Bam! Another one bites the dust. Who needs it anyways?

[Eldrylars]

Policy change can be a bitch. Sometimes it's not for the better...

 

[xexorian]

This is like saying bill cosby came on television and confessed to child raping and murder on 16 counts and even told presumably "the police" in his public broadcast where the smoking gun was for all of it.

Then, when they go to arrest him, he answers some questions before they even read him his rights, and when they ask the tough one, he pleads the fifth to what end? try to get out of it? after he's given all the proof they need? lol..

..or maybe I read that wrong... or something.

 

[Jack_Reacher]

To what are you referring, Eldry?

Edit: I see... Your sentence was a link

 

[Ostadar]

What are you talking about Eldry?

After reading through the article it seems perfectly rational to me. It prevents abuse of the miranda rights. If someone is stupid enough to try to pull something like what happened in that article they are only really convicting themselves.

They should have not said anything from the beginning if they wanted to use those rights instead of "Answers to potentially incrimating questions -silence to even more incriminating question trying to not get caught- then more answers to more questions".

 

[Eldrylars]

At one point in our history(last week) you could expect that remaining silent was a good way to protect yourself from false incrimination. In fact there are several long shows on how people have be falsely convicted and imprisoned due to not remaining silent. Now with the SCOTUS ruling that using the fact that the suspect refused to answer a potentially incriminating question to help prove his guilt is legal, opens up all sorts of problems.

For instance, you are driving and get pulled over, the officer approaches your car and ask for you ID which you hand him. He then asks you if you know why he pulled you over(This is almost always one of the first things they ask you because it's an attempt to get you to freely admit guilt to a wrong doing which will make their job much easier.) You decide not to answer, and the officer writes you a ticket. You decide to fight the ticket as you find it unfair/wrong/whatever. The officer shows up to the hearing and uses the fact that you did not reply to his question in an attempt to hide your guilt. Before that would have been thrown out, but now that's iffy and the judge will have to consider the argument.

 

[Drastikos]

It's a great time to be alive!
We get to watch as America (and countless other countries) go from Representative Democracies to Authoritarian Police States.
This is history people!!

 

[Eldrylars]

For his specific situation lets play it out that he answered the question instead of remaining silent.
"Yes officer, I suppose those could have fired from a rifle like mine." - He just admitted that his gun could be the murder weapon
"No officer, those could not have been from my gun" - He just lied because pretty much any 12 gauge shell will shot from any 12 gauge shotgun.

This quote explains my worry pretty well


"simply remaining silent as a suspect or witness does not protect one from self-incrimination; in fact, in order to invoke that protection, one must actually say out loud “I’m invoking my right to remain silent”… even if Miranda rights are not read because one has not actually been arrested."

"what of the unwitting witness who hasn’t “lawyered up” because he or she is not a suspect, but simply being asked questions by the police or other law enforcement? Clearly in the case of Genovevo Salinas, the nervous, lip-biting silence elicited by police questioning became evidence that put him away for 20 years. The message is clear, whether guilty or not guilty, whether a suspect or just a witness: don’t just BE silent; state your silence, demand your right to silence, speak up loudly about your silence.

Because to simply be silent has just been determined to be no protection at all."

Sure, this guy may have been guilty of the crime, but he should have been convicted with actual evidence of the crime and not convicted on the fact that he was fidgety and nervous while talking to police. I get intimidated by police and could just as easily seem "guilty by being nervous"

Long and short the good news is we learned that if we say “I’m invoking my right to remain silent” then we are "protected." The bad news is for all those who do not know to say this, their silence can and will be used against them in a court of law.

 

[Eldrylars]

If someone is stupid enough to try to pull something like what happened in that article they are only really convicting themselves.

Once again, I am not trying to defend this man as I am not familiar enough with the details to even try, but he was "not a suspect and was called in as a witness along with other people" He was not arrested and brought into the station.
Considering you could not answer this question until you have been in the situation, but lets say you were at a friends house with a couple dozen other people and someone opened fire killing a couple of people. The police call you in as a witness to which you

A-Refuse, making you look guilty
B-Accept and answer all questions including potentially incriminating ones
C-Accept and start answering "ok questions" but stop talking when they start almost accusing you.​

It's a trick question, the answer is D-Call your lawyer, because at this point you have to consider that you will become a suspect regardless of your answer or guilt.

 

[Zephael_]

It's a tough question. As it stands, the court decision just put enormous power into the hands of law enforcers, who can easily push less educated or less informed people into giving incriminating "evidence". On the other hand, if the court had ruled the opposite, criminals would have the power to hide incriminating evidence by invoking their right to remain silent.

I guess in this case, the lesser of two evils is to put the power into the hands of the supposedly virtuous, law abiding citizens, rather than into the hands of the accused. Still, I don't like it either way.

 

[Ostadar]

It's a tough question. As it stands, the court decision just put enormous power into the hands of law enforcers, who can easily push less educated or less informed people into giving incriminating "evidence". On the other hand, if the court had ruled the opposite, criminals would have the power to hide incriminating evidence by invoking their right to remain silent.

I guess in this case, the lesser of two evils is to put the power into the hands of the supposedly virtuous, law abiding citizens, rather than into the hands of the accused. Still, I don't like it either way.

This. All of this.

Let me just add in response to Eldry that I never stated that the system was not flawed. It' is a system ran by people and people are prone to err. It is also a perturbed Judicial/law system since it no longer truly follows the presumption of innocence(There might be some who still do, but it has become filled with political agenda). They just work around the philosophy . So much for "innocent until proven guilty".

 

[Kainzo]

Not everyone is a criminal... what fear does to people is sickening.

 

[Eldrylars]

Not everyone is a criminal... what fear does to people is sickening.

The most commonly used method to control the masses since the dawn of our history.

 

[Xargun]

It's a tough question. As it stands, the court decision just put enormous power into the hands of law enforcers, who can easily push less educated or less informed people into giving incriminating "evidence". On the other hand, if the court had ruled the opposite, criminals would have the power to hide incriminating evidence by invoking their right to remain silent.

I guess in this case, the lesser of two evils is to put the power into the hands of the supposedly virtuous, law abiding citizens, rather than into the hands of the accused. Still, I don't like it either way.

But in our legal system criminals DO have the right to hid incriminating evidence by invoking their right to remain silent. I did not hear about this case and I am also worried about it. It is another step in eroding our rights. Now if you don't say anything they can put words into your mouth and make you seem however they feel - where before they couldn't mention it.

 

[Diavolo1988]

Interesting development we're seeing from the US lately...

 

[Eldrylars]

Interesting development we're seeing from the US lately...

Intereting is one word for it.
It will be interesting to see if this is used in a positive of negative way when all is said and done.

 

[Diavolo1988]

Oh, in this context I mean it very negatively. The US is becoming less and less democratic and more and more torn apart, so what I'm actually saying is: "it will be interesting to see what will happen in the world politics in the next 50 years, since it's going to be crazy"

 

[j2gay]

"He who would forego an essential liberty, in exchange for security, deserves neither" ~ Benjamin Franklin

Whether it be the religion of big G God or little g government the tools remain the same. Remember that all religions use fear, guilt and shame, to control and direct you. Learn to live with and through these, as well as to value the content of the only thing you will ever truly own, your mind, and you will be free in all the ways that matter.

 

[Fjordsen]

"He who would forego an essential liberty, in exchange for security, deserves neither" ~ Benjamin Franklin

Whether it be the religion of big G God or little g government the tools remain the same. Remember that all religions use fear, guilt and shame, to control and direct you. Learn to live with and through these, as well as to value the content of the only thing you will ever truly own, your mind, and you will be free in all the ways that matter.

Freedom isn't equal to prosperity though. No government would mean no order, however I do agree that the way the US government acts is wrong.

 

[j2gay]

Freedom isn't equal to prosperity though. No government would mean no order, however I do agree that the way the US government acts is wrong.

Fairness and Equality are not synonymous. That which is fair can never be equal and that which is equal can never be fair.

 

[WitchOnaRampage]

Fairness and Equality are not synonymous. That which is fair can never be equal and that which is equal can never be fair.

And Fairness and Equality are both illusions, although I guess they are useful as working terms. Perception is everything.