[speedrrracer]

Originally Posted by Fishing Cabing

So, no one should have to do anything in order to enjoy their right? What about the right to a lawyer?

Glad you asked. Easy answer if we follow the default of having our rights, as opposed to the current system. If I don't make any efforts to obtain or demand a lawyer or reject one, one should be provided to me by default, just like it says in the Miranda warning. So if the police show up to question me, and I'm not making any overt / obvious action to obtain / reject a lawyer, they should be required to plop one down right next to me in order to protect my rights, should I wish to avail myself of his services.

This is especially true since we're going to continue down this inane path of ever-more complicated legislation, and still maintain the obscene notion that ignorance of the law is no excuse. We need to own up to the fact that due to the ridiculously complicated legal system, ignorance of the law is now the default position, and legal aid is therefore to be provided unless rejected. That requires no input from anyone.

Originally Posted by Fishing Cabin

Also, just being humorous for a moment. If someone doesn't have to do anything for their right, who gets stuck with the bill for the lawyer?

Who gets stuck with the bill for LE? Should come out of the same budget.
My taxes shouldn't only pay the bill for people whose sole job is to find evidence to convict me, in fact they should preferentially pay for public servants whose sole job it is to protect me and my rights, since as we all know, the police do not need to protect citizens (at least, according to my understanding of Gonzalez, Warren v D.C., et al)

Originally Posted by Fishing Cabin

So if you should have your rights by default, there should be no Miranda warnings to advise you of your rights, and also hence, never any questioning unless you seek it out on your own?

I didn't say this, so I don't know where you pulled this from. I completely disagree. Why not also have Miranda warnings, just to add another layer of protection for citizens? I don't understand the bit about "...never any questioning..." -- can you explain that?

Originally Posted by Fishing Cabin

There is good reason why LE should have an indication of well being and cognitive response to better protect the suspect.

Disagree. LE is not qualified to make medical judgments based on interviews of any length. If LE suspects for any reason a citizen requires medical care, they can call for medical care and offer it to the citizen, who is then free to ignore the medics if he chooses. Legally requiring the citizen to speak adds nothing to this whatsoever -- it's unlikely the citizen is qualified to make medical judgments. If the citizen wishes to convey a desire for medical care, they can always do so. This whole, "It's for your own good" thing is both infantilizing and it's misuse / abuse is perhaps the single largest threat to personal liberty.

However, I suspect with your experience you can come up with a better / more specific scenario that will perhaps change my opinion. I'd like to hear it, if you don't mind.

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

But the word used in the cases is not "behavior" but "conduct."

Different word, same failings. Conduct still implies action, and silence is still the absence of action. Corpses cannot engage in conduct. To get as fine-grained as possible, what I think we should accept is the transition from speech to silence. A transition is clearly conduct, behavior, and an action.

Originally Posted by kyjim

If they know the person is invoking his Fifth Amendment right, they know to stop the questioning.

This is seriously unpersuasive. Who cares if LE knows to stop questioning? I'm going to have to remember some legal magic passwords just for the convenience of LE? Does this honestly strike no one else as wrong?