I don't see how this is a bad ruling.Held:
1. The state court’s decision rejecting Thompkins’ Miranda claim was correct under de novo review and therefore necessarily reason-able under AEDPA’s more deferential standard of review. Pp. 7–17.
(a) Thompkins’ silence during the interrogation did not invoke his right to remain silent. A suspect’s Miranda right to counsel must be invoked “unambiguously.” Davis v. United States, 512 U. S. 452,
459. If the accused makes an “ambiguous or equivocal” statement or no statement, the police are not required to end the interrogation, ibid., or ask questions to clarify the accused’s intent, id., at 461–462. There is no principled reason to adopt different standards for determining when an accused has invoked the Miranda right to remain silent and the Miranda right to counsel at issue in Davis. Both protect the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination by requiring aninterrogation to cease when either right is invoked. The unambigu-ous invocation requirement results in an objective inquiry that “avoid[s] difficulties of proof and . . . provide[s] guidance to officers” on how to proceed in the face of ambiguity. Davis, supra, at 458–459. Had Thompkins said that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk, he would have invoked his right to end the questioning. He did neither. Pp. 8–10.
This man was obviously aware of his miranda rights, but not aware that explicitly asking for a lawyer would have ended the interrogation. Perhaps miranda should be updated to include this information.
Ignorance of the law and rights is not a defense.Just because most of us may know them doesn't mean that everyone knows them nor does it mean that we can quit informing people when they are arrested by government authority the rights and abilities they have to fight and protect themselves against government force.
Irreverent. It is not the government's responsibility to remind you of your rights. At most you could petition the government to make constitutional rights a a very thorough class in school.None of those things are government agents. That's the difference.
You have the right to remain silent but nowhere in the 5th amendment does it say police have to shut up and quit asking questions. Do you see "police have to shut up and quit asking questions" anywhere in the 5th amendment?Could have and should have. He was also read his rights and knew about it. None of what happened in this case would suggest that having police officers stop reading rights is a good idea
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
Now I could easily see innocent people being badgered or tricked into confessions or things that sound like confessions and incriminating themselves simply because they didn't say the right words.
There's a lot of wiggle room, both on the part of the cops and on the part of people attempting to sue the state, if you want the cops to play mind reader.
There's no wiggle room in regards to stating it, either they state it or not. That's pretty simple.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
With the Court saying that you have to explicitly state it; then I think we're going to end up having to have an exact sentence that must be stated.
But my bigger issue is how this could be interpreted by police to keep badgering someone without a lawyer present to simply get what they want.
I know most innocent people don't get arrested; but sometimes they do. Our laws must be made to protect those people. When innocent people DO get arrested, they're easily the most flustered and most likely to say something wrong because they're not used to the system having been innocent and all.
If the suspect states they understand their rights, then they may or may not decide to answer any further questions. Fair enough. But at some point we have to draw a line for how far we are going to encumber of police from doing their basic job. There needs to balance on both sides of the justice equation.....