Wishful Thinking
Posted on 01/20/2013 6:08:09 AM PST by Lazamataz
I don’t practice criminal defense or con law. However, I think there is a conflict on the issue of using silence as evidence of guilt, which is why the matter is before the Supreme Court.
My discussion is based on my perception of the rationale for the 5th Amendment. We don’t force people to take the stand in their defense, because it seems wrong to do so. We DO allow defendants to testify. It seems fair to me to allow the fact that the Defendant elected not to testify to be argued. The defendant was still not forced to testify.
This only matters if we are trying to determine the truth.
So, in short - you have to be asked to be TAKEN INTO CUSTODY before you can remain silent? Great.......
Wishful Thinking
In that case could they just use common sense? Nawwh probably not, no profit in that.
No offense or disrespect intended but you lack experience. First, police officers look for ‘probable cause’ and they have a lot of leeway on exactly how they interpret what that is. If you say “she ran into the street and I was worried that she would be harmed so ***I pursued her*** until I saw it was no use so I backed off but I never touched her” and so on, the officers will hear only that you “pursued her” and then cuff you, book you and jail you.
It is ALWAYS best to have a lawyer talk to the police. Never advise anyone to talk to the police without an attorney.
Looks like we’re on the path to Napoleonic Law - guilty until proven innocent.
Considering I believe God has already judged us, and has found us to be unworthy of his divine protection, it would be safe to assume that based on Mark 15 that the court will rule against the 5th amendment and in favor of the corrupt state. You can guarantee it at this point.
There is a Youtube video called Do Not talk to cops’ and there’s a reason to it.
And we all thought that the rights in the Bill Of Rights came from our Creator? No, it comes from the police!
-PJ
It’s Houston. I think they use Mex-can law there and in Austin.
In Obama's Constitution of Negative Rights, lack of giving testimony is evidence of guilt.
Does this apply to redacted Fast And Furious documents? Are we to assume that Obama and Holder are guilty because they refused to give the evidence that was requested?
-PJ
Yes officer, I had 3 Diet Cokes.
In the Lord of the Rings there are Nine rings given to mankind, and these corrupted them into the Nazgul, some quicker than others but all fell to the lure of power... there are nine seats on the Supreme court that seem to have a similar effect on judges. Coincidence?
“Thank you for volunteering, Citizen. We will assign four soldiers to your residence shortly.”
—U.S. Army Quartermaster
I refer you gents to the 5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
First note the underlined portion: this strictly states that the unpaid taking of property is prohibited -- and indeed the public use portion must be in effect, for the Law Enforcement Agent/Agency is acting in public office.
So then this restriction applies even if such takings are "authorized by law" -- but authorized certainly doesn't mean that there has been due process. A prime example would be Ruby Ridge: Lon was authorized to kill, that authorization was not under the due process of law -- as the sixth amendment clearly states that in all criminal matters one is to be given the ability to defend himself and none of those at Ruby Ridge were.
It is therefore evident that even if there is some "authorization" for these "administrative takings" these are not necessarily under due process of law; in such manner we begin to see these seizure procedures as the evil usurpation [by the executive] that they are.
Ten little, nine little, eight little amendments, seven, little six little five little amendments, for little three little two little amendments....setting them up like bowling pins, aren’t they?
If questioned by police [FOR ANY REASON], you should immediately invoke both the right to keep silent and that all communications by the police must be made to your attorney.
Then, you clam up - totally. Answer NO questions AT ALL.
It does not matter whether you are considered a suspect or not. You keep your trap shut and let your mouthpiece do the talking.
Seems that, in the case here, the police are relying on the fact that the man was voluntarily talking and THEN clammed up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.