|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 11, 2013, 02:58 AM | #76 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
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. |
July 11, 2013, 11:40 AM | #77 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
It you refuse to answer a question, the listener is going to think whatever he pleases. Quote:
There is such a thing as the "presumption of innocence", which is essentially a technical rule of evidence and the burden of proof which has procedural significance. The presumption of innocence can affect the protocols for dealing with suspects or prisoners before trial, and relates directly to the prosecutor's burden of proof at trial. I see nothing in Salinas that affects that. But there is no "assumption of innocence". Folks will assume that you're innocent or guilty as they choose.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
July 11, 2013, 09:45 PM | #78 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2012
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 1,057
|
Quote:
It seems a simple matter to me to just slightly modify my statement to include "My 5th amendment right" Either way the officer/government agent is going to infer guilt, after all, the sole purpose of even speaking to me is to gather evidence to use against me or someone else.
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member Since 1999 "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason |
|
August 1, 2013, 01:45 AM | #79 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
Frank Ettin,
While you did posit a wonderful semantical dissertation on the differences between assumption and presumption, and my failure to use the terms in a grammatically and legally correct manner, you failed to answer the questions I posited in my post HERE Quote:
__________________
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 |
|
August 1, 2013, 01:54 AM | #80 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
As SamNavy posted on post #2 the Miranda warning is kinda moot based upon this ruling.
The Miranda warning states "You have the right to remain silent." What it does not say is "You have the right to invoke your fifth amendment right to remain silent; but only if you do so verbally. You do not have the right to simply remain silent in the absence of that declaration. Mere silence will be held against you in a court of law as well as anything you do choose to say."
__________________
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 |
August 1, 2013, 02:08 AM | #81 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|