Failing to consent (protecting my right) makes me guilty. Nice. "The Law requires we give them a choice". So if the law didn't require it they would be drawing defacto? To be quite honest the road we're on leads to hell. I live in that county and am speechless.
This goes back to my comments on the IRS agent that claimed their 5th Amendment right. It may be legal but goes against the intent of your right not to be forced to incriminate yourself. What is next if you do not confess the police get a “warrant” to beat you until you do confess? Either you have a right not to incriminate yourself or you do not.
Anonymous said, “Failing to consent (protecting my right) makes me guilty.”
Yes, according to the Supreme Court. Unless you specifically claim you right not to speak your silence is proof of your guilt. It is not enough to simply not answer and not incriminate yourself. You must instead specifically claim your 5th amendment not to answer on the grounds it may incriminate you. Just being silent proves you are guilty and can be used to convict you.
According to a Supreme Court ruling, June 17, 2013 – In a 5-4 decision regarding Salinas v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a potential defendant’s silence can be used against them during police interviews prior to arrest and reading of Miranda rights.
As summarized by Lyle Denniston of SCOTUS Blog, “Because merely keeping quiet when police ask damaging questions is not claiming a right to silence, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, prosecutors may use that silence against the suspect at the trial. If an individual is voluntarily talking to the police, he or she must claim the Fifth Amendment right of silence, or lose it; simply saying nothing won’t do, according to the ruling.”
Link to ruling. http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2013/jun/17/goodbye-5th-amendment-supremes-rule-silence-can-be/
I am not a lawyer but at this point and the law is not set I would advise you answer every question the police ask with your invoking the 5th. I have no idea if invoking once at the beginning is enough to to protect you from any further questions. Better safe than convicted.
repeating " I invoke my right to the 5th amendment", after every question,was very common during the witch hunts for american "communists",during the times of " the house of unamerican activities committee".paul robeson's trial was an excellent example.google and try to find.we need good examples to learn from.
Failing to consent (protecting my right) makes me guilty. Nice. "The Law requires we give them a choice". So if the law didn't require it they would be drawing defacto? To be quite honest the road we're on leads to hell. I live in that county and am speechless.
ReplyDeleteOne travesty after another.
DeleteIf this country isn't a shining example of tyranny in progress, I want to know what tyranny is?
ReplyDeleteMichael-- Deo Vindicabamur
Amen.
DeleteThis goes back to my comments on the IRS agent that claimed their 5th Amendment right. It may be legal but goes against the intent of your right not to be forced to incriminate yourself. What is next if you do not confess the police get a “warrant” to beat you until you do confess? Either you have a right not to incriminate yourself or you do not.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said, “Failing to consent (protecting my right) makes me guilty.”
Yes, according to the Supreme Court. Unless you specifically claim you right not to speak your silence is proof of your guilt. It is not enough to simply not answer and not incriminate yourself. You must instead specifically claim your 5th amendment not to answer on the grounds it may incriminate you. Just being silent proves you are guilty and can be used to convict you.
According to a Supreme Court ruling, June 17, 2013 – In a 5-4 decision regarding Salinas v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a potential defendant’s silence can be used against them during police interviews prior to arrest and reading of Miranda rights.
As summarized by Lyle Denniston of SCOTUS Blog, “Because merely keeping quiet when police ask damaging questions is not claiming a right to silence, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, prosecutors may use that silence against the suspect at the trial. If an individual is voluntarily talking to the police, he or she must claim the Fifth Amendment right of silence, or lose it; simply saying nothing won’t do, according to the ruling.”
Link to ruling.
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2013/jun/17/goodbye-5th-amendment-supremes-rule-silence-can-be/
Badger
All I know is that I have always been taught to immediately take the 5th and to not say anything else.
DeleteI am not a lawyer but at this point and the law is not set I would advise you answer every question the police ask with your invoking the 5th. I have no idea if invoking once at the beginning is enough to to protect you from any further questions. Better safe than convicted.
ReplyDeleteBadger
That is the way I remember the people replying on TV when I was very young. Countless questions were answered with the standard 5th reply.
Deleterepeating " I invoke my right to the 5th amendment", after every question,was very common during the witch hunts for american "communists",during the times of " the house of unamerican activities committee".paul robeson's trial was an excellent example.google and try to find.we need good examples to learn from.
ReplyDeleteThe witch hunt which turned out to be spot on.
Delete