Breaking News...FAR right wing Supreme Court strikes down Miranda rights 5-4

[Valerie]

4 out of 5 supreme court justices are not exactly "flat wrong".

 

[Liability]

4 out of 5 supreme court justices are not exactly "flat wrong".

Did any of the Justices contend that this decision means that cops no longer have to advise suspects of their Miranda rights?

If they said anything that ignorant, they would indeed be flatly wrong, as was Bfgrn.

 

[Valerie]

4 out of 5 supreme court justices are not exactly "flat wrong".

Did any of the Justices contend that this decision means that cops no longer have to advise suspects of their Miranda rights?

If they said anything that ignorant, they would indeed be flatly wrong, as was Bfgrn.

Sounds like that's what they did.

The court’s 5-to-4 opinion in the case of Berghuis v. Thompkins said that a suspect who wants the police to stop an interrogation must explicitly invoke the right to remain silent. Otherwise, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority, the questioning can continue.

Though the court did not address the issue, there must be limits to that questioning.

Editorial - Speaking Up to Stay Silent per Miranda Rights - NYTimes.com

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not to me.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Right wing scumbags won't let murderers walk EVEN AFTER THEY ADMIT TO THE DEED!!!

If you honestly think innocent people are never intimidated or threatened into giving a false confession ... well you have a lot to learn.

Did you bother to read the case? No, of course not. Your stupid fucking comment makes it obvious

 

[Valerie]

Not to me.

I didn't read the actual decision yet but are you saying there's a difference between requiring the suspect to invoke the 5th and requiring the officer to advise of Miranda rights or maybe that both are required? Maybe I'm wrong but it sounded to me as if the advisement wasn't required in the act of an arrest any more. The 5th amendment stands and the legal requirements changed.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ideal Liberal Warnings:

1. We're sorry we bothered you by bringing you in for questioning, we know you have a drug and prostitution business to run

2. If you did it, it's probably society's fault anyway

3. You have the right to express your hatred and anger toward society, we're a mean country, it's our chickens coming home to roost

 

[del]

Not to me.

I didn't read the actual decision yet but are you saying there's a difference between requiring the suspect to invoke the 5th and requiring the officer to advise of Miranda rights or maybe that both are required? Maybe I'm wrong but it sounded to me as if the advisement wasn't required in the act of an arrest any more. The 5th amendment stands and the legal requirements changed.

as far as i know, the requirement to advise someone of their miranda rights still stands.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well who else would know about false confessions more than they do?

You think the prosecutors or the cops would ever admit to it?

no, i don't. that doesn't mean that a defense attorney isn't going to shade things his way-that's what they're paid to do.

requiring someone to say "i wish to invoke my right to remain silent" or words to that effect, just doesn't seem quite the same as beating a confession out of them with a rubber hose. excuse me for not being able to work up a nice frothy head of angst over it.

of course, i'm a STATIST and a peabrain

Unfortunately del, your epiphany will only occur when you are at the end of the rubber hose. How many innocent people in prison is acceptable to you del. If it is only one, will YOU take their place? If NOT, then you ARE a statist, a pea brain and a phony.

It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
Thomas Jefferson

12 hours later and Bfgrn STILL hasn't read the case.

Terrific.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not to me.

I didn't read the actual decision yet but are you saying there's a difference between requiring the suspect to invoke the 5th and requiring the officer to advise of Miranda rights or maybe that both are required? Maybe I'm wrong but it sounded to me as if the advisement wasn't required in the act of an arrest any more. The 5th amendment stands and the legal requirements changed.

I stopped reading after "I didn't read the case..."

 

[del]

Not to me.

I didn't read the actual decision yet but are you saying there's a difference between requiring the suspect to invoke the 5th and requiring the officer to advise of Miranda rights or maybe that both are required? Maybe I'm wrong but it sounded to me as if the advisement wasn't required in the act of an arrest any more. The 5th amendment stands and the legal requirements changed.

"Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in a 5-to-4 decision that split along familiar ideological lines, did not disturb Miranda’s requirement that suspects be told they have the right to remain silent. But he said courts need not suppress statements made by defendants who received such warnings, did not expressly waive their rights and spoke only after remaining silent through hours of interrogation"

Supreme Court Narrows Miranda-Rule Protections - NYTimes.com

 

[Rocky Top Lady]

To a statist, any excuse will do. Wear it proudly, it matches your pea brain.

BTW del, did you go to school with anyone who became a cop? I did, they were the thugs that were always in trouble with the law...
Robins and Blue Jays don't nest together.

Odd that. I've noticed that most of the cops around here are the kids who were picked on in school....you know.....the ones who got wedgies and had their ears flipped, books knocked out of their arms, that type of thing.....now they have guns and nightsticks and tazers to go with their bad memories....

My question is this, do the detectives or cops or whatever now have to leave the suspect alone when they say "I do not choose to discuss this with you."? or do they get to keep hounding and pounding the table and trying to manipulate a confession from them?

Thankfully I have never been interrogated, but I have watched countless hours of Law and Order. It would be my hope that this ruling will give the the word "silence" the same weight as the word "attorney".

 

[Valerie]

Not to me.

I didn't read the actual decision yet but are you saying there's a difference between requiring the suspect to invoke the 5th and requiring the officer to advise of Miranda rights or maybe that both are required? Maybe I'm wrong but it sounded to me as if the advisement wasn't required in the act of an arrest any more. The 5th amendment stands and the legal requirements changed.

as far as i know, the requirement to advise someone of their miranda rights still stands.

You're right, it does.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in a 5-to-4 decision that split along familiar ideological lines, did not disturb Miranda’s requirement that suspects be told they have the right to remain silent. But he said courts need not suppress statements made by defendants who received such warnings, did not expressly waive their rights and spoke only after remaining silent through hours of interrogation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/us/02scotus.html?hp

 

[xotoxi]

Not to me.

I didn't read the actual decision yet but are you saying there's a difference between requiring the suspect to invoke the 5th and requiring the officer to advise of Miranda rights or maybe that both are required? Maybe I'm wrong but it sounded to me as if the advisement wasn't required in the act of an arrest any more. The 5th amendment stands and the legal requirements changed.

I stopped reading after "I didn't read the case..."

She never said "I didn't read the case..."

I'll tell you three reasons why this is funny:

1. It is ironic.

2. It means that you never even started reading.

3. My toes are cold because I'm not wearing socks.

4. It rained today.

 

[Valerie]

Not to me.

I didn't read the actual decision yet but are you saying there's a difference between requiring the suspect to invoke the 5th and requiring the officer to advise of Miranda rights or maybe that both are required? Maybe I'm wrong but it sounded to me as if the advisement wasn't required in the act of an arrest any more. The 5th amendment stands and the legal requirements changed.

"Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in a 5-to-4 decision that split along familiar ideological lines, did not disturb Miranda’s requirement that suspects be told they have the right to remain silent. But he said courts need not suppress statements made by defendants who received such warnings, did not expressly waive their rights and spoke only after remaining silent through hours of interrogation"

Supreme Court Narrows Miranda-Rule Protections - NYTimes.com

I went off on a search and missed your post.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I didn't read the actual decision yet but are you saying there's a difference between requiring the suspect to invoke the 5th and requiring the officer to advise of Miranda rights or maybe that both are required? Maybe I'm wrong but it sounded to me as if the advisement wasn't required in the act of an arrest any more. The 5th amendment stands and the legal requirements changed.

I stopped reading after "I didn't read the case..."

She never said "I didn't read the case..."

I'll tell you three reasons why this is funny:

1. It is ironic.

2. It means that you never even started reading.

3. My toes are cold because I'm not wearing socks.

4. It rained today.

The decision has been out for over 12 hours which is equal to forever in Internet time.

So the very idea that I'm going to spend a single second listening to someone bragging about their ignorance, flaunting it, has no interest to me.

I'm willing to bet the OP still has yet to read the decision.

 

[Valerie]

I stopped reading after "I didn't read the case..."

She never said "I didn't read the case..."

I'll tell you three reasons why this is funny:

1. It is ironic.

2. It means that you never even started reading.

3. My toes are cold because I'm not wearing socks.

4. It rained today.

The decision has been out for over 12 hours which is equal to forever in Internet time.

So the very idea that I'm going to spend a single second listening to someone bragging about their ignorance, flaunting it, has no interest to me.

I'm willing to bet the OP still has yet to read the decision.

I saw this thread while I was working today and posted some info on Miranda. I was interested in what went down so I chimed in now after work and del kindly provided the answer.



I could give a shit how many single seconds you spend listening to me. But I don't.

 

[Liability]

4 out of 5 supreme court justices are not exactly "flat wrong".

Did any of the Justices contend that this decision means that cops no longer have to advise suspects of their Miranda rights?

If they said anything that ignorant, they would indeed be flatly wrong, as was Bfgrn.

Sounds like that's what they did.

The court’s 5-to-4 opinion in the case of Berghuis v. Thompkins said that a suspect who wants the police to stop an interrogation must explicitly invoke the right to remain silent. Otherwise, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority, the questioning can continue.

Though the court did not address the issue, there must be limits to that questioning.

Editorial - Speaking Up to Stay Silent per Miranda Rights - NYTimes.com

No. It doesn't "sound" like that at all.

Your egregious ignorance has already been explored sufficiently.

But the exact opposite of your ignorant belief is true.

In reality (come visit some day) the case leaves the requirement that officers ADVISE suspects of these rights PRIOR to any custodial interrogation entirely intact.

The difference today is that the state is now officially not obliged to treat a mere failure to speak (at first) by the suspect AS an explicit invocation of his or her right to remain silent.

Once advised of the right to remain silent, just BEING silent is not enough. Henceforth, a suspect advised of his rights MUST grunt the words out which tell the cops in sum and substance, "gee, thanks. I think I'll accept that right and just shut up now."

The world is not coming to an end.

Hopefully, your ignorance will come to an end, Val.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

She never said "I didn't read the case..."

I'll tell you three reasons why this is funny:

1. It is ironic.

2. It means that you never even started reading.

3. My toes are cold because I'm not wearing socks.

4. It rained today.

The decision has been out for over 12 hours which is equal to forever in Internet time.

So the very idea that I'm going to spend a single second listening to someone bragging about their ignorance, flaunting it, has no interest to me.

I'm willing to bet the OP still has yet to read the decision.

I saw this thread while I was working today and posted some info on Miranda. I was interested in what went down so I chimed in now after work and del kindly provided the answer.



I could give a shit how many single seconds you spend listening to me. But I don't.

Your contribution is as valuable as the OP's who also could not be troubled to read the decision he linked to.

 

[Valerie]

Did any of the Justices contend that this decision means that cops no longer have to advise suspects of their Miranda rights?

If they said anything that ignorant, they would indeed be flatly wrong, as was Bfgrn.

Sounds like that's what they did.

The court’s 5-to-4 opinion in the case of Berghuis v. Thompkins said that a suspect who wants the police to stop an interrogation must explicitly invoke the right to remain silent. Otherwise, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority, the questioning can continue.

Though the court did not address the issue, there must be limits to that questioning.

Editorial - Speaking Up to Stay Silent per Miranda Rights - NYTimes.com

No. It doesn't "sound" like that at all.

Your egregious ignorance has already been explored sufficiently.

But the exact opposite of your ignorant belief is true.

In reality (come visit some day) the case leaves the requirement that officers ADVISE suspects of these rights PRIOR to any custodial interrogation entirely intact.

The difference today is that the state is now officially not obliged to treat a mere failure to speak (at first) by the suspect AS an explicit invocation of his or her right to remain silent.

Once advised of the right to remain silent, just BEING silent is not enough. Henceforth, a suspect advised of his rights MUST grunt the words out which tell the cops in sum and substance, "gee, thanks. I think I'll accept that right and just shut up now."

The world is not coming to an end.

Hopefully, your ignorance will come to an end, Val.

Get over yourself...


I said I wasn't sure as I had yet to read the decision, but that's what the thread itself and the other quotes I saw made it sound like. No BFD.