Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Must Declare To Remain Silent

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , , LaGrande, OR.
    Posts
    74

    Post imported post

    Heard today on the news that if you don't want to talk to Law Officer's you must tell them so . Just not talking does not automatically mean you are exercising your right to remain silent. According toa ruling by The Federal Supreme Court.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297

    Post imported post

    Wednesday, June 2, 2010

    Wednesday, June 2, 2010

    In a 5–4 decision on Tuesday, the US Supreme Court ruled that once a suspect of a criminal investigation is informed of his right to remain silent, he must specifically invoke that right if he does not want his words to be used against him.
    What that means to me is that the guy kept his mouth shut and at some point decided to talk... this doesn't mean that your specific silence can be used against you. IMHO this Supreme court ruling changes very little.

    Even if you tell a police officer that you don't want to answer any questions, but later start answering questions, your doing so is automatically assumed to be a forfeiture of your fifth amendment rights. Also you have the right to stop answering questions at any time after you've already begun answering.
    Nevada Campus Carry: The Movement Continues
    http://nvcampuscarry.blogspot.com

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    1,413

    Post imported post

    I'm not so sure this is a bad thing. You have the right to remain silent. If you remain silent, you remain silent.
    Police will continue barking at you, but you don't have to say anything. The person in this case said something.

    And then tried saying he asserted his right to remain silent. Merely remaining silent is perfectly legit, but is no means a positive assertion.

    Cops are not mind readers. Some people want to talk. Some people want lawyers. Some people want media attention. Who knows what motivates people? A person shouldn't have a lawyer unless he asks for one. He has the right to not say a word, but if he later starts talking, without ever saying he didn't want to talk, maybe he was just figuring out what story he wanted to tell...

    At any rate, this makes no different. If you ****, you've remained silent. As long as you don't talk, no harm no foul.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Sparks, NV, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    471

    Post imported post

    You're right on the Supreme Court ruling, but I believe the specific situation they are referring to is during an interrogation. By formally declaring your wish to remain silent, police are now supposed to end the interrogation completely, which means they'll be turning you loose or putting you into detention if they've got enough to charge you.

    For out basic police encounters, simply keeping your mouth shut is well within your right to remain silent. No need to really declare it, but I probably would anyway. "Sorry officer, I've got nothing to say to you right now. Am I free to go?"

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Post imported post

    All three previous posts are dead on. Changed very little. Cops are Not mind readers. It's nothing to throw out the "lawyer statement" anyway if you have to. We all usually advocate saying such anyway. Nobody ever says "literally don't talk don't even make a sound just be there silent."

    In light of the latest Supreme Court decision... Make a sign. Make a card. Tape it to your dash. Make a bumper sticker..

    "I will be exercising my right to remain silent." Whatever it is you want to say. The point is- the officer is required to read English and if you were able to point out the sign or hold up a sign... anything written down.. That satisfies the requirement to let the officer know- without you actually having to speak. Does it not? hehe

    New bumper stickers... "Officer, I will remain silent."

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    PAHRUMP, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    Contempt of cop is law enforcement jargon in the United States for behavior by citizens towards law enforcement officers that the officers perceive as disrespectful or insufficiently deferential to their authority.[1][/suP][2][/suP][3][/suP][4][/suP] The phrase is associated with arbitrary arrest and detention and is often discussed in connection to police misconduct such as use of excessive force or even police brutality[5][/suP] as a reaction to disrespectful behavior[6][/suP] rather than for any legitimate law enforcement purpose.[7][/suP]

    Arrests for "contempt of cop" may stem from a type of "occupational arrogance" when a police officer thinks he or she should not be challenged or questioned.[8][/suP] From such officers' perspective, "contempt of cop" may involve perceived or actual challenges to their authority, including a lack of deference (such as by asserting one's constitutional rights[citation needed][/suP]), disobeying instructions,[9][/suP] or expressing interest in filing a complaint against the officer.[7][/suP] Flight from the police is sometimes considered a variant of "contempt of cop".[10][/suP] "Contempt of cop" situations may be exacerbated if other officers witness the allegedly contemptuous behavior.[11][/suP]

    Charges such as disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and assaulting an officer may be cited as official reasons for a "contempt of cop" arrest.[7][/suP] Obstructing an officer or failure to obey a lawful order is also cited in "contempt of cop" arrests in some jurisdictions, particularly as a stand-alone charge without any other charges brought.[12][/suP][13][/suP]

  7. #7
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950

    Post imported post

    Is this something to take note of ? Yes. Is it as serious as it may seem on the surface, most likely not. It all adds up however as we see our rights eroded. There are other things taking place that in reality are much more serious. One example that comes to mind is the idiot that is introducing legislation to require that all reporters be licensed (read: approved) by the government. Or what about the UN plan to disarm the US by international treaty? Whether they are actively seeking this at this timeor simply in the planning stage, it is something to keep an eyeball on. Something that directly affects us here, the Cyber Security Act. Check that one out.

    BG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Post imported post

    OMG you've Got to be kidding. The UN international arms treaty has been debunked about 20 times over. Oh oh but I forgot "It's still a threat"

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , , LaGrande, OR.
    Posts
    74

    Post imported post

    Yes , Watch out for Hillary at the U.N. small arms summit.......they are still after our guns and very much a threat. That way they can say they neverchallenged the 2nd amendment or any of the rest of our Constitution. The U.N. is very bad for us U.S. . Look at this shooter in the U.K. where guns are outlawed....what 13 dead and 25 wounded and then he killed himself.?.....no armed citizens.....just caught some of it......anyone else here the whole story?

  10. #10
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950

    Post imported post

    cscitney87 wrote:
    OMG you've Got to be kidding. The UN international arms treaty has been debunked about 20 times over. Oh oh but I forgot "It's still a threat"
    History is full of deniers who when ultimately faced with the ugly truth raise their fist in the air and shout "why didn't someone do something about this?" But then you're probably right, no one in our government or the world at large would want to disarm us. Debunked? Ok so the people who are accused of being involved in this say it's not true, and we should believe them? Spend a few weeks going through the UN archives and see how much time has been devoted to small arms control. I for one would love for it to be not true.
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Post imported post

    Wow you folks have No Hope.

    We've posted the Supreme Court decision on this forum a thousand times. In the decision- The Constitution of the United States is Supreme to any international treaty.

    In other words.. they can make treaties all day long.. but if the treaty violates our very Constitution- it's null and void in our country. Eat it.

  12. #12
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950

    Post imported post

    cscitney87 wrote:
    Wow you folks have No Hope.

    We've posted the Supreme Court decision on this forum a thousand times. In the decision- The Constitution of the United States is Supreme to any international treaty.

    In other words.. they can make treaties all day long.. but if the treaty violates our very Constitution- it's null and void in our country. Eat it.
    No, actually we do have hope. We hope that people wake up and understand what is going on in the world and take steps to stop it while we still can. Your point would be well taken if there wasn't endless accounts of therulings of the supreme court being subverted, and rulings by the supreme court that have absolutely no basis in constitutional reality. I could fill up page after page of examples all documented and some people would still choose to not believe it.I still have hope for you.
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Post imported post

    Ah, spoken like a true conspiracy theorist. Even if the Supreme Court rules so- doesn't matter because the ruling will be subverted and nullified some how.... in your case the some how is the very subject matter of the ruling; an international treaty. Mmhmmmmm... you're not a nut or anything...

  14. #14
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950

    Post imported post

    cscitney87 wrote:
    Ah, spoken like a true conspiracy theorist. Even if the Supreme Court rules so- doesn't matter because the ruling will be subverted and nullified some how.... in your case the some how is the very subject matter of the ruling; an international treaty. Mmhmmmmm... you're not a nut or anything...
    Thanks for the compliment.

    BG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    The way I understand this ruling is if you don't want to talk to an officer, you just keep your mouth shut like you've always been able to do. If you don't want the officer to continue talking to you in ways to attempt to get you to talk back to him, you have to verbally invoke your associated rights.

    If you then break your silence, you waived your right and then you have to once again invoke your rights.

Posting Permissions

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