You have the Right to Remain Silent, Not.

The US SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that in order to use the Right to Remain Silent one must first speak.


Berghuis v. Thompkins is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which states that suspects must specifically state that they are invoking their Miranda right to remain silent. The act of remaining silent is, on its own, insufficient to imply the suspect has invoked their right.
...
On June 1, 2010, by a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit's decision. In the Opinion of the Court, written by Justice Kennedy, the Court ruled that Thompkins' silence during the interrogation did not invoke his right to remain silent and that he had waived his right to remain silent when he knowingly and voluntarily made a statement to police.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins


Recap:
What does the decision mean? Aside from the defendant waiving his right to silence by saying the word "yes" at the end of the interrogation; the court ruled he never invoked the right to remain silent. Therefore in order to effectively use the right you must first speak.


Please see the following:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1993580,00.html

BERGHUIS, WARDEN v. THOMPKINS

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1470.pdf

blankfist says...

@kronosposeidon, true! But you seem to welcome a solid statism that emboldens this kind of shit. Why is that? I understand that being part of a union in the US typically warrants a desire for government involvement, but it's the dwindling of our rights, freedoms and liberty that makes me question why any of us would honor a system of government that puts such atrocious tyranny upon our shoulders.

dystopianfuturetoday says...

>> ^blankfist:

true! But you seem to welcome a solid statism that emboldens this kind of shit. Why is that? I understand that being part of a union in the US typically warrants a desire for government involvement, but it's the dwindling of our rights, freedoms and liberty that makes me question why any of us would honor a system of government that puts such atrocious tyranny upon our shoulders.


Your problem is that you can't differentiate the good from the bad when it comes to government. When you lump health care and teachers right in there with the patriot act and the Iraq war and then call it "statism", it makes your point of view seem simplistic, inflexible, insecure, partisan and very petty. I know the term was designed to be used as a scary political epithet, but though over use it's become a word of levity on this site. You've even got gwiz using it as a neutral term in this thread.

If you want to influence people, you need to understand them a bit, have some empathy and know where they're coming from. You can't just say 'Hey kronos, why are you such a tyrannical, union loving, fascist? Why do you reject the pure love, light and liberty of my political perspective?" That kind of rhetoric is really no different from your 'with us or against us' George Bushisms; just as insular and narrow minded, though grammatically far superior.

Part of the problem lies in the word 'libertarian' itself. Liberty means many things to many people, and when you use that term to define your own subjective political ideology, you've left the realm of political discourse and entered the realm of religious dogma.

How would you feel if I claimed that progressivism were the true ideology of freedom and liberty, and that by opposing me you also oppose liberty and freedom? Would that influence you? Would that make you want to join me? Or would you think I was just deluding myself by invoking a beloved term as a shield to hide my own selfish beliefs and desires behind?

For argument's sake, what if I could convince you that your concept of liberty was subjective? Would that change your thinking? Would it make your ideology less meaningful? I'd love an answer to that last question.

blankfist says...

@dystopianfuturetoday, your problem is that you pretend the good outweighs the bad when it comes to government. For every one good thing the government does, it does many more things that are fraught with incompetence, corruption or inefficiencies.

If you could convince me that my idea of liberty was subjective, it would change my opinion. I haven't always been a Libertarian, you know. I was once independent that leaned toward the Democratic Party. Then I realized their party was essentially the Republican with slightly modified differences in domestic policy.

dystopianfuturetoday says...

^No pretending here, I believe the good far outweighs the bad. I also have no problem admitting that my personal views of liberty are completely subjective, biased and subject to the influence of friends, family, upbringing, culture, media, geography, the time in which I live and many other societal factors.

I also have no problem admitting I could be wrong.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

New Blog Posts from All Members