Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Wiggs on June 18, 2013, 12:40:16 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-decided-silence-used-against-161934950.html
A nation continues to wait for final word on the Supreme Court's Big Four cases this term — voting rights, affirmative action, DOMA, and Proposition 8 — but the justices' closest decision arrived first on Monday, in a 5-4 ruling on Salinas v. Texas in which the conservative members of the Court and Anthony Kennedy determined that if you remain silent before police read your Miranda rights, that silence can and will be held against you. Here's what that means.
Basically, if you're ever in any trouble with police (no, we don't condone breaking laws) and want to keep your mouth shut, you will need to announce that you're invoking your Fifth Amendment right instead of, you know, just keeping your mouth shut. "Petitioner's Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer's question," reads the opinion from Justice Samuel Alito, which Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts backed. Justices Thomas and Scalia had a concurring opinion while the remaining four Supremes dissented.
The Salinas case revolves around Genovevo Salinas, a man who was convicted of a 1992 murder of two brothers. Salinas was brought in for police questioning in January 1993. According to the dissenting opinion of Justice Breyer, he was called in to "to take photographs and to clear him as [a]suspect" and Salinas was questioned without being read his Miranda rights:
Because he was "free to leave at that time," [App.14], they did not give him Miranda warnings. The police then asked Salinas questions. The police then asked Salinas questions. And Salinas answered until the police asked him whether the shotgun from his home "would match the shells recovered at the scene of the murder [Id., at 17.] At that point Salinas fell silent.
That silence was then used against Salinas in court, and he was eventually convicted. But the bigger question in revisiting this 20-year-old murder case was whether or not prosecutors were allowed to point to that silence, and win a case using Salinas' own silence against him.
You know what's a much more recent wrinkle to the potential precedent effect of today's ruling? A case like that of the younger Boston Marathon suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who reportedly sat through 16 hours of questioning before he was read his Miranda rights. Had Tsarnaev, who was recovering from serious injuries at the time, remained silent during questioning without explicitly invoking his Fifth Amendment, prosecutors could, under the Salinas ruling, now use that silence to their advantage.
It all seems sort of almost ridiculously terrifying, this new idea that in order to claim your Fifth Amendment, you need to know how to call the on-the-fly legal equivalent of "safesies." Your right to remain silent just got more complicated, and it will require potential criminals to be more informed about their protections and the linguistic details on how to invoke them. "But does it really mean that the suspect must use the exact words 'Fifth Amendment'? How can an individual who is not a lawyer know that these particular words are legally magic?" Breyer wrote.
-
disgusting. miranda rights being read in the first place was because people were unaware of their rights. seems a short term loophole to snag people, somehow. who the hell is going to know you have to say all that, rather than just not speak...and most likely you have to say something specific, not just ' i plead the fifth'
'implied guilt' through silence.
-
"The Salinas case revolves around Genovevo Salinas, a man who was convicted of a 1992 murder of two brothers. Salinas was brought in for police questioning in January 1993. According to the dissenting opinion of Justice Breyer, he was called in to "to take photographs and to clear him as [a]suspect" and Salinas was questioned without being read his Miranda rights:
Because he was "free to leave at that time," [App.14], they did not give him Miranda warnings. The police then asked Salinas questions. The police then asked Salinas questions. And Salinas answered until the police asked him whether the shotgun from his home "would match the shells recovered at the scene of the murder [Id., at 17.] At that point Salinas fell silent.
That silence was then used against Salinas in court, and he was eventually convicted. But the bigger question in revisiting this 20-year-old murder case was whether or not prosecutors were allowed to point to that silence, and win a case using Salinas' own silence against him."
The articles I've read about this today seem to paint this as the reason he was convicted, like there was no other evidence in the trial. What they did was say, in addition to all the evidence we presented to the jury, here is another reason to believe he is guilty when you consider the totality of the evidence. When we were asking him questions when he was not in custody he freely answered all the questions until we asked this one.. an innocent person would have answered no, it wouldn't match.. he stopped answering at that point which is suspicious.
What I do find puzzling is that they argued at appeal that his silence was used against him rather than the angle that if he was not a suspect at the time, why would the police ask such a question as they did about "Would the murder weapon match the shell"? How would he know that answer unless the police thought he did it and therefore was a suspect
-
disgusting. miranda rights being read in the first place was because people were unaware of their rights. seems a short term loophole to snag people, somehow. who the hell is going to know you have to say all that, rather than just not speak...and most likely you have to say something specific, not just ' i plead the fifth'
'implied guilt' through silence.
What is kind of disgusting is that in this day and age people still need to be informed of their rights.... like they don't know them by now.
-
What is kind of disgusting is that in this day and age people still need to be informed of their rights.... like they don't know them by now.
Mexican's are moving here in record amounts. I'm guessing most of them won't know their rights even if they live to be 100.
-
Mute people on suicide watch.
-
This is nothing new. All it is saying is : If you invoke your right to remain silent it must be implicit. Thank god the court ruled correctly. In this case his silence told the fucking story, he decided to forgoe his rights and talk with the police then fell silent when he was asked a specific question about the murder weapon. Your silence can never be used against you. This dipshit wasn't silent.
By the way. Miranda was a scumbag career criminal, violent sexual offender and predator. The case law regarding Miranda warnings set him free from a rape he most certainly comitted. Years later Miranda was killed after an argument in a gambling game with some other mexicans. The guy who did it invoked his Miranda rights and the cops had to let him go after questioning. He went back to Mexico and was never charged with the crime. :D
-
3333 should post here he is a lawyer
-
disgusting. miranda rights being read in the first place was because people were unaware of their rights. seems a short term loophole to snag people, somehow. who the hell is going to know you have to say all that, rather than just not speak...and most likely you have to say something specific, not just ' i plead the fifth'
'implied guilt' through silence.
The saying "Your silence is golden" now carries some real weight.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-decided-silence-used-against-161934950.html
A nation continues to wait for final word on the Supreme Court's Big Four cases this term — voting rights, affirmative action, DOMA, and Proposition 8 — but the justices' closest decision arrived first on Monday, in a 5-4 ruling on Salinas v. Texas in which the conservative members of the Court and Anthony Kennedy determined that if you remain silent before police read your Miranda rights, that silence can and will be held against you. Here's what that means.
Basically, if you're ever in any trouble with police (no, we don't condone breaking laws) and want to keep your mouth shut, you will need to announce that you're invoking your Fifth Amendment right instead of, you know, just keeping your mouth shut. "Petitioner's Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer's question," reads the opinion from Justice Samuel Alito, which Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts backed. Justices Thomas and Scalia had a concurring opinion while the remaining four Supremes dissented.
The Salinas case revolves around Genovevo Salinas, a man who was convicted of a 1992 murder of two brothers. Salinas was brought in for police questioning in January 1993. According to the dissenting opinion of Justice Breyer, he was called in to "to take photographs and to clear him as [a]suspect" and Salinas was questioned without being read his Miranda rights:
Because he was "free to leave at that time," [App.14], they did not give him Miranda warnings. The police then asked Salinas questions. The police then asked Salinas questions. And Salinas answered until the police asked him whether the shotgun from his home "would match the shells recovered at the scene of the murder [Id., at 17.] At that point Salinas fell silent.
That silence was then used against Salinas in court, and he was eventually convicted. But the bigger question in revisiting this 20-year-old murder case was whether or not prosecutors were allowed to point to that silence, and win a case using Salinas' own silence against him.
You know what's a much more recent wrinkle to the potential precedent effect of today's ruling? A case like that of the younger Boston Marathon suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who reportedly sat through 16 hours of questioning before he was read his Miranda rights. Had Tsarnaev, who was recovering from serious injuries at the time, remained silent during questioning without explicitly invoking his Fifth Amendment, prosecutors could, under the Salinas ruling, now use that silence to their advantage.
It all seems sort of almost ridiculously terrifying, this new idea that in order to claim your Fifth Amendment, you need to know how to call the on-the-fly legal equivalent of "safesies." Your right to remain silent just got more complicated, and it will require potential criminals to be more informed about their protections and the linguistic details on how to invoke them. "But does it really mean that the suspect must use the exact words 'Fifth Amendment'? How can an individual who is not a lawyer know that these particular words are legally magic?" Breyer wrote.
What if a guy had been arrested for murdering a member of your family and was refusing to speak and answer questions and as a result the real perpetrator was covering his tracks?
Is that OK?
-
What if a guy had been arrested for murdering a member of your family and was refusing to speak and answer questions and as a result the real perpetrator was covering his tracks?
Is that OK?
When one bring in personal stories, obviously you will feel very strongly vs. it happening to someone else. Evidence and Eyewitness testimony will have to do.
I'm a rogue kinda guy so if a family mowed a mofo down that got off innocent when it was obvious they were guilty, I'd have no problem with some street justice.
-
I'm a rogue kinda guy so if a family mowed a mofo down that got off innocent when it was obvious they were guilty, I'd have no problem with some street justice.
So why start a thread about remaining silent and Miranda rights then?
What difference does it make to you?
Fuck the cops and what they do, hell don't even call them, just hand out a bit of "Wiggs law"
-
So why start a thread about remaining silent and Miranda rights then?
What difference does it make to you?
Fuck the cops and what they do, hell don't even call them, just hand out a bit of "Wiggs law"
Because we live in a world of laws genius. That's why.
-
Because we live in a world of laws genius. That's why.
Laws that you would ignore if you thought those very laws that found the individual not guilty were wrong?
Double standards methinks
-
Laws that you would ignore if you thought those very laws that found the individual not guilty were wrong?
Double standards methinks
I never said I'd ignore them. I said, I'd have no problem with a family mowing the offender down. This has nothing to do with me.
-
I never said I'd ignore them. I said, I'd have no problem with a family mowing the offender down. This has nothing to do with me.
Would you turn the people in to the police who mowed down the man or would you keep quiet?
Careful now it's a trap. ;)
-
Would you turn the people in to the police who mowed down the man or would you keep quiet?
Careful now it's a trap. ;)
Is there evidence that I witnessed them mowing him down?
-
Mexican's are moving here in record amounts. I'm guessing most of them won't know their rights even if they live to be 100.
The only time most of them speak English worth a shit is when they are screaming about their "rights" ::)
-
John Roberts sure isn't who I thought he was. Very disappointed in that dude.
-
John Roberts sure isn't who I thought he was. Very disappointed in that dude.
Yeah, this dude is turning out to be alot more libera; than I thought. I thought for sure he was gonna be a conservative dream.
-
The only time most of them speak English worth a shit is when they are screaming about their "rights" ::)
lol...True.
-
I am always amazed when people talk to the police. "I want to speak to a lawyer" should be the only words spoken to the police.
-
Well why can't they use this on that IRS bitch?
-
3333 should post here he is a lawyer
::)
-
The poor police state...it just doesnt have enough tools in its arsenal....
-
(http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j47/gorman_2006/whack_a_mime.gif)
-
The saying "Your silence is golden" now carries some real weight.
This!
-
Is there evidence that I witnessed them mowing him down?
Hahahaha Its a fictional scenario which exposes a flaw in your argument and morals.
You say we live in a world that has laws and you obey those laws yet you admit its OK for people to kill a man in the street after he has been found not guilty by a jury of his peers because its nothing to do with you????
Thanks for playing wiggs.