Why I think 5 Justices are retarded...
5 to 4...
It is now the rule that if you want to remain silent during police questioning you must inform the police verbally of that intention.
The Justices understand what a right is, right?
Is Miranda that confusing to the highest court in the land?
Do I have to invoke my right to life before they stop trying to kill me?
Do I have to legally express my intent to pursue happiness before I am allowed my first ice cream cone?
Miranda Warning
You have the right to remain silent,
If you give up that right anything you say can be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to have an attorney present during any questioning,
if you can not afford an attorney one will be appointed for you.
Do you understand these rights as I have explained them?
That's all the cops have to say, then anything you decide to say to them after that point in time can be recorded and used against you in court in the future. By verbally informing the officers you will be enjoying your rights to silence, are you waiving those rights? Can the officers continue their questioning ad infinitum?
Once you ask for an attorney you are considered to be under advisement by said attorney from the instant you make the initial request and the cops have to halt their attempts to question you. So asking for an attorney can't be used against you in the future.
The case before the SCOTUS involved an individual being held for questioning in regards to a shooting. At first the suspect was uncommunicative, but over the three hours the suspect sat with officers he would occasionally answer their questions with yes, no, other short responses or non verbal indications of his head and body, all recorded by the police. At some point the questioning officer asked the suspect if he had prayed for forgiveness for shooting "that boy", to which the suspect answered yes he had prayed for forgiveness. The officers took that to court as a confession and the prosecutor secured a conviction. The highest appellate court in the state; on the grounds that the suspect was at first less than forthcoming with responses to the officers questions, this construed the suspect's desire to remain silent and the evidence collected after that point was inadmissible and overturned his conviction. That fight eventually got before the Supreme Court and this idiotic ruling is all we are left with as a result. You have to inform the officers you are invoking your right to remain silent.
To me it appears the Court cherry-picked a case they could destroy Miranda with, and they didn't even use a case where Miranda was in question to do the dirty. The State Appellate Court was retarded to start with and should have been smacked for not being able to read. But to then word their opinion in such a destructive and willfully contrary way to the spirit of Miranda is criminal and unconstitutional. In my opinion. They have now designed in a catch -22 where by failing to invoke the right can be used as evidence against a suspect. Now not answering any question without stating you wish to remain silent will be construed as failure to cooperate, I can see it now.
"The suspect never stated he wished to remain silent so I will show his failure to answer the officers questions were clearly an effort to conceal his involvement in the crime I bring before you today, ladies and gentlemen of the jury."
Because now you have to activate the right, it's not automatic; as it should be, it's suddenly a privilege only offered to those aware that they can ask for it's protection. "Oh please sir, may I not incriminate myself, sir, oh please."
They will have to rewrite the warning, and this will make the job of gathering suspect statements nearly impossible for the cops as well. As it is until the suspect asks for a lawyer the cops can take down anything said as evidence. After this dumb opinion the cops have to advise that anything you say can be used up to the point where you say you don't want to say anything, then anything you do say after that point you can say and it won't be taken as evidence, unless you then waive your right to not say anything then anything you say can be used as evidence, again, until you decide you liked it better when you could talk so you will re-invoke your right to remain silent...FUCK.
Either the 5 Justices are retarded, or they are willfully evil. I hope they are just stupid, for the sake of the rest of us.
It is now the rule that if you want to remain silent during police questioning you must inform the police verbally of that intention.
The Justices understand what a right is, right?
Is Miranda that confusing to the highest court in the land?
Do I have to invoke my right to life before they stop trying to kill me?
Do I have to legally express my intent to pursue happiness before I am allowed my first ice cream cone?
Miranda Warning
You have the right to remain silent,
If you give up that right anything you say can be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to have an attorney present during any questioning,
if you can not afford an attorney one will be appointed for you.
Do you understand these rights as I have explained them?
That's all the cops have to say, then anything you decide to say to them after that point in time can be recorded and used against you in court in the future. By verbally informing the officers you will be enjoying your rights to silence, are you waiving those rights? Can the officers continue their questioning ad infinitum?
Once you ask for an attorney you are considered to be under advisement by said attorney from the instant you make the initial request and the cops have to halt their attempts to question you. So asking for an attorney can't be used against you in the future.
The case before the SCOTUS involved an individual being held for questioning in regards to a shooting. At first the suspect was uncommunicative, but over the three hours the suspect sat with officers he would occasionally answer their questions with yes, no, other short responses or non verbal indications of his head and body, all recorded by the police. At some point the questioning officer asked the suspect if he had prayed for forgiveness for shooting "that boy", to which the suspect answered yes he had prayed for forgiveness. The officers took that to court as a confession and the prosecutor secured a conviction. The highest appellate court in the state; on the grounds that the suspect was at first less than forthcoming with responses to the officers questions, this construed the suspect's desire to remain silent and the evidence collected after that point was inadmissible and overturned his conviction. That fight eventually got before the Supreme Court and this idiotic ruling is all we are left with as a result. You have to inform the officers you are invoking your right to remain silent.
To me it appears the Court cherry-picked a case they could destroy Miranda with, and they didn't even use a case where Miranda was in question to do the dirty. The State Appellate Court was retarded to start with and should have been smacked for not being able to read. But to then word their opinion in such a destructive and willfully contrary way to the spirit of Miranda is criminal and unconstitutional. In my opinion. They have now designed in a catch -22 where by failing to invoke the right can be used as evidence against a suspect. Now not answering any question without stating you wish to remain silent will be construed as failure to cooperate, I can see it now.
"The suspect never stated he wished to remain silent so I will show his failure to answer the officers questions were clearly an effort to conceal his involvement in the crime I bring before you today, ladies and gentlemen of the jury."
Because now you have to activate the right, it's not automatic; as it should be, it's suddenly a privilege only offered to those aware that they can ask for it's protection. "Oh please sir, may I not incriminate myself, sir, oh please."
They will have to rewrite the warning, and this will make the job of gathering suspect statements nearly impossible for the cops as well. As it is until the suspect asks for a lawyer the cops can take down anything said as evidence. After this dumb opinion the cops have to advise that anything you say can be used up to the point where you say you don't want to say anything, then anything you do say after that point you can say and it won't be taken as evidence, unless you then waive your right to not say anything then anything you say can be used as evidence, again, until you decide you liked it better when you could talk so you will re-invoke your right to remain silent...FUCK.
Either the 5 Justices are retarded, or they are willfully evil. I hope they are just stupid, for the sake of the rest of us.