Leonard Levy, Origins of the Fifth Amendment, the Right Against Self-Incrimination.
    +1 and thank you Citizen for putting things in historial context.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    I can't lay my hands on it at the moment, and it's probably lost to history, but there is/was an European country where one did not have to invoke the right to remain silent; it was assumed that one wished to be so and the police were not allowed to question anyone they had formally accused of a crime, (to my best recollection of the facts, take all that with a grain of salt as I can't say what country it may have been.)

    For all I know, it may have been ancient Mesopotamia, but I'm sure I read of it somewhere (not that it's applicable in the US.)
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 11-09-2013 at 12:23 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    I keep one of those small Navy memo books in my shirt pocket and on the first page, it reads, "I want a lawyer." Fortunately I have yet to use my notebook. I have been contacted by a cop, twice, and I smiled, listened, observed, and then proceeded as the cop's tone and tenor dictated. the cop's in my little town are professional and well trained. I like my little town's cop shop, good people.

  11. #11
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by papa bear View Post
    i think i did see this discussed one time on this forum before. but i couldn't find it

    but here goes. a recent ruling has made being silent, a admittance to being guilty. so if you are asked if you did something, and you remain silent, it will be issued in court that you were silent, and YOU can be convicted of what ever they want

    i have a big problem with this, and i believe it is totally wrong.

    http://www.usacarry.com/miranda-righ...6a05a-48909189

    i would like to know what you all think of it
    Once you have been Mirandized, if you remain silent after that, then the fact that you remained silent can not be admitted in court. Now if you remain silent before being read your Miranda Rights, then the fact that you failed to answer any questions can be admitted as evidence. But as one poster already mentioned, it all boils down to the totality of the circumstances. Simply being silent is not enough to get you convicted for anything. If you explicitly invoke your right to remain silent, even before being Mirandized, then again, this can not be admitted at trial because you specifically invoked your rights.

    I personally don't agree with this decision, but it stands as of now.
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Well put Citizen.


    This is another horrible decision by judges. Rights are not dependent upon circumstances we either have them or we don't.

    The lesson is don't talk to cops! The more they make decisions like this the more people will not "cooperate" maybe that will be a good thing.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    +1 and thank you Citizen for putting things in historial context.
    You're welcome.

    The historical context is crucial. That is to say, the history tells us why a given right is valuable. History tells us what occurs in the absence of a given right; history tells us what it cost to obtain a given right.

    I cannot recommend enough two books by Leonard Levy: Origins of the Bill of Rights, and Origins of the Fifth Amendment: the Right Against Self-incrimination. Both are still available in paperback as far as I know.
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-10-2013 at 11:02 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    You're welcome.

    The historical context is crucial. That is to say, the history tells us why a given right is valuable. History tells us what occurs in the absence of a given right; history tells us what it cost to obtain a given right.

    I cannot recommend enough two books by Leonard Levy: Origins of the Bill of Rights, and Origins of the Fifth Amendment: the Right Against Self-incrimination. Both are still available in paperback as far as I know.
    Thanks! I'll have to go look for them, they are not on my e-reader......
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    One thing not to forget, is how some officers will react to your not answering their questions.

    I think it's worth noting the conclusions he thinks he can reasonably come to, which, seem to be somewhat at odds with the opinions of the Supreme Court,re Terry v Ohio.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    This ruling is bad because it creates an environment where you now shouldn't even answer ANY questions by police.

    For instance, I made a video where I was filming the police detaining a man for taking photographs of a refinery.

    Of course, the police came over to me. The police officer wanted to know if I was a traveling tourist and what kind of camera I was using. Now, on the surface it sounds like an innocent question from a curious officer who likes photography and wants my opinion on what is a good camera.

    However, if I answered "its a Nikon D700" then he would have asked "cool, so what lens do you use" I would have said "I use a nikor 18-200" then he would have said "that's a nice lens, do you take pictures a lot?" I would have said "yes, I take all kinds of pictures, I like photography".

    The problem comes when he says "so why are you taking pictures of a refinery?". Now at this point its obviously my constitutional right to remain silent BUT.....this new ruling says that if I suddenly don't answer this question that THAT is suspicious and can be introduced as evidence in a trial. I answered all questions prior freely and voluntarily in a non custodian interview so I was free to leave at anytime and I was free to invoke my rights at anytime so according to this new ruling when I stop answering questions (exercising a constitutional right) that is suspicious and evidence of evasion and admissionable in court.

    If you want to see how I in fact handled the situation, watch my video.......

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZCqMJ3VRH0
    Last edited by onus; 11-10-2013 at 09:10 PM.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    This ruling is bad because it creates an environment where you now shouldn't even answer ANY questions by police.

    For instance, I made a video where I was filming the police detaining a man for taking photographs of a refinery.

    Of course, the police came over to me. The police officer wanted to know if I was a traveling tourist and what kind of camera I was using. Now, on the surface it sounds like an innocent question from a curious officer who likes photography and wants my opinion on what is a good camera.

    However, if I answered "its a Nikon D700" then he would have asked "cool, so what lens do you use" I would have said "I use a nikor 18-200" then he would have said "that's a nice lens, do you take pictures a lot?" I would have said "yes, I take all kinds of pictures, I like photography".

    The problem comes when he says "so why are you taking pictures of a refinery?". Now at this point its obviously my constitutional right to remain silent BUT.....this new ruling says that if I suddenly don't answer this question that THAT is suspicious and can be introduced as evidence in a trial. I answered all questions prior freely and voluntarily in a non custodian interview so I was free to leave at anytime and I was free to invoke my rights at anytime so according to this new ruling when I stop answering questions (exercising a constitutional right) that is suspicious and evidence of evasion and admissionable in court.

    If you want to see how I in fact handled the situation, watch my video.......

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZCqMJ3VRH0
    Excellent example.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    This ruling is bad because it creates an environment where you now shouldn't even answer ANY questions by police.

    For instance, I made a video where I was filming the police detaining a man for taking photographs of a refinery.

    Of course, the police came over to me. The police officer wanted to know if I was a traveling tourist and what kind of camera I was using. Now, on the surface it sounds like an innocent question from a curious officer who likes photography and wants my opinion on what is a good camera.

    However, if I answered "its a Nikon D700" then he would have asked "cool, so what lens do you use" I would have said "I use a nikor 18-200" then he would have said "that's a nice lens, do you take pictures a lot?" I would have said "yes, I take all kinds of pictures, I like photography".

    The problem comes when he says "so why are you taking pictures of a refinery?". Now at this point its obviously my constitutional right to remain silent BUT.....this new ruling says that if I suddenly don't answer this question that THAT is suspicious and can be introduced as evidence in a trial. I answered all questions prior freely and voluntarily in a non custodian interview so I was free to leave at anytime and I was free to invoke my rights at anytime so according to this new ruling when I stop answering questions (exercising a constitutional right) that is suspicious and evidence of evasion and admissionable in court.

    If you want to see how I in fact handled the situation, watch my video.......

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZCqMJ3VRH0
    You should have just answered "you're the detective ... you tell me..now go away and leave me alone - I don't know you nor want to talk to you..scat!"

  19. #19
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    This ruling is bad because it creates an environment where you now shouldn't even answer ANY questions by police.

    For instance, I made a video where I was filming the police detaining a man for taking photographs of a refinery.

    Of course, the police came over to me. The police officer wanted to know if I was a traveling tourist and what kind of camera I was using. Now, on the surface it sounds like an innocent question from a curious officer who likes photography and wants my opinion on what is a good camera.

    However, if I answered "its a Nikon D700" then he would have asked "cool, so what lens do you use" I would have said "I use a nikor 18-200" then he would have said "that's a nice lens, do you take pictures a lot?" I would have said "yes, I take all kinds of pictures, I like photography".

    The problem comes when he says "so why are you taking pictures of a refinery?". Now at this point its obviously my constitutional right to remain silent BUT.....this new ruling says that if I suddenly don't answer this question that THAT is suspicious and can be introduced as evidence in a trial. I answered all questions prior freely and voluntarily in a non custodian interview so I was free to leave at anytime and I was free to invoke my rights at anytime so according to this new ruling when I stop answering questions (exercising a constitutional right) that is suspicious and evidence of evasion and admissionable in court.

    If you want to see how I in fact handled the situation, watch my video.......

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZCqMJ3VRH0
    This case was MORE then just his not answering one question. His whole demeanor changed. His body language changed. Everything changed. It wasn't a answer a, answer b, don't answer c..... HA GOT YA!! Not remotely. It was totality of circumstances. Other guys have tried explaining this and agreed.

  20. #20
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    All ya gotta do is not speak a word to any cop who pulls ya over. Just hand your DL/registration/insurance card. Follow cop instructions in silence. There is no law that requires a citizen to speak to cops.....ever.

    I gotta change my approach to interacting with cops. Where is Citizen and his catchy little phrase he uses when a cops speaks to him?

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by KYGlockster View Post
    Once you have been Mirandized, if you remain silent after that, then the fact that you remained silent can not be admitted in court. Now if you remain silent before being read your Miranda Rights, then the fact that you failed to answer any questions can be admitted as evidence. But as one poster already mentioned, it all boils down to the totality of the circumstances. Simply being silent is not enough to get you convicted for anything. If you explicitly invoke your right to remain silent, even before being Mirandized, then again, this can not be admitted at trial because you specifically invoked your rights.

    I personally don't agree with this decision, but it stands as of now.
    Can you cite this? I admit I don't know, but I thought the protections (not rights) afforded by Miranda kick in once you reasonably believe that your have been detained, whether or not the warnings have been given.

    I understand that if you are being interviewed as a witness and are not at all a suspect, you don't have the protections of Miranda. That makes sense. However, once they start questioning you as though you are a suspect, everything changes, warning or no. So, I'd always ask that all-important question, "Am I free to go?" If you are not certain that you are free to go, assume that you have been "seized" and answer no questions other than to identify yourself.

    This is not the first ruling that has been mentioned here that has held that stopping talking (not just remaining silent) is admissible. Basically, once you waive your Miranda protections, everything you say and do is admissible until after you have shut up. The act of shutting up is part of the talking you have already done and what follows is the remaining silent. So just don't start flapping the gums in the first place.

    Should we repost the Don't Talk to the Police video yet again?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  22. #22
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Can you cite this? I admit I don't know, but I thought the protections (not rights) afforded by Miranda kick in once you reasonably believe that your have been detained, whether or not the warnings have been given.

    I understand that if you are being interviewed as a witness and are not at all a suspect, you don't have the protections of Miranda. That makes sense. However, once they start questioning you as though you are a suspect, everything changes, warning or no. So, I'd always ask that all-important question, "Am I free to go?" If you are not certain that you are free to go, assume that you have been "seized" and answer no questions other than to identify yourself.

    This is not the first ruling that has been mentioned here that has held that stopping talking (not just remaining silent) is admissible. Basically, once you waive your Miranda protections, everything you say and do is admissible until after you have shut up. The act of shutting up is part of the talking you have already done and what follows is the remaining silent. So just don't start flapping the gums in the first place.

    Should we repost the Don't Talk to the Police video yet again?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Custody+Interrogation= Miranda

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/mirand.../mirandaqa.htm

    Miranda is one of those things that has been decided to death but really is circumstantial. I do agree, either cooperate completely or just remain silent. And if your going to remain silent, state it from the get go.

    Eye, if your still really curious, I'll get my criminal procedures book and can quote actually case law to try and help.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    Didn't click the link (I hate clicking links).

    5A is not a shelter for wrongdoers.

    This guy's willingness to answer some questions, avoid others and answer yet others is not really a 5A issue...in reality, he waived his 5A rights by continuing to volunteer answers in response to questions. The 5A doesn't mean the defendant gets to call the shots in questioning in order to fit his own narrative.
    Last edited by CT Barfly; 11-11-2013 at 12:29 PM.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Being Silent is Guilty

    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Custody+Interrogation= Miranda

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/mirand.../mirandaqa.htm

    Miranda is one of those things that has been decided to death but really is circumstantial. I do agree, either cooperate completely or just remain silent. And if your going to remain silent, state it from the get go.

    Eye, if your still really curious, I'll get my criminal procedures book and can quote actually case law to try and help.
    My point wasn't to the reading of the "rights," but more to when the protections of Miranda come into play. It is when you are in custody or when you are suspected of a crime. If the cops start a convo with you, not suspecting you of anything, and you chat up a storm, suddenly shutting up before suspicion arises and causing suspicion to arise, is and should be admissible.

    Of course, if and when suspicion arises, and Miranda applies, will be decided in a court of law after much arguing and deliberation. When one is having to react on the scene, one should assume the worst. Personally, as long as they are asking what I observed about others while investigating an event I witnessed, but had no part in, I will be as helpful as possible. The instant the convo gets around to me, I will say something along the lines of, "Has this stopped being a witness interview and turned into an interrogation about my actions? Because I don't discuss any of my actions with law enforcement without a lawyer present. Ever."

    And, of course, if I did do something I shouldn't have, they ain't even getting a witness statement outta me!

    I have no problem with this ruling.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
    Last edited by eye95; 11-11-2013 at 02:03 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Sometimes it is cheaper to let your lawyer do your talking for you. Where the heck is Citizen?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •