Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:So they're informed they have the right to remain silent, they acknowledge they understand they have the right to remain silent, they don't talk for a while, then admit to something important after sustained questioning.

How long would they need to be silent before you would like for them to have implicitly invoked the right to remain silent?

Previously, cops had to prove that a person waived their rights, usually be having them sign a waiver. Now, it's not necessary to prove that a suspect waived their rights in writing. So intense interrogation can begin immediately after the reading of the Miranda rights, without cops having to even prove understanding of rights. As someone naturally suspicious of police officer, I generally dont like giving them more leeway to trick people into giving up their rights.

But Steven Shapiro, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the case "demonstrates the power of custodial interrogation to wear down the defendant's willpower, which is what Miranda was designed to prevent."

After a cop reads you your miranda rights, you say, "I want a lawyer."

It's really rather simple.

Is anyone else following the insanity of the Republican primary for South Carolina governor? (i.e. Nikki Haley) Krikeys.

SQUIRE

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:So they're informed they have the right to remain silent, they acknowledge they understand they have the right to remain silent, they don't talk for a while, then admit to something important after sustained questioning.

How long would they need to be silent before you would like for them to have implicitly invoked the right to remain silent?

Previously, cops had to prove that a person waived their rights, usually be having them sign a waiver. Now, it's not necessary to prove that a suspect waived their rights in writing. So intense interrogation can begin immediately after the reading of the Miranda rights, without cops having to even prove understanding of rights. As someone naturally suspicious of police officer, I generally dont like giving them more leeway to trick people into giving up their rights.

But Steven Shapiro, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the case "demonstrates the power of custodial interrogation to wear down the defendant's willpower, which is what Miranda was designed to prevent."

As someone naturally suspicious of murderers, I'm a fan.

TenuredVulture wrote:After a cop reads you your miranda rights, you say, "I want a lawyer."

It's really rather simple.

You and I understand this. But I can't help but think of all the people on death row who were subsequently cleared by DNA evidence. They were there for a number of reasons, but a large reason is because of false confessions under intense interrogations. These people tend to have lower IQs, little understanding of their rights, and were likely panic-stricken during questioning. Police are already allowed to lie about certain things during questioning to provoke answers, suggest possible deals given a confession, etc.

This Supreme Court case hurts these folks who don't know how to protect themselves. Some may say, "Too bad, learn your rights." But it doesn't help a guy with a 70 IQ to tell him to get smarter about his Constitutional protections. I think our laws , especially concerning such an important aspect of our judicial system (the rights surrounding the 5th amendment), should protect all of our citizens as equally as possible.

Squire wrote:Is anyone else following the insanity of the Republican primary for South Carolina governor? (i.e. Nikki Haley) Krikeys.

SQUIRE

I've heard about it--from what I understand, someone has made accusations concerning carnal relations with Ms. Haley. But as far as I know, there's no corroborating evidence. Am I incorrect about corroboration?

TenuredVulture wrote:

Squire wrote:Is anyone else following the insanity of the Republican primary for South Carolina governor? (i.e. Nikki Haley) Krikeys.

SQUIRE

I've heard about it--from what I understand, someone has made accusations concerning carnal relations with Ms. Haley. But as far as I know, there's no corroborating evidence. Am I incorrect about corroboration?

Now two people have made claims - First was some rightwing blogger who had worked for her campaign - he provided records showing alot of late night long phone calls between them when he worked for her. The Second guy (who says he has no proof but wanted to come clean) is the just fired Campaign Manager of her chief opponent for the nomination.

Squire wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Squire wrote:Is anyone else following the insanity of the Republican primary for South Carolina governor? (i.e. Nikki Haley) Krikeys.

SQUIRE

I've heard about it--from what I understand, someone has made accusations concerning carnal relations with Ms. Haley. But as far as I know, there's no corroborating evidence. Am I incorrect about corroboration?

Now two people have made claims - First was some rightwing blogger who had worked for her campaign - he provided records showing alot of late night long phone calls between them when he worked for her. The Second guy (who says he has no proof but wanted to come clean) is the just fired Campaign Manager of her chief opponent for the nomination.

But there's really almost nothing other than these guys saying it happened. I mean, late night phone calls between a candidate and a campaign manager aren't really suspicious in my book.

jerseyhoya wrote:As someone naturally suspicious of murderers, I'm a fan.

Yes, all people who confess/implicate themselves under duress are murderers. This Supreme Court case will likely induce more confessions and interrogation answers, but they won't be only from criminals. I think the goal of a just society should be to balance the competing aims of preventing innocent people from being imprisoned with bringing criminals to justice. I fear that this law introduces more type 1 errors, and will result in more innocent people behind bars. It's a tough tradeoff to swallow.

TenuredVulture wrote:
But there's really almost nothing other than these guys saying it happened. I mean, late night phone calls between a candidate and a campaign manager aren't really suspicious in my book.

I agree its all circumstantial though a record of 700 over a year or so is quite alot. If my wife is talking to an employee 700 times on the phone over a year and some of those calls are 3 hour calls between 2AM and 5AM, I'm calling Joey Greco (and Gomez the investigator)

SQUIRE

TenuredVulture wrote:

Squire wrote:Is anyone else following the insanity of the Republican primary for South Carolina governor? (i.e. Nikki Haley) Krikeys.

SQUIRE

I've heard about it--from what I understand, someone has made accusations concerning carnal relations with Ms. Haley. But as far as I know, there's no corroborating evidence. Am I incorrect about corroboration?

like a retarded sister of angie harmon

US citizen was one of those gunned down by the IDF in international waters on the Turkish flotilla. Joy.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

For about two hours and 45 minutes, Thompkins said almost nothing in response to questions. The detective asked Thompkins if he believed in God and then asked: "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?"

Slick.

Jeekers you don't have to be Portia to wriggle off that naked hook.

"When I said 'yes' I meant I DO pray to God; to forgive me for shooting that boy down, well, that's a whole nother clause, Mr. Santa (I DISTINCTLY heard a comma in there after God)'

Your honor, the defense retss

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Squire wrote:Is anyone else following the insanity of the Republican primary for South Carolina governor? (i.e. Nikki Haley) Krikeys.

SQUIRE

I've heard about it--from what I understand, someone has made accusations concerning carnal relations with Ms. Haley. But as far as I know, there's no corroborating evidence. Am I incorrect about corroboration?

If I were single, I'd do her.

pacino wrote:It would appear that one must specifically say 'i wish to remain silent' now, and it's not assumed that merely remaining silent is remaining silent. They do not have to ask if you've indeed waived your rights, they can state the rights.

If you want an attorney, you have to affirmatively say you want an attorney.

I see both sides here. The above argument is true. As is Sotomayor's argument that breaking silence to say you wish to remain silent is counter intuitive.

So Jan Brewer, hurt by comparisons of her signing the immigration ID bill to Nazis claimed that her father died fighting the Nazis. 10 years after WWII. In California. Of Lung Disease. When he never even served during WWII and worked in a munitions factory in Nevada.

At least Blumenthal was in the military.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Squire wrote:Is anyone else following the insanity of the Republican primary for South Carolina governor? (i.e. Nikki Haley) Krikeys.

SQUIRE

I've heard about it--from what I understand, someone has made accusations concerning carnal relations with Ms. Haley. But as far as I know, there's no corroborating evidence. Am I incorrect about corroboration?

She changed her name and her parents are Sikh!!!! OH NOES

Don't look now... it's Bilderberg time...

pacino wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Squire wrote:Is anyone else following the insanity of the Republican primary for South Carolina governor? (i.e. Nikki Haley) Krikeys.

SQUIRE

I've heard about it--from what I understand, someone has made accusations concerning carnal relations with Ms. Haley. But as far as I know, there's no corroborating evidence. Am I incorrect about corroboration?

She changed her name and her parents are Sikh!!!! OH NOES

Take it to the Harvard racism time-waster thread?

Long NYTimes piece on candidate Fiorina

Conservatives/Republicans, listen up:

You do not want this hatchet-faced harridan, this serial destroyer of financial value and jobs at multiple huge employers, this brittle, infelicitous liar, anywhere near your chances of anything like resurgence,

She is everything awful about contemporary large-corporate capitalism; about crypto-feminism; about California; public relations puffery; about you name it.

She is poison, and death, and extreme ickyiness.

Not that I have an opinion.