Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (9 total)
09:24 PM on 08/02/2010
The decision that you have to say you are going to remain silent is ridiculous.
photo
songoftherushes
I can think, I can wait, and I can fast
08:55 PM on 08/02/2010
How do you lose the right to be silent if you don't say so. You still aren't talking but you no longer have the right not to be talking if you don't say so? What can the police do to a person who has not actually spoken their desire not to speak? What are the consequences?
09:04 PM on 08/02/2010
What, you expect sanity, logic, and guidance from this reactinary SCOTUS?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
libwingoflibwing
Leftist, Christian, Non-Violent Revolutionary
09:36 PM on 08/02/2010
"You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you. Do you understand this right?"

"Yes."

"Oh, you spoke, you have given up the right to remain silent!"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you. Do you understand this right?"

".............."

"Oh, you aren't answering. Does that mean you don't understand or you choose to not exercise your right to be silent?"

"............"

"Oh, you still aren't answering. I take it you don't choose to exercise your right to be silent."

"............"

"Ok, then. You've given up your right to be silent."
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
gmb007
Bio APPROVED Then SCRUBBED lol
08:50 PM on 08/02/2010
More insidious overreaching by SCOTUS. This is how we become enslaved - piece by piece, our rights and liberties quietly gutted. “Tweaking” here, “reforming” there...till there are no rights left.

Having to speak out to preserve your right to silence is beyond perverse and ridiculous on it face. If one is already silent, is that not clear invocation and express exercise of one’s “right to remain silent”? One should not have to speak up to defend their right not to speak up.

SILENCE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.

The 14 day limit after release to request an attorney is total BS.

The suspect does not cease being a suspect after 14 days and is entitled to the full protection of the law as long as he remains so. To put an expiration date on the suspect’s right to self-protection is beyond arbitrary...it's mercenary. In essence, the accused then becomes fair game for abuses the Miranda Warning was designed to prevent.

* How long will it be before the 14 days is reduced to 7...then 3 days...then 24 hours?

A consumer who returns a product under a 30-day Money Back Guarantee apparently has more rights than a criminal suspect - who, faced with the potential loss of his freedom - must secure his right to an attorney within only 14 days. A suspect faced with possible imprisonment receives less leniency to protect his Constitutional rights than his neighbor, returning a defective dvd player.

What bogus CRAP.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:43 PM on 08/02/2010
Again? Or is this the story from several months ago?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
The Iron Cage
08:38 PM on 08/02/2010
The state is protecting the state...and the privatized prison system.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
gmb007
Bio APPROVED Then SCRUBBED lol
09:26 PM on 08/02/2010
EXACTLY. Thank you.
12:33 AM on 08/03/2010
apparently the Arizona Governor is in cahoots with the private prison owners
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
fourtruth
9th Amendment, Bill of Rights
08:18 PM on 08/02/2010
Maybe I'm missing something - but I do no see the problem with that first sentance. It says to me if I voice that I am not going to speake to any charges, then I can still at least ask to go to the bathroom or get a drink of water without revoking Miranda.

Everything gets abused and twisted when someones agenda is not being met and they figure out ways. So attempts are made to make things better - sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

This whole world of democracy and freedom is still in infancy - trial and error, baby steps forward, and a few baby steps back, sometimes leaps forward and leaps back.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dragonlady620
My karma will run over your dogma
11:16 PM on 08/02/2010
Even the notion of government by consent of the governed is fairly new- and it is the cornerstone of our Constitution. Too bad Bush/Cheney/Rove never got that memo.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
fourtruth
9th Amendment, Bill of Rights
01:45 AM on 08/03/2010
Bush/Cheney/Rove didnt' get many memos!

Bush: "Consitution? Yes, I have a good constitution - hardlly ever get a cold"?

Cheney: "Consitution? No problem, 'W' will just sign an Executive Order - we don't need no stinking Constitution?"

Rove: ?
07:46 PM on 08/02/2010
Dubya may be gone, but his contamination will poison our nation for decades to come.
12:35 AM on 08/03/2010
The Roberts led Supreme court is an abomination ans one of the most activist courts of modern times . The corporate court
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
fourtruth
9th Amendment, Bill of Rights
01:47 AM on 08/03/2010
We just have to work harder - block all those negative bloggers with facts of accomplishments, keep the Congress, or better yet, get a few more.

We need a new Acorn - but one with better oversight.
07:46 PM on 08/02/2010
I suppose next to come is that nothing will be a crime if the person didn't explicit request that the criminal not commit their crime.
07:23 PM on 08/02/2010
Sotomayor, baby!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FREEDOM BELL
06:32 PM on 08/02/2010
Great Post:

BlairCase 0 minute ago (6:19 PM)
6 Fans


The reason some people think Arizona will prevail at the Supreme Court level is because the court has already ruled on the issue. In the case of Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Supreme Court emphasized that “Although the State has no direct interest in controlling entry into this country, that interest being one reserved by the Constitution to the Federal Government, unchecked unlawful migration might impair the State’s economy generally, or the State’s ability to provide some important service. Despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation’s borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns.” Of course the court was less conservative in 1982,
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
foxfury
06:08 PM on 08/02/2010
It kinda feels like the US is eroding from within. As if the lofty ideals in her Constitution are always just out of reach :-/ Kinda sad to see, but c'est la vie.
DUSAA-1775
never moon a werewolf
07:42 PM on 08/02/2010
yeah..... does anyone else understand why you feel this way? How is the US eroding from within? Which lofty ideals in the Constitution are always out of reach?
07:47 PM on 08/02/2010
Yeah...I kind of miss living in America.

I haven't moved...the country did.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sirlarek
∞-1
05:06 PM on 08/02/2010
I am choosing to remain silent about this.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ddanimal
06:54 PM on 08/02/2010
But in order to have that right, you must declare it by speaking. If you dont, then you lose the right.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ddanimal
04:52 PM on 08/02/2010
NEVER talk to the police:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ddanimal
04:41 PM on 08/02/2010
The "party of limited government" doesnt want to limit police or state power.

This is just more hypocrisy from the right wing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FREEDOM BELL
06:34 PM on 08/02/2010
Most Americans of all political persuasions don't want illegal immigrants here.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FREEDOM BELL
06:35 PM on 08/02/2010
Oops. Wrong article.

Other than the illegal immigrant problems, all trends toward totalitarianism should be stopped.
DUSAA-1775
never moon a werewolf
07:45 PM on 08/02/2010
yeah..... this article is talking about the SC decisions, not about the decisions of the 'party of limited government'.
I have not heard of that party...but there are so many tiny minority political parties out there I can't keep them straight.
04:28 PM on 08/02/2010
I believe that the "Miranda Rights" is silly stuff. Criminals are the first ones to know they need a lawyer when they get into trouble, so why do police have to tell them that they have that right and if police forget to tell them, the case could be lost? Every time I go to the supermarket, they don't have to tell me that I need to have money to get something from them! Are legislators going to pass a bill for me called, The "Ricardo Right", that obliges supermakets to forewarn customers the following?: "You have the right to enter our facilities and come out empty handed if you don't have money to pay for whatever you take from this store!" The best choice would be for police to ask the person, before or after he is arrested if they can afford a lawyer and if they say no, the police would take care of that for them and this way they would not have to go through the hassle of reading the Miranda Rights to them! The Miranda Rights is as silly as a justice system can get!
04:31 PM on 08/02/2010
So in other words the really bad people know their rights and can use them whilst people caught up by mistake by the police who don't think of such things end up being ruined because they don't know... splendid!

The police are not going to help people get lawyers. What they want is a confession and a CASE SOLVED stamp to show how they are geniuses solving cases with lightning-like speed and that they are heroes and people should fawn over them as the infallible barrier against barbarism.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ddanimal
04:47 PM on 08/02/2010
If people were arrested as often as they go to the grocery store, your argument might make some sense.

If going to the grocery store without money could land you in jail improperly then your argument might make some sense.

but since neither of these things is true, your arguments are ridiculous.

You obviously have never had to interact with cops, who lie, cheat and do everything they can think of to trick you into forfeiting your rights-and then lie about it again-so they can arrest you. They will lose evidence, threaten you with violence unless you "voluntarily" confess or allow an unlawful search, for example.

The police need limits on what they can do. Without such limits, the US Consitution is just a silly piece of paper when you are stuck on the side of the road in the middle of the night and the police are accusing you of a crime.
06:36 PM on 08/02/2010
It would be rIdiculous if it were NOT TRUE. However, getting arrested as frequently as going to the grocery store happens alot in Ada County Idaho. Without anything more than the threat of a statement by a cop or a store cop. Real evidence is not required, And they get away with this as they are a business ,the Privately held "FOURTH JUDICIAL COURT OF IDAHO" a business we are required to do business with. It is private business whose product is court proceedings, according to Dunn and Bradstreet, but customers are not allowed to take their business elsewhere; nor can you complain about the customer service. Executive Larry Reiner admits there is no mechanism to handle customer complaints.
I am not kidding about the private business status of the CRIMINAL MAKING business, whose sales agents are local law enforcement, and whose marketing agents are the local tv station, primarily Channel 7 news. Who owns who? This conglomerate/monopoly knows that with the exclusive power they have here in Idaho , with no Constitutional oversight by anyone, THEY treat CUSTOMERS/DEFENDANTS like many other businesses here do,like they own us. Beg to differ? Try taking your business elsewhere. They will force you to do business their way or put you in jail. Talk about ridiculous.