Supreme Court rules against the 5th Amendment, your right to remain silent.

Supreme Court rules against the 5th Amendment, your right to remain silent

These kinds of insults to the constitution are coming fairly regularly now. It's almost as if our government is purposely trying to incite the American people to some form of resistance.

It's horrid and for anyone old enough to remember life prior to the mid-late 1990s, the whole thing today is like a nightmare. This kind of shredding of rights and liberties would have been unthinkable just even two decades ago.

Why don't they just start water boarding every American citizen who refuses to speak? I mean, it works so well at Gitmo for them, I'm sure that will be their next "law".

So, let me see if I understand this and someone please correct me if I am wrong.

The SCOTUS ruled that your 5th Amendment right only applies if you invoke it. Otherwise, it doesn't apply to you. Therefore, they have ruled that it isn't a right but a privilege that you must speak up about otherwise, by default, you saying nothing is an admission of guilt.

Have I got that correct?

reply to post by GAOTU789


That would seem to be what they have ruled. To be used as an opening for lawyer tricks against jurors who are gullible.

I feel for someone who would fall for it as an argument for guilt. No too sharp in the mental area.

reply to post by gladtobehere


Isn't it the govt's job to protect our rights not shred them? The US is failing, does anybody question this anymore?
The US govt is breaking the social contract each and every single day, so what duty does any reasonable citizen owe a govt that breaks their own rules when it suits them.

reply to post by GAOTU789

I'm not sure that you do have it quite correctly.

Remember what happened in this particular case. The suspect is not under arrest, he's answering questions about the crime, talking like a parrot. Then, a question gets asked directly connecting him to the crime and he doesn't answer that particular question. Why? Is he taking time to think up a possible lie? Is he mentally reviewing what he's already told the police to make his story convincing? What?

The Court said, that in this case, you can't just assume he's invoking his rights, he's got to offer something to indicate that's what he's doing. Further, it's all right for the prosecutor to tell the jury that the suspect stopped talking when that particular question came up, and that it could be taken as a sign of guilt.

Remember, it's not as though he wouldn't talk to police. It's not a situation where the police picked him up and he never said a word, that would have been a more interesting case. It seems that the posters think that's what happened here, but they're incorrect.

What I find interesting is the original issue, not addressed, was it should not have been allowed to be used due to it being in a chat with police.

Instead we hear that the 5th must be invoked to apply.

reply to post by gladtobehere



Let them remain silent and charge them with obstruction of justice for doing it.

I think this is being spun deceptively.

To me it sounds like the ruling means officers can ask you questions until you tell them to stop. It's saying officers don't have to wait for you to decline the fifth amendment. That's it.

And there's nothing saying officers don't have to read you your miranda rights, so they still notify you that you have the right to remain silent.

Saying this ruins the fifth amendment is misleading. It doesn't come close.

As with everything, we assume we know the meaning, but rarely do. The legal definition of words does not always mean what we thing. For example, remain silent. Means you don't have to talk, right?


no.

Each word has a meaning

Remain

Continue to exist, esp. after other similar or related people or things have ceased to exist.
Stay in the place that one has been occupying.

Silent: Not speaking ( of a person)

So we have the right not to speak or not speaking to continue to exist after things has ceased to exist?

From the point of arrest you should not say anything, at all. If you do, how can you assert a right to remain silent, if you are noisily protesting your innocence? You have not been silent, therefore you cannot remain so.

The word "come along quietly now sir" perhaps are words of advice, rather than a command.

Originally posted by beezzer

I don't know.

To be honest, I'm confused.

Just invoke your 5th.......


::::::::::::Gives tissue to the bloody nosed Rabbit::::::::::::::

reply to post by GAOTU789


Yep.

So much for inalienable rights...

reply to post by gladtobehere


what a bunch of word playing nonsense, typical judge judy crap satire used in modern court.
They do this all the time when they want to win.

Its those scripted play alongs were all being FORCED to play execpt that the Judge is one of the Bad guys, shes on the defendants side no matter what. so the judge is going to wordplay you until you lose!.

Here's a small example bull court trial;

Judge Judy: "did the thief say he broke in your home to steal?"

Victim: "No mam"

Judge Judy: "so how do you know he was a thief?"

Victim: "because he broke into my house with a mask!"

Judge Judy: "ah! but the defendant claims that the door was open and that he just wanted to use the phone to call 911 for his friend because his friend, the "witness" who was waiting in the car, was enduring deep chest pains possible heart attack which could result possible death and YOU the VICTIM would of let that happened after you attacked the defendant!"

Victim: "but what about the mask!?"

Judge Judy: "it wasnt a mask it was a hoodie because it was cold that night and to you it appeared to be mask after you were woken up from a deep sleep when you heard all the noise"
"So i ask you again did he or did he not say he broke into your house to steal?"

Victim: "NO! but but?!!

Judge Judy: "You hear that people his answer is NO so i hereby yadaydayada the defendant wins and you owe 3,000 dollar fine for attacking him, case dismissed!"

reply to post by GAOTU789


yep like i said its just a bunch of word playing nonsense that we all have to agree on because they are the ones that make the laws

reply to post by gladtobehere


I guess this really does prove what people have said for years now.

"Damned if you do and damned if you don't"!

So in reality, the supreme court did not rule against the 5th amendment, they just clarified that you have to invoke it.

If you just don't speak, that in an of itself does not invoke the 5th.

Originally posted by Ghost375


And there's nothing saying officers don't have to read you your miranda rights, so they still notify you that you have the right to remain silent.

Actually, this doesn't really have anything to do with Miranda as the person wasn't under arrest, therefore Miranda does not apply. This is all about whether the 5th is an inalienable right or a privilege you need to invoke.

reply to post by Wildbob77

You're pretty much right.

Remember, though, that the guy volunteered to answer questions, and he was answering then left and right. Then, for no obvious reason, he stopped talking. He did claim any rights, he just shut his mouth.

His attorneys said. "Well, obviously, he was invoking his 5th Amendment rights."

The Court said (paraphrasing) "What are you guys, mindreaders? And you think the police are mindreaders? By answering questions, he told the police he was willing to talk and answer questions. (Duh) That doesn't sound like someone exercizing the right to remain silent. "

A couple of simple questions.

Is a US citizen required to invoke their 1st Amendment rights or is it understood that you just have it?
Is a US citizen required to invoke their 2nd Amendment rights or is it understood that you just have it?
Is a US citizen required to invoke their 4th Amendment rights or is it understood that you just have it?
Is a US citizen required to invoke their 6th Amendment rights or is it understood that you just have it?

reply to post by GAOTU789

Dear GAOTU789,

The Court has recognized for decades that a person can waive their 5th Amendment rights. They are allowed to talk to the police, even after arrest, if they want to.

This person wanted to talk to the police. He was, by all Court precedent, waiving his 5th Amendment rights. The question is, did he ever "Unwaive" them? The Court said that he didn't.

With respect,
Charles1952