Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty

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

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

Message

egern -> Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (6/30/2013 1:53:44 PM)
I would like to know what people think of this one: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty "Following a double homicide, Houston police asked Genovevo Salinas in for questioning. He cooperated for an hour, even agreeing to give the police his shotgun for them to investigate. When asked whether the shells would correspond with evidence found at the murder scene, Salinas did not respond. Instead, police reported that he “shuffled his feet, bit his lip, and started to tighten up.” This silence was used as evidence of his guilt in a subsequent trial, even though there was no video footage of this questioning to confirm his behavior." http://www.care2.com/causes/your-right-to-remain-silent-means-youre-guilty.html

BitYakin -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (6/30/2013 2:13:37 PM)
well that whole pleading the fifth thing has some inherit holes in it the I refuse to answer because it may incriminate me begs the question, if you had done nothing criminal how could answering incriminate you??

popeye1250 -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (6/30/2013 2:27:58 PM)
Well, anytime the police call you in "for questioning" it means that they ..."need something." They don't have enough. Just say, "I don't want you to ask me any questions, I don't want to answer any questions and at this time I am invoking my 5 th amendment rights." Anytime you talk or say something you are "giving" them something.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (6/30/2013 2:34:43 PM)
The right to remain silent is only useful if people use it. You can't start co-operating and then, stop. This sounds like a case of someone thinking they're smarter than the police officers. When the police "invite" you to their place for a little "chat", you say: "Am I under arrest?" "Am I in custody?" "Am I suspected of something". These are all *very* important little bits of information that must be made clear. If the answer to the first two is "No", feel free to tell them to piss up a rope and then, call a lawyer. If the answer to the last one is "No", they're lying to you (because no one is beyond suspicion). Clam up and call a lawyer. If the answer to the first two is "Yes", clam up and call a lawyer. Is anyone noticing a pattern developing, here? Peace and comfort, Michael

truckinslave -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (6/30/2013 2:35:04 PM)
Are you saying that the behavior of a suspect being questioned by police should not be related to the jury by those same officers??? ROFL And if you're not saying that, what exactly are you saying?

Zonie63 -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (6/30/2013 2:37:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: egern I would like to know what people think of this one: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty "Following a double homicide, Houston police asked Genovevo Salinas in for questioning. He cooperated for an hour, even agreeing to give the police his shotgun for them to investigate. When asked whether the shells would correspond with evidence found at the murder scene, Salinas did not respond. Instead, police reported that he “shuffled his feet, bit his lip, and started to tighten up.” This silence was used as evidence of his guilt in a subsequent trial, even though there was no video footage of this questioning to confirm his behavior." http://www.care2.com/causes/your-right-to-remain-silent-means-youre-guilty.html Something seems missing here. If they're saying that his silence means he is guilty, then why wouldn't they also use the physical evidence that they're referring to (shotgun, shells)? Why they are even asking him whether the shells would correspond with the evidence scene, when they could have easily checked themselves? The article suggests that they didn't actually check the physical evidence and that the conviction was solely based on his fidgety silence during questioning.

TheHeretic -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (6/30/2013 2:49:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: egern I would like to know what people think of this one: I think the escalating war on the fundamental liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights should be of great concern to every American. In this particular case, the suspect was voluntarily answering questions, and his demeanor when he stopped is relevant.

MrRodgers -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (6/30/2013 2:53:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr The right to remain silent is only useful if people use it. You can't start co-operating and then, stop. This sounds like a case of someone thinking they're smarter than the police officers. When the police "invite" you to their place for a little "chat", you say: "Am I under arrest?" "Am I in custody?" "Am I suspected of something". These are all *very* important little bits of information that must be made clear. If the answer to the first two is "No", feel free to tell them to piss up a rope and then, call a lawyer. If the answer to the last one is "No", they're lying to you (because no one is beyond suspicion). Clam up and call a lawyer. If the answer to the first two is "Yes", clam up and call a lawyer. Is anyone noticing a pattern developing, here? Peace and comfort, Michael Oh yes you can. You can talk all you want and clam up anytime you think they are getting too close to home. The pattern you write of though is a pattern of our slow enexorable trip to a fascist police state where those who invoke their constitutional rights will be immediately under even greater suspicion. The forth amend. is already dead.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (6/30/2013 3:25:32 PM)
FR~ As someone who is neither an American nor lives in the US, I don't see the point in the 5th. A genuine person that hasn't committed any crime has no reason to lie to police and by default, any testimony wouldn't be self-incriminating. But, if they decide to plead the 5th, one can only assume you have something to hide with regard to the case you are being questioned about. So in essence, by pleading the 5th you must be guilty of something otherwise why hide behind it?? There is no sane or logical reason why anyone would need to hide behind the 5th if they had nothing to hide in the first place. So yes, if you exercise your right to remain silent, that implies guilt to me. The only thing missing is the details.

truckinslave -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (6/30/2013 3:31:34 PM)
That is, I think, an accurate analysis of the 5th. And, btw, that's how the invocation of the 5th has always been seen- as casting (further) suspicion of wrongdoing on the person who invokes it.

Aswad -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (6/30/2013 3:38:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin the I refuse to answer because it may incriminate me begs the question, if you had done nothing criminal how could answering incriminate you?? 1a. Answers can be used against you. 1b. Under pressure, you're more likely to give a poor answer (i.e. one that may hurt your case). 1c. Your advocate (i.e. lawyer) is trained to consider your best interests, and experienced with the police and courts, and will- if competent- be able to consider what information should be passed to the police and how that information should be worded to best serve your interests. Let's say you've had a blackout from drinking or whatever, and the police tell you that you've done something. Reeling from the way your life is suddenly no longer on sure footing, you give impulsive or poorly considered answers. Like a majority of humans, you resort to confabulation to fill some of the blanks in your memory, without even realizing it. A foundation for a conviction has now been laid, even if you didn't actually do anything. 2a. Dishonest answers are a problem for all parties involved. 2b. Answering the question honestly may touch on other sensitive matters, even if you haven't committed any crime. 2c. Withholding information about those irrelevant (for the case) sensitive matters may be construed as guilt unless that is prohibited. Let's say you've been out with your mistress. Police want to question you about a crime for which you have an alibi with her, but where the specifics matter, such that you cannot provide the details they want without divulging your affair and thus potentially harming your marriage or even incriminating yourself in some circumstances. Lying will be a problem, tends to be criminal, and invariably arouses suspicion. Talking around the affair and clamming up about that part of it, obviously, will seem like you're hiding something, because you are. So, you don't talk at all, and let your advocate sort out the details of what you should and shouldn't say. 3. You're under no obligation to cooperate in this way, guilty or not. Proving your guilt is the prosecution's role, not yours. 4. It raises the question, rather than begging it. Just some thoughts... IWYW, — Aswad.

DomKen -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (6/30/2013 3:44:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Are you saying that the behavior of a suspect being questioned by police should not be related to the jury by those same officers??? ROFL And if you're not saying that, what exactly are you saying? If someone invokes the fifth or their right to speak to an attorney that should not be used to attempt to show their guilt in court. That violates the very most basic element of innocent until proven guilty.

DomKen -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (6/30/2013 3:46:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Something seems missing here. If they're saying that his silence means he is guilty, then why wouldn't they also use the physical evidence that they're referring to (shotgun, shells)? Why they are even asking him whether the shells would correspond with the evidence scene, when they could have easily checked themselves? The article suggests that they didn't actually check the physical evidence and that the conviction was solely based on his fidgety silence during questioning. Beyond maybe identifying brand I'm not sure there is anything else to be gained by comparing shotgun shells. I think it was a bluff by the investigators. Thery are legally allowed to deceive and mislead to attempt to get a confession.

Aswad -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (6/30/2013 3:49:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 I don't see the point in the 5th. [...] So yes, if you exercise your right to remain silent, that implies guilt to me. This is why the 5th amendment needs to be in place: to a lot of people, it's not immediately obvious that it should be. If it had been immediately obvious to the average citizen, there would be no need for the 5th amendment. Note, also, that the 5th amendment covers a variety of legal rights: (a) the right to be tried in front of a jury, (b) the right not to have double jeopardy, (c) the right not to be a witness against yourself, (d) the right to due process and (e) the right to compensation when property is confiscated. Finally, note that the 5th amendment doesn't prohibit anyone from interpreting your silence, though perhaps it should've. IWYW, — Aswad.

popeye1250 -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (6/30/2013 3:51:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 FR~ As someone who is neither an American nor lives in the US, I don't see the point in the 5th. A genuine person that hasn't committed any crime has no reason to lie to police and by default, any testimony wouldn't be self-incriminating. But, if they decide to plead the 5th, one can only assume you have something to hide with regard to the case you are being questioned about. So in essence, by pleading the 5th you must be guilty of something otherwise why hide behind it?? There is no sane or logical reason why anyone would need to hide behind the 5th if they had nothing to hide in the first place. So yes, if you exercise your right to remain silent, that implies guilt to me. The only thing missing is the details. And then we have President Pantload who spent what,...$2 million to have all his records sealed? I wonder why he did that? Surely he has nothing to hide. Right?

thompsonx -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (6/30/2013 3:52:16 PM)
quote: Thery are legally allowed to deceive and mislead to attempt to get a confession. What do you think about that?

Just0Us0Two -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (6/30/2013 3:56:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Something seems missing here. If they're saying that his silence means he is guilty, then why wouldn't they also use the physical evidence that they're referring to (shotgun, shells)? Why they are even asking him whether the shells would correspond with the evidence scene, when they could have easily checked themselves? The article suggests that they didn't actually check the physical evidence and that the conviction was solely based on his fidgety silence during questioning. Beyond maybe identifying brand I'm not sure there is anything else to be gained by comparing shotgun shells. I think it was a bluff by the investigators. They are legally allowed to deceive and mislead to attempt to get a confession. They could possibly compare the strike mark made by the firing pin on the primer of his shotgun with shells found at the scene, but yes it sounds like they were bluffing.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (6/30/2013 4:17:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 I don't see the point in the 5th. [...] So yes, if you exercise your right to remain silent, that implies guilt to me. This is why the 5th amendment needs to be in place: to a lot of people, it's not immediately obvious that it should be. If it had been immediately obvious to the average citizen, there would be no need for the 5th amendment. Note, also, that the 5th amendment covers a variety of legal rights: (a) the right to be tried in front of a jury, (b) the right not to have double jeopardy, (c) the right not to be a witness against yourself, (d) the right to due process and (e) the right to compensation when property is confiscated. Finally, note that the 5th amendment doesn't prohibit anyone from interpreting your silence, though perhaps it should've. IWYW, — Aswad. I realise that the 5th has other legal implications and most that I would approve of. But the topic was about your right to remain silent so that's the only angle I stole from the 5th [:D]

DomKen -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (6/30/2013 4:22:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 And then we have President Pantload who spent what,...$2 million to have all his records sealed? I wonder why he did that? Surely he has nothing to hide. Right? It's so sad that you still believe such a thoroughly disproven lie.

TheHeretic -> RE: Your Right to Remain Silent Means You’re Guilty (6/30/2013 4:24:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two They could possibly compare the strike mark made by the firing pin on the primer of his shotgun with shells found at the scene, but yes it sounds like they were bluffing. They would have the markings created by the shells being ejected from the gun.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.1269531