Suspects must tell police they want to be silent in order to invoke their Miranda protection during interrogations, the Supreme Court ruled.
Justices said Tuesday suspects must tell police they choose to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police of their wish for a lawyer.
The ruling comes in a case in which a suspect remained mostly silent for a three-hour period before implicating himself in a murder. He said he invoked his Miranda right to remain silent simply by remaining silent.
Not sure exactly, the article didn't go into enough detail. It does infer that he broke his silence after three hours, so I guess he said something and ruined his strategy. But in the suspect's defense, I see this as the police exploiting a gray area in the rules. How could they NOT have known that he was remaining silent if he said nothing for three friggin' hours? Hopefully the defense argues this point during discovery and gets that evidence nullified.
However, it does bring up some questions:
How can we remain silent if we are forced to break our silence to claim our Miranda protections? I know, this might be a minor point, but we have to assume that the police can use that information as evidence too. (Tone of voice, emotion conveyed, etc. "He sounded scared, he must be guilty!") Even if you do it in writing, you are still giving the police something to use against you. (Assuming that the police allow the possession of a writing instrument and paper when in holding, which I doubt.) Do we have to carry around pre-written statements claiming our Miranda protections at all times? How can we force the police to acknowledge it during detainment? "Lie face down on the ground with your hands behind your head!" [Suspect begins to take the written statement out of a pocket.] Zap! [Suspect falls to the ground and pees himself.] Can we assume that the police will find the statement in your pocket while searching you, and acknowledge it? Do we have to wear clothes that display it so it can't possibly be ignored?
Why do suspects have to claim their rights when the police should already know them? This indicates that the police will knowingly infringe upon a suspect's rights unless the suspect claims that they have them. This is not trustworthy behavior. If the police will infringe upon your rights if you don't claim them, then shouldn't thieves be allowed to steal from a house that isn't locked? If the house isn't protected, then it's OK to enter and do whatever you want.
What suspect in their right minds would want to waive their Miranda protections? It should be assumed that everyone claims their Miranda protections when being detained. The moment you speak is when you claim otherwise.
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 817 Location: Hell on earth
That's what happens when people assume the cops adhere to the laws like we do... From what I've seen, they don't!
Fact is they are just thugs with guns, sure on occasion they do good but there's also that rare occasion where punk ass gang members do something positive also...
also rights don't exist, if they did they could not be taken away... a simple history lesson will show that all right can and have been taken away from people all over the planet...
Rights are about as existent as god, not at all...
Either nobody has rights or everyone has the right to do whatever the sexual intercourse they want... and I'm leaning towards the latter...
also rights don't exist, if they did they could not be taken away... a simple history lesson will show that all right can and have been taken away from people all over the planet...
Rights are about as existent as god, not at all...
Either nobody has rights or everyone has the right to do whatever the sexual intercourse they want... and I'm leaning towards the latter...
That's a good topic. Let's discuss rights. But first, let's review the types of law so that the conversation about rights makes more sense to those unfamiliar with these concepts.
There are two types of law: natural law and man's law. (Some would say that there are three types of law, but the third type is merely another invention of man, so there really are only two types.) Natural law is the law of the universe, which applies to us without any choice on our part. The law of gravity is an easy example. Man's law is an additional layer of rules that were created by men to control the actions of men. This includes edicts, statutes, codes, regulations, corporate policies, etc. The law against murder is an easy example. Sometimes the laws of man override the laws of nature. While natural law allows one man to kill another man if the other man is not fit enough to properly defend himself (the law of the fittest), man's law calls this "murder" and blocks it.
I agree that rights are not part of natural law; they are a creation of men, and typically included in man's law. I respect Marc Stevens for revealing this and other human inventions like "countries". But while I cannot see the benefit in mankind segregating itself, causing alienation and hostility, should rights be thrown away merely because they are not part of natural law? Are they not a useful human invention? They establish commonly accepted boundaries that offer some protection against the brutality of natural law. What good could come from the removal of the concept of "rights"?
alexclaton wrote:
also rights don't exist, if they did they could not be taken away
This is why they say that you only have the rights that you are willing to fight for.
Rights are not given to anyone. As a human invention, they are adopted willingly by those who agree with the concept. What we are missing today is the "fighting for them" part on the scale it needs to be. Allowing tyrannical governments to obtain ever more powerful weapons, and allowing them to control what weapons we can use in our defense (or even disarmament), certainly doesn't help. It's a balance that will one day be tipped so far that fighting won't be possible any longer.
alexclaton wrote:
Either nobody has rights or everyone has the right to do whatever the sexual intercourse they want... and I'm leaning towards the latter...
You could say that you have the right to do whatever you want, and I'm not sure that you are wrong. This agrees with Rob Menard's method of using the Notice of Intent and Claim of Rights (NoI/CoR), where you claim whatever rights that you think are fair. But where we are now, with our smaller, limited set of rights, is probably the naturally evolved product of that thinking. Some things are commonly accepted to NOT be a good idea to have the right to do, so they were argued against and removed over time. After all the whittling down of the "rights" trunk, all we have left are the ones that cannot be reasonably argued against. You have the right to life: your body is your property and you have the right to defend it--this easily makes sense and no one can effectively argue against it with good intentions. You have the right to use weapons to defend your right to life. You have the right to free speech when on your property or on shared property (public property). Etc. This makes sense to me, so I agree with the rights as they exist now. But I am open to new thinking on the subject of course.
Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:04 am
alexclaton
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 817 Location: Hell on earth
Don't misunderstand! I think rights are a wonderful idea but in reality they just do not exist... Part of life is dealing with truth and the truth will not always be inline with what you want...
As for laws, laws are man made, all of them, the natural laws or rather rules like physics and such are an entirely different story...
Quote:
This is why they say that you only have the rights that you are willing to fight for.
Rights are not given to anyone. As a human invention, they are adopted willingly by those who agree with the concept. What we are missing today is the "fighting for them" part on the scale it needs to be. Allowing tyrannical governments to obtain ever more powerful weapons, and allowing them to control what weapons we can use in our defense (or even disarmament), certainly doesn't help. It's a balance that will one day be tipped so far that fighting won't be possible any longer.
Actually that's incorrect, rights are specifically stated to have been granted by YOUR creator (whatever that is) and like said creator doesn't really exist and I know your mama and papa sure as fuk didn't give you these none existent "wishes"...
As you said they are a human invention, a concept... While its a nice idea they still simply do not exist... As for tyrannical governments, its like I said "either no one has any rights or everyone has the right to do as they please" and either way that statement holds true...
Quote:
You could say that you have the right to do whatever you want, and I'm not sure that you are wrong. This agrees with Rob Menard's method of using the Notice of Intent and Claim of Rights (NoI/CoR), where you claim whatever rights that you think are fair. But where we are now, with our smaller, limited set of rights, is probably the naturally evolved product of that thinking. Some things are commonly accepted to NOT be a good idea to have the right to do, so they were argued against and removed over time. After all the whittling down of the "rights" trunk, all we have left are the ones that cannot be reasonably argued against. You have the right to life: your body is your property and you have the right to defend it--this easily makes sense and no one can effectively argue against it with good intentions. You have the right to use weapons to defend your right to life. You have the right to free speech when on your property or on shared property (public property). Etc. This makes sense to me, so I agree with the rights as they exist now. But I am open to new thinking on the subject of course.
Robert Menard has yet to prove what he says and I've since lost interest in him... regardless I mean people can do whatever they want regardless, nothing needs to be said it just is... I never said there weren't consequences to their actions but there is nothing that can stop people from doing whatever they please, except rules of physics and such...
Rights are silly because they are not universal, almost every country has their own sets of rights and some countries you have no rights at all, its just a silly concept... unfortunately people ignore and misunderstand that most come from the concept of self ownership, which is where property "rights" comes from...
Like I said, everyone can do whatever they want, you can do whatever you please and everyone else can kill you if they don't approve of your actions...
there is no right or wrong and morality/ethics is irrelevant... its a simple fact...
now if you want to discuss morality and ethics then that's a different discussion...
Don't misunderstand! I think rights are a wonderful idea but in reality they just do not exist... Part of life is dealing with truth and the truth will not always be inline with what you want...
OK, let's work on "existence". Does something really not exist just because mankind created it in their minds?
alexclaton wrote:
TS wrote:
This is why they say that you only have the rights that you are willing to fight for.
Rights are not given to anyone. As a human invention, they are adopted willingly by those who agree with the concept. What we are missing today is the "fighting for them" part on the scale it needs to be. Allowing tyrannical governments to obtain ever more powerful weapons, and allowing them to control what weapons we can use in our defense (or even disarmament), certainly doesn't help. It's a balance that will one day be tipped so far that fighting won't be possible any longer.
Actually that's incorrect, rights are specifically stated to have been granted by YOUR creator (whatever that is) and like said creator doesn't really exist and I know your mama and papa sure as fuk didn't give you these none existent "wishes"...
Yes, that's what they say. Hopefully you don't mind if I explain to the readers how it works in reality? For the sake of clarity, I should have mentioned the religious illusion version before correcting it though.
alexclaton wrote:
Robert Menard has yet to prove what he says and I've since lost interest in him... regardless I mean people can do whatever they want regardless, nothing needs to be said it just is... I never said there weren't consequences to their actions but there is nothing that can stop people from doing whatever they please, except rules of physics and such...
Correct, Rob is kind of floundering about after being challenged by Powder and David Merrill to prove that his process works, but being unable to. It hasn't helped his credibility at all. However, it doesn't exactly prove that his process doesn't work either. So I keep my eye on him to see what happens, just the same as I watch Marc Stevens.
Sure, there's nothing that can stop people from doing whatever they want. But I don't see the point in using it as an argument against rights.
alexclaton wrote:
Rights are silly because they are not universal, almost every country has their own sets of rights and some countries you have no rights at all, its just a silly concept... unfortunately people ignore and misunderstand that most come from the concept of self ownership, which is where property "rights" comes from...
Yes, the implementation hasn't been perfect and needs improvement. But is the concept any less useful because of this?
alexclaton wrote:
there is no right or wrong and morality/ethics is irrelevant... its a simple fact...
Morality and ethics, just like rights, are a man made concept. And just like rights, they have a useful purpose. Would you throw them away too just because they do not exist in nature? Is mankind not allowed to transcend that which it came from? Are you really proposing that we should be no better than animals, even if we could be?
It's one thing to realize that rights are a creation of man, and do not exist in nature. That's fine, and I encourage it. It's another thing to discard them merely for that fact. Doing so reverses mankind's progress at the very least, and seems malevolent in purpose at the worst.
Last edited by Truthseeker on Thu Oct 14, 2010 5:32 am; edited 1 time in total
Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:03 am
alexclaton
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 817 Location: Hell on earth
Quote:
Does something really not exist just because mankind created it in their minds?
Yes... Unless you can prove otherwise...
Quote:
Sure, there's nothing that can stop people from doing whatever they want. But I don't see the point in using it as an argument against rights.
the point is that rights aren't and that's a fact...
Quote:
Yes, the implementation hasn't been perfect and needs improvement. But is the concept any less useful because of this?
Like I said, its a nice concept but that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the fact that they don't exist...
Quote:
Morality and ethics, just like rights, are a man made concept. And just like rights, they have a useful purpose. Would you throw them away too just because they do not exist in nature? Is mankind not allowed to transcend that which it came from? Are you really proposing that we should be no better than animals, even if we could be?
It's one thing to realize that rights are a creation of man, and do not exist in nature. That's fine, and I encourage it. It's another thing to discard them merely for that fact. Doing so reverses mankind's progress at the very least, and seems malevolent in purpose at the worst.
Humans are animals.... sadly humans have a superiority complex...
but this video explains it a lot better, and is also relevant to police and court...
Don't misunderstand! I think rights are a wonderful idea but in reality they just do not exist... Part of life is dealing with truth and the truth will not always be inline with what you want...
OK, let's work on "existence". Does something really not exist just because mankind created it in their minds?
Yes... Unless you can prove otherwise...
Then what about all the products of science? Or anything humans have accomplished with the use of their minds? How was any of that possible if thoughts do not exist?
alexclaton wrote:
TS wrote:
Are you really proposing that we should be no better than animals, even if we could be?
Humans are animals.... sadly humans have a superiority complex...
I take that as a yes.
Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:04 am
alexclaton
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 817 Location: Hell on earth
Truthseeker wrote:
Then what about all the products of science? Or anything humans have accomplished with the use of their minds? How was any of that possible if thoughts do not exist?
you know the difference between ideas and the tangible items that came from certain ideas... thoughts exist in your mind, if you make something tangible from those thoughts like a cell phone then that's another story entirely... Please do not confuse concepts with tangible objects...
Quote:
I take that as a yes.
What makes us better then animals? technology? if we continue to kill ourselves even with advanced technology then I'd say we still have a long way to go...
The point I'm making is this, rights are a nice idea but if they aren't real (which they aren't) then they are a waste... Also you shouldn't need rights to know not to hurt or kill others... Also we could start by giving us rights that matter, like the right to a meal 3 times a day, a right to clean uncontaminated water, a right to a roof over our head, etc etc... rights are just made up by people like the gods they say gave them those rights...
We all have the right to life, but at the end of the day there is nothing to stop you from losing your life, be it by accident or intentionally by another... That'[/quote]s the point, they aren't real...
you know the difference between ideas and the tangible items that came from certain ideas... thoughts exist in your mind, if you make something tangible from those thoughts like a cell phone then that's another story entirely... Please do not confuse concepts with tangible objects...
Are not the products of thoughts circumstantial evidence that the thoughts exist? If not, how were the products created?
alexclaton wrote:
What makes us better then animals? technology? if we continue to kill ourselves even with advanced technology then I'd say we still have a long way to go...
I think that the ability of the human mind gives humans an advantage over animals. I do not think that its negative use means that it has never been used positively, or that it is not an advantage at all. Even if you cannot find an example of the advantage of the human mind in others, can you not find it in yourself?
alexclaton wrote:
The point I'm making is this, rights are a nice idea but if they aren't real (which they aren't) then they are a waste... Also you shouldn't need rights to know not to hurt or kill others... Also we could start by giving us rights that matter, like the right to a meal 3 times a day, a right to clean uncontaminated water, a right to a roof over our head, etc etc... rights are just made up by people like the gods they say gave them those rights...
If rights aren't real because they only exist in the minds of men, then isn't the determination that "murder is wrong" also not real, and therefore a waste? Does this not destroy your own argument for self governance?
Yes, it should be common sense that people should not hurt or kill others (apply their minds negatively). But does not the fact that some do not have this common sense support the argument for a commonly known set of rights?
Yes, people have made up rights just like they made up gods. Just because people have used their minds incorrectly does not mean that they have never used their minds correctly, or that everything our minds have produced is worthless.
alexclaton wrote:
We all have the right to life, but at the end of the day there is nothing to stop you from losing your life, be it by accident or intentionally by another... That's the point, they aren't real...
Although we cannot stop people from refusing to acknowledge our rights, does it not help protect us from those who do? Is that not worth something?
What makes us better then animals? technology? if we continue to kill ourselves even with advanced technology then I'd say we still have a long way to go...
No, not technology. The ability to have this conversation, the capacity to even suppose that our actions might be "wrong" or immoral or whatever, that's what makes us different. Animals, as far as we know, cannot reflect on their actions and behaviors and make corrections to bring their actions into line with what they consider to be "right". Do animals have a "right" and a "wrong" above a purely physical need to eat the "right" food or hunt the "right" prey?
The fact that you and I can discuss our actions and potentially reach a solution to our problems is what makes us different. And yes, we kill each other and ourselves intentionally and unintentionally in all sorts of stupid and/or cruel and horrible ways. But, haven't we at least reached a point where a majority can at least agree, in theory, on what's fundamentally "right" and what's "wrong"? That's above what animals can do. Of course we haven't yet exercised our theoretical agreements for more than short period of time, but hey, at least the potential exists. That potential does not exist with other animals.
