Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 101 posts

Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?

#91

Post by kasey_junk »

vertex-four wrote: post #90
kasey_junk wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For that matter, the "government" is an abstract concept. So what? The point is, the "government" doesn't own anything. They regulate it. That is completely different than ownership, and in the case of radio spectrum the very concept of ownership is really hard to even reason about it.

What is ownership of a piece of land, precisely, then, and how does it differ from ownership of the radio spectrum? My understanding is that ownership of a piece of land simply means that you'll (or a proxy, whether private entity or Government, will) use violence (or threaten it) to keep other people from using it without your permission.

1) That is a very loose definition of ownership. For instance, I can threaten my next door neighbor to take over his deed. That doesn't make me the owner of the land. Ownership of anything is a social construct, without which the greatest warlord wins.

2) Even given the social construct of ownership, the enforcer of the social construct is not the "owner". If I pay a private security firm to guard my property, most people don't assume I've ceded ownership to them.

3) Even given those narrow definitions, the radio spectrum is much more nuanced than physical property. Radio waves literally travel around the world. I as a property owner can enact physical boundaries that have a fair chance of preventing trespass and providing an uninformed arbitrator to make a decent decision. When it comes to radio frequency, even the act of trespass is a highly technical and subjective topic.

Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?

#92

Post by vertex-four »

kasey_junk wrote: post #91
vertex-four wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is ownership of a piece of land, precisely, then, and how does it differ from ownership of the radio spectrum? My understanding is that ownership of a piece of land simply means that you'll (or a proxy, whether private entity or Government, will) use violence (or threaten it) to keep other people from using it without your permission.

1) That is a very loose definition of ownership. For instance, I can threaten my next door neighbor to take over his deed. That doesn't make me the owner of the land. Ownership of anything is a social construct, without which the greatest warlord wins. 2) Even given the social construct of ownership, the enforcer of the social construct is not the "owner". If I pay a private security firm to guard my property, most p…

> For instance, I can threaten my next door neighbor to take over his deed. That doesn't make me the owner of the land.

The thing is, the only reason you can't do that is that your next door neighbour will allow a proxy (the Government) to get involved (or rather, has already allowed so as part of the social contract we all "agree" to).

If there wasn't someone stronger than you who has a vested interest in keeping things as they are, you decidedly could threaten your neighbour to take over the ownership of the land. "Non-violent" ownership is solely a thing because there's an entity, with more power and ability to be violent than anyone else, which has an interest in keeping it that way.

> Even given the social construct of ownership, the enforcer of the social construct is not the "owner". If I pay a private security firm to guard my property, most people don't assume I've ceded ownership to them.

That is why I specifically mentioned a proxy.

Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?

#93

Post by Confusion »

qwerta wrote: post #46

How about right to be in shock, unable to speak? Where is basic empathy? 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..

No, you see, only victims deserve empathy. Not someone of whom the media, police and prosecuters have already determined that he is a criminal

Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?

#94

Post by DannyBee »

aric wrote: post #84
tptacek wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're caught in a semantic rut. Your peer in this conversation isn't suggesting that there is no "right to silence". Re-read his comment. He's acknowledging that there is an implied right, but pointing out that it is not in the Constitution. He agrees with you that the right is eroding. His disagreement regards the solution that erosion. Your solution seems to be to shore up the implied right to silence that comes f…

It's a semantic rut, perhaps. It's not necessarily my semantic rut. Off the bat he was arguing down this road as if to suggest that I was implying that "remaining silent" was explicitly spelled out in the Constitution -- something I never implied. I'm not stating solutions. I'm commenting on results. Ideas for solutions are numerous and probably least served for attention in this thread. A full constitutional amendme…

You wrote: " [basically it's sad that one must] verbally invoke a primary Constitutional right before one 'obtains' that right"

Note: you argue it is a primary constitutional right. Primary constitutional rights are those actually found in the constitution. Yours is not.

So when you say this is "something I never implied", i strongly disagree. If you didn't mean to imply it, fine. But I guarantee that anyone with any legal background read your comment and came away with the same impression.

Your argument seemed to me to be "because it's a primary constitutional right, I should not have to invoke it explicitly".

My argument is: You have to invoke it precisely because it is not a primary constitutional right.

Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?

#95

Post by aric »

DannyBee wrote: post #94
aric wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a semantic rut, perhaps. It's not necessarily my semantic rut. Off the bat he was arguing down this road as if to suggest that I was implying that "remaining silent" was explicitly spelled out in the Constitution -- something I never implied. I'm not stating solutions. I'm commenting on results. Ideas for solutions are numerous and probably least served for attention in this thread. A full constitutional amendme…

You wrote: " [basically it's sad that one must] verbally invoke a primary Constitutional right before one 'obtains' that right" Note: you argue it is a primary constitutional right. Primary constitutional rights are those actually found in the constitution. Yours is not. So when you say this is "something I never implied", i strongly disagree. If you didn't mean to imply it, fine. But I guarantee that anyone with any…

The term "Constitutional right" refers to legal rights derived from and related to the Constitution. Hence, they're termed Constitutional.

If you disagree with this term, you disagree with thousands upon thousands of other rights that are equally considered Constitutional and part of Constitutional law. Most Constitutional rights are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Instead they're derived from interpretation of the succinct language used in the Constitution. This topic is rooted in Constitutional rights. I respect that the word 'primary' could be misinterpreted. And it's subjective. Personally, I don't know where I'd place this issue on a list of humanitarian rights if I had to rank. Most issues related to speech and freedom from tyranny, and its numerous forms of persecution, are issues that I usually deem 'primary.'

Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?

#96

Post by anonbanker »

mindslight wrote: post #78
anonbanker wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asserting your rights is a fantastic ride, if you know how to do it. Everyone should Google how Geithner beat both rap and ride from the NYPD in four hours.that guy's a pro. If you don't know how to properly assert your rights, then you have none; expect to have your window smashed in, and be pulled out of your car. Or have cops and social workers come to remove your kids from an "unsafe" house 30 minutes after the p…

Lacking actionable specifics that can survive independent testing, it seems like the straightforward explanation of "how" is simply being well-connected. This does not scale.

I do believe you're right about it not scaling. Police states never do.

Though I'm not sure republican forms of government (or indeed "democracy" itself) scale too well , either.

Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?

#97

Post by anonbanker »

phkahler wrote: post #23

"Sir, can you tell me how fast you were going?" I've always wondered what the best answer would be.

"Yes." And leave it at that. he'll move on to the next line of questioning. Acceptance of the speed you were going, along with a confirmation that you were not being inattentive while driving (which is the point of the question) will solve your issues much faster. I have gotten out of speeding tickets by simply stating "Yes".

"Not fast enough; you still caught me" is definitely not the best answer, but a funny one.

Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?

#98

Post by anonbanker »

krallja wrote: post #5
smokeyj wrote: post #4

Some states require you consent to sobriety tests to keep your drivers license. You have the right to remain silent. But they reserve the right to ruin your life.

A drivers license has always been a privilege, not a right.

from Thefreedictionary.com's legal dictionary [1]:

License: The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort. The certificate or the document itself that confers permission to engage in otherwise proscribed conduct.

let's think about that: Driving is illegal. Marriage is illegal. Fishing is illegal.

1. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/license

Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?

#99

Post by anonbanker »

morganvachon wrote: post #68
phkahler wrote: post #23

"Sir, can you tell me how fast you were going?" I've always wondered what the best answer would be.

Maybe it's a regional thing, but around here the question is always "Do you know why I pulled you over?" to which I've answered, "no, sir." To answer anything else is to incriminate yourself, and officers will write in the comments section of the ticket (for the judge to see) that you affirmed your offense, essentially pleading guilty on the spot. For example, let's say you're going 10mph over the speed limit and you…

You are absolutely correct. However, a court will accept that you tried to plead guilty at the earliest point in time, and will usually give you a reduced penalty for doing so. You'll usually get no points on your license, either.

from thefreedictionary.com's legal dictionary: In civil lawsuits, the term guilty does not imply criminal responsibility but refers to misconduct.

Source: I settle approximately 4 speeding tickets a month for customers.

Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?

#100

Post by DannyBee »

aric wrote: post #95
DannyBee wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wrote: " [basically it's sad that one must] verbally invoke a primary Constitutional right before one 'obtains' that right" Note: you argue it is a primary constitutional right. Primary constitutional rights are those actually found in the constitution. Yours is not. So when you say this is "something I never implied", i strongly disagree. If you didn't mean to imply it, fine. But I guarantee that anyone with any…

The term "Constitutional right" refers to legal rights derived from and related to the Constitution. Hence, they're termed Constitutional . If you disagree with this term, you disagree with thousands upon thousands of other rights that are equally considered Constitutional and part of Constitutional law. Most Constitutional rights are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Instead they're derived from interpretat…

"The term "Constitutional right" refers to legal rights derived from and related to the Constitution. Hence, they're termed Constitutional."

Dude, you said "primary constitutional right", not "constitutional right". They are not the same.

Additionally, you are seriously confusing primary constitutional rights and rights and rules whose basis is implementation of constitutional rights. They are not the same as constitutional rights either.

For example, the exclusionary rule (that excludes evidence obtained through police violate your constitutional rights) is not a constitutional right, it is a judicial rule grounded in sane implementation of the 4th amendment.

In any case, this is not worth arguing any more for me.

Post reply on HN