Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Just a little something to remember when talking to police

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    DO NOT TALK TO POLICE!!!!!!!!!


    http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06...ights-warning/

    Supreme Court Narrows Requirements for Miranda Rights Warning 20 hours ago Andrew Cohen Columnist

    Voting along ideological lines, a divided Supreme Court Monday slightly narrowed the scope of the so-called Miranda warning, ruling in a 5-4 case out of that a suspect must affirmatively and unambiguously invoke his right to remain silent in order to preclude prosecutors from later using any statements he may make at the time. "There is good reason to require an accused who wants to invoke his or her right to remain silent to do so unambiguously," Justice Anthony Kennedy declared in what probably constitutes the understatement of the day. The case came about as a result of the questioning of an Ohio man named Van Chester Thompkins, who was picked up in 2000 on suspicion of murder and attempted murder. Thompkins was properly read his rights and said that he understood them - but he neither expressly waived his right to remain silent or invoked his privilege against self-incrimination. Nearly three hours later, after a series of short, clipped answers, Thompkins, when asked if he prayed to God for forgiveness for "shooting the boy down," responded "yes." It was this incriminating answer that prosecutors later sought to introduce at the trial - a trial which resulted in Thompson's conviction. The majority's decision, authored by Justice Kennedy and endorsed by his four conservative colleagues, limits the contours of the Court's "implied waiver" doctrine and is likely to encourage law enforcement officials to continue questioning suspects even where there may be a question about whether that suspect's right to remain silent has been invoked. "Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police," Justice Kennedy said. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his 'right to cut off questioning.' Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent." The ruling gives the benefit of the doubt of ambiguity during questioning to the police and to prosecutors and not to the defendant, a point that troubled Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the Court's liberal wing. Quite active on this point during oral argument in March, she issued a sharp dissent on Tuesday. "Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent - which counter-intuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "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." Filed Under:Crime, Law, Supreme Court

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Cameron, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    271

    Post imported post

    If you want to remain silent don't you have to actually remain silent? If you say you wan't to remain silent but the confess that is exactly the opposite of remaining silent. Isn't the purpose of it to prevent the cops from charging you with obstruction of something or another if you don't talk?

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    I was surprised to see a dissent by Sotomayor.

    It is apparently as simple as saying I chose to exercise my 5th amendment right at this time and I would like to speak with an attorney.

    After that ****.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    Basically, if you want an attorney, you gotta tell them. If you want to remain silent, you gotta tell them.

  5. #5
    bhancock
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Ok, this may be a no brainer, but don't you have to NOT remain silent in order to tell them that you would like to remain silent? I get the point, but it just seems like an intentional way to get you talking and to debate with you. Oh you want to remain silent...well we can do this hard way if you want....is that your final answer....do you still want to remain silent...Oh, sorry I hit your head on the door opening, why didn't you say something?

  6. #6
    Regular Member AdamXD's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    71

    Post imported post

    The biggest reason to state that you are choosing to remain silent is so if you are illegally searched, assaulted, falsely charged, etc, etc, etc, is so that you can say that to your (personal or court appointed) lawyer that you told them so. But if you do talk AFTER you state your right, then you're screwed.

    Same thing goes for your 4th Amendment rights. If a cop pulls you over and asks if he/she/it can preform a "routine" search, all you have to say is, "I am exercising my 4th Amendment right and I DO NOT consent to searches." And no, not consenting doesn't give the cop "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause."

    I love how cops get pissy when an educated citizen stands up to them.

    And to complete my two cents, I would encourage people to start recording their police encounters either via sound recordings or even video. Most cell phones these days can do both.
    J.A.Salinas
    "Natural Selection is another way of God telling you you're an idiot"

  7. #7
    Regular Member bluehighways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    142

    Post imported post

    AdamXD wrote:
    But if you do talk AFTER you state your right, then you're screwed.

    Same thing goes for your 4th Amendment rights. If a cop pulls you over and asks if he/she/it can preform a "routine" search, all you have to say is, "I DO NOT consent to searches." And no, not consenting doesn't give the cop "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause."


    I would encourage people to start recording their police encounters either via sound recordings or even video. Most cell phones these days can do both.
    This is correct. To invoke your rights you must declare that you are doing so. Then, ****!!!!! You can relinquish your rights by speaking at any time after that. If you absolutely MUST say something and just can't keep quiet, the only thing you can say is "I am going to remain silent, I want to see a lawyer." That is the only phrase that will not incriminate you whether you're innocent or not.

    My iphone has a recorder app that will record over 8 hours of voice, crystal clear, and has a pretty sensitive mic. It can be easily activated anytime by me, and with the security function on the phone a 4 digit passcode is required to unlock the phone and turn the recorder off. Looking at the screen while trying to unlock the phone, there is no indication that any recording is going on. Its a pretty good device, and its always on me anyway.
    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is often difficult to verify their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    You could always just remain silent, letting the police grill you for hours and hours. And then, when they finally give up and are starting to walk out of the room, announce that you want a lawyer and that you expect the interrogation to cease.



    Then write a letter to the editor about the stupid interrogators wasting tons of taxpayer money on overtime while playing a game about whether the suspect waived his rights.
    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.

  9. #9
    Regular Member ayce2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greater Fox cities area
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    Looks like the authorities are fighting back.



    http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    I have to believe that someone is going to challenge the constitutionality of these laws.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Carcharodon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Neenah, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    189

    Post imported post

    I just read what Ayce2 posted and it really makes me angry. Recording is our only defense against police breaking laws/ using excessive force. In a courtroom anything the police say is believed without question by the state and if need be they will bring up the dashcam video, not to help the citizen though. The last time I was on jury duty during the selection, one guy stated that he would believe anything a cop said, no matter what. The judge asked him several ridiculous questions the best being "if an officer told you , right now that my robe was red, you would believe him?" "Yes" was the reply. The judge then asked him "you can see that my robe is black though, correct?" "Yes" was the reply. "But if an officer told you, right now, that it was red you would agree with him?" "Yes your honor, I would" was his answer. Needless to say he didn't make it onto the jury. All we need is a witness with this mentality and no recording to prove otherwise.
    "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
    Thomas Jefferson

  12. #12
    Regular Member AdamXD's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    71

    Post imported post

    This is extremely disturbing. What's that LEO saying? People with something to hide are criminals? Well it's something like that.. How can people not see that even the local elected officials who are protecting the corrupt LEOs want to make it even harder for us law abiding citizens to protect our community ourselves? What difference is there between a LEO and a LAC(law abiding citizen)?

    LEO's get paid to enforce the law. We don't. That's the only difference.

    Usually when you do something pro bono, you are so much more invested in it getting done correctly and as quickly and accurately as possible.

    If laws like this keep going in to the books all over the country, then corrupt LEOs will have no fear against citizens trying to take them off the streets. It will become impossible to reprimand a LEO for anything if recording or videotaping a LEO is made illegal. I foresee many more Rodney King type incidents and not just against Black people.

    Whats next? Will it be illegal to record public officials? The President? If people knew they were being videotaped 24/7, people would behave.

    ***EDIT***

    Well, its more of an afterthought, but does WI or any of it's cities have any wiretapping laws that we should know about? With that recent report about Milwaukee Police's rates of use of force coming to light, I will personally be recording any and all police encounters I have, hopefully with video.
    J.A.Salinas
    "Natural Selection is another way of God telling you you're an idiot"

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    Its inevitable people. Its just a question of when and what will be the final tipping point.

    My best suggestion is to quit voting for Republicans and Democrats. They have proven themselves to be equal opportunity destroyers when it comes to citizen's individual liberties and freedoms. What one party doesn't attempt to strip away, the other gladly steps up to the plate.

Posting Permissions

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