confused by things I hear

[winterbadger]

1. The Diane Rehm Show today had an interview with two members of a family that decided to take half of the "stuff' it had accumulated and turn it into value for others. They sold their home, bought a smaller one, and invested half (actually slightly more than half) the proceeds into a project to help improve rural communities in West Africa (redactrice, as soon as I heard them say "...we wanted to take on world poverty..." I knew who they had probably contacted! :-)

What I didn't understand was the sheer volume of animus directed at them by those who called and emailed the program. Folks, these people aren't saying everyone has to do this! They're not saying "you're a bad person if you don't help others". They're just saying, "We decided to give up a lot of what we *didn't need*, and not only were we able to help others by doing so, but our family grew stronger as a result." JFC, how did we get to a place where there is hostility towards geenerosity?

2. The Maryland State Police and a state's attorney are trying to persecute prosecute someone for videotaping his interaction with a state trooper who had pulled him over to ticket him for speeding. They are claiming that a state policeman, conducting a traffic stop along an interstate highway, has an expectation of privacy. ! This when police in Maryland are specifically authorised to video and audio tape interactions with the public themselves. Seems like Humpty Dumpty Syndrome to me.

3. People are apparently outraged by the SCOTUS decision that if, having been warned of your rights, you speak to the police when you are being interrogated, what you say can be used in court against you. Someone please explain to me why this is not blindingly obvious. Look, the police arrest me. They tell me I have the right to remain silent, but that if I do not remain silent what I say may be used in court. They then ask me questions I don't want to answer. What in the name of little green apples makes someone think that, in that scenario, any answers to the questions the police are asking that I subsequently choose to give should somehow *not* be admissible?

ETA: This...

"If Thompkins wanted to remain silent, he could have said nothing in response to [the detective's] questions, or he could have unambiguously involved his Miranda rights and ended the interrogation," wrote Kennedy, who was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are three justices I would not want to agree with normally, but I find this argument so simply and obviously rational that I can overcome that aversion with ease.

Comments

[reasdream.livejournal.com]

I'm not outraged, I'm confused. Everything I've read says you have to tell the police that you're invoking your right to remain silent, but that speaking even one word you waive that right. How does that work?

[winterbadger]

I hear you, but my understanding is that, if you don't want to say anything, you don't say anything. Or you say, "I have nothing to say", possibly adding "...until I've spoken to my attorney". And then just shut up.

I mean, this isn't the middle ages (except possibly at Gitmo or Bagram...); they can't actually physically *force* you to say anything. What seems to be under debate is the ability of suspects to say "I'm not saying anything" and then to say anything they feel like and somehow have all the things they say after "I'm not saying anything" to be somehow inadmissible. That seems as unrealistic and nonsensical as a politician unburdening him or her self to a reporter and then saying "...oh, that was all off the record, by the way..." Yeah, sure it is.

[la-renardine.livejournal.com]

What I understand of the ruling is that to invoke your right to remain silent, you must state that you wish to invoke that right, and that will stop any interrogation. If you are simply silent, it is not enough. If you are silent, and then you "break" after three hours of interrogation or even casual questioning when you wake up from a nap, your words can and will be used against you. (By the way, I think this part does make sense - if you say something at any point you are possibly incriminating yourself and that is admissible) In other words, silence does not equal tacit invocation of that right. What the decision states is that you *must* verbalize your wish to remain silent.

[winterbadger]

That makes a certain amount of sense, though I wonder if the idea of stopping interrogation by saying "I wish to invoke my right to remain silent" really works. I have trouble imagining that police officers won't keep asking you questions, and if you answer them (without coercion), I have trouble with the answers not being admissible.

[schizokitty.livejournal.com]

JFC, how did we get to a place where there is hostility towards generosity?

It's mostly guilt, I would guess. Somewhere, somehow, these people know they have lots of stuff they don't need, and they don't like to be reminded that there are other people in the world who are barely getting by and would benefit greatly from such sacrifices. They want to hold on to their stuff, but in their heart of hearts they no that they don't need it all and could get rid of some it to alleviate suffering. Someone making a huge "sacrifice," like the Salwens,just throws all this guilt into higher relief. If the angry people could not even conceive of doing something like that and still survive, they wouldn't feel rebuked by the story.

Hell, stories like this make me feel like a greedy capitalist pig, but I think I've got to the place where I can at least admit that it's my own guilt and not someone else's self-righteousness that's to blame. ^_^;

[la-renardine.livejournal.com]

What might be flawed about the ruling, is that it is incredibly nuanced. It is counterintuitive to verbalize your right to remain silent, and it requires a knowledge of your rights (in a more complex way) that should not necessarily be assumed. As you say, will the police stop the interrogation if someone invokes this right? Perhaps - if they know if could disqualify their case, by not following protocol (this is half the battle in the burden of proof these days anyway - not only was evidence obtained, but was it obtained properly?). And who has the onus to protect and/or assert one's rights? - the suspect? the police? This has really shifted the onus to the suspect, which seems possibly unfair or at least unbalanced, as in principle in our great democratic society, our system's default should be towards protecting one's rights (not only if one asserts them). All that said, if a suspect has been silent for three hours, has not stated a wish to remain silent, and then incriminates him/herself, we're back to where you started - seems pretty admissible to me. Hence, you must state your wish to remain silent. How's that for SCOTUS logic?

[cmlc.livejournal.com]

I read that as "Maryland Police State"...