# "Right" to Remain Silent



## Aldryic C'boas (Jun 25, 2013)

https://www.google.com/search?q=supreme+court+right+to+remain+silent&safe=off&source=univ&tbm=nws

I'm not sure what's worse - the slippery slope this country is cascading down, or that reading things like this no longer surprises me in the slightest.

And yet my American co-workers always get so offended when I mention that I miss the USSR.. and when asked why, "Because they were honest."


----------



## mojeda (Jun 25, 2013)

I'm surprised no one has really brought up PRISM, NSA/FBI and Obama here.

What the hell is going on in the White House/Congress?


----------



## Aldryic C'boas (Jun 25, 2013)

I don't see why the current puppets are relevant at all. This has been going on for the past 80+ years... it's just more noticeable now with the advance in communications technology over the past couple decades.


----------



## Naruto (Jun 25, 2013)

Whoa.

*Here's a situation for you:*

>Do nothing wrong.

>Cop thinks you did and arrests you.

>Cop intentionally doesn't read you Miranda rights.

>You remain silent, scared of incriminating yourself somehow due to cop's trick questions.

>You successfuly manage to not accidentally confess to something you didn't do.

>Go to court.

>Prosecuter says your silence is evidence of your crime.

>Death penalty.


----------



## xmob (Jun 25, 2013)

They took that from us in the UK a long time ago, now we get:



> You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.


----------



## Maximum_VPS (Jun 25, 2013)

From reading the article and trying to understand, it looks like instead of "going silent" as a way of invoking your 5th amendment rights you now have to DECLARE that you are invoking your 5th amendment rights for it to be valid.

This needs more attention.


----------



## acd (Jun 25, 2013)

Not true. Not being mirandized when arrested or charged with a crime is grounds for a mistrial**. The trick here is they didn't arrest or charge him, he was free to leave at any time, he just didn't KNOW that.

 

** for now.


----------



## MannDude (Jun 25, 2013)

Maximum_VPS said:


> From reading the article and trying to understand, it looks like instead of "going silent" as a way of invoking your 5th amendment rights you now have to DECLARE that you are invoking your 5th amendment rights for it to be valid.
> 
> This needs more attention.


Possibly, and it also looks as if this is for those already in custody. If questioned by the police in a situation where you are 'free to go' or not being detained, you can say nothing at all / plead the 5th. Sounds like the ruling is for those in custody or in a court room setting. By not speaking you're admitting guilt.

I always thought people plead the 5th so they did not say anything that could be used against them in court until they had consulted with an attorney.

Thanks for posting this Aldyric, first time I've seen this and I thought I kept up to date on 'alternative' news well. Must of slipped past. I just hope there is proper distinction between when individuals can choose to remain silent and when they can not. I can sort of understand the court-room situation, as the ruling was due to an individual who had chosen to remain silent despite shotgun shells of his being found at a murder site. In that case, they speculated his silence was admission of guilt. He probably was guilty.

_But_ if the ruling lets it be open that individuals not in custody admits to guilt by not speaking, in that case, that is entirely fucked. We've got more people in prison than anywhere else in the world, we have prison systems that are ran for profit and anything or any law that is passed that helps put away more citizens is fucking disgusting.


----------



## Aldryic C'boas (Jun 25, 2013)

> first time I've seen this and I thought I kept up to date on 'alternative' news well


That's what is a bit worrying.. there's getting to be more and more instances like this that get censored hard enough to make the Chinese blush.


----------



## Maximum_VPS (Jun 25, 2013)

I should have mentioned i read this particular article. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/15787-supreme-court-bombshell-no-right-to-remain-silent



acd said:


> Not true. Not being mirandized when arrested or charged with a crime is grounds for a mistrial**. The trick here is they didn't arrest or charge him, he was free to leave at any time, he just didn't KNOW that.
> 
> 
> 
> ** for now.


Thanks for the clarification


----------



## MannDude (Jun 25, 2013)

Aldryic C said:


> That's what is a bit worrying.. there's getting to be more and more instances like this that get censored hard enough to make the Chinese blush.


Well that's nothing new. Better shave your g'damn beard and stay away from weddings!


----------



## nunim (Jun 25, 2013)

Not sure how I didn't see anything about this but I guess I've been away from my newspaper for the past few days.  Seems to be some sketchy legal precedent, good thing I'm moving to Canada where I'll have even less rights, like being pulled over without probable cause 

I don't understand why he would've voluntarily answered questions, if they don't have an arrest warrant tell em to bugger off, when they do, simply state you will not answer questions until provided with counsel.  I would've thought that everyone has seen enough TV to know that all you have to do is say "I plead the fifth".

Maybe Fran has a Canadian law for dummies book I can borrow..

Most governments spy on their citizens in one way or another, some of them are just better at it then others, the "PRISM" debacle aside, the US has been operating the "ECHELON" program since at least the 1960's.

What concerns me the most is it seems like in the last ten years people have been willingly giving away their privacy, when the internet was younger everyone was weary of putting any kind of personal information online,  now you can get someone's entire life story just by looking at their Facebook page.


----------



## jarland (Jun 25, 2013)

Thanks for sharing. Been a bit too busy lately to catch news that doesn't present itself to me as I'm going about other business. This certainly is an interesting scenario.


----------



## GIANT_CRAB (Jun 25, 2013)

mojeda said:


> I'm surprised no one has really brought up PRISM, NSA/FBI and Obama here.
> 
> What the hell is going on in the White House/Congress?


Stop triggering by using PRISM tags.

In 1984, Ron Paul warned the Congress about invasion of privacy and how that is a threat to the American "freedom".

Americans were constantly tracked by the FBI and NSA since 2001, after the 9/11 incident.

Source - 






>green texting out of 4chan

>meme arrows

Muhh burgers and muhh freedumbs.

Face it, America will lose all their gun rights, freedom of speech, freedom and America will turn into a police state.

Special thanks to dictator Obama.

inb4 FBI comes up knocking on my doors.


----------



## MannDude (Jun 25, 2013)

nunim said:


> What concerns me the most is it seems like in the last ten years people have been willingly giving away their privacy, when the internet was younger everyone was weary of putting any kind of personal information online,  now you can get someone's entire life story just by looking at their Facebook page.


Because the bulk of the people genuinely do not care. They are not upset, nor are they happy, they simple and genuinely do not care. It's quite worrying.

This is also why it's unlikely to see any sort of nation wide mass protests in America. Too many people are too comfortable and even if they disagree with whats going on they mostly can't be bothered to say or do anything about it because it has yet to have a direct impact on their quality of life, thus they feel it never will. If you're lucky, some of these individuals will sign "e-petitions" that mean fuck-all in the grand scheme of things. "Yeah, I disagree with this. I'm going to sign this petition online and ask my friends to sign it so we get some change around here."


----------



## MannDude (Jun 25, 2013)

GIANT_CRAB said:


> Stop triggering by using PRISM tags.
> 
> In 1984, Ron Paul warned the Congress about invasion of privacy and how that is a threat to the American "freedom".
> 
> ...


The man always seems to have had an eye into the future.


----------



## Aldryic C'boas (Jun 25, 2013)

> This is also why it's unlikely to see any sort of nation wide mass protests in America.


That and, unless you frequently hit up forums where this type of material is discussed, you likely wouldn't know about any protests/etc unless they were happening in your backyard. Remember the Wall Street protests? When's the last time you heard something about them? Exactly <_<




> Special thanks to dictator Obama.


Seriously? I have no appreciation for the man myself, but are you honestly placing the blame for this at the feet of a public figurehead? (aka, puppet). Blame needs to be placed at our own feet first, for allowing it to happen. Second, if on anyone else, would be the controlling interests whose finances dictate the government 'decisions'.


----------



## MannDude (Jun 25, 2013)

Aldryic C said:


> Seriously? I have no appreciation for the man myself, but are you honestly placing the blame for this at the feet of a public figurehead? (aka, puppet). Blame needs to be placed at our own feet first, for allowing it to happen. Second, if on anyone else, would be the controlling interests whose finances dictate the government 'decisions'.


+1

On an semi-unrelated note, I'm a gun owner. Was at Wal-Mart a week or two ago and got a box of .45ACP. Went back there the other day, they were out of .45 (only had 3 boxes when I was there weeks ago) and out of damn near everything else. It was late, and there was an individual counting the drawer down at the sporting goods section (where ammo is sold) and I ask, "So, when are you guys going to get more .45ACP in?" The MANAGER who was watching/guarding the guy counting the register responded to me and said, "Whenever Obama lets us."

I just chuckled and walked on after hearing such an ignorant comment.


----------



## Marc M. (Jun 25, 2013)

I think that it's way past freedom'o'clock...


----------



## drmike (Jun 25, 2013)

I read a bit about this case.

The problem is the fellow went to the police station and started yapping to the cops.  When the cops asked about his shotgun and if it would match the gun used in a dual shooting, the defendant stopped talking.

Rule #1, never ever go to a police station to chat with cops.   Even if they invite you, bring legal counsel.

The police had probable cause - although probably not enough when they invited the perp down for a powow.   There was a furtherance of that by the discussion and the lynch pin moment when asked about the shotgun.  

The defendant did all that voluntarily, on his own.  

It is a slight worry about defendant rights, not nearly as much as folks make it out to be.

Problem is, they've been whittling away at Constitutional rights for a long time.

Just look at Commifornia and the bill that passed this week to require a permit and $50 fee to buy ammunition.  Talk about 2nd Amendment erosion with that.  Real concerning.


----------



## MannDude (Jun 25, 2013)

buffalooed said:


> Just look at Commifornia and the bill that passed this week to require a permit and $50 fee to buy ammunition.  Talk about 2nd Amendment erosion with that.  Real concerning.


No kidding? I haven't heard about this. California is one of the least gun friendly states, and is it any safer? I think not. Ammo is already expensive enough as it is, this is just ridiculous.


----------



## drmike (Jun 25, 2013)

MannDude said:


> No kidding? I haven't heard about this. California is one of the least gun friendly states, and is it any safer? I think not. Ammo is already expensive enough as it is, this is just ridiculous.



This IS the bill that just passed.

SB 53, as amended, De León. Ammunition: purchase permits.


(1) Existing law requires the Attorney General to maintain records, including among other things, fingerprints, licenses to carry concealed firearms, and information from firearms dealers pertaining to firearms, for purposes of assisting in the investigation of crimes, and specified civil actions.

This bill would require the Attorney General to also maintain copies of ammunition purchase permits, information about ammunition transactions, as specified, and ammunition vendor licenses, as specified, for those purposes.

.... require the purchaser of ammunition to ..._be authorized to purchase ammunition by the Department of Justice ..._

_establish a centralized list of persons authorized to purchase ammunition._

source: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB53


----------



## D. Strout (Jun 25, 2013)

The Supreme Court is really the most powerful governmental body in the U.S. They are appointed for life, they can overrule any legislation by majority vote, and they can basically ignore any cases they don't want to bother with, picking up only the ones they're interested in. This is not Congress or Obama's fault, this is the Supreme Court's fault. For some reason "checks and balances" don't really apply to them.


----------



## MannDude (Jun 25, 2013)

buffalooed said:


> This IS the bill that just passed.
> 
> SB 53, as amended, De León. Ammunition: purchase permits.
> 
> ...


Sheesh. It's crazy to see states like California exist in the same nation where states nearby (like Arizona) have 'constitutional carry' laws and allow open carry. Indiana is somewhat lax too, though not nearly as much as other states. We do allow open carry here plus have the castle doctrine. Just recently (within the last year) implemented a law protecting citizens who shoot officers who enter homes unlawfully via no knock no warrant entries. (Though I suspect even if protected by the law in this situation, you'd still leave your home in a bag and full of more holes than swiss cheese.)


----------



## MannDude (Jun 25, 2013)

D. Strout said:


> The Supreme Court is really the most powerful governmental body in the U.S. They are appointed for life, they can overrule any legislation by majority vote, and they can basically ignore any cases they don't want to bother with, picking up only the ones they're interested in. This is not Congress or Obama's fault, this is the Supreme Court's fault. For some reason "checks and balances" don't really apply to them.


Average age among these members is 68. They'll all die out sooner or later and will hopefully get replaced with sensible individuals. While few and far between, there are some individuals in politics who I believe actually care and would like to see America be great again.


----------



## Marc M. (Jun 25, 2013)

MannDude said:


> They'll all die out sooner or later and will hopefully get replaced with sensible individuals.


Probably not, we'll just have more of the same.



MannDude said:


> While few and far between, there are some individuals in politics who I believe actually care and would like to see America be great again.


*@**MannDude* everyone is susceptible to corruption. And when one of those rare idealists comes along, a man without a price, he just gets eliminated out of the way.

Sorry, I'm a bit of a cynic when it comes to these things.


----------



## MannDude (Jun 28, 2013)

Here you go Aldryic: http://rt.com/usa/california-man-13-prison-banks-237/



> Jeff Olson, the 40-year-old man who is being prosecuted for scrawling anti-megabank messages on sidewalks in water-soluble chalk last year now faces a 13-year jail sentence. A judge has barred his attorney from mentioning freedom of speech during trial.
> 
> According to the San Diego Reader, which reported on Tuesday that a judge had opted to prevent Olson’s attorney from "mentioning the First Amendment, free speech, free expression, public forum, expressive conduct, or political speech during the trial,” Olson must now stand trial for on 13 counts of vandalism.
> 
> ...


----------



## lv-matt (Jun 28, 2013)

Aldryic C said:


> And yet my American co-workers always get so offended when I mention that I miss the USSR.. and when asked why, "Because they were honest."


They where far from honest, they where only honest after Glasnost, which was in 1988. Up to then, they hid all there honesty thats for sure.


----------



## Aldryic C'boas (Jun 28, 2013)

> _one Bank of America branch claimed it had cost $6,000 to clean up the chalk writing_


That pretty much summed up the whole thing for me =\ Given my own experiences with BoA, this doesn't surprise me in the slightest. And now with courts suppressing articles from the Bill of Rights? I don't see myself staying in the US much longer.




> They where far from honest, they where only honest after Glasnost, which was in 1988. Up to then, they hid all there honesty thats for sure.


You missed the point there. Those of us that grew up under the red flag had absolutely no disillusions about what was going on. There was no belief that the government was "taking care of us", and certainly nobody I knew was blind to the totalitarian control.


----------

