agreed. the way the title is written, i thought the ruling would allow an 'arrest' without knowledge of the arrested and indefinite surveillance without a court order. sounds nightmarish, but actually not too different than what the N_A is already doing.
but i do like the idea of all gov LEO's being required to remind you of your miranda rights before speaking to you for any purpose
These comments are interesting and I do not disagree. Its how it works. We have no rights, and if the cops want to pull you out of the car and beat you to death they can do that.
But for the "higher law end". How is it not hypocritical to say you can be stopped and questioned WITHOUT the Miranda for the express purpose of arresting and prosecuting you. But once they have enough info to arrest you must be read your rights??
trust me on this. while the initial contact might not have included miranda warnings, the prosecutor did not bring a case to court without a proper arrest with miranda rights being read to him at the time of arrest. i think ur conflating initial contact (no miranda warnings) and actual arrest/prosecution.
This ruling isn't a departure from what was already common knowledge. Don't talk to cops without an attorney. He wasn't arrested or being arrested at the time, just being questioned.
no. it's like when someone gets pulled over for a traffic violation. they don't read you miranda rights before asking if u know how fast u were going. anything u say can always be used against you. like i said in another comment, it's not something i prefer, but it's not a departure form how things have always been. i would prefer cops be required to give u miranda warnings on contact for any reason.
sir, do you know why i pulled you over
stares silent straight forward
sir...are you ok? can you answer me?
stares silent straight forward
sir...im going to issue you a citation
stares silent straight forward
lol
agreed. the way the title is written, i thought the ruling would allow an 'arrest' without knowledge of the arrested and indefinite surveillance without a court order. sounds nightmarish, but actually not too different than what the N_A is already doing.
but i do like the idea of all gov LEO's being required to remind you of your miranda rights before speaking to you for any purpose
These comments are interesting and I do not disagree. Its how it works. We have no rights, and if the cops want to pull you out of the car and beat you to death they can do that. But for the "higher law end". How is it not hypocritical to say you can be stopped and questioned WITHOUT the Miranda for the express purpose of arresting and prosecuting you. But once they have enough info to arrest you must be read your rights??
trust me on this. while the initial contact might not have included miranda warnings, the prosecutor did not bring a case to court without a proper arrest with miranda rights being read to him at the time of arrest. i think ur conflating initial contact (no miranda warnings) and actual arrest/prosecution.
There is no saving the federal system, but there is nullifying it at the local level. c/ParallelSociety
Guess what tomorrow is, boys? It’s STFUFRIDAY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uqo5RYOp4nQ
This ruling isn't a departure from what was already common knowledge. Don't talk to cops without an attorney. He wasn't arrested or being arrested at the time, just being questioned.
no. it's like when someone gets pulled over for a traffic violation. they don't read you miranda rights before asking if u know how fast u were going. anything u say can always be used against you. like i said in another comment, it's not something i prefer, but it's not a departure form how things have always been. i would prefer cops be required to give u miranda warnings on contact for any reason.