This case is eerie due to the fact that most people believe that they are within their rights to refuse to answer with abject silence. They believe, as this case now shows to be incorrect, that their silence is the invocation of that right.
If I were not a member of this board, my knowledge of this case would have been confined to the deafening silence of the media.
Also, is the answering of a question with a question going to be seen as guilt based upon this ruling?
ie: "Have you been drinking?" "Am I being detained? Am I free to go, Officer?"
"Do you mind if I search your car?" "I do not consent to any searches. Am I being detained? Am I free to go, Officer?"
This is, after all, the stated response recommended by the ACLU.
If that person makes those statements, rather than a direct and unambiguous recitation of their fifth amendment right, are they still held to be suspect and their rights not invoked?
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.
"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare
"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey
Last edited by jimpeel; July 11, 2013 at 03:05 AM.