Comment on He took it literally

• moody@lemmings.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Because they wanted to prosecute a guy who used that right, and they decided it needed to be reinterpreted to suit their desires.

  source
• ricecake@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  The (obviously flawed) reasoning the supreme Court used is that it’s the same as invoking the right to legal counsel: we tend to accept that you need to ask for a lawyer, they don’t just get you one. Likewise, if you want them to stop asking you questions you need to say so.

  Considering the right isn’t the “right to remain silent” we nickname it, but No person shall be … compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, it’s a bit preposterous. Like saying it was a legal warrantless search because you never said “stop”, you just locked the doors, tried to keep them out, and tried to keep them out of certain areas.

  source

  • lightnsfw@reddthat.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time.

    Seems pretty clear to me. Not a nickname. All silence after that point is perfectly warranted and should not be held against them. They can ask all the questions they want but they’re not entitled to answers.

    source

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Where do those words come from? Are they written into law? The wording is often policy, not law.

      The Miranda warning varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and doesn’t need to be read exactly because it’s a description of your fifth amendment rights, amongst others.

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinas_v._Texas

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins

      It’s not an exaggeration to say that you need to explicitly invoke the fifth to have its protections.
      The reason there’s a disconnect between what it seems like the warning is saying and the protections you actually have is because they’ve been rolling back the protections for years.
      Did you know that the courts decided that the Miranda warning doesn’t need to fully explain your rights?

      source

      • lightnsfw@reddthat.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        That was from the wikipedia page about it and lined up with every variation of it I can recall hearing, which are derived from the original Miranda court decision. “You have the right to remain silent” was always part of it. SO if they say those words and a person does not speak to them afterwards it SHOULD be assumed that they are utilizing that right.

        I’m not arguing what you explicitly need to do in reality. I’m arguing that reality is bullshit and there’s no actual justification to expect people to explicitly invoke their rights. If you by default have no rights unless you request them, or you are judged as guilty for using them without asking, they’re not rights.

        source

        • -> View More Comments