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

[Intense]

Here is a curve ball.



In the American republics the central government has never as yet busied itself except with a small number of objects, sufficiently prominent to attract its attention. The secondary affairs of society have never been regulated by its authority; and nothing has hitherto betrayed its desire of even interfering in them. The majority has become more and more absolute, but has not increased the prerogatives of the central government; those great prerogatives have been confined to a certain sphere; and although the despotism of the majority may be galling upon one point, it cannot be said to extend to all. However the predominant party in the nation may be carried away by its passions, however ardent it may be in the pursuit of its projects, it cannot oblige all the citizens to comply with its desires in the same manner and at the same time throughout the country. When the central government which represents that majority has issued a decree, it must entrust the execution of its will to agents over whom it frequently has no control and whom it cannot perpetually direct. The townships, municipal bodies, and counties form so many concealed breakwaters, which check or part the tide of popular determination. If an oppressive law were passed, liberty would still be protected by the mode of executing that law; the majority cannot descend to the details and what may be called the puerilities of administrative tyranny. It does not even imagine that it can do so, for it has not a full consciousness of its authority. It knows only the extent of its natural powers, but is unacquainted with the art of increasing them.

This point deserves attention; for if a democratic republic, similar to that of the United States, were ever founded in a country where the power of one man had previously established a centralized administration and had sunk it deep into the habits and the laws of the people, I do not hesitate to assert that in such a republic a more insufferable despotism would prevail than in any of the absolute monarchies of Europe; or, indeed, than any that could be found on this side of Asia. -Alexis de Tocqueville

Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 16

 

[nraforlife]

Miranda was a stupid ruling. Glad its gone

 

[frazzledgear]

Do the American people need any MORE evidence right wing America is ANTI-freedom? What NEXT, guilty until proven innocent???

Court: Suspects must say they want to be silent

By JESSE J. HOLLAND (AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down."

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."

"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counter-intuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

You have a really weird definition of "freedom" because this is NOT an anti-freedom ruling -just the opposite in fact. This was a freedom PROTECTING ruling.

Other countries do not have a right against self-incrimination. In the UK if a defendant refuses to answer questions, that fact can be used against him at trial. Juries are even specifically told they may INFER meaning from a defendant's silence. The prosecution can force a defendant to take the stand against his will and their law requires a defendant to honestly answer any questions. And if he tries to avoid answering questions, juries and judges are allowed to INFER guilt by his silence and refusal to answer questions. Our right against self-incrimination is not a right claimed by people elsewhere in the world -and it isn't just a right to remain silent, it is a DEMAND that nowhere in our justice system is anyone allowed to INFER meaning from our silence. In OUR system -unlike everywhere else -our silence has no meaning -PERIOD. At ALL TIMES in our judicial system our silence is NEUTRAL and meaningless - where nothing bad or good may be inferred from it at all.

So the next question is how are cops suppose to know when someone is CHOOSING to invoke their rights which would force cops to stop asking any question at all and when someone is simply sitting there listening and mulling over their options for a while and then decides to pick and choose which questions they will answer. This ruling affirms AGAIN that cops are expected to know when you have invoked any or all of your rights the same way they have been expected to know it all along -when a person announces his intentions to invoke his rights and NOT by trying to INFER meaning from silence. Only what you SAY or WRITE has meaning in our system, your silence is neutral and nothing may be inferred from it whether trying to infer something beneficial or disadvantageous to a particular individual. Our system forbids trying to infer meaning from silence no matter what. You always have and still have the right to refuse to answer any or all questions -but cops also have had the right and continue to have the right to keep on asking you questions anyway UNTIL you invoke your rights which would force them to stop. Cops can't just INFER that you have invoked your rights which would force them to stop asking you questions -unless you TELL them so. Just like they don't know if you want a lawyer until you TELL them. Knowing your rights is never the same thing as choosing to exercise them. You have the right to refuse to answer any question but it requires specifically invoking ANOTHER right to force cops to stop asking you any questions at all. Nothing new here.

That is what this case was all about. The cops didn't do something different that was being challenged, it was a challenge of standard operating police procedure everywhere as it has and does exist in this country. Which you only NOW found objectionable, right? Are you for real? LOL This guy sat there silently for a while listening to cops tell him the situation, their understanding of what happened, what possible charges this guy was facing, that his family or friends might be dragged in for questioning, what questions they had for him, and then informing him that he may get a plea deal if he cooperated and then let him sit and think about it and then came back. When they did, this guy opened his mouth and answered questions and in doing so unintentionally incriminated himself! Whoopsie! Now the guy wants a do-over and new rules for cops -all because he didn't MEAN to incriminate himself when he started answering questions. Your right to remain silent is always there and this ruling had nothing to do with that AT ALL so what a truly misleading headline on the article and a lie. This suit wanted the courts to forbid cops from even asking questions at all if someone didn't answer one of them and would demand cops just INFER from someone's silence when they refused to answer a question that the person actually intended to invoke his rights that would prevent ALL questions. All because this guy screwed himself by CHOOSING to open his mouth to answer questions instead of opening his mouth to invoke his rights. No one, not even cops are obligated to MAKE you exercise your rights. As long as you are a mentally competent person, when or IF to ever invoke your rights is YOUR decision and not something a cop must just magically INFER by pretending he can read your mind. What's next -a silent trial where juries must INFER what the evidence is too? LOL

Cops are required to inform you what rights you have, they are NEVER required or allowed to INFER when you want to invoke them. That is YOUR responsibility to tell them when and they aren't invoked until you do -because INFERRING when you want that done is simply pretending one can read the mind of another person. Unlike other countries, OUR system says that cannot be done -whether they believe it would benefit someone or be a disadvantage to them. It can't be done for better or worse. Which is why OUR system forbids it at all. So cops still won't get you a lawyer until you announce your intention to invoke that right and a prosecutor still can't tell a jury they may infer your guilt from your silence. That is exactly how it has, is and will continue to be done. So seeing you whine as if the court suddenly changed the rules NOW and your life has been dramatically altered as a result - when in fact they simply upheld these same rules we have always had and will continue to have -is beyond ridiculous. NOTHING either good or bad is supposed to be inferred by someone's silence by anyone in our justice system because ONLY the spoken or written word has meaning in OUR system. You want another system with different rules, go to another country where they claim to be able to read minds then and you can be condemned for being silent and not for what you actually said.

THIS ruling should be loudly applauded because in reality it upheld that CRITICAL principle in our system. Everyone else got it right and the left and Sotomayor got it dead wrong. This is the very principle that makes our system different from all others -and is one intended to provide the greatest protection possible to both guilty and innocent alike. But one that Sotomayor, if she had gotten her way, wanted to lay down the first step in dismantling this and thereby open the door to the future misuse and abuse of allowing meaning to be INFERRED by someone's silence and in fact she would have ordered cops to INFER meaning by someone's silence. NO NO NO This only proves why the left on this court are so dangerous to our real rights and are UNFIT guardians of our REAL rights. And our REAL right was and is that no one in our judicial may EVER infer meaning from our silence at any time because allowing it for any reason immediately opens the door to its future misuse and abuse that would end up harming us all whether guilty or innocent. The best, firmest and broadest protections for us all is exactly what we have always had -no pretense of mind reading allowed in our judicial system. PERIOD.

I am deeply disturbed by Sotomayor's dissent which is actually INCREDIBLY un-American, unconstitutional and would be the first stepping stone in unraveling our right against self-incrimination instead of upholding, as all the other justices did, that critically necessary and fundamental principle that ONLY our spoken or written words have meaning in our judicial system and NEVER our silence.

 

[Liability]

Miranda was a stupid ruling. Glad its gone

It's not.

It's still with us.

It finally got tempered, just a little tiny bit, though, in the scope of it's stupidity.

 

[Bfgrn]

Do the American people need any MORE evidence right wing America is ANTI-freedom? What NEXT, guilty until proven innocent???

Court: Suspects must say they want to be silent

By JESSE J. HOLLAND (AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down."

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."

"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counter-intuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

You have a really weird definition of "freedom" because this is NOT an anti-freedom ruling -just the opposite in fact. This was a freedom PROTECTING ruling.

Other countries do not have a right against self-incrimination. In the UK if a defendant refuses to answer questions, that fact can be used against him at trial. Juries are even specifically told they may INFER meaning from a defendant's silence. The prosecution can force a defendant to take the stand against his will and their law requires a defendant to honestly answer any questions. And if he tries to avoid answering questions, juries and judges are allowed to INFER guilt by his silence and refusal to answer questions. Our right against self-incrimination is not a right claimed by people elsewhere in the world -and it isn't just a right to remain silent, it is a DEMAND that nowhere in our justice system is anyone allowed to INFER meaning from our silence. In OUR system -unlike everywhere else -our silence has no meaning -PERIOD. At ALL TIMES in our judicial system our silence is NEUTRAL and meaningless - where nothing bad or good may be inferred from it at all.

So the next question is how are cops suppose to know when someone is CHOOSING to invoke their rights which would force cops to stop asking any question at all and when someone is simply sitting there listening and mulling over their options for a while and then decides to pick and choose which questions they will answer. This ruling affirms AGAIN that cops are expected to know when you have invoked any or all of your rights the same way they have been expected to know it all along -when a person announces his intentions to invoke his rights and NOT by trying to INFER meaning from silence. Only what you SAY or WRITE has meaning in our system, your silence is neutral and nothing may be inferred from it whether trying to infer something beneficial or disadvantageous to a particular individual. Our system forbids trying to infer meaning from silence no matter what. You always have and still have the right to refuse to answer any or all questions -but cops also have had the right and continue to have the right to keep on asking you questions anyway UNTIL you invoke your rights which would force them to stop. Cops can't just INFER that you have invoked your rights which would force them to stop asking you questions -unless you TELL them so. Just like they don't know if you want a lawyer until you TELL them. Knowing your rights is never the same thing as choosing to exercise them. You have the right to refuse to answer any question but it requires specifically invoking ANOTHER right to force cops to stop asking you any questions at all. Nothing new here.

That is what this case was all about. The cops didn't do something different that was being challenged, it was a challenge of standard operating police procedure everywhere as it has and does exist in this country. Which you only NOW found objectionable, right? Are you for real? LOL This guy sat there silently for a while listening to cops tell him the situation, their understanding of what happened, what possible charges this guy was facing, that his family or friends might be dragged in for questioning, what questions they had for him, and then informing him that he may get a plea deal if he cooperated and then let him sit and think about it and then came back. When they did, this guy opened his mouth and answered questions and in doing so unintentionally incriminated himself! Whoopsie! Now the guy wants a do-over and new rules for cops -all because he didn't MEAN to incriminate himself when he started answering questions. Your right to remain silent is always there and this ruling had nothing to do with that AT ALL so what a truly misleading headline on the article and a lie. This suit wanted the courts to forbid cops from even asking questions at all if someone didn't answer one of them and would demand cops just INFER from someone's silence when they refused to answer a question that the person actually intended to invoke his rights that would prevent ALL questions. All because this guy screwed himself by CHOOSING to open his mouth to answer questions instead of opening his mouth to invoke his rights. No one, not even cops are obligated to MAKE you exercise your rights. As long as you are a mentally competent person, when or IF to ever invoke your rights is YOUR decision and not something a cop must just magically INFER by pretending he can read your mind. What's next -a silent trial where juries must INFER what the evidence is too? LOL

Cops are required to inform you what rights you have, they are NEVER required or allowed to INFER when you want to invoke them. That is YOUR responsibility to tell them when and they aren't invoked until you do -because INFERRING when you want that done is simply pretending one can read the mind of another person. Unlike other countries, OUR system says that cannot be done -whether they believe it would benefit someone or be a disadvantage to them. It can't be done for better or worse. Which is why OUR system forbids it at all. So cops still won't get you a lawyer until you announce your intention to invoke that right and a prosecutor still can't tell a jury they may infer your guilt from your silence. That is exactly how it has, is and will continue to be done. So seeing you whine as if the court suddenly changed the rules NOW and your life has been dramatically altered as a result - when in fact they simply upheld these same rules we have always had and will continue to have -is beyond ridiculous. NOTHING either good or bad is supposed to be inferred by someone's silence by anyone in our justice system because ONLY the spoken or written word has meaning in OUR system. You want another system with different rules, go to another country where they claim to be able to read minds then and you can be condemned for being silent and not for what you actually said.

THIS ruling should be loudly applauded because in reality it upheld that CRITICAL principle in our system. Everyone else got it right and the left and Sotomayor got it dead wrong. This is the very principle that makes our system different from all others -and is one intended to provide the greatest protection possible to both guilty and innocent alike. But one that Sotomayor, if she had gotten her way, wanted to lay down the first step in dismantling this and thereby open the door to the future misuse and abuse of allowing meaning to be INFERRED by someone's silence and in fact she would have ordered cops to INFER meaning by someone's silence. NO NO NO This only proves why the left on this court are so dangerous to our real rights and are UNFIT guardians of our REAL rights. And our REAL right was and is that no one in our judicial may EVER infer meaning from our silence at any time because allowing it for any reason immediately opens the door to its future misuse and abuse that would end up harming us all whether guilty or innocent. The best, firmest and broadest protections for us all is exactly what we have always had -no pretense of mind reading allowed in our judicial system. PERIOD.

I am deeply disturbed by Sotomayor's dissent which is actually INCREDIBLY un-American, unconstitutional and would be the first stepping stone in unraveling our right against self-incrimination instead of upholding, as all the other justices did, that critically necessary and fundamental principle that ONLY our spoken or written words have meaning in our judicial system and NEVER our silence.

Do you always use this many words when you talk out of your ass?

Post-Arrest Silence and Miranda

In United States v. Frazier, No. 04-1005 (8th Cir., Jan. 7, 2005), a unanimous three-judge panel held that that the prosecution may use a defendant's post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence as part of its case-in-chief.

Crime & Federalism: Post-Arrest Silence and Miranda

 

[goldcatt]

Miranda was a stupid ruling. Glad its gone

It's not.

It's still with us.

It finally got tempered, just a little tiny bit, though, in the scope of it's stupidity.

I'm not sure I'd even characterize it as tempering Miranda itself, it did nothing to change Miranda rights, only the procedure for invoking them. I would like to see the Miranda warning tweaked though, just to keep the spirit of Miranda intact.

Yeah, I know, I'm just a criminal loving commie.

 

[Liability]

Miranda was a stupid ruling. Glad its gone

It's not.

It's still with us.

It finally got tempered, just a little tiny bit, though, in the scope of it's stupidity.

I'm not sure I'd even characterize it as tempering Miranda itself, it did nothing to change Miranda rights, only the procedure for invoking them. I would like to see the Miranda warning tweaked though, just to keep the spirit of Miranda intact.

Yeah, I know, I'm just a criminal loving commie.

What I said was that it got tempered in the scope of its stupidity.

It was tempered in the scope of its stupidity.

We'd all like lots of things. Many of us want different things.

I'd like the U.S. out of the U.N and the U.N. out of the U.S.

I'd like Miranda to be recalled, reversed, vacated, nullified and otherwise spindled, bent, folded and mutilated.

I'd like the insane "spirit of Miranda" crushed.

I'm no fan of commies. But I like you all the same GC.

 

[Bfgrn]

It's not.

It's still with us.

It finally got tempered, just a little tiny bit, though, in the scope of it's stupidity.

I'm not sure I'd even characterize it as tempering Miranda itself, it did nothing to change Miranda rights, only the procedure for invoking them. I would like to see the Miranda warning tweaked though, just to keep the spirit of Miranda intact.

Yeah, I know, I'm just a criminal loving commie.

What I said was that it got tempered in the scope of its stupidity.

It was tempered in the scope of its stupidity.

We'd all like lots of things. Many of us want different things.

I'd like the U.S. out of the U.N and the U.N. out of the U.S.

I'd like Miranda to be recalled, reversed, vacated, nullified and otherwise spindled, bent, folded and mutilated.

I'd like the insane "spirit of Miranda" crushed.

I'm no fan of commies. But I like you all the same GC.

Are you aware YET, that ALL you've done on this thread is defend the STATE over the individual citizen?

 

[goldcatt]

It's not.

It's still with us.

It finally got tempered, just a little tiny bit, though, in the scope of it's stupidity.

I'm not sure I'd even characterize it as tempering Miranda itself, it did nothing to change Miranda rights, only the procedure for invoking them. I would like to see the Miranda warning tweaked though, just to keep the spirit of Miranda intact.

Yeah, I know, I'm just a criminal loving commie.

What I said was that it got tempered in the scope of its stupidity.

It was tempered in the scope of its stupidity.

We'd all like lots of things. Many of us want different things.

I'd like the U.S. out of the U.N and the U.N. out of the U.S.

I'd like Miranda to be recalled, reversed, vacated, nullified and otherwise spindled, bent, folded and mutilated.

I'd like the insane "spirit of Miranda" crushed.

I'm no fan of commies. But I like you all the same GC.

That's quite a wish list. No surprise I disagree with most of it. But what the hell, it's politics not personal.

And you're right, that is what you said. I was under the impression you were talking about the rights of the accused associated with the decision. So what exactly is it about Miranda that makes it "insane" in your opinion?

 

[Liability]

I'm not sure I'd even characterize it as tempering Miranda itself, it did nothing to change Miranda rights, only the procedure for invoking them. I would like to see the Miranda warning tweaked though, just to keep the spirit of Miranda intact.

Yeah, I know, I'm just a criminal loving commie.

What I said was that it got tempered in the scope of its stupidity.

It was tempered in the scope of its stupidity.

We'd all like lots of things. Many of us want different things.

I'd like the U.S. out of the U.N and the U.N. out of the U.S.

I'd like Miranda to be recalled, reversed, vacated, nullified and otherwise spindled, bent, folded and mutilated.

I'd like the insane "spirit of Miranda" crushed.

I'm no fan of commies. But I like you all the same GC.

That's quite a wish list. No surprise I disagree with most of it. But what the hell, it's politics not personal.

And you're right, that is what you said. I was under the impression you were talking about the rights of the accused associated with the decision. So what exactly is it about Miranda that makes it "insane" in your opinion?

It is insane to reward the stupid criminal who says stupid incriminating things by disallowing the use of the stupid incriminating things he has said to be used against him as evidence in his prosecution. This serves not only to reward him but to punish society. And over what? Over the fact that a police officer has not educated the stupid and ignorant suspect about the law -- which the suspect should be legally presumed to know in the first place.

I don't want the judicial branch to tell the executive branch law enforcement officers HOW to do their jobs PARTICULARLY when they are thereby legislating from the bench and imposing a school teacher duty on those police officers. That also is a violation of one of the basic precepts of our limited government -- that the executive branch does the enforcement thing, the legislative branch does the legislating thing and the judicial branch should limit itself to judiciously serving as mere umpires.

 

[goldcatt]

What I said was that it got tempered in the scope of its stupidity.

It was tempered in the scope of its stupidity.

We'd all like lots of things. Many of us want different things.

I'd like the U.S. out of the U.N and the U.N. out of the U.S.

I'd like Miranda to be recalled, reversed, vacated, nullified and otherwise spindled, bent, folded and mutilated.

I'd like the insane "spirit of Miranda" crushed.

I'm no fan of commies. But I like you all the same GC.

That's quite a wish list. No surprise I disagree with most of it. But what the hell, it's politics not personal.

And you're right, that is what you said. I was under the impression you were talking about the rights of the accused associated with the decision. So what exactly is it about Miranda that makes it "insane" in your opinion?

It is insane to reward the stupid criminal who says stupid incriminating things by disallowing the use of the stupid incriminating things he has said to be used against him as evidence in his prosecution. This serves not only to reward him but to punish society. And over what? Over the fact that a police officer has not educated the stupid and ignorant suspect about the law -- which the suspect should be legally presumed to know in the first place.

I don't want the judicial branch to tell the executive branch law enforcement officers HOW to do their jobs PARTICULARLY when they are thereby legislating from the bench and imposing a school teacher duty on those police officers. That also is a violation of one of the basic precepts of our limited government -- that the executive branch does the enforcement thing, the legislative branch does the legislating thing and the judicial branch should limit itself to judiciously serving as mere umpires.

So what you don't like is the exclusionary rule?

 

[Liability]

That's quite a wish list. No surprise I disagree with most of it. But what the hell, it's politics not personal.

And you're right, that is what you said. I was under the impression you were talking about the rights of the accused associated with the decision. So what exactly is it about Miranda that makes it "insane" in your opinion?

It is insane to reward the stupid criminal who says stupid incriminating things by disallowing the use of the stupid incriminating things he has said to be used against him as evidence in his prosecution. This serves not only to reward him but to punish society. And over what? Over the fact that a police officer has not educated the stupid and ignorant suspect about the law -- which the suspect should be legally presumed to know in the first place.

I don't want the judicial branch to tell the executive branch law enforcement officers HOW to do their jobs PARTICULARLY when they are thereby legislating from the bench and imposing a school teacher duty on those police officers. That also is a violation of one of the basic precepts of our limited government -- that the executive branch does the enforcement thing, the legislative branch does the legislating thing and the judicial branch should limit itself to judiciously serving as mere umpires.

So what you don't like is the exclusionary rule?

That's a kind of an obtuse question, GC. No one answer fits all scenarios.

If the suspect DOES properly invoke his right to remain silent but the officer persists in questioning the suspect anyway, damn skippy I believe the exclusionary rule should apply to prevent the prosecution from making use of that statement (at least on the government's case in chief).

By contrast (in a world where the Miranda rules still applies), if the cops GIVE the suspect his warnings and the dope decides to stand mute for some moment in time but later elects (without being forced in any way) to chatter about things that implicate him, then not only does that NOT qualify in my book as a Constitutional violation of any of his rights, but nothing should be excluded on that basis!

 

[goldcatt]

It is insane to reward the stupid criminal who says stupid incriminating things by disallowing the use of the stupid incriminating things he has said to be used against him as evidence in his prosecution. This serves not only to reward him but to punish society. And over what? Over the fact that a police officer has not educated the stupid and ignorant suspect about the law -- which the suspect should be legally presumed to know in the first place.

I don't want the judicial branch to tell the executive branch law enforcement officers HOW to do their jobs PARTICULARLY when they are thereby legislating from the bench and imposing a school teacher duty on those police officers. That also is a violation of one of the basic precepts of our limited government -- that the executive branch does the enforcement thing, the legislative branch does the legislating thing and the judicial branch should limit itself to judiciously serving as mere umpires.

So what you don't like is the exclusionary rule?

That's a kind of an obtuse question, GC. No one answer fits all scenarios.

If the suspect DOES properly invoke his right to remain silent but the officer persists in questioning the suspect anyway, damn skippy I believe the exclusionary rule should apply to prevent the prosecution from making use of that statement (at least on the government's case in chief).

By contrast (in a world where the Miranda rules still applies), if the cops GIVE the suspect his warnings and the dope decides to stand mute for some moment in time but later elects (without being forced in any way) to chatter about things that implicate him, then not only does that NOT qualify in my book as a Constitutional violation of any of his rights, but nothing should be excluded on that basis!

Not obtuse at all. For all your bluster I'm 100% positive you've read the case and probably at least some of its progeny and understand its impact. I'm trying to figure out exactly what it is about Miranda that offends you so much. The rules are the rules, and the rules that spring from Miranda do in fact apply to all custodial situations.

The problem is the scenario you describe was pretty much the status quo before this decision. If a suspect invoked his right to be silent by his silence, only HE could initiate further questioning and have what he says be admissable. If he's an idiot and decides to blab, that's all on him. And as you know that hasn't changed, except he can no longer invoke his right to silent by being silent.

I guess I'm confused as to the basis of your opinion, since you seem to be all for it in some situations but not in others.

 

[FA_Q2]

Think about what you have said here. You start with the assertion that "Most conservatives do not trust the government anywhere and that includes the courts." You then conclude with several statements to the efffect that "loopholes" exist which, in your view, do not protect the innocent but, rather, protect the "guilty."

There is only one kind of suspect prior to conviction - an INNOCENT one. Therefore, the Miranda decision ONLY protects the innocent or, more precisely, those PRESUMED to be innocent, which ALL pre-trial arrestees are.

One of the primary purposes of Miranda is to protect suspects from unfair and oppressive interrogation by police without first affording them the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. This should be a slam dunk for somone who "doesn't trust the government." I sure as hell don't trust the government - and that goes ten-fold when it comes to police officers. Police officers interrogating a suspect generally have their minds made up and are only looking for the suspect to make their case easier for them by confessing. They are hardly neutral, disinterested parties.

So what's it going to be? If you don't trust the government, then you cannot, by definition, trust police officers, because one of the most obvious and up-front arms of the government is the police. And if you don't trust the police, then you should be applauding the Miranda decision and stoutly resisting any attempt to dillute it.

Thanks - I hope some of our conservative friends here will actually read this and digest it.

I suspect that FA_Q2 is doing what so many folks here do - something that you alluded to in an earlier post: indulging in selective definitions. This conservative mantra of "We don't trust the government; give the police free reign" has never ceased to amaze me. How do many of them reconcile this? They don't define the police as "government." Whey they talk about "government," they mean OBAMA and "that damn Senate" or "those worthless Congressmen." THOSE are the bad guys. Cops? We love 'em - they can do no wrong, because they protect US from THEM. Therefore, any time a cop makes an arrest, the suspect must be guilty. Heck, if he was innocent, he wouldn't have been arrested. Simple, no?

So the police are not part of that nasty old "government" that conservatives profess to hate so much.

Well, I assure you that the police are VERY MUCH "government." One of my favorite quotes is: "Tryanny never comes to your door unless it is wearing a badge." With this recent USSC decision, tyranny just gained another foothold.

Now now, you are putting words in my mouth here. I said that I do not think this waters down the Miranda rights at all and nowhere does the ruling water anything down. What I did say is that it provides a clear definition as to when the right has been evoked instead of some vague notion that your silence for some ambiguous undefined set of time evokes that right. That ambiguity is exactly the type of thing that leads to defense cases like this where the lawyer is not attempting to prove innocence at all, just challenging the system and getting a criminal off that way. Let me be clear, I do not trust cops. I understand them but far too often they become corrupt as many do when handed that lkind of power over others. What I am appalled at is when the obviously guilty go free because of loopholes THAT ARE NOT THERE FOR ANY PROTECTION BUT BECAUSE OF ERROR. A loophole is NOT a protection, it is an error in the way a law was written that is exploited to get the guilty off. I could not agree more with protections for all accused but that does not make all processes perfect. I still have yet to see where this ruling changes anything as far as those protections go. You can still remain silent and the same things will happen as before. You can always halt questioning by simply stating you wish to remain silent.

By the way, I would agree with your earlier assertion that the wording should be updated to reflect this. Honestly this is the way Miranda should have been in the first place and the way we apply Miranda rights to people where I work. At the end of reading someone their Miranda right we always ask "are you willing to answer some questions." That is normally when an individual asks for counsel.

The resistance to this ruling though seems more reactionary to ANYTHING that concerns Miranda. I don't see the problem with creating clear definitions, that is how loopholes are closed. I fail to see how you drew the conclusion that I trust the police or that I am against a clear Miranda right or any other protections for the accused. Innocent until proven guilty is supposed to be the cornerstone of our system and I am against anything that takes that away.

 

[frazzledgear]

Do the American people need any MORE evidence right wing America is ANTI-freedom? What NEXT, guilty until proven innocent???

Court: Suspects must say they want to be silent

By JESSE J. HOLLAND (AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down."

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."

"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counter-intuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

You have a really weird definition of "freedom" because this is NOT an anti-freedom ruling -just the opposite in fact. This was a freedom PROTECTING ruling.

Other countries do not have a right against self-incrimination. In the UK if a defendant refuses to answer questions, that fact can be used against him at trial. Juries are even specifically told they may INFER meaning from a defendant's silence. The prosecution can force a defendant to take the stand against his will and their law requires a defendant to honestly answer any questions. And if he tries to avoid answering questions, juries and judges are allowed to INFER guilt by his silence and refusal to answer questions. Our right against self-incrimination is not a right claimed by people elsewhere in the world -and it isn't just a right to remain silent, it is a DEMAND that nowhere in our justice system is anyone allowed to INFER meaning from our silence. In OUR system -unlike everywhere else -our silence has no meaning -PERIOD. At ALL TIMES in our judicial system our silence is NEUTRAL and meaningless - where nothing bad or good may be inferred from it at all.

So the next question is how are cops suppose to know when someone is CHOOSING to invoke their rights which would force cops to stop asking any question at all and when someone is simply sitting there listening and mulling over their options for a while and then decides to pick and choose which questions they will answer. This ruling affirms AGAIN that cops are expected to know when you have invoked any or all of your rights the same way they have been expected to know it all along -when a person announces his intentions to invoke his rights and NOT by trying to INFER meaning from silence. Only what you SAY or WRITE has meaning in our system, your silence is neutral and nothing may be inferred from it whether trying to infer something beneficial or disadvantageous to a particular individual. Our system forbids trying to infer meaning from silence no matter what. You always have and still have the right to refuse to answer any or all questions -but cops also have had the right and continue to have the right to keep on asking you questions anyway UNTIL you invoke your rights which would force them to stop. Cops can't just INFER that you have invoked your rights which would force them to stop asking you questions -unless you TELL them so. Just like they don't know if you want a lawyer until you TELL them. Knowing your rights is never the same thing as choosing to exercise them. You have the right to refuse to answer any question but it requires specifically invoking ANOTHER right to force cops to stop asking you any questions at all. Nothing new here.

That is what this case was all about. The cops didn't do something different that was being challenged, it was a challenge of standard operating police procedure everywhere as it has and does exist in this country. Which you only NOW found objectionable, right? Are you for real? LOL This guy sat there silently for a while listening to cops tell him the situation, their understanding of what happened, what possible charges this guy was facing, that his family or friends might be dragged in for questioning, what questions they had for him, and then informing him that he may get a plea deal if he cooperated and then let him sit and think about it and then came back. When they did, this guy opened his mouth and answered questions and in doing so unintentionally incriminated himself! Whoopsie! Now the guy wants a do-over and new rules for cops -all because he didn't MEAN to incriminate himself when he started answering questions. Your right to remain silent is always there and this ruling had nothing to do with that AT ALL so what a truly misleading headline on the article and a lie. This suit wanted the courts to forbid cops from even asking questions at all if someone didn't answer one of them and would demand cops just INFER from someone's silence when they refused to answer a question that the person actually intended to invoke his rights that would prevent ALL questions. All because this guy screwed himself by CHOOSING to open his mouth to answer questions instead of opening his mouth to invoke his rights. No one, not even cops are obligated to MAKE you exercise your rights. As long as you are a mentally competent person, when or IF to ever invoke your rights is YOUR decision and not something a cop must just magically INFER by pretending he can read your mind. What's next -a silent trial where juries must INFER what the evidence is too? LOL

Cops are required to inform you what rights you have, they are NEVER required or allowed to INFER when you want to invoke them. That is YOUR responsibility to tell them when and they aren't invoked until you do -because INFERRING when you want that done is simply pretending one can read the mind of another person. Unlike other countries, OUR system says that cannot be done -whether they believe it would benefit someone or be a disadvantage to them. It can't be done for better or worse. Which is why OUR system forbids it at all. So cops still won't get you a lawyer until you announce your intention to invoke that right and a prosecutor still can't tell a jury they may infer your guilt from your silence. That is exactly how it has, is and will continue to be done. So seeing you whine as if the court suddenly changed the rules NOW and your life has been dramatically altered as a result - when in fact they simply upheld these same rules we have always had and will continue to have -is beyond ridiculous. NOTHING either good or bad is supposed to be inferred by someone's silence by anyone in our justice system because ONLY the spoken or written word has meaning in OUR system. You want another system with different rules, go to another country where they claim to be able to read minds then and you can be condemned for being silent and not for what you actually said.

THIS ruling should be loudly applauded because in reality it upheld that CRITICAL principle in our system. Everyone else got it right and the left and Sotomayor got it dead wrong. This is the very principle that makes our system different from all others -and is one intended to provide the greatest protection possible to both guilty and innocent alike. But one that Sotomayor, if she had gotten her way, wanted to lay down the first step in dismantling this and thereby open the door to the future misuse and abuse of allowing meaning to be INFERRED by someone's silence and in fact she would have ordered cops to INFER meaning by someone's silence. NO NO NO This only proves why the left on this court are so dangerous to our real rights and are UNFIT guardians of our REAL rights. And our REAL right was and is that no one in our judicial may EVER infer meaning from our silence at any time because allowing it for any reason immediately opens the door to its future misuse and abuse that would end up harming us all whether guilty or innocent. The best, firmest and broadest protections for us all is exactly what we have always had -no pretense of mind reading allowed in our judicial system. PERIOD.

I am deeply disturbed by Sotomayor's dissent which is actually INCREDIBLY un-American, unconstitutional and would be the first stepping stone in unraveling our right against self-incrimination instead of upholding, as all the other justices did, that critically necessary and fundamental principle that ONLY our spoken or written words have meaning in our judicial system and NEVER our silence.

Do you always use this many words when you talk out of your ass?

Post-Arrest Silence and Miranda

In United States v. Frazier, No. 04-1005 (8th Cir., Jan. 7, 2005), a unanimous three-judge panel held that that the prosecution may use a defendant's post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence as part of its case-in-chief.

Crime & Federalism: Post-Arrest Silence and Miranda

Hmm. Perhaps you should first silence your own ass.

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/01/041005P.pdf

The core protection afforded by the Fifth Amendment is a
prohibition on compelling a criminal defendant to testify against himself at trial. See,
e.g., Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 767 (2003) (plurality opinion). "To give full
effect to this protection, the Supreme Court has held that 'the fifth amendment . . .
forbids . . . comment by the prosecution on the accused's silence . . . .'" United States
v. Moore, 104 F.3d 377, 385 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (omissions in original) (quoting Griffin
v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 (1965)).3 At issue in the instant case is whether the use of Frazier's postarrest, pre-Miranda silence during the government's case-in-chief
was constitutional. This is an issue of first impression in our circuit.
The following is an example of the line of questioning at issue:
Q [Prosecutor]: Did you talk with Mr. Frazier . . . or tell [him] why [he
was] being arrested?
A [Officer]: I just told [him] that [he was] under arrest for suspicion of
narcotics.
Q: What was Mr. Frazier's reaction when you . . . placed him into
custody?
A: There really wasn't a reaction.
Q: Was he angry?
A: No, sir.
Q: Was he surprised?
A: No, sir.
Q: Did he become combative?
A: No, sir.

The use of post arrest, pre-Miranda silence can be used to impeach someone's testimony if they claim they had done or said something different at that time. But in this case it was his behavior during the arrest that was used against in the summation by the prosecution and not his silence because he wasn't silent. He didn't act angry and belligerent at finding out he had been betrayed by a friend and THAT is what was used against him at his trial. In this case "On the facts before us, we find no Fifth Amendment violation."

So while you dragged up a case initially decided by a three judge panel you failed to mention this was appealed over and over again and THIS was the final ruling.

 

[George Costanza]

That ambiguity is exactly the type of thing that leads to defense cases like this where the lawyer is not attempting to prove innocence at all, just challenging the system and getting a criminal off that way.

Need I remind you that it is not incumbent upon the defense to prove innocence? Rather, the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense does not have to prove anything. All the defense has to do is raise a reasonable doubt.

"Challenging the system" is PRECISELY what we do.

If you have a problem with "getting a guilty person off on a technicality," I would suggest that you subscribe to the English system of criminal justice. We have a different system here.

 

[Bfgrn]

You have a really weird definition of "freedom" because this is NOT an anti-freedom ruling -just the opposite in fact. This was a freedom PROTECTING ruling.

Other countries do not have a right against self-incrimination. In the UK if a defendant refuses to answer questions, that fact can be used against him at trial. Juries are even specifically told they may INFER meaning from a defendant's silence. The prosecution can force a defendant to take the stand against his will and their law requires a defendant to honestly answer any questions. And if he tries to avoid answering questions, juries and judges are allowed to INFER guilt by his silence and refusal to answer questions. Our right against self-incrimination is not a right claimed by people elsewhere in the world -and it isn't just a right to remain silent, it is a DEMAND that nowhere in our justice system is anyone allowed to INFER meaning from our silence. In OUR system -unlike everywhere else -our silence has no meaning -PERIOD. At ALL TIMES in our judicial system our silence is NEUTRAL and meaningless - where nothing bad or good may be inferred from it at all.

So the next question is how are cops suppose to know when someone is CHOOSING to invoke their rights which would force cops to stop asking any question at all and when someone is simply sitting there listening and mulling over their options for a while and then decides to pick and choose which questions they will answer. This ruling affirms AGAIN that cops are expected to know when you have invoked any or all of your rights the same way they have been expected to know it all along -when a person announces his intentions to invoke his rights and NOT by trying to INFER meaning from silence. Only what you SAY or WRITE has meaning in our system, your silence is neutral and nothing may be inferred from it whether trying to infer something beneficial or disadvantageous to a particular individual. Our system forbids trying to infer meaning from silence no matter what. You always have and still have the right to refuse to answer any or all questions -but cops also have had the right and continue to have the right to keep on asking you questions anyway UNTIL you invoke your rights which would force them to stop. Cops can't just INFER that you have invoked your rights which would force them to stop asking you questions -unless you TELL them so. Just like they don't know if you want a lawyer until you TELL them. Knowing your rights is never the same thing as choosing to exercise them. You have the right to refuse to answer any question but it requires specifically invoking ANOTHER right to force cops to stop asking you any questions at all. Nothing new here.

That is what this case was all about. The cops didn't do something different that was being challenged, it was a challenge of standard operating police procedure everywhere as it has and does exist in this country. Which you only NOW found objectionable, right? Are you for real? LOL This guy sat there silently for a while listening to cops tell him the situation, their understanding of what happened, what possible charges this guy was facing, that his family or friends might be dragged in for questioning, what questions they had for him, and then informing him that he may get a plea deal if he cooperated and then let him sit and think about it and then came back. When they did, this guy opened his mouth and answered questions and in doing so unintentionally incriminated himself! Whoopsie! Now the guy wants a do-over and new rules for cops -all because he didn't MEAN to incriminate himself when he started answering questions. Your right to remain silent is always there and this ruling had nothing to do with that AT ALL so what a truly misleading headline on the article and a lie. This suit wanted the courts to forbid cops from even asking questions at all if someone didn't answer one of them and would demand cops just INFER from someone's silence when they refused to answer a question that the person actually intended to invoke his rights that would prevent ALL questions. All because this guy screwed himself by CHOOSING to open his mouth to answer questions instead of opening his mouth to invoke his rights. No one, not even cops are obligated to MAKE you exercise your rights. As long as you are a mentally competent person, when or IF to ever invoke your rights is YOUR decision and not something a cop must just magically INFER by pretending he can read your mind. What's next -a silent trial where juries must INFER what the evidence is too? LOL

Cops are required to inform you what rights you have, they are NEVER required or allowed to INFER when you want to invoke them. That is YOUR responsibility to tell them when and they aren't invoked until you do -because INFERRING when you want that done is simply pretending one can read the mind of another person. Unlike other countries, OUR system says that cannot be done -whether they believe it would benefit someone or be a disadvantage to them. It can't be done for better or worse. Which is why OUR system forbids it at all. So cops still won't get you a lawyer until you announce your intention to invoke that right and a prosecutor still can't tell a jury they may infer your guilt from your silence. That is exactly how it has, is and will continue to be done. So seeing you whine as if the court suddenly changed the rules NOW and your life has been dramatically altered as a result - when in fact they simply upheld these same rules we have always had and will continue to have -is beyond ridiculous. NOTHING either good or bad is supposed to be inferred by someone's silence by anyone in our justice system because ONLY the spoken or written word has meaning in OUR system. You want another system with different rules, go to another country where they claim to be able to read minds then and you can be condemned for being silent and not for what you actually said.

THIS ruling should be loudly applauded because in reality it upheld that CRITICAL principle in our system. Everyone else got it right and the left and Sotomayor got it dead wrong. This is the very principle that makes our system different from all others -and is one intended to provide the greatest protection possible to both guilty and innocent alike. But one that Sotomayor, if she had gotten her way, wanted to lay down the first step in dismantling this and thereby open the door to the future misuse and abuse of allowing meaning to be INFERRED by someone's silence and in fact she would have ordered cops to INFER meaning by someone's silence. NO NO NO This only proves why the left on this court are so dangerous to our real rights and are UNFIT guardians of our REAL rights. And our REAL right was and is that no one in our judicial may EVER infer meaning from our silence at any time because allowing it for any reason immediately opens the door to its future misuse and abuse that would end up harming us all whether guilty or innocent. The best, firmest and broadest protections for us all is exactly what we have always had -no pretense of mind reading allowed in our judicial system. PERIOD.

I am deeply disturbed by Sotomayor's dissent which is actually INCREDIBLY un-American, unconstitutional and would be the first stepping stone in unraveling our right against self-incrimination instead of upholding, as all the other justices did, that critically necessary and fundamental principle that ONLY our spoken or written words have meaning in our judicial system and NEVER our silence.

Do you always use this many words when you talk out of your ass?

Post-Arrest Silence and Miranda

In United States v. Frazier, No. 04-1005 (8th Cir., Jan. 7, 2005), a unanimous three-judge panel held that that the prosecution may use a defendant's post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence as part of its case-in-chief.

Crime & Federalism: Post-Arrest Silence and Miranda

Hmm. Perhaps you should first silence your own ass.

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/01/041005P.pdf

The core protection afforded by the Fifth Amendment is a
prohibition on compelling a criminal defendant to testify against himself at trial. See,
e.g., Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 767 (2003) (plurality opinion). "To give full
effect to this protection, the Supreme Court has held that 'the fifth amendment . . .
forbids . . . comment by the prosecution on the accused's silence . . . .'" United States
v. Moore, 104 F.3d 377, 385 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (omissions in original) (quoting Griffin
v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 (1965)).3 At issue in the instant case is whether the use of Frazier's postarrest, pre-Miranda silence during the government's case-in-chief
was constitutional. This is an issue of first impression in our circuit.
The following is an example of the line of questioning at issue:
Q [Prosecutor]: Did you talk with Mr. Frazier . . . or tell [him] why [he
was] being arrested?
A [Officer]: I just told [him] that [he was] under arrest for suspicion of
narcotics.
Q: What was Mr. Frazier's reaction when you . . . placed him into
custody?
A: There really wasn't a reaction.
Q: Was he angry?
A: No, sir.
Q: Was he surprised?
A: No, sir.
Q: Did he become combative?
A: No, sir.

The use of post arrest, pre-Miranda silence can be used to impeach someone's testimony if they claim they had done or said something different at that time. But in this case it was his behavior during the arrest that was used against in the summation by the prosecution and not his silence because he wasn't silent. He didn't act angry and belligerent at finding out he had been betrayed by a friend and THAT is what was used against him at his trial. In this case "On the facts before us, we find no Fifth Amendment violation."

So while you dragged up a case initially decided by a three judge panel you failed to mention this was appealed over and over again and THIS was the final ruling.

Maybe you need an interpreter?

Eighth Circuit
In United States v. Frazier, the Eighth Circuit relied on United States v. Love and United States v. Rivera when affirming the admission of post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence as substantive evidence of guilt.126 In Frazier, the prosecutor elicited the following testimony:
A: [Officer]: I just told [him] that [he was] under arrest for suspicion of narcotics.
Q: What was Mr. Frazier’s reaction when you … placed him into custody?
A: There really wasn’t a reaction.
Q: Was he angry?
A: No, sir.
Q: Was he surprised?
A: No, sir.
Q: Did he become combative?
A: No, sir.
Q: Did he say anything to you?
A: No, sir.
Q: Did he do anything when you put the handcuffs on him?
A: No, sir.127

During the closing argument, the government placed special emphasis on Frazier’s conduct after his arrest as a factor indicative of guilt.128 Specifically, counsel stated: “If a person has a friend who betrays them, what’s the innocent person going to do when they discover they’re going to jail. Everybody else is back in Chicago. Are they going to become combative, angry, emotional, demanding?”129

In affirming the conviction, the Eighth Circuit reasoned that because law enforcement officers did not question the defendants, there was no compulsion to speak and their silence was therefore proper evidence of guilt at trial.130 The Eighth Circuit noted that there may be circumstances where compulsion may exist so as to warrant a finding that the use of post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence would be impermissible, but under the facts before the court, such comment on silence was permitted.131

In reaching its decision, the Eighth Circuit noted that the issue remained undecided and was the subject of a circuit court split.132 While relying upon the Fourth and Eleventh Circuit decisions in Love and Rivera in support of its decision, the Eighth Circuit at the same time undermined the reasoning of those decisions.133
To Speak or Not to Speak: Can Pre-Miranda Silence be Used as Substantive Evidence of Guilt

 

[Bfgrn]

What I said was that it got tempered in the scope of its stupidity.

It was tempered in the scope of its stupidity.

We'd all like lots of things. Many of us want different things.

I'd like the U.S. out of the U.N and the U.N. out of the U.S.

I'd like Miranda to be recalled, reversed, vacated, nullified and otherwise spindled, bent, folded and mutilated.

I'd like the insane "spirit of Miranda" crushed.

I'm no fan of commies. But I like you all the same GC.

That's quite a wish list. No surprise I disagree with most of it. But what the hell, it's politics not personal.

And you're right, that is what you said. I was under the impression you were talking about the rights of the accused associated with the decision. So what exactly is it about Miranda that makes it "insane" in your opinion?

It is insane to reward the stupid criminal who says stupid incriminating things by disallowing the use of the stupid incriminating things he has said to be used against him as evidence in his prosecution. This serves not only to reward him but to punish society. And over what? Over the fact that a police officer has not educated the stupid and ignorant suspect about the law -- which the suspect should be legally presumed to know in the first place.

I don't want the judicial branch to tell the executive branch law enforcement officers HOW to do their jobs PARTICULARLY when they are thereby legislating from the bench and imposing a school teacher duty on those police officers. That also is a violation of one of the basic precepts of our limited government -- that the executive branch does the enforcement thing, the legislative branch does the legislating thing and the judicial branch should limit itself to judiciously serving as mere umpires.

Liability (to humanity and reason)... you go WAY beyond the label of a devout statist, which you ARE. You don't even believe in the presumption of innocence. You already have the person arrested a CRIMINAL.

Criminal
crim·i·nal
–adjective
2. guilty of crime.

Antonyms
1. lawful. 2. innocent.

To a TRULY devout statist, the state is ALWAYS right, thus, when an agent of that state arrests a private individual, the ARE guilty...

You are the biggest IDIOT on the planet...

 

[Intense]

The overall plan of the book is simple and logical. Chapter One, "On Liberty and Tyranny," lays out the basic conceptual scheme. Levin contrasts two opposing political philosophies currently in contention: The Conservative versus the Statist. He grounds the Conservative in the values and insights on human nature of the American Founders, and does so economically and convincingly. For the other side of the debate, he quite correctly rejects the label "liberal", because in current usage the term has become entirely divorced from its literal meaning. He writes:


The Modern Liberal believes in the supremacy of the state.... For the Modern Liberal, the individual's imperfection and personal pursuits impede the objectives of a utopian state. In this, Modern Liberalism promotes what French Historian Alexis de Tocqueville called soft tyranny, which becomes increasingly more oppressive, partially leading to hard tyranny.... As the word "liberal" is, in its classical meaning, the opposite of authoritarian, it is more accurate, therefore, to characterize the Modern Liberal as a Statist. (p.4)

American Thinker: Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto

 

[Bfgrn]

The overall plan of the book is simple and logical. Chapter One, "On Liberty and Tyranny," lays out the basic conceptual scheme. Levin contrasts two opposing political philosophies currently in contention: The Conservative versus the Statist. He grounds the Conservative in the values and insights on human nature of the American Founders, and does so economically and convincingly. For the other side of the debate, he quite correctly rejects the label "liberal", because in current usage the term has become entirely divorced from its literal meaning. He writes:


The Modern Liberal believes in the supremacy of the state.... For the Modern Liberal, the individual's imperfection and personal pursuits impede the objectives of a utopian state. In this, Modern Liberalism promotes what French Historian Alexis de Tocqueville called soft tyranny, which becomes increasingly more oppressive, partially leading to hard tyranny.... As the word "liberal" is, in its classical meaning, the opposite of authoritarian, it is more accurate, therefore, to characterize the Modern Liberal as a Statist. (p.4)

American Thinker: Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto

Gosh, then I apologize. IF MARK LEVIN says only liberals are statists, then what Liability's constant and consistent defense of the state over the individual citizen is actually calling for is individual freedom and liberty...how foolish of me!