New changes to your right to remain silent!

[tranquility]

Would you like me to look up the cases so you can read them? I'm not quite able to describe the many, many pages of supreme court decisions on the matter in this little box.

 

[justalayman]

cases? for what? I am sure there are many cases dealing with the rights being discussed.

what would you be wanting to prove to me?

 

[tranquility]

"Prove"? Nothing. My goal would be to help you understand the difference between an invocation regarding silence and regarding council.

 

[justalayman]

"Prove"? Nothing. My goal would be to help you understand the difference between an invocation regarding silence and regarding council.

Um, I know the difference. One is where you don't tell the interrogator anything and the other is where you demand counsel.

anything else in particular you were thinking of?

 

[tranquility]

I'd argue for fun, but I think it will get too hot too fast so you may continue at your level of understanding.

(If you do care, however, a good place to start may be at SSRN-Mourning Miranda by Charles Weisselberg use the one click download for the paper.)

 

[justalayman]

I'm just trying to figure out what you think you can school me on. I understand the differences between the two situations. I understand there are different actions available to an interrogator depending on which right is invoked.

That is why I ask: was there something else?

I can tell you I know the difference between council and counsel though. It appears you do not.

tranquility "Prove"? Nothing. My goal would be to help you understand the difference between an invocation regarding silence and regarding council.

 

[tranquility]

Spelling error? Good catch, you must be so proud. However:

So, basically you are saying that both rights are absolute until such time the person revokes their claim of their rights.

No. That's not it at all.

In either case, the suspect can revoke their invocation of their rights. The only difference is with the right to remain silent, the interrogator can ask if the suspect wishes to waive their rights, correct?

No. Please read the paper I supplied to discover all the ways the police will treat a person who tries to invoke their right to silence either expressly or impliedly. Asking to speak to an attorney before further questioning is far more powerful as questioning and games STOP. We can also speak of timing issues and presumptions in court if you'd like, but that is a bit outside of this current struggle you're having to understand.

and in either case, the suspect can continue to invoke their rights, correct?

Um, OK. (Since we're on grammar/spelling patrol today, maybe you should have capitalized the "a".)

HHmm, not seeing the point.

Clearly.

 

[justalayman]

=tranquility;2573700]Spelling error? Good catch, you must be so proud. However:

that is not a spelling error. You used an improper term. The fact you used council in place of counsel tends to show you don't know which is the proper term.

No. That's not it at all.

actually, that is all.

No. Please read the paper I supplied to discover all the ways the police will treat a person who tries to invoke their right to silence either expressly or impliedly. Asking to speak to an attorney before further questioning is far more powerful as questioning and games STOP. We can also speak of timing issues and presumptions in court if you'd like, but that is a bit outside of this current struggle you're having to understand.

Oh so that is some sort of paper with the writer having ESP so he knows how the police will treat a suspect. While he might state how suspects have been treated in the past, I do not believe he can factually state how a suspect will be treated in the future.

Um, OK. (Since we're on grammar/spelling patrol today, maybe you should have capitalized the "a".)

That was by choice. Yours is apparently due to ignorance.

Clearly.

you are trying to make something out of this that isn't there. There are some real simple principles here and you want to expand them into some BS attempt to impress somebody. I think you just enjoy reading your useless rants.

notice the non-capitalized letters? by choice.

 

[tranquility]

you are trying to make something out of this that isn't there.

No, I'm pointing out there is a real difference between the two and that it would be better for a person to invoke a request for an attorney then to invoke a request to remain silent.

Oh so that is some sort of paper with the writer having ESP so he knows how the police will treat a suspect. While he might state how suspects have been treated in the past, I do not believe he can factually state how a suspect will be treated in the future.

Goodness, we shall end here as anyone can look up the paper and see if it could be dismissed so easily. Obviously, you have not or would not have said something so silly.

Info edit:
From the introduction:

There is a raft of thoughtful scholarship about Miranda. I hope to add
something new to the literature. I have obtained police training materials that
are not generally available to the public; the discussion of these resources is
perhaps this article’s most important contribution. Because most police officers
are not lawyers and do not read judicial decisions, training is the link between
the Supreme Court’s pronouncements and the way in which interrogations are
conducted every day in police stations.
Combined with data from the social
science literature, these training materials demonstrate how the warning and
waiver regime coheres with a sophisticated psychological approach to police
interrogation, rather than operating apart from it as the Miranda Court
intended. The training materials also show how law enforcement agencies
operate in the shadow of judicial decisions that have weakened Miranda’s
protections.

True, the professor focused on California's training. I wonder if the other states are less sophisticated?

 

[disneykid52]

its easy to remain silent if youre a deaf mute

 

[justalayman]

tranquility;2573861]No, I'm pointing out there is a real difference between the two and that it would be better for a person to invoke a request for an attorney then to invoke a request to remain silent.

and somebody argued it wouldn't be better to invoke their right to counsel? No, yet, for some reason, you want to make that part of your argument. How typical of you. You always seem to want to stray from the question and impose your own tangential thoughts into the discussion regardless how meaningless they are to the discussion at hand.

Goodness, we shall end here as anyone can look up the paper and see if it could be dismissed so easily. Obviously, you have not or would not have said something so silly.

I made a statement about your statement:

Please read the paper I supplied to discover all the ways the police will treat a person

How can the writer possibly know how the police will treat a suspect. They can state how suspects have been treated in the past and suggest the likelihood of how they might be treated in the future but, unless they have ESP, they simply cannot state how they will be treated.

 

[tranquility]

Generally, the police act as to how they're trained to act. Also, we can expect them to act as they have acted in the past. It does not require super-powerful ESP to predict actions based on circumstances.

 

[justalayman]

Generally, the police act as to how they're trained to act. Also, we can expect them to act as they have acted in the past. It does not require super-powerful ESP to predict actions based on circumstances.

so, you are admitting the writer can presume what the police might do or will probably do or make an educated guess as to what they will do; Great. As long as you don't try to claim they know what the police will do because that would be seeing into the future. I would expect you are intelligent enough to realize the writer cannot factually state what the police will do.

 

[tranquility]

I agree we can only predict and not know the future.

Yet,
"The sun will come up tomorrow,
bet your bottom dollar,
that tomorrow, the sun will come."

 

[justalayman]

I agree we can only predict and not know the future.

Yet,
"The sun will come up tomorrow,
bet your bottom dollar,
that tomorrow, the sun will come."

but one has to ask the question:

does the Sun actually "come up"?

To make that statement true, one would have to accept that the Sun is the heavenly body whose motion causes the periods we commonly call day and night. Most people have come to the conclusion already that the universe simply doesn't revolve around them. I would like to think you are not so arrogant that you believe anything different.

But even accepting the statement as merely a reference that we will have a day after each night, scientist are in total agreement that even that event will not be eternal so, at some point, even the claim that "the sun will come up tomorrow" will be wrong.