Today's SCOTUS Salinas decision

[poikilotrm]

Pure fucking evil:

Supreme Court Rules That Pre-Miranda Silence Can Be Used In Court
By JESSE J. HOLLAND 06/17/13 11:27 AM ET EDT AP

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/1 ... 53968.html

[700PSS]

Prosecutors argued that since Salinas was answering some questions – therefore not invoking his right to silence – and since he wasn't under arrest and wasn't compelled to speak, his silence on the incriminating question doesn't get constitutional protection.

Salinas' "Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer's question," Justice Samuel Alito said. "It has long been settled that the privilege `generally is not self-executing' and that a witness who desires its protection `must claim it.'"

[continuity]

... Justice Samuel Alito said. "It has long been settled that the privilege `generally is not self-executing' and that a witness who desires its protection `must claim it.'"

Pure bullshit. If someone provides "spontaneous utterances" that is is one thing. If they don't say anything or say they don't want to talk about "it"... that's all needed to protect them.

[Libertarian_Geek]

It's not called the bill of privileges for a good reason.

[doubloon]

... that's all needed to protect them.

Plus a snorkel. And maybe a swim cap and some goggles. Waterboarding before Miranda is probably not entirely illegal either.

[-k-]

Don't start talking to the cops if you don't want to incriminate yourself. I don't think it's the courts job to protect people who don't care enough to know about their Rights from themselves.

[TROOPER]

He wasn't arrested. He CHOSE to speak to the cops.

Regarding Miranda rights.... I don't think they should've ever been codified as a "must-say" at the time of arrest. Here is why I think that way... if you break the law and claim you didn't know any better, then that is not a viable legal defense. But the police are REQUIRED to inform you of your rights?

The courts are saying two different things here:
- People ARE responsible for knowing the law.
- People are NOT responsible for knowing their own rights.

It's one or the other. It's not both.

Side note: I heard from a friend of mine that artificial vanilla is often made from the anal glands of beavers. This sounded very much like an urban myth, but I went ahead and Google'd it, and sure enough.... total reality. The hell of it is that the manufacturers can still put "natural ingredients" since beavers naturally have anal glands.

So who was the first person to eat out the ass-end of a beaver and think, "I'm eating a vanilla ice cream cone"?

Also, "Google" is misspelled. It is supposed to be "Googol", but the original investment check was made out to "Google", so the company just ran with it.

[Libertarian_Geek]

He wasn't arrested. He CHOSE to speak to the cops.

Regarding Miranda rights.... I don't think they should've ever been codified as a "must-say" at the time of arrest. Here is why I think that way... if you break the law and claim you didn't know any better, then that is not a viable legal defense. But the police are REQUIRED to inform you of your rights?

The courts are saying two different things here:
- People ARE responsible for knowing the law.
- People are NOT responsible for knowing their own rights.

It's one or the other. It's not both.

Side note: I heard from a friend of mine that artificial vanilla is often made from the anal glands of beavers. This sounded very much like an urban myth, but I went ahead and Google'd it, and sure enough.... total reality. The hell of it is that the manufacturers can still put "natural ingredients" since beavers naturally have anal glands.

So who was the first person to eat out the ass-end of a beaver and think, "I'm eating a vanilla ice cream cone"?

Also, "Google" is misspelled. It is supposed to be "Googol", but the original investment check was made out to "Google", so the company just ran with it.

Feeding the tangent:
http://www.vrg.org/blog/2011/06/17/beav ... facturers/

[TROOPER]

So you admit that the bit about "Google" was right?

[poikilotrm]

Pure bullshit. If someone provides "spontaneous utterances" that is is one thing. If they don't say anything or say they don't want to talk about "it"... that's all needed to protect them.

I'm right with you on res gestae. If they are stupid enough to run their mouth then too bad for them. If they say nothing, they say nothing, and that's it. A right to remain silent means a right to remain silent. You don't ever have to say anything to anybody in this country except under very narrowly defined circumstances such as "hostile witness" and secondary to invoking Garrity.