RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty

RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Real0ne -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 10:18:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave I'm talking about principles, not about a one-sided retelling of one particular case. Let me ask you a yes or no question. Let's keep it simple. Should police be allowed truthfully to testify in criminal trials concerning their observations? what do you mean by "truthfully"? testimony is the process to root out FACTS nothing more. Its very easy to testify to 100% fact and it can be a complete and total lie which is why we now have degrees of fact in our fucked up system. The system gets fucked up when the government twists shit to protect themselves to maintain overlordship.

truckinslave -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 10:25:29 AM)
You have cited not a case, but a law firms opinion of a case. The case about which they opine is a civil matter in federal court and as such has little or no bearing to this discussion. Further, even then, the opinion referenced said: Supreme Court clarified that holding and explained that an adverse inference may not be drawn from silence alone, and must be considered as one of several factors. Se The admissibility of police testimony in state court in criminal cases remains, evidently, a matter for the ststes. Do you read these things before you post them?

truckinslave -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 10:27:56 AM)
Poker playing is good training.....

slaveluci -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 10:30:42 AM)
~FR~ I haven't read all the pages of responses here but have some random thoughts. The Miranda warning includes the phrase "anything you say can AND WILL be used AGAINST you." It doesn't say it "might" be used against you. It doesn't say anything you freely and voluntarily say will ever be used FOR you or to show you were a good little cooperatin' witness when they asked. If they bother to read you this warning before you start talking, it says right in there any words that come out o' your mouth are GOING to be used AGAINST you. You, in your naïve, trusting state think "well, if I have nothing to hide, why not talk." Don't ever think that. Experienced cops with lots of interrogating experience have come forth to warn us not to fall for that. There's some great videos on YouTube on the subject. If they had the information they needed, they wouldn't be on a fishing expedition to get it from you. You have the right to not consent to searches either. My former criminal justice instructor - a retired state cop who'd worked out west and in Dade County, FL - told us flat-out that many times they are just fishing when they ask to search a car and that they would not be able to obtain a warrant. He pretty much told people not to consent to such searches. It's all fun and games and love for the cops until they fuck you or yours. Then a critical eye comes a little more naturally. And if you want proof this happens, read the news on any given day. They have a vested interest in locking people up, seizing their assets, fill in the blank. Of course, not all cops are bad but it doesn't have to be all of them. Just the ones who get ahold of you......luci

Wendel27 -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 10:37:14 AM)
I'm genuinely surprised at the difference between America and Britain if that's the case Luci. Here when you are cautioned it is explicit that what you say MAY be given in evidence and that anything you rely on in court [i.e. an explanation] may be harmed if you do not mention it when questioned by police [i.e. an inference of guilt could be made by a jury]. Over here refusing to speak to the police if you're innocent is a disastrous course action though it's occasionaly promulgated by people such as the Freemen on the Land. The only people i'd ''recommend'' holding their tongue are those so guilty they need time to construct a defence.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 10:42:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wendel27 I'm genuinely surprised at the difference between America and /britain if that's the case Luci. Here when you are cautioned it is explicit that what you say MAY be given in evidence and that anything you rely on in court [i.e. an explanation] may be harmed if you do not mention it when questioned by police [i.e. an inference of guilt could be made by a jury]. Over here refusing to speak to the police if you're innocent is a disastrous course action though it's occasionaly promulgated by people such as the Freemen on the Land. The only people i'd ''recommend'' holding their tongue are those so guilty they need time to construct a defence. Unfortunately, it's not uncommon for cops, here, to "help cases along". I've heard some cops refer to their appearances in court as "testalying". To be fair, also, it's kind of "natural" behavior for investigators not trained in scientific method to get focused on an idea and to try to fit evidence into their theory. Add in the fact that cops and prosecutors advance their career based on arrest/conviction ratios and you get a real fucking judicial nightmare. Peace and comfort, Michael

mnottertail -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 10:46:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave You have cited not a case, but a law firms opinion of a case. The case about which they opine is a civil matter in federal court and as such has little or no bearing to this discussion. Further, even then, the opinion referenced said: Supreme Court clarified that holding and explained that an adverse inference may not be drawn from silence alone, and must be considered as one of several factors. Se The admissibility of police testimony in state court in criminal cases remains, evidently, a matter for the ststes. Do you read these things before you post them? Yes, and you should read or learn to as well, several cites in that document: As in: 1. It is widely recognized that an adverse inference may be drawn against a person who has asserted the privilege in civil and administrative cases. See Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976) (holding that respondent’s Fifth Amendment rights were not violated where he was advised that he was not required to testify, but that his silence could be held against him); Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 326 (9th Cir. 1994) (same); LaSalle Bank Lake View v. Seguban, 54 F.3d 387, 390-91 (7th Cir. 1995) (same). 2 2. A year after the Baxter decision, the Supreme Court clarified that holding and explained that an adverse inference may not be drawn from silence alone, and must be considered as one of several factors. See Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801, 808 n.5 (1977) (stating that “[r]espondent’s silence in Baxter was only one of a number of factors to be considered by the finder of fact in assessing a penalty and was given no more probative value than the facts of the case warranted”); SEC v. Colello, 139 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 1998) (explaining that “Lefkowitz and Baxter require that there be evidence in addition to the adverse inference to support a court’s ruling”). 3. In light of Baxter, adverse inferences may be drawn.... And that is not the entire citations. So, spewing asswipe is not much of a way to make you look like anything other than an untutored imbecile. I hope that is not the ideal you are attempting to portray.... Because I said at the outset, filled with caselaw...........and WHOMP, THERE IT IS!!!! Because (and that was part of the decision, the circuits had went some for and some against. Now its all for, as a matter of doctrine.

Wendel27 -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 10:47:00 AM)
Fair enough Satyr but i'd have thought the flip side of that, particuarly for very wealthy suspects, is that they can simply stay silent, delay court for as long as possible and hope that witnesses fade away literally and simply in quality and then when they take the stand prsent a concocted story once they've had huge amounts of time to craft and prepare one...with no penalties for doing so. I appreciate that it seems to differ from state to state but that seems a flaw. Then again if the Miranda is slightly different to our caution then maybe they balance out.

truckinslave -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 10:53:25 AM)
Well, okay; you answered the question, sort of. Either you don't read it or you don't understand it. quote: 1. It is widely recognized that an adverse inference may be drawn against a person who has asserted the privilege in civil and administrative cases. See Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976) (holding that respondent’s Fifth Amendment rights were not violated where he was advised that he was not required to testify, but that his silence could be held against him)i

mnottertail -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 10:58:11 AM)
Yeah, you didnt read it and you have never understood much. I have stated, and will restate that under different circuits it was there is a prejudice, and there isn't prejudice. The legislators from the bench says now that in all cases in all jurisdictions it is prejudice.

truckinslave -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 11:02:16 AM)
I'll make a deal with you. I'll reread that post if you make a real effort to render it intelligible, paying particular emphasis to such things as verb-subject agreement.

mnottertail -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 11:04:56 AM)
Reread the original. Reread it till you understand it, I wrote it for third grade comprehension, and you have exhibited near that fleetingly over time.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 11:07:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wendel27 Fair enough Satyr but i'd have thought the flip side of that, particuarly for very wealthy suspects, is that they can simply stay silent, delay court for as long as possible and hope that witnesses fade away literally and simply in quality and then when they take the stand prsent a concocted story once they've had huge amounts of time to craft and prepare one...with no penalties for doing so. I appreciate that it seems to differ from state to state but that seems a flaw. Then again if the Miranda is slightly different to our caution then maybe they balance out. I guess someone who is really superrich could do it but how many people have enough resources to outlast the government? Don't get me wrong, "stalling" is a tactic that is used but it is rarely one that works as far as guilt or innocense (except in the times when it has given the media circus time to die down so the defendant has some chance at finding a jury that hasn't already heard about the case). Things are quite a bit different here than they are in "Merry olde" and, when I was younger, I used to think that was a good thing. I don't know that it is, though. The way you described it, things *may* be used against you in court (I believe I got that right without looking back?). That kind of begs the question: How does one know which things may be used and which things may not be used? I have been very fortunate in my life and have had precious few dealings with law enforcement looking at me seriously for any serious crime but, if read Miranda rights, my first and only word would be "Lawyer" and then, I would clam up and do my best to show no emotion with facial expressions, etc. Peace and comfort, Michael

KittyDeVille -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 11:09:30 AM)
It is very important to stress the difference between a judge ruling or a jury. I thought only in the UK there are rulings by a jury. Not in the rest of europe. It makes a lot of difference in how a judicial system is working.

KittyDeVille -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 11:26:48 AM)
Emotions (the interpretation) aren't facts, if they were, they would be called facts. If someone is convicted because of the interpretation of emotions, just seems like the judicial system isnt doing their job. What about any reasonable doubt ?

Wendel27 -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 11:28:50 AM)
The Caution here Satyr is ''YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING BUT IT MAY HARM YOUR DEFENCE IF YOU FAIL TO MENTION WHEN QUESTIONED SOMETHING YOU LATER RELY ON IN COURT. ANYTHING YOU DO SAY MAY BE GIVEN IN EVIDENCE''. That caution is given when an officer wants to ask a person in depth questions about a crime [if they are a suspect]. It is also given on arrest [if practicable that can be disregarded until an officer has got complete control]. It will then be given again when you go for interview with your legal counsel [if you want them]. All it means is that the police cannot force you to speak. However equally if you have a reasonable explanation but choose not to divulge it until court then the judge can direct the jury to consider why you kept silent in the first place. You may have a decent reason for that...but it would have to be good it negative inferences weren't to be drawn i.e. you've just used the time between arrest and court to make up a story. The may be given in evidence bit works both ways. Lots of what people say after caution is irrelevant to the crime they are suspected of. But if they say things that demonstrate guilt or innocence then those can be used [by the prosecution or defence]. The defence have full access to any statements made, the aresting officer's pocket notebook and the interview tapes. Likewise if you're clearly innocent because of something you've said but you wouldn't want it to come out i.e. you were having an affair and that gave you an alibi you have to be warned that saying that will end up in court. The rule of thumb is if it has a bearing on the case [whether innocnet or guilty] it'll end up in court. Clamming up till the lawyer gets there is fine [though it means you'll probably be arrested so you can be interviewed] it's when the clamming up continues during interview that you'll encounter problems as that silence casts you in a very poor light at court.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 11:32:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Wendel27 I'm genuinely surprised at the difference between America and /britain if that's the case Luci. Here when you are cautioned it is explicit that what you say MAY be given in evidence and that anything you rely on in court [i.e. an explanation] may be harmed if you do not mention it when questioned by police [i.e. an inference of guilt could be made by a jury]. Over here refusing to speak to the police if you're innocent is a disastrous course action though it's occasionaly promulgated by people such as the Freemen on the Land. The only people i'd ''recommend'' holding their tongue are those so guilty they need time to construct a defence. Unfortunately, it's not uncommon for cops, here, to "help cases along". I've heard some cops refer to their appearances in court as "testalying". To be fair, also, it's kind of "natural" behavior for investigators not trained in scientific method to get focused on an idea and to try to fit evidence into their theory. Add in the fact that cops and prosecutors advance their career based on arrest/conviction ratios and you get a real fucking judicial nightmare. Peace and comfort, Michael Wouldn't it be nice if a police officer who is shown to be lying in court had the same penalty as the rest of us? As a FR regarding the 5th, if anyone is accused of anything worse than speeding, don't say a fucking word without an attorney present. That way, they are less likely to lie about what you said. Am I claiming that cops LIE in court? Damn right I am because I've seen it.

Wendel27 -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 11:37:13 AM)
That's one of the biggest difference between policing here and in America. British police cannot lie or use decpetion during interview to get a confession and to do so is a very serious offence.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 11:37:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wendel27 The Caution here Satyr is ''YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING BUT IT MAY HARM YOUR DEFENCE IF YOU FAIL TO MENTION WHEN QUESTIONED SOMETHING YOU LATER RELY ON IN COURT. ANYTHING YOU DO SAY MAY BE GIVEN IN EVIDENCE''. That caution is given when an officer wants to ask a person in depth questions about a crime [if they are a suspect]. It is also given on arrest [if practicable that can be disregarded until an officer has got complete control]. It will then be given again when you go for interview with your legal counsel [if you want them]. All it means is that the police cannot force you to speak. However equally if you have a reasonable explanation but choose not to divulge it until court then the judge can direct the jury to consider why you kept silent in the first place. You may have a decent reason for that...but it would have to be good it negative inferences weren't to be drawn i.e. you've just used the time between arrest and court to make up a story. The may be given in evidence bit works both ways. Lots of what people say after caution is irrelevant to the crime they are suspected of. But if they say things that demonstrate guilt or innocence then those can be used [by the prosecution or defence]. The defence have full access to any statements made, the aresting officer's pocket notebook and the interview tapes. Likewise if you're clearly innocent because of something you've said but you wouldn't want it to come out i.e. you were having an affair and that gave you an alibi you have to be warned that saying that will end up in court. The rule of thumb is if it has a bearing on the case [whether innocnet or guilty] it'll end up in court. Clamming up till the lawyer gets there is fine [though it means you'll probably be arrested so you can be interviewed] it's when the clamming up continues during interview that you'll encounter problems as that silence casts you in a very poor light at court. That part in the red wouldn't fly here (at least I've never heard it). Yes, our systems are very different. I'm not saying one is better or not. Our system has lots of issues that need fixing, to be sure, but I would never hold silence against anyone, if I were sitting on a jury in this country. Other things? Maybe. If a cop tells a suspect: "We found John Doe with his tongue cut out" and the suspect responds with a smug little smile or eyes lighting up in pleasant surprise (or dancing a jig, I suppose), I would give that some weight. Peace and comfort, Michael

Wendel27 -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (7/1/2013 11:40:09 AM)
''I'm not saying one is better or not'' Absolutely Satyr I think both our judicial systems have both great and awful components.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625