41–50 of 101 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having a cell phone is a privilege? In what state, owing to what statute?
I have family that have been restricted from internet use. This includes the use of most cellphones. Makes it hard to get or maintain a job.
What's the point of having laws, if your citizens can't possibly know/remember them?
Not that I think the US is there yet, but the answer is that having so many laws that basically waking up and going about your daily routine means breaking at least a few laws, is the ultimate goal. If everything is a crime and everyone is a criminal, it's much easier for the government to control the people rather than the other way around. This concept comes up in many science fiction works, even non-Dystopian ones…
Which leads me to believe that the speed limit is only there so the police have a reason to pull over anyone without any other reason. Don't like the look of the driver? Pull them over, while ignoring every other car doing 70.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having a cell phone is a privilege? In what state, owing to what statute?
> Having a cell phone is a privilege? The ownership of a physical phone is not; having service for that phone involves a voluntary transaction that may be denied, and is therefore a privilege.
"Sir, can you tell me how fast you were going?" I've always wondered what the best answer would be.
In some cases they're giving the opportunity to self-incriminate for speeding. Maybe they didn't get a solid read on their radar gun, or maybe you saw them and were slowing down already when it locked, so they may have no actual evidence. But if they can trick/scare you into admitting that you were speeding, then they don't need the radar gun readings. So you should be very hesitant to tell them any numbers that are…
Guy just trashed car, possibly killing number of people including his relatives, police arrests him just after accident. In such situation I would shit myself , rolled into fetal position and would not talk to anyone for hours/days.
No he gets jail, because he does not make statements for police..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's be clear here - what you're referring to is some states will suspend your DL for a year if you refuse all types testing. This includes the array of FST's (field sobriety tests), blood, urine, chemical or breathe. This is not an admission of guilt, but in most states, a violation of your driving contract you signed when you were given your license. Also, you can refuse an FST, then tell the police you refuse the…
Another good strategy is DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE.
There's a really terrible trend of requiring magic spells to be cast to "invoke" 4th and 5th amendment rights. You have a right to remain silent, as the Supreme Court has codified it; it doesn't make any sense to talk about "invoking" it specifically. You don't have to declare "I invoke my First Amendment rights" as a magic spell to avoid being prosecuted for writing something on the internet.
" You have a right to remain silent, as the Supreme Court has codified it;" So let's a few things things straight :) 1. This particular right does not explicitly appear in the constitution. There is nobody who argues otherwise. The history of the fifth amendment does not support any other reading than being about compulsion to testify (IE torture, etc). 2. The Supreme Court are the ones who say you have to invoke it…
I agree with most of what you say, but I do think the following statement is a bit unfair:
> So it does make sense to talk about invoking it, since the same people who have explained this right have said, as part of that explanation, that you are required to do it.
Unless I'm mistaken, you're referring to two separate SCOTUS decisions that are separated by several decades (the latter decision is very recent). I don't think it's right to treat the Supreme Court as a singular, monolithic entity even within a given session (let alone separated by many years and with different chief justices, etc.)
Our public understanding of the supposed 'right to remain silent' developed after the Warren court decision, and while it's true that the Roberts court clarified (or imposed) the requirement that this be explicit, AFAICT it's not the only way to interpret the Warren ruling.
Again, I agree with the rest of what you're saying, but I don't think it's unfair to criticize the most recent SCOTUS ruling for appearing to[0] reverse or mitigate our understanding of the earlier SCOTUS ruling.
[0] I say 'appearing to' because it's easily arguable that this is a clarification, not a reversal, which AFAICT is the whole controversy to begin with
Technically no, because there isn't actually a right to remain silent under the United States Constitution. Miranda readings, which most people conflate with this "right to remain silent" are a bit of a bizarre invention of the Warren Court from other preexisting rights: 1. The against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. 2. The right to have counsel present during interrogation, since interrogation is consi…
And if you do assert your Constitutional rights, it's an easy way to escalate a situation where you soon learn the meaning to "you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."