Land of the free smh
Comment on He took it literally
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Oddly, you have to actually asset that right in many jurisdictions. In the US, say something like “I plead the fifth” or “I choose to remain silent” and assert your right to an attorney, and shut up until the attorney comes and only speak at the discretion of the attorney. Just staying silent opens you up to attempted manipulation, whereas they must provide an attorney if requested and the attorney may have options to strike some of the manipulation while you wait for the attorney.
balderdash9@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
“Land of the free (labour)”
They’re trying to bring feudalism and slavery back.
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Slavery never left the US. Slavery is fully constitutional in the USA.
balderdash9@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
All workers under capitalism are slaves in a loose sense of the word. Your labor creates more profit than what they pay you in wages (otherwise the owners wouldn’t employ anyone). Typically, your wages are only a small fraction of what your labor makes the owner.
While the capitalist gets to pick a profitable time in which to invest their money (e.g., buy labor, machines, stocks, etc.) the worker is born into institutions that force them, on threat of destitution, to sell themselves by the hour. We are really not much different from feudal serfs.
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
In the UK people usually say “no comment”
setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
You can simply remain silent. Asserting your right to silence is what stops the questioning. You can just sit there and not answer the questions.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Yes, remaining silent works, but explicitly invoking your rights is better. At any rate, don’t tell the cops anything unless your lawyer tells you to.
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
It’s actually different. Remaining silent doesn’t invoke the right to not incriminate yourself. Simply remaining silent means they can use your silence to incriminate you.
In the court case where they decided that a man didn’t answer a question about a murder weapon. They used his silence and looking nervous as evidence for his guilt because he didn’t say he intended to remain silent, and he remained silent before he was informed he had a right to do so.
setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
but isn’t considered asserting the right.
I put it right there. It is obviously ideal to affirmatively invoke your right to silence.
I emphasized clearly demanding a lawyer as that is what, legally, makes the questions stop.
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
And what I was saying was adding to that, and including that without invoking the right to silence simply remaining silent can be used for self incrimination.
If you are not under arrest and not in custody, not answering questions by remaining silent can be used against you.
AtariDump@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
slate.com/…/suspect-asks-for-a-lawyer-dawg-judge-…
wesker@lemmy.sdf.org 3 weeks ago
Both terrible and admittedly hilarious.
setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
The decision in this case was wrong I think, but it is better to be more accurate in criticism so that people can’t undermine you.
The ruling did not hinge on the “lawyer dawg”. You can completely disregard that. The ruling hinged on if he asserted his right in asking for a lawyer.
His exact words:
Sliced very finely, he did not directly ask for a lawyer, but he asked a question. Instead of saying “give me a lawyer” he asked “why don’t you just give me a lawyer?”
I think the ruling was wrong by hinging so finely on his exact wording when he indicated he wanted a lawyer, but if you’re going to make headway please stop repeating the Buzzfeed headline version of the ruling.
Rhaedas@fedia.io 3 weeks ago
The question should be if the cops were not clear on his intent in the statement. They were, they just got lucky in being able to find a judge who also was "confused" on the meaning. They all knew what was meant. Btw, it wasn't a question. I don't see a question mark.
setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I agree that he should have gotten a lawyer. That wasn’t the point of my comment. The point of my comment is that by fixating on the irrelevant “lawyer dog” aspect people are reacting to that part of the case that doesn’t matter.
k0e3@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Technically, I think that’s just a question and a statement blended into one sentence as we often do in speech. But it’s obviously rhetorical and the police and judge are being stupid.
tyler@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
Was there ever a conclusion?
AtariDump@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Gonna guess he got his original sentence.