We have had this discussion here before and some of us were of the mind that you shouldn't invoke the fifth unless you have been arrested as it implies guilt. It seems pretty clear from all of this that that doesn't matter.
“The Supreme Court informs me to invoke the 5th and remain silent.”
Can you invoke the fifth, and yet say this or that, and refuse to say this or that?
Horrible decision.
Rights are inherent... you don’t have to wave a magic wand to make them apply.
Do you have to state your First Amendment right before you write a newspaper article, or say a prayer, or give a speech?
Do you have to state your Second Amendment right before using a gun?
Yet, a person to be arrested MUST be told of his basic constitutional rights to remain silent, lawyer, blah blah blah. Pray tell, which comes first ROBERTS?
The kid who was arrested for not removing his NRA shirt in school. A report states one of the reasons he was arrested is because he "would not stop talking" when told to be quiet by the cop.
So now we can be charged with not saying anything? Welcome to Amerika, folks, the updated version of 1930's Germany. Call me Winston Smith.
A report yesterday on the police witnesses said that Zimmerman came off as very credible, in part because he was very cooperative with police.
I don’t like these new rulings on the fifth amendment. Prior to Lois Lerner, I had no idea that you could inadvertently waive a fifth amendment right simply by answering a related question.
Now I’m confused.
If I ever need to, I want to be able to cooperate with police without fear of them asking a laundry list of unrelated questions.
Suppose they stop me and ask me if I was speeding and I say no. And then they ask if I have ever speeded, have I waived my right to not answer by answering the first question?
This is not the way I remember the watergate hearings working. They got to specific questions and the person would claim the fifth. Then they would ask another question and they’d answer. Of course, Most questions they just couldn’t recall. Someone should look into what causes memory lapses in D.C.
A report yesterday on the police witnesses said that Zimmerman came off as very credible, in part because he was very cooperative with police.
I don’t like these new rulings on the fifth amendment. Prior to Lois Lerner, I had no idea that you could inadvertently waive a fifth amendment right simply by answering a related question.
Now I’m confused.
If I ever need to, I want to be able to cooperate with police without fear of them asking a laundry list of unrelated questions.
Suppose they stop me and ask me if I was speeding and I say no. And then they ask if I have ever speeded, have I waived my right to not answer by answering the first question?
This is not the way I remember the watergate hearings working. They got to specific questions and the person would claim the fifth. Then they would ask another question and they’d answer. Of course, Most questions they just couldn’t recall. Someone should look into what causes memory lapses in D.C.
So it’s not only what you say that can be used against you in a court of law it’s what you don’t say as well?
what rights? i hereby designate you as a terrorist. now you can remain silent all you want, with a 12v battery connected to your nuts... you will tell them shit they dont even want to hear... Jailhouse is full of lawyers. Besides they already know every fukin thing about you... the CONSTITUTION has been SHITCANNED folks... by someone who wont even release his college transcripts... the most transparent regime in hsitory.... coupled with the lawless DOJ ,the PATRIOT ACT (IF YOU HAVE PATRIOT ASSOCIATED WITH YOUR NAME THE IRS WILL FUK YOU) and last but not least Gestapo/DHS.... and FEMA....Sieg Heil.. Sieg Heil... Sieg Heil. HOW DID GERMANY GET THAT WAY? HOW DID WE GET THIS WAY?
This SCOTUS decision creates a catch-22, with several angles. (These are subject to whimsical change, but I believe are accurate.)
1) Many police departments have long used the technique that they are not arresting a person, they are detaining them, so do not have to give them a Miranda warning. If you ask if you are being detained, they will likely respond that “it depends on what you have to tell me.”
2) The federal courts have found that if you say anything before getting your Miranda warning, it can be used against you, as a “spontaneous confession.”
3) The federal courts have also found that when someone is arrested and Mirandized, if the police release them from arrest, they are no longer Mirandized. And if you gave information during the Mirandized period, while they cannot use it *directly* against you, they *may* use that information to discover evidence that they *can* use against you. Then they can re-arrest and re-Mirandize you, and use that evidence against you in court.
4) Once a police investigation has begun, the right of privacy is very sketchy indeed. Recorded evidence can be surreptitiously obtained by putting two suspects together in the back of a patrol car, in restrooms, or any other room under police control, *or* that could be considered as a “public place” in nature.
5) Police use numerous tricks to obtain DNA and fingerprints from objects a suspect has touched in a place under their control or in a public place. This is why you never accept drinks, even water, from the police, even if they have kept you from drinking for hours. If you have to drink, use a small piece of paper to pick up the cup, pour the water into your mouth without touching the cup with your lips, set the cup down and eat the small piece of paper.
6) With this latest SCOTUS decision, there will have to be a future decision on whether if you invoke your rights while being detained, if they do indeed apply, or if the police can ignore them. Thus, the best bet is to invoke your rights, then in response to any other statements or questions, say “Please direct all statements and questions to my attorney.”
In effect, it is like a POW giving his name, rank, serial number and date of birth, nothing more. And remember to speak to no one else until you are in a safe and private place, far away from the police.
Horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible decision.
I officially loathe Robert’s Court.
Let me see if I understand this? I have a “Right” but it doesn’t start until after they tell you you have that “Right”. Yeah, right.
Or, when is a right not a right? ans: Before they tell you it’s your right.
I guess I’ll never be smart enough to be on the supreme court. They are so smart they can figure this out.
George was just so thoroughly convinced that he had done nothing wrong that he didn’t expect any problems.
any answer is a waiving of the fifth-amendment rights, as the House Oversight Committee is asserting… and we have a great legal Catch-22.
So once again either 5 or 4 of these political hacks are clueless as to what the constitution says.
We non-judges can certainly form our own opinion about what we would LIKE to see out of the court but how ignorant or corrupt are these traitors to the constitution?
If the phony best and brightest of our legal minds cannot figure out what a small document (with its own user’s manual, the Federalist Papers) means then I am 100% certain that ignorance of the law MUST and SHOULD be anyone’s excuse.
Lets face it more recent legislation and regulations are much more obtuse than the Constitution and orders of magnitude longer.
So take your pick! Either 4 or 5 of them need to be removed from the bench and tried for treason to the Constitution.
How about an unintelligent person...or a non-English speaking person...or a visitor to this country.Someone who,for whatever reason,doesn't understand the concept of "legal rights",let alone understand the US Constitution? An example of what I'm saying would be Miss Slim Jeans from the the Zimmerman trial.
The Supreme Court is way outside of its Constitutional limits and have lost all legal credibility.
They can stand on soap boxes and screech their latest screed to the moon for all I care.
They are despicable.
More groundless caprice from this court.
Another right that you have to somehow qualify for.
More fruit of our elites’ abandonment of the cornerstone principle of the republic, that our rights are God-given, not man-granted, and that those rights are therefore UNALIENABLE.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...”