Then the point of Miranda would be........? This is almost amusing, it flies not only in the face of Miranda, but also the 5th amendment.
While the system flops over from a Representative Democracy with some human rights, to a Tyranny with no human rights, there will occasionally be a few logical contradictions like these. Don’t worry; they will get them all straightened out. Of course, we won’t live to SEE it, but they will.
Only a lawyer could even come up with this position.
Before the Fall, I don't know if God needed courts in heaven, but if He did, you know what Satan's profession was.
“Then the point of Miranda would be........? This is almost amusing, it flies not only in the face of Miranda, but also the 5th amendment.”
Yeah, it would be amusing if Roberts had not taken a dive on Obama Care. Who’s to say which way this guy will go in the future. He wouldn’t be the first Supreme to turn after be selected.
I can’t see how he’s assumed guilty for not answering questions. He did answer some questions, probably too many beyond confirming name and identity. He should have answered only with “I will speak with you only when my attorney is present.”
And you’re right, the 5th amendment clearly states you have the right to avoid self-incrimination, in addition to the Miranda rights to remain silent. He does not have to answer ANY questions.
If silence is agreement, then a silent hung head in response to a barrage of questions of abusing your spouse or children is an admission of guilt, take everyone away.
Ten little, nine little, eight little amendments, seven, little six little five little amendments, for little three little two little amendments....setting them up like bowling pins, aren’t they?
With all due respect, Miranda only applies to Custodial interrogation. The blurb talks about refusing to speak with police prior to arrest which implies a non-custodial interaction where officers are not required to make a Miranda advisement.
Since Miranda is well-settled, and prosecutors cannot comment on someone's silence once they are in custody, the implication here is that some prosecutor is attempting to test the limits of 'silence' and it's intersection with a police investigation.
The theory probably being that if one is innocent they would answer questions posed by police in a non-custodial encounter. (I personally believe that absent a law to the affirmative, one has no obligation to speak to police and case law bears this out...IOW, there is case law that states in a non-custodial encounter police have zero recourse if someone refuses to answer their questions and simply walks away.)
I would hope that SCOTUS would clarify and expand Miranda to the point that a police officer would be required to inform someone that their encounter is clearly non-custodial and that the person is free to leave at any time without answering any questions that the officer puts to the individual and that prosecutors cannot comment on such an interaction during a trial.
But I won't hold my breath.
So the state is arguing that you have no rights until you are told by the state that you have rights. Yea, these are tyrannical times.