If there was a lack of real evidence, he should not of been convicted. Pretending we can read peoples minds and thus imply their quilt is outrageously wrong.
Not to mention, if I understood what they said correctly, they were asking about his father’s shotgun. How do they get he murdered the victim from him not wanting to answer whether his father’s shotgun may have been the murder weapon? Couldn’t that just as easily be him not wanting to incriminate his father (either knowing he did it or not knowing but not wanting to answer truthfully that he doesn’t know because that could be interpreted to mean he thinks he may have).
Not the first time the Supreme Court has made a mistake. "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." Is pretty clear language to me.
@@MichaelKunz-mt2oo Yes, but that is only if you take the entire amendment out of context, which you have to do to think that everyone, including those who have committed gun crimes, should be allowed to have guns. That is not at all what the amendment means.
@@MichaelKunz-mt2oo Except that the Constitution is not a list of rights of the People. It is a list of enumerated powers of federal government and a list of enumerated restrictions upon federal government. The Second Amendment is not a restriction on states rights. That is why different states can make different gun laws. I'd go into much greater detail but I'd be wasting my time since you continue to take part of the amendment out of its intended context.
If the police are questioning you the only thing you should say is "I want to talk to a lawyer", "am I under arrest?", "can I go now?", and " I refuse to answer any questions."
The miranda rights they read you state, "You have the right to remain silent..." not "You have the right to verbally tell us you wish to use your right to remain silent."
Yes, but in a voluntary interview, those haven't been read. When you are under arrest, the cops are required to read and recognize your right to remain silent. In other circumstances, you must invoke it yourself.
@@shadyparadox But the point is, everybody who has ever seen a cop show knows their miranda rights. And the miranda warnings say a person has the right to remain silent. So then why shouldn't a person who is being questioned by the police think he doesn't have the right to remain silent? The Supreme Court is really being intellectually dishonest with this one.
@@shadyparadoxcops are not required to read you your rights every time you are under arrest. If you are detained for a crime and QUESTIONED about it, then they have to read you your rights before any questioning.
Two things to know. 1. The difference between an interview and interrogation. 2. NEVER TALK TO POLICE IN EITHER SITUATION without legal representation.
@@bokrugthewaterserpent3012 wrong. It's up to YOU to look them in the eye and say "am I free to leave", if yes, get up and go, if no, you are being charged, shut up and demand an attorney. People need to educate themselves, or lose. One simple question tells you if you are being interviewed or interrogated.
Going from person of interest to suspect can be a thin line... and there is no notice. Interview plods on, just sifting for more nuggets to use as if nothing changed.
You missed the most important thing here if you're asked to visit the police department to make a statement DO NOT GO ! If he had not went to the station none of it would have happened, my view is if they have enough to arrest me they can come find me.
I like the idea in general, but I will say, if you called the cops, it makes sense to talk to them unless you get a bad vibe. They can't help you if you won't help them, nor will they even try. But yeah, if you didn't call them, and they aren't showing up at your door to deliver some bad news (that happens too), then 4th and 5th amendments all the way.
Most of the supremes are too old to be practicing law, and are subject to dementia and Alzheimers. There is a reason the retirement age of 65 must be adhered to.
If the supreme court is ruling on it, it's bad news for the people. In a few more generations we will have no rights. That's our trajectory. It would be interesting to put a graph together starting from 1789 to present with the X-axis being data such as tax, national debt, freedoms, etc. 😔
Have you ever seen Wickard V. Filburn? The Constitution limits the authority of Congress to Interstate Commerce. From what I understand, the Supreme Court found that growing wheat on your own property to feed to your own animals all within one state instead of buying it from out of state _affects_ interstate commerce. Therefore, Congress can tell you not to do it. Neat trick, huh? They made the wording of the Commerce Clause mean the _exact opposite_ of what it says. _NOT engaging in interstate commerce_ falls under the authority granted by the Commerce Clause. You can't make this stuff up.
@@AcmeRacing Wickard is the very worst Supreme Court decision that is still in effect. (Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson were worse, but they have been turned over.)
@@Demon_Curseit has nothing to do with conservative or liberal left or right it's US versus them our government has grown way outside of his footprint bigger than it was ever intended to and they are doing everything they can to create a criminal class and retain power and expand that power. And to keep us looking in the other direction they create the narrative of left versus right conservative versus liberal all the while those in power are secretly stealing our country together
wait how am i the bad guy here, this warlording had full and supreme cassus belli, I was gonna leave the universe floor but got chained together by the gurls
Ever since I read Wickard v. Filburn in a business law class, I have been convinced that SCOTUS can interpret laws to mean the exact opposite of what they say. Likewise, the fifth amendment seems to have a loophole, where exercising your right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination is self-incriminating. It's absurd on its face.
I must speak to be allowed the privilege to be silent. Otherwise I'm presumed guilty. What other right do I have to assert like that? It's ridiculous. I'd like to assert my first amendment right. It's ridiculous. It's almost as if the courts have forgotten that my rights are god given. God did not grant me rights that the courts must interpret. They are fundamental!
The court hates your rights. They have been carving out exceptions to all rights for centuries. "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," Where is the exception in that?
@RUclipsMan98 You're not being compelled to encriminate yourself by being silent. So there is a loophole in regards to this case. However I agree I don't believe silence should be able to establish guilt. If silence establishes guilt then prosecutors will have an easy time convicting innocent people who simply mistrust the criminal justice system. If people feel like they are forced to speak then they panic and say stupid things that aren't necessarily representing objective reality which will then be used against them.
@@don5062 You may be right that America has never lived up to that ideal but it was on the minds of the Founding Fathers. Benjamin Franklin said, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." This is called Blackstone's Ratio after William Blackstone a prominent British jurist of Franklin's day. And that idea, innocent until proven guilty to a jury of one's peers, comes from English Common Law and the Magna Carta.
The critical lesson to be learned here is that the Constitution means exactly what SCOTUS says it means, and this is subject to change from time to time.
This is why lawyers tell you to never answer questions without a lawyer, even on a traffic stop. Even the most innocuous question can be used against you and even an evasive answer can be used against you. An example of this is if a cop asks you where you are coming from and you answer "from back there" and when they ask you where you are going and you say "down the road," the court considers that an "evasive" answer, and the court has ruled that evasive answers are a legal negative that can be used to increase reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime. This means that what the lawyer just said is exactly right. If a cop stops you anywhere and askes you questions, the first words out of your mouth should be "I have a constitutional right to not answer your questions," and remain silent except if the cop asks you for permission to search, at which time you should simply say "I do not consent to any searches or seizures." If everyone in the US started to do that, traffic stops would be cut in half. Cops quickly find it unprofitable for them to do BS stops hoping to escalate it into something more than just a BS traffic stop and my own opinion is that cops don't give a rats ass about traffic safety and the main reason they stop people is to try to find an excuse to search the car.
I watched a video of a judge ruling about an arrest. The victim was at a gas station and because he talked to another guy in another car at the gas station, the cops developed the legal theory that they were smuggling drugs, and the first car to leave the station was going to go out ahead of the second car to warn the driver of the second car about speed traps and such. One of the cops followed the man for many miles down the road and when the cop at the station reported that the second car left and was going in the same direction, the cop following the victim pulled him over. When asked where he was going, the victim, who had no particular reason to think he had done anything wrong, answered "West." When the cop asked him where he was coming from, the victim said "East.' The victim also had a front and rear dash cameras and the cop thought that was suspicious and arrested the man for drug running. Of course, the charges were dismissed, but the victim decided to sue. What is interesting is that the judge agreed that the cameras and the evasive answers were indeed enough to elevate suspicion, he allowed the lawsuit to go forward because the basis of the rational to follow the car in the first place, two guys that talk to each other at a filling station, was a completely bogus legal theory to stand on without any evidence. The point though is that the judge said that when questioned, evasive answers can add to the reasonable suspicion of a crime to add together with other items to give probable cause. The judge shot this case down because he thought it was a preposterous assumption that these guys were in a drug smuggling operation simply because they talked to one another at the gas pumps.
@@nonenone-ll7ln The big deal with an attorney is what the attorney says CANNOT be held against you. It is hearsay. Even experienced attorneys get other attorneys.
Its not only voluntary. Voluntary or involuntary invoke 5th and request to speak to a lawyer. Don't voluntarily give info even when innocent, they'll spin it to make you seem guilty.
It's not stupidity, it's laziness. Police LITERALLY take the path of least resistance to get a conviction. That includes ruining innocent people's lives.
@@qx4n9e1xp When cops cite people for "interfering with their investigation", what they are really doing is Fining People for not doing the Police work for the Police. If you don't incriminate yourself or incriminate someone else for them, you will be punished for not helping them to incriminate someone. It's not about solving crimes, it's about making crimes that did not exist before they got there.
@@krillin6 Personally, I don't agree with the ruling. I'm trying to make sense of the nuance. I don't think your analogy makes any sense though. That's not what happened here. I'd still be curious to learn more facts about the case. I find it hard to believe that a jury found the guy guilty based on nothing more than him not answering a question.
@@glumberty1 yeah thats honestly not enough to convict anyone they had to have had something else. the problem is he didnt remain silent so idk why this guy in the video is saying this for it to work you must remain silent at all times and give them nothing. it is questionable that he went silent at that part but that doesnt prove hes guilty he could have just thought they were trying to frame him or his dad. i really doubt they convicted him based on that alone.
"You are not required to say *anything* to us *at any time* or answer any questions." "You are guilty of murder because you didn't say anything without saying you don't want to say anything." Absolute joke 🤡 All of this should be overruled. If they have real evidence, the people involved should go to jail, if they're guilty. But this ruling does nothing to serve the American people and on the contrary, is hurting all of them. It doesn't matter what technicalities there are, what the court needs to know or whatever. The rights are supposed to be straight forward, with no strings attached. All this does is help police getting their convictions by tricking the people they are supposed to serve and protect. This is just tyranny. And if you want to know what the founders thought about tyranny, check the second amendment.
The idea that any right has to be expressly invoked or it's effectively waived, before someone even has access to an attorney, is absolute stupidity. In comparison, SCOTUS probably wouldn't uphold an argument that if a person was never offered a PD and as a result never requested one, that they had waived their right to counsel. Imagine if before protesting we had to say "I'm invoking my right to free speech," otherwise any speech could be punished.
I actually remember seeing another RUclips video where a lawyer said that _suggesting_ to police that you might need a lawyer does not activate your right to counsel, and the police may continue interrogating you without providing counsel. So basically... yes, not expressly invoking your right to counsel waives that right. (Though, when you appear before a judge, the judge will most likely personally invite you to invoke your right to counsel properly, so you'll get counsel at the trial at least.)
@@Tzizenorec They need to be reminded what Rights mean again. They're inherent. It's not our responsibility to remind the government of them, altho they will make it our responsibility if we don't stand up to it.
@@Tzizenorec I was thinking for trial purposes, but you're right that is another poorly decided case. I'm an extremist and think nothing someone says to police should be admissible against them until they've had a meaningful opportunity to talk to a lawyer or waived the right in court in front of a judge.
Ohhh.... You wanted your rights provided by the Constitution of the United States? Uh Oh! Did you tell us you wanted those rights at the time? No?.... GUILTY!
And always remember, while you might have the right to speak to a lawyer, that doesn't extend to a Lawyer Dawg. Or a Lawyer Pig, or any other variety of Lawyer thing.
As an autistic person I’ve always had a problem with that ruling. How does the law weigh silence from those who can’t physically talk when stressed? That’s not just a loop hole imo.
You don't really think the "state" or it's actors care about you? Always remember the cops are there to find people for the state to prosecute. It's really just a business.
You don't really think the "state" or it's actors care about you? Always remember the cops are there to find people for the state to prosecute. It's really just a business.
The real mistake was the voluntary interaction. Announce that you do not consent to any interaction where law enforcement approaches you. Don't give them permission to enter your home or property (or even open the door for them in the first place). Don't comply with requests/demands to exit your home or property, or go somewhere else with them. Announce that you do not consent to searches, and will not provide documentation, nor answer questions. Ask law enforcement to leave your property, or whether you're free to leave while in public. If they refuse, ask if they have a warrant, or you're under arrest. If neither, circle back to asking them to leave, and do nothing but cycle between the two. Never volunteer *_anything_* to law enforcement. Even when faced with a warrant/arrest, you should still voice that you have not consented to any of these things, but should also not resist them in any way. When you're generally cooperative, but revoke that cooperation in specific instances, that revocation becomes evidence of something specific. When being uncooperative is your _default_ behavior, it can't point to anything specific.
Don't circle back to asking them to leave a second time. Tell them they are trespassing, and you're about to use reasonable force to remove them from your property, if they don't immediately voluntarily leave.
And out of all the first world nations our government holds the least power over the citizenry. It makes me wonder why people want to see the federal powers expanded
Tell me the chances a random citizen is going to know all these legal magic tricks without any help. Zero. If the government won't teach you, you shouldn't be expected to know.
In the end here...Don't Talk to the Police! If they have questions, invoke your rights and make them subpoena you for trial if they want that information, with your attorney present of course.
Just want to point out that the question "does this shell match your father's shotgun" is like asking does your car run on fuel...yes and so does every other car
He should've said "I don't know the answer". I suspect his silence was him trying to figure out the answer, and getting nowhere, because the question was unclear (and he wasn't self-aware enough at the time to notice that he didn't understand the question).
It's more like asking "does your father's car run on diesel", it should be plainly obvious if it's diesel or not by smelling it, touching it, or looking at it, and seeing the gauge of shells should be the same way. The moment someone asks you "does this weapon you have access to work with the same type of ammo that was used in the murder?" you know for a fact they're trying to frame you. There's no other reason to ask that question.
Probably the biggest lie told to defendants, suspects, and the general public is, "You are considered innocent until proven guilty." You are NOT considered innocent if you have been arrested. They arrested you because they suspect you are NOT innocent. You are called a suspect for a reason. You are supected of having committed a crime is why you are called a suspect. If they really did consider you innocent they would never have arrested you. You may not be aware of this fact, but the police actually do have the legal right to lie to you, and believe me, they will!
Yep, it is directly stated in the mirandizement. "Everything you say *can* and *will* be used against you" and "say" is interpreted to mean any and every behavior.
The reason this occurred is because the man voluntarily came to PD to answer questions. So complete cooperation with questioning is implied by you coming forward. If he only said, "I will come in to assist if my attorney advises me to." Any lawyer worth their salt will tell you not to. If they ask you tell them your counsel has advised you to not answer any questions and you're invoking your 5th amendment at that time.
@@JollyRed0045 It means that the Supreme Court are the only ones that can decided to trample all over it. Which they will do as soon as at least 5 of them decide it is politically expedient.
"In fact, a person's right to refuse to answer questions depends on his reasons for doing so and the courts need to know those reasons to evaluate the merits of a 5A claim." Did... did he seriously say something to the effect of, "In order to know whether something falls under self-incrimination, people need to tell the court if they'll be incriminated"? Besides explicitly invoking 5A once you realize it's a trap, one simple question will reframe the interview. "Am I being detained?" If they say no, end the interview, call a lawyer. If they say yes, well, now that has completely shifted from interview to interrogation and Miranda comes into play.
Under no circumstances speak to the police without a lawyer present apart from a traffic stop. If they put you in questioning say "I decline to answer any questions without the presence of my attorney to ensure that my rights are respected.
*You don't have to answer ANY questions during a traffic stop. You are only required to provide your license, proof of insurance, & registration if/as asked* .
NEVER voluntarily speak to the police, EVER! Make damned sure you say just what this fellow just told you. You must assert your rights for them to be effective.
No defense for any killers, but I like how he went into this investigation with one set of rules and then the SCOTUS changed them after using the new set of rules yet to be set. Isn't that awesome? The rules can be changed afterwards. Does no one see this as a fundamental problem?
I think SCOTUS needs to be reminded of Article III of the United States Constitution. Explained to them why there's only three hundred and seventy seven words in Article III explaining their role, and why they're the third article.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, "@@Tzizenorec
@@WayneThePreacher "...that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The 5th Amendment was created _pursuant_ to those basic rights, but so far as I can tell it isn't actually one of them.
@@Tzizenorec His point still stands though. Regardless of whether it's divine or not, rights simply exist, you don't need to "invoke" your right to the 1st Amendment, or the 2nd Amendment, or any other rights. You just have them automatically, because that's how rights work. So anything that requires you to "invoke" your rights means that you don't actually have those rights, because it's conditional.
@@SchemingGoldberg I wouldn't view "the 5th amendment shouldn't need to be invoked" as "Wayne's point", really. That's just something we all agree on. Wayne was trying to provide a supporting argument for that, and I was criticizing his particular supporting argument.
I was told by an attorney friend that you should simply and politely say," I don't think my attorney would like me to answer these queations, so I am invoking my 5th amendment right to remain silent and would like to contact my attorney.
“I invoke my 5th amendment right to remain silent” covers it. Or you can add “I don’t consent to any search or seizure of my property”. When you start adding cutesy things like “I don’t think my lawyer would appreciate blah blah blah” you’re giving the police a foot in the door to further bait you. For example they could say “Oh I think your attorney would be fine with it if you have nothing to hide. You don’t have nothing to hide, right?” Now, you might resist that, or you might be drawn into the double negative trap. It depends on the situation, your stress level, the charm and charisma of the cop, etc. do you really want to take that chance with your freedom?
That's fine, but also, "Officer, I am invoking my 4th and 5th Amendment rights as of now." ..and engage in no other conversation, other than to ask over and over "am I being detained? Am I free to go? "..if they start trying to talk to you. You may have to add "is that a lawful order and I'm being detained or am I free to go" if they instruct you to do something. Also, keep the door locked and don't roll the window down all the way. ...just enough to hand your ID (which courts have ruled is legal for cops to demand of drivers), ...and proof of insurance too (if you want to avoid a needless trip to the courthouse), and to permit verbal communication. If you open it all the way, some cops will stick their heads in an begin a search without cause and without permission. The moment they say you are free to go, roll the window up, and leave.
@@ChadBoss-qr4hl This kind of advice is handing the ball to the cops. Don't do that. You WANT them to go on wild goose chases, doubly so if you are filming it. You WANT them to mess up. You WANT them to violate your rights on camera. You WANT them to prove that they're the fuckup they had to be to get that uniform. And when they do, you want to be filming it. Shut up and head down doesn't get cops to slip up.
The key thing people should take from this is that you are "voluntarily" talking to the police. Instead of "voluntarily" talking to them, when they ask you to come talk to them or to answer a few questions you say "no thank you I would like to invoke my 5th amendment right to remain silent and would like a lawyer present before any further questioning, and am I under arrest or being detained?" Which if they say you are not being arrested or detained you should then clarify by saying "am I free to go?" If they say yes you shut your mouth and walk away or even if they say no the only thing you should say is "ok please let me know when i am free to go"and then don't say another word. Once they tell you you're free to go keep your mouth shut and walk away. the police cannot continue asking you questions once you have invoked your right to remain silent. Any time you answer any questions from the police you are voluntarily giving up your 5th amendment and that is never a good option whether guilty or innocent. Always clearly state you are invoking your 5th amendment in any police encounter because if they had enough to charge you or arrest you 9 times out of 10 they are just going to charge and/or arrest you anyways because they don't need the last bit of information they need to be able to charge you unless you voluntarily give them the information they need to use your words against you.
I see what you are saying, he volunteered to talk to them. What happens during a traffic stop and you voluntarily answer a few of the initial questions from a cop, like is this your vehicle? where are you going to? etc.. and then the questions keep coming and you realize it is badgering or prolonging the stop. You should be able to just ignore it from there and not say anything. That now would be "suspicious" and you have something to hide, It could be used against you, and used to justify reasonable suspicion to search, detain, or whatever?
@@thefireman2854 Very good point I've always wondered about this myself. As in the interrogations as well, I have heard that the reason many interrogators will ask if the suspect wants something to drink or eat is not only to loosen them up and ingratiate them to you, but more it waves your 5th Amendment right because you can no longer not answer questions, as you have already answered a question. Just another disgusting encroachment on the constitution by the courts. Hmm, I wonder why prisons are overflowing and wrongful convictions are overturned almost daily?
Like polygraphs, I don't think our system should be able to L.A. Noire people into guilty verdicts (i.e. "The suspect answered while looking up and to the right. He must have been lying")
This just reinforced what I was told from a lawyer years ago. Invoke right away and say nothing to them at all. I get pulled over for a traffic stop and I invoke it as soon as the officer walks up to me.
3:22 - Police only need to read you Miranda if they are going to question/interrogate you after you are in police custody. If you're being read Miranda, you've likely been under arrest for some time.
Never answer questions and invoke the: 4th amendment- I do not consent to searches and seizures of my person, property or effects. 5th amendment- I'm invoking my right to remain silent. 6th amendment- I want my attorney present for all questions you have of me.
Say NOTHING when you are interrogated, uh, interviewed, other than your personal identification; do not unlock your cellphone for them (don't even carry it unless absolutely necessary; use a burner phone). "I have nothing to say to you." or "I don't answer questions." Get a good criminal lawyer and NEVER EVER CONFESS about anything to anyone, even your own lawyer; if your lawyer asks if you "did it", then immediately get another defense lawyer. The only reason you're being interrogated, uh, interviewed, is because they don't yet have enough evidence to convict you of anything. If they threaten or charge you with "obstruction of justice" for not speaking to them, then wait for your lawyer to get you in front of a judge. Remember the names and badge numbers of the thugs for later lawsuits and doxing.
Actually, your lawyer is the one person you wanna tell everything to. It’s their job to get you off the hook and if theyre getting paid enough they’ll do their best to cover things up if youre guilty
Also ignorance of the law is no excuse unless you're charged with upholding it. It's an inversion of both common sense and justice. Have you read No Treason?
Assuming guilt because of silence seems like projection. People react differently. Most Americans assume they have the right to remain silent, not the right to to say they will be invoking their 5th amendment right. At the least, he should've been allowed to say why he had remained silent. Also, seems like having to say why you're remaining silent is compelled speech
I got pulled over the other day in Fairfield, OH and when the cop asked me where I was coming from I told him I didn’t want to answer any questions. I meant to say I’d like to remain silent but it came out wrong. He didn’t like that. Then he sees the can in my cup holder and wants to know what’s in it. I told him no and he said well now I know it’s alcohol and you’ll have to get out of the car. I knew that was a lawful order so I stepped out. He wouldn’t let me shut the door and then reached in to inspect the Rockstar energy drink. He yelled “seriously?” I said I don’t answer questions. I got back in my car and he went back to his to write the ticket for improperly displayed plates. I’m happy to pay the ticket but I’m not entirely sure if he violated any of my rights. I’m familiar with plain view doctrine but can he demand I show him the can and then when I don’t use that against me? Would he have had probable cause to search even if I didn’t remain silent?
Convicting someone because their behavior was not consistent with someone’s expectations of how an innocent person should behave is wrong. Difference between assumed guilty and proven, lies in evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
People who are not guilty of any crime(s) should not talk to police: that is what lawyers are for. As for "feeling uncomfortable" when police officers stare at a silent person, that is better than a person talking just to fill the silence.
I've never had to actually consider what this meant. I only found out recently, and that was only by watching many of this type of video that you must actually proclaim that you wish to remain silent. As far as I'm concerned, this Miranda warning isn't exactly clear about wishing to remain silent. That's all a cop tells you about it, is that you have the right, but they don't tell you that your silence will be used as an admission of guilt, only that anything you say will. "Anything you say can and will..." actually sounds like you need to keep your mouth shut. To someone who is being arrested for the first time, or has never watched this type of video, or has never had anyone explain it to them, if you're accused of something that you had absolutely nothing at all to do with, your ass could be going away for a long time because so called "law enforcement" only told you half of what you really need to know. How many innocent people have been dragged through our "justice" system because they thought they understood their rights, when in reality, all they were guilty of was following the directions to the letter, exactly the way a cop explained it to them? I don't think there's any way of ever really knowing how many innocent people went to prison and were released many, many years later a completely different person than the way they went in, and all because they followed the directions on the tin.
The police have never been "fair". Before the Miranda ruling, they didn't explain anything. And the part that blows my mind is that it is legal for them to lie to you, but illegal for you to lie to them.
That's why we have Miranda rights in the first place. A man named Miranda was arrested and was unaware of his rights. So, they made it standard practice to read you your rights when the police place you under arrest.
The ones who voted for this got it right because police, prosectors and many judges don't like this right so they are trying to take this right away to making thesed rulings. It doesnt matter what the Constitution says its whatver these people say it says.
Also tell the cops to stop asking questions until an attorney is present. Demand they stop immediately. Not have a "how are you doing?" or "Don't you want to give me your side of the story"?
In any encounter with the police you should invoke your 4,5,and 6th admendment rights, and ask if you are free to leave. If not shut up. The only thing that you should say after that if they ask you more questions is I don't talk to police without the advice and assistance of an attorny. In many conversations with public defenders they said that they never had a client talk their way out of trouble but many who had talked themselves into jail.
The laws were originally put in place to protect everyone innocent and guilty alike now it seems to be just the guilty that are protected see an innocent man sentenced to life in prison for a crime he didn't commit and finally released after 46 years after it was found the police lied and withheld evidence
The courts got this, so unbelievably wrong. What should have happened is a jury instruction telling jurors that his silence cannot be used to infer guilt.
The fifth Amendment: provides that citizens not be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment without due process. Citizens may not be tried on the same set of facts twice and are protected from self-incrimination (the right to remain silent). The amendment also establishes the power of eminent domain, ensuring that private property is not seized for public use without just compensation. - It is about self-incrimination (not necessarily silence), but some how we have lost that.
I think selective silence is the issue here. Dont answer any questions and the refusal to answer 1 isn't suspicious. Its like a cops body cam. When the whole body cam footage is there except for the moment the cop claims his victim pulled a gun on him, it looks a bit suspicious. If the whole day of footage is missing, his claim of a malfunction or innocently forgetting to turn it on is a bit more believable.
The problem is the scenario mentioned in the video. Many people want to cooperate with the police, particularly if they beleive they are innocent of the crime the police claim to be investigating. So they will answer questions until they realise those questions are leading to a place they don't want to be. Sometimes, it's necessary to cooperate with police if you want crimes to be discovered and stopped. But if the officer has an agenda and wants to twist things so it makes you look guilty when you aren't, then you would have been better off staying quiet from the start. But if the cop's clever, you won't know that until it's too late.
@@rodh1404 Precisely why I simply do not ever cooperate with cops, I still deal with them as respectful as I can be, but it's always invoking right to silence + do not consent to anything + ask am I being arrested + film the interaction. Unless I am the one who call the cop, I see very little reason to ever cooperating with one, even if they are off duty. Trust is earned, not given, sadly this has to be the case.
The problem is that people notice when you ask a blatant leading/framing question like "are these shell casings we found at the scene the same type that your father's gun uses?" and then start thinking maybe this officer isn't just being thorough but is asking me to dig my own grave. In the exact same situation, if he said "I invoke the fifth amendment", his refusal to answer can't be used against him. But literally any other way of refusing to answer, for some reason, can be used against him. Yes, being selective about which questions you answer can paint a picture, but if someone is trying to paint you as a villain by getting you to answer technically-true statements, dignifying that with a response is irresponsible.
ALL interactions with pigs need to start the same way. "I invoke ALL of my rights under the constitutions of the United States AND this state." Some states actually have greater protections than the federal constitution. Repeat on loop.
Never volunteer to talk to the po-po. Always ask am I being arrested? What are the charges? Then say I plead the 5th & I would like an attorney only after your miranda rights are read. If 5-0 fails to read them you will walk. The police are not your friend. Remember that.
Well, they are not proving your innocence (as you and everyone are automatically presumed to be) they are failing to prove your guilt to the standard which is required. There’s a difference.
Understand this if you are depending on the government to pay for your defense then you've already lost because the defense never has the budget of the prosecution. Just because the state is going to pay for your defense doesn't mean they're going to provide you with a competent lawyer, let alone competent council before, during or after incident.. understand this the powers that be have a vested interest in maintaining the prison-industrial system that the West has become so fond of, especially here in the United States. WHY do we have so many prisoners because it makes money is the fifth largest industry in the entire United States. The legal system from judges, the courthouses to jails to prisons to guards to cops to prosecuting attorneys and defense attorneys you are on the receiving end of a stacked dice... Never take legal advice from a cop alongside the road when he's trying to explain to you your constitutional rights, sound familiar you have the right to remain silent, anything that you say can will be used against you you can bet on that one!!! The reality is is that the cop has an interest in making sure he has a case and if you're the one and you better have a lawyer and you better watch anything and everything you're about to say, BECAUSE they will use it to screw you over whether you're innocent or guilty.....
If that difference exists. It does so outside the walls of our judicial system. As the person above stated. It’s a business. Not more. Play the game the right way, and you can suck out taxpayers dollars to fund your retirement.
Because the police WANT you to talk. They want you to confess guilt. So they're not going to inform you about your rights, because your rights get in the way of them arresting you.
So it's "adverse inference" then but the perverse result is that you shouldn't voluntarily answer any questions nor assist the police at all. Period! I am sure that there will be similar legal issues in other jurisdictions without the 5th as I have heard of the common law right to silence being eroded in its original home back in the UK.
The logic of "well if they clam up that indicates guilt" was not followed through to the logical conclusion allowing that silence to be used against them then they would logically be compelled to be a witness against themselves unless they said some very specific magic words. Which is precisely what the 5th amendment forbids that is being compelled to be a witness against yourself.
You should not have to invoke your right to the fifth. If you have a right you just exercise it. I exercise my right to do things every day and I don't walk outside and tell everybody what I'm doing.
All this does is ensure that those in know will or should never agree to engage with the police voluntarily. The appropriate response now whenever the police want to talk to you is just to say "Sorry, I don't talk to the police without my lawyer present." and just repeat that afterwards if they keep asking questions.
Supreme Court said “you have to confess to everything so that we can decide whether or not your silence is valid.” Makes perfect sense. I wonder how much they have been bought for.
Great video, but I wished it was a bit broader in scope so it includes avoiding interrogations in the first place" "Am I being detailed?" If "no", LEAVE. If "yes", invoke your 5th Amendment rights and demand an attorney. This avoids the police playing games with whether you're under arrest. It forces the issue and cuts to the chase. IANAL
If you need mindgames and trickery, are you really the good guy? Lying, deception, and trickery such as this should not be tolerated. Some studies suggest this kind of technique, like torture, is more effective at CREATING lies than producing truth.
This is one of the reasons any good lawyer will tell you to never talk to the police even when you're innocent. Even if the police are 100% on the up and up errors can be made and those errors can make you look bad in court. Never speak to the police without a lawyer present except to invoke your right to silence and to request a lawyer.
This was a bad ruling. Rights are not based on saying you are exercising them. They ARE. PERIOD. You don't need to "invoke" any Rights. I have never had to "invoke" a single other Right codified in the Constitution. I may CLARIFY that I am exercising a Right if challenged, but I have never "invoked" a Right. That said, even as a former police officer, I say be very careful when you talk to police. And if you can in any way be considered a suspect, NEVER talk to police without a lawyer... or better yet, have your LAWYER talk to them. THAT said, I highly doubt this one aspect of the guy's case and trial was what got him convicted.
If there was a lack of real evidence, he should not of been convicted. Pretending we can read peoples minds and thus imply their quilt is outrageously wrong.
Implied Quilts for everyone apparently. :p
Welcome to the USSA
Not to mention, if I understood what they said correctly, they were asking about his father’s shotgun. How do they get he murdered the victim from him not wanting to answer whether his father’s shotgun may have been the murder weapon? Couldn’t that just as easily be him not wanting to incriminate his father (either knowing he did it or not knowing but not wanting to answer truthfully that he doesn’t know because that could be interpreted to mean he thinks he may have).
"imply their quilt" - would a comforter or a blanket make the same implication? Holy sheet!
WTF was the jury thinking?
Not the first time the Supreme Court has made a mistake.
"...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."
Is pretty clear language to me.
Yeah, well "shall not be INFRINGED" is pretty clear language in the 2nd Amendment and yet there are ~thousands~ of anti-gun laws across the US.
Right, which does not apply to civil cases. That's the issue.
@@MichaelKunz-mt2oo Yes, but that is only if you take the entire amendment out of context, which you have to do to think that everyone, including those who have committed gun crimes, should be allowed to have guns. That is not at all what the amendment means.
@@lockedonlaw So what's your definition of "shall not be infringed mean " ? Except in cases of ?
@@MichaelKunz-mt2oo Except that the Constitution is not a list of rights of the People. It is a list of enumerated powers of federal government and a list of enumerated restrictions upon federal government. The Second Amendment is not a restriction on states rights. That is why different states can make different gun laws. I'd go into much greater detail but I'd be wasting my time since you continue to take part of the amendment out of its intended context.
If the police are questioning you the only thing you should say is "I want to talk to a lawyer", "am I under arrest?", "can I go now?", and " I refuse to answer any questions."
Truth
Yup
You need to add "I do not consent to any searches or seizures."
And apparently according to this video that you verbally state you are invoking your 5th amendment rights
"I want to go to the Hospital."
Questioning Stops,
Duress interrogation, conditional medical attention.
We will give you aid, if you confess.
The miranda rights they read you state, "You have the right to remain silent..." not "You have the right to verbally tell us you wish to use your right to remain silent."
Yes, but in a voluntary interview, those haven't been read. When you are under arrest, the cops are required to read and recognize your right to remain silent. In other circumstances, you must invoke it yourself.
@@shadyparadox But the point is, everybody who has ever seen a cop show knows their miranda rights. And the miranda warnings say a person has the right to remain silent. So then why shouldn't a person who is being questioned by the police think he doesn't have the right to remain silent?
The Supreme Court is really being intellectually dishonest with this one.
Some much for inalienable rights huh
@@shadyparadoxcops are not required to read you your rights every time you are under arrest. If you are detained for a crime and QUESTIONED about it, then they have to read you your rights before any questioning.
America is a police state, dressed up as a "Democracy".
Two things to know.
1. The difference between an interview and interrogation.
2. NEVER TALK TO POLICE IN EITHER SITUATION without legal representation.
@@bokrugthewaterserpent3012 wrong. It's up to YOU to look them in the eye and say "am I free to leave", if yes, get up and go, if no, you are being charged, shut up and demand an attorney.
People need to educate themselves, or lose. One simple question tells you if you are being interviewed or interrogated.
Going from person of interest to suspect can be a thin line... and there is no notice. Interview plods on, just sifting for more nuggets to use as if nothing changed.
You missed the most important thing here
if you're asked to visit the police department to make a statement DO NOT GO !
If he had not went to the station none of it would have happened, my view is if they have enough to arrest me they can come find me.
@@rrmackay see number 2.
I like the idea in general, but I will say, if you called the cops, it makes sense to talk to them unless you get a bad vibe. They can't help you if you won't help them, nor will they even try. But yeah, if you didn't call them, and they aren't showing up at your door to deliver some bad news (that happens too), then 4th and 5th amendments all the way.
The Supremes always find "loopholes" that don't seem to be written anywhere. Are they listening to voices in their heads?
Most of the supremes are too old to be practicing law, and are subject to dementia and Alzheimers. There is a reason the retirement age of 65 must be adhered to.
If the supreme court is ruling on it, it's bad news for the people. In a few more generations we will have no rights. That's our trajectory. It would be interesting to put a graph together starting from 1789 to present with the X-axis being data such as tax, national debt, freedoms, etc. 😔
Have you ever seen Wickard V. Filburn? The Constitution limits the authority of Congress to Interstate Commerce. From what I understand, the Supreme Court found that growing wheat on your own property to feed to your own animals all within one state instead of buying it from out of state _affects_ interstate commerce. Therefore, Congress can tell you not to do it. Neat trick, huh? They made the wording of the Commerce Clause mean the _exact opposite_ of what it says. _NOT engaging in interstate commerce_ falls under the authority granted by the Commerce Clause. You can't make this stuff up.
@@AcmeRacing Wickard is the very worst Supreme Court decision that is still in effect. (Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson were worse, but they have been turned over.)
I wish they had voices in their heads, it would at least be something in there.
I am sure that the Founding Fathers NEVER thought that we would twist the 5th Amendment in such a perverse way!
The founding fathers are rolling in their grave over all bs this system has thrown at us
Blame the conservative "justices"
@@Demon_Curseit has nothing to do with conservative or liberal left or right it's US versus them our government has grown way outside of his footprint bigger than it was ever intended to and they are doing everything they can to create a criminal class and retain power and expand that power. And to keep us looking in the other direction they create the narrative of left versus right conservative versus liberal all the while those in power are secretly stealing our country together
@@Demon_Curse the "Just Us" ices
It’s Texas, the home of the depraved.
Miranda: "anything you say can and will be used against you"
Courts: "also, anything you don't say will be used against you too".
In The channel law by Mike the lawyer said you have to specifically say "I invoke the 5th" to make sure that there's no loophole to be exploited.
wait how am i the bad guy here, this warlording had full and supreme cassus belli, I was gonna leave the universe floor but got chained together by the gurls
All three branches of government are corrupt and everyone needs removed
Right! Either way it is self-incrimination. Therefore, where is the protection?
at this point may just say 'you are guilty whenever we feel like it'
land of the free my ass
Silence is smart not guilty. Fidgeting is anger not guilt.
Ever since I read Wickard v. Filburn in a business law class, I have been convinced that SCOTUS can interpret laws to mean the exact opposite of what they say. Likewise, the fifth amendment seems to have a loophole, where exercising your right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination is self-incriminating. It's absurd on its face.
It's absurd on its ass, too!
@@mpscorporation6874 😀
I must speak to be allowed the privilege to be silent. Otherwise I'm presumed guilty. What other right do I have to assert like that? It's ridiculous. I'd like to assert my first amendment right. It's ridiculous.
It's almost as if the courts have forgotten that my rights are god given. God did not grant me rights that the courts must interpret. They are fundamental!
I've gotta look this up
It's a logical error.
It's better to let ten guilty men walk free than imprison ONE innocent man. I think the Supreme Court has forgotten that.
The court hates your rights. They have been carving out exceptions to all rights for centuries. "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," Where is the exception in that?
Blks are raraely innocent
@RUclipsMan98 You're not being compelled to encriminate yourself by being silent. So there is a loophole in regards to this case. However I agree I don't believe silence should be able to establish guilt. If silence establishes guilt then prosecutors will have an easy time convicting innocent people who simply mistrust the criminal justice system. If people feel like they are forced to speak then they panic and say stupid things that aren't necessarily representing objective reality which will then be used against them.
I'm not sure that the American justice system has _ever_ held this as a belief, let alone a core tenet.
@@don5062 You may be right that America has never lived up to that ideal but it was on the minds of the Founding Fathers. Benjamin Franklin said, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
This is called Blackstone's Ratio after William Blackstone a prominent British jurist of Franklin's day. And that idea, innocent until proven guilty to a jury of one's peers, comes from English Common Law and the Magna Carta.
The critical lesson to be learned here is that the Constitution means exactly what SCOTUS says it means, and this is subject to change from time to time.
This is why lawyers tell you to never answer questions without a lawyer, even on a traffic stop. Even the most innocuous question can be used against you and even an evasive answer can be used against you. An example of this is if a cop asks you where you are coming from and you answer "from back there" and when they ask you where you are going and you say "down the road," the court considers that an "evasive" answer, and the court has ruled that evasive answers are a legal negative that can be used to increase reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime. This means that what the lawyer just said is exactly right. If a cop stops you anywhere and askes you questions, the first words out of your mouth should be "I have a constitutional right to not answer your questions," and remain silent except if the cop asks you for permission to search, at which time you should simply say "I do not consent to any searches or seizures." If everyone in the US started to do that, traffic stops would be cut in half. Cops quickly find it unprofitable for them to do BS stops hoping to escalate it into something more than just a BS traffic stop and my own opinion is that cops don't give a rats ass about traffic safety and the main reason they stop people is to try to find an excuse to search the car.
I watched a video of a judge ruling about an arrest. The victim was at a gas station and because he talked to another guy in another car at the gas station, the cops developed the legal theory that they were smuggling drugs, and the first car to leave the station was going to go out ahead of the second car to warn the driver of the second car about speed traps and such. One of the cops followed the man for many miles down the road and when the cop at the station reported that the second car left and was going in the same direction, the cop following the victim pulled him over. When asked where he was going, the victim, who had no particular reason to think he had done anything wrong, answered "West." When the cop asked him where he was coming from, the victim said "East.' The victim also had a front and rear dash cameras and the cop thought that was suspicious and arrested the man for drug running. Of course, the charges were dismissed, but the victim decided to sue. What is interesting is that the judge agreed that the cameras and the evasive answers were indeed enough to elevate suspicion, he allowed the lawsuit to go forward because the basis of the rational to follow the car in the first place, two guys that talk to each other at a filling station, was a completely bogus legal theory to stand on without any evidence. The point though is that the judge said that when questioned, evasive answers can add to the reasonable suspicion of a crime to add together with other items to give probable cause. The judge shot this case down because he thought it was a preposterous assumption that these guys were in a drug smuggling operation simply because they talked to one another at the gas pumps.
@Ayn-Rand-Is-Dead Kavanaugh is not a r@pist.
It od sickening that a supposedly Constitutionalist SCOTUS could make such BULLSHIT rulings.
@@Ayn-Rand-Is-Dead By those other justices you failed to mention.
That's why you never volunteer to questioning by police. Make them go through their processes and answer nothing w/o a lawyer.
i'd alter or add to that.
only answer questions that your attorney says to answer.
or, better still, let your lawyer do all the speaking.
If possible its best you are not even there at all cause even if you say nothing they can use your body langue against you. @@nonenone-ll7ln
If one can afford it, keep an attorney on retainer
@@nonenone-ll7ln The big deal with an attorney is what the attorney says CANNOT be held against you. It is hearsay. Even experienced attorneys get other attorneys.
and if one cannot afford it? @@Scleavers How much does that cost a person anyway?
Nothing breeds as much contempt for the law as SCOTUS decisions like this one.
Its not only voluntary. Voluntary or involuntary invoke 5th and request to speak to a lawyer. Don't voluntarily give info even when innocent, they'll spin it to make you seem guilty.
Exactly.
"Anything you Say ( including nothing) CAN and WILL be used AGAINST you in a court of law."
@Metqa I wish to invoke my 5th Amendment rights. I will not make any statement to police at this time, because I don't have an attorney present..
@@Metqa And anything you say won't be used in your defense.
Unbelievable they could mess this up so bad. This stupidity should be literally mailed to every citizen.
CULTURE OF CORRUPTION!
It's not stupidity, it's laziness. Police LITERALLY take the path of least resistance to get a conviction. That includes ruining innocent people's lives.
@@qx4n9e1xpand telling lies to get what they want
@@qx4n9e1xp When cops cite people for "interfering with their investigation", what they are really doing is Fining People for not doing the Police work for the Police. If you don't incriminate yourself or incriminate someone else for them, you will be punished for not helping them to incriminate someone. It's not about solving crimes, it's about making crimes that did not exist before they got there.
It's not stupid it's intentional government always moves towards tyranny
The suspect should have NEVER agreed to come in to talk to the police in the first place.
Right. He didn't exercise his right to remain silent. So, when he got uncomfortable by a certain question, sure that could be used against him.
@glumberty1 so if I say hello to a cop, then stop taking to them, I guess I'm guilty.
@@krillin6 Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, dude.
@@krillin6 Personally, I don't agree with the ruling. I'm trying to make sense of the nuance. I don't think your analogy makes any sense though. That's not what happened here. I'd still be curious to learn more facts about the case. I find it hard to believe that a jury found the guy guilty based on nothing more than him not answering a question.
@@glumberty1 yeah thats honestly not enough to convict anyone they had to have had something else. the problem is he didnt remain silent so idk why this guy in the video is saying this for it to work you must remain silent at all times and give them nothing. it is questionable that he went silent at that part but that doesnt prove hes guilty he could have just thought they were trying to frame him or his dad. i really doubt they convicted him based on that alone.
SCOTUS needs a good cleaning out.
The SCOTUS needs an enema.....
"You are not required to say *anything* to us *at any time* or answer any questions."
"You are guilty of murder because you didn't say anything without saying you don't want to say anything."
Absolute joke 🤡
All of this should be overruled. If they have real evidence, the people involved should go to jail, if they're guilty. But this ruling does nothing to serve the American people and on the contrary, is hurting all of them. It doesn't matter what technicalities there are, what the court needs to know or whatever. The rights are supposed to be straight forward, with no strings attached. All this does is help police getting their convictions by tricking the people they are supposed to serve and protect. This is just tyranny. And if you want to know what the founders thought about tyranny, check the second amendment.
The idea that any right has to be expressly invoked or it's effectively waived, before someone even has access to an attorney, is absolute stupidity. In comparison, SCOTUS probably wouldn't uphold an argument that if a person was never offered a PD and as a result never requested one, that they had waived their right to counsel. Imagine if before protesting we had to say "I'm invoking my right to free speech," otherwise any speech could be punished.
Must I also invoke my second amendment right? Lol good point
I actually remember seeing another RUclips video where a lawyer said that _suggesting_ to police that you might need a lawyer does not activate your right to counsel, and the police may continue interrogating you without providing counsel. So basically... yes, not expressly invoking your right to counsel waives that right.
(Though, when you appear before a judge, the judge will most likely personally invite you to invoke your right to counsel properly, so you'll get counsel at the trial at least.)
It's an absolutely stupid system
@@Tzizenorec They need to be reminded what Rights mean again.
They're inherent. It's not our responsibility to remind the government of them, altho they will make it our responsibility if we don't stand up to it.
@@Tzizenorec I was thinking for trial purposes, but you're right that is another poorly decided case. I'm an extremist and think nothing someone says to police should be admissible against them until they've had a meaningful opportunity to talk to a lawyer or waived the right in court in front of a judge.
Ohhh.... You wanted your rights provided by the Constitution of the United States? Uh Oh! Did you tell us you wanted those rights at the time? No?.... GUILTY!
Exactly, it's insane.
And always remember, while you might have the right to speak to a lawyer, that doesn't extend to a Lawyer Dawg. Or a Lawyer Pig, or any other variety of Lawyer thing.
@@rodh1404 That is still one of the most embarrassing travesties of justice to ever be sick our legal system.
The Constitution doesn't grant rights. We already have rights. It limits government from violating those rights.
@@PrinceAlberts A travesty it is, but IMHO, the worst, the most embarrassing, is civil asset forfeiture ... legalized armed robbery by the government,
As an autistic person I’ve always had a problem with that ruling. How does the law weigh silence from those who can’t physically talk when stressed? That’s not just a loop hole imo.
Cops just beat up the handicapped
You don't really think the "state" or it's actors care about you? Always remember the cops are there to find people for the state to prosecute. It's really just a business.
You don't really think the "state" or it's actors care about you? Always remember the cops are there to find people for the state to prosecute. It's really just a business.
@@ds29912 The Prison Industrial Complex and the Ruling Class need their slaves
The United States is the heir of Nazi Germany. We havent been a truly free nation since 1913 and many can argue since the Civil War.
The real mistake was the voluntary interaction. Announce that you do not consent to any interaction where law enforcement approaches you. Don't give them permission to enter your home or property (or even open the door for them in the first place). Don't comply with requests/demands to exit your home or property, or go somewhere else with them. Announce that you do not consent to searches, and will not provide documentation, nor answer questions. Ask law enforcement to leave your property, or whether you're free to leave while in public. If they refuse, ask if they have a warrant, or you're under arrest. If neither, circle back to asking them to leave, and do nothing but cycle between the two. Never volunteer *_anything_* to law enforcement. Even when faced with a warrant/arrest, you should still voice that you have not consented to any of these things, but should also not resist them in any way.
When you're generally cooperative, but revoke that cooperation in specific instances, that revocation becomes evidence of something specific. When being uncooperative is your _default_ behavior, it can't point to anything specific.
Don't circle back to asking them to leave a second time. Tell them they are trespassing, and you're about to use reasonable force to remove them from your property, if they don't immediately voluntarily leave.
The fact that we have to have videos about how to protect your self from the government shows a huge breakdown in our system
And out of all the first world nations our government holds the least power over the citizenry. It makes me wonder why people want to see the federal powers expanded
Tell me the chances a random citizen is going to know all these legal magic tricks without any help.
Zero. If the government won't teach you, you shouldn't be expected to know.
And by now, no officer can say that they didn't know that doing anything like that thing was a crime.
I would never voluntarily go in, if I did, it would be with a lawyer.
NEVER TALK WITH POLICE.
In the end here...Don't Talk to the Police! If they have questions, invoke your rights and make them subpoena you for trial if they want that information, with your attorney present of course.
Just want to point out that the question "does this shell match your father's shotgun" is like asking does your car run on fuel...yes and so does every other car
Which is why the SC ruling was so ridiculous!!! It's a trick question...
He should've said "I don't know the answer". I suspect his silence was him trying to figure out the answer, and getting nowhere, because the question was unclear (and he wasn't self-aware enough at the time to notice that he didn't understand the question).
If he know he purchased those shells, it’s an admission of guilt to say anything
Let me guess... his dad has a 12-gauge, and a 12-gauge shotgun hull was found. Of course it fits, dummy.
It's more like asking "does your father's car run on diesel", it should be plainly obvious if it's diesel or not by smelling it, touching it, or looking at it, and seeing the gauge of shells should be the same way.
The moment someone asks you "does this weapon you have access to work with the same type of ammo that was used in the murder?" you know for a fact they're trying to frame you. There's no other reason to ask that question.
The court always assumes you are guilty and use everything against you
Probably the biggest lie told to defendants, suspects, and the general public is, "You are considered innocent until proven guilty." You are NOT considered innocent if you have been arrested. They arrested you because they suspect you are NOT innocent. You are called a suspect for a reason. You are supected of having committed a crime is why you are called a suspect. If they really did consider you innocent they would never have arrested you. You may not be aware of this fact, but the police actually do have the legal right to lie to you, and believe me, they will!
Yep, it is directly stated in the mirandizement. "Everything you say *can* and *will* be used against you" and "say" is interpreted to mean any and every behavior.
@@larrymorris6896 this is where cop immunity becauses a problem
Don't volunteer to talk to the cops without a lawyer. Ever!
If the police say they want to ask you some questions, DO NOT agree to do so
Astonishing to think you must verbally invoke a right that you already have. ⬅
Inherent Right.
As long as you invoke it.
What's inherent even mean?
If you have to do anything to get it, it's not a right. They're just playing stupid games. Legal fictions are Always incompatible with justice.
The reason this occurred is because the man voluntarily came to PD to answer questions. So complete cooperation with questioning is implied by you coming forward. If he only said, "I will come in to assist if my attorney advises me to." Any lawyer worth their salt will tell you not to. If they ask you tell them your counsel has advised you to not answer any questions and you're invoking your 5th amendment at that time.
@@JollyRed0045 It means that the Supreme Court are the only ones that can decided to trample all over it. Which they will do as soon as at least 5 of them decide it is politically expedient.
We don't
"In fact, a person's right to refuse to answer questions depends on his reasons for doing so and the courts need to know those reasons to evaluate the merits of a 5A claim."
Did... did he seriously say something to the effect of, "In order to know whether something falls under self-incrimination, people need to tell the court if they'll be incriminated"?
Besides explicitly invoking 5A once you realize it's a trap, one simple question will reframe the interview. "Am I being detained?" If they say no, end the interview, call a lawyer. If they say yes, well, now that has completely shifted from interview to interrogation and Miranda comes into play.
Under no circumstances speak to the police without a lawyer present apart from a traffic stop. If they put you in questioning say "I decline to answer any questions without the presence of my attorney to ensure that my rights are respected.
That being said, playing stupid is always the best solution. "I don't know, aren't all shotguns the same? Like 12 gauge or something, right?"
*You don't have to answer ANY questions during a traffic stop. You are only required to provide your license, proof of insurance, & registration if/as asked* .
Imagine if the police have told a mute person to have his hands in a specific place. Are they able to exercise the 5th?
NEVER voluntarily speak to the police, EVER! Make damned sure you say just what this fellow just told you. You must assert your rights for them to be effective.
No defense for any killers, but I like how he went into this investigation with one set of rules and then the SCOTUS changed them after using the new set of rules yet to be set. Isn't that awesome? The rules can be changed afterwards. Does no one see this as a fundamental problem?
I think SCOTUS needs to be reminded of Article III of the United States Constitution. Explained to them why there's only three hundred and seventy seven words in Article III explaining their role, and why they're the third article.
Everyone deserves a robust defense.
@@JollyRed0045It’s not SCOTUS it’s the Entire Republican Party and all Conservatives.
@@shadowsonicsilver6, Add the entire democrat party and liberals to that list.
@@JollyRed0045
Very robust example of false equivalence you’ve concocted.
A God given right is an automatic right. Not one that needs to be invoke.
We're talking about constitutional rights, not divine rights.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, "@@Tzizenorec
@@WayneThePreacher "...that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The 5th Amendment was created _pursuant_ to those basic rights, but so far as I can tell it isn't actually one of them.
@@Tzizenorec His point still stands though. Regardless of whether it's divine or not, rights simply exist, you don't need to "invoke" your right to the 1st Amendment, or the 2nd Amendment, or any other rights. You just have them automatically, because that's how rights work. So anything that requires you to "invoke" your rights means that you don't actually have those rights, because it's conditional.
@@SchemingGoldberg I wouldn't view "the 5th amendment shouldn't need to be invoked" as "Wayne's point", really. That's just something we all agree on. Wayne was trying to provide a supporting argument for that, and I was criticizing his particular supporting argument.
I was told by an attorney friend that you should simply and politely say," I don't think my attorney would like me to answer these queations, so I am invoking my 5th amendment right to remain silent and would like to contact my attorney.
“I invoke my 5th amendment right to remain silent” covers it. Or you can add “I don’t consent to any search or seizure of my property”.
When you start adding cutesy things like “I don’t think my lawyer would appreciate blah blah blah” you’re giving the police a foot in the door to further bait you. For example they could say “Oh I think your attorney would be fine with it if you have nothing to hide. You don’t have nothing to hide, right?”
Now, you might resist that, or you might be drawn into the double negative trap. It depends on the situation, your stress level, the charm and charisma of the cop, etc. do you really want to take that chance with your freedom?
That's fine, but also, "Officer, I am invoking my 4th and 5th Amendment rights as of now." ..and engage in no other conversation, other than to ask over and over "am I being detained? Am I free to go? "..if they start trying to talk to you. You may have to add "is that a lawful order and I'm being detained or am I free to go" if they instruct you to do something. Also, keep the door locked and don't roll the window down all the way. ...just enough to hand your ID (which courts have ruled is legal for cops to demand of drivers), ...and proof of insurance too (if you want to avoid a needless trip to the courthouse), and to permit verbal communication. If you open it all the way, some cops will stick their heads in an begin a search without cause and without permission. The moment they say you are free to go, roll the window up, and leave.
@@ChadBoss-qr4hl This kind of advice is handing the ball to the cops. Don't do that.
You WANT them to go on wild goose chases, doubly so if you are filming it. You WANT them to mess up. You WANT them to violate your rights on camera. You WANT them to prove that they're the fuckup they had to be to get that uniform. And when they do, you want to be filming it.
Shut up and head down doesn't get cops to slip up.
The key thing people should take from this is that you are "voluntarily" talking to the police. Instead of "voluntarily" talking to them, when they ask you to come talk to them or to answer a few questions you say "no thank you I would like to invoke my 5th amendment right to remain silent and would like a lawyer present before any further questioning, and am I under arrest or being detained?" Which if they say you are not being arrested or detained you should then clarify by saying "am I free to go?" If they say yes you shut your mouth and walk away or even if they say no the only thing you should say is "ok please let me know when i am free to go"and then don't say another word. Once they tell you you're free to go keep your mouth shut and walk away. the police cannot continue asking you questions once you have invoked your right to remain silent. Any time you answer any questions from the police you are voluntarily giving up your 5th amendment and that is never a good option whether guilty or innocent. Always clearly state you are invoking your 5th amendment in any police encounter because if they had enough to charge you or arrest you 9 times out of 10 they are just going to charge and/or arrest you anyways because they don't need the last bit of information they need to be able to charge you unless you voluntarily give them the information they need to use your words against you.
I don't even understand how an honest person can "carry on a conversation" with a trained liar. Nothing can be gained by the honest.
Thank you so much for giving your viewers this very, very important information. I'm going to tell everyone I know about this, just in case.
You are so welcome!
Never call the cops. Never talk to cops.
What do you do when a cop wants to talk to you?
Start filming and repeat "I'm shooting a film, not answering quetions".
@@chernobyl169 You probably shouldn't say shooting a film, they might take it literally.
His mistake is that he didn't remain silent. He talked and was selectively silent.
I see what you are saying, he volunteered to talk to them. What happens during a traffic stop and you voluntarily answer a few of the initial questions from a cop, like is this your vehicle? where are you going to? etc.. and then the questions keep coming and you realize it is badgering or prolonging the stop. You should be able to just ignore it from there and not say anything. That now would be "suspicious" and you have something to hide, It could be used against you, and used to justify reasonable suspicion to search, detain, or whatever?
@@thefireman2854 Very good point I've always wondered about this myself. As in the interrogations as well, I have heard that the reason many interrogators will ask if the suspect wants something to drink or eat is not only to loosen them up and ingratiate them to you, but more it waves your 5th Amendment right because you can no longer not answer questions, as you have already answered a question. Just another disgusting encroachment on the constitution by the courts. Hmm, I wonder why prisons are overflowing and wrongful convictions are overturned almost daily?
Like polygraphs, I don't think our system should be able to L.A. Noire people into guilty verdicts (i.e. "The suspect answered while looking up and to the right. He must have been lying")
@@ananousous "He hesitated to speak for 0.000001 seconds, clearly he's guilty!"
and that he didn't specifically invoke his right to remain silent and demand a lawyer
At what point does the Supreme Court lose legitimacy?
This just reinforced what I was told from a lawyer years ago. Invoke right away and say nothing to them at all. I get pulled over for a traffic stop and I invoke it as soon as the officer walks up to me.
3:22 - Police only need to read you Miranda if they are going to question/interrogate you after you are in police custody. If you're being read Miranda, you've likely been under arrest for some time.
Never answer questions and invoke the:
4th amendment- I do not consent to searches and seizures of my person, property or effects.
5th amendment- I'm invoking my right to remain silent.
6th amendment- I want my attorney present for all questions you have of me.
He should have never even agreed to the questioning without a lawyer.
Your explanations on ALL LEGAL topics are the absolute most concise and easily understood available. Thank you Hampton Law !!!!
Step one: don't voluntarily allow yourself to be interviewed by the police without a lawyer present.
"I cannot assist you with your investigation"
"I don't answer questions without a lawyer"
"I respectfully invoke my 5th amendment right"
Say NOTHING when you are interrogated, uh, interviewed, other than your personal identification; do not unlock your cellphone for them (don't even carry it unless absolutely necessary; use a burner phone).
"I have nothing to say to you." or "I don't answer questions."
Get a good criminal lawyer and NEVER EVER CONFESS about anything to anyone, even your own lawyer; if your lawyer asks if you "did it", then immediately get another defense lawyer.
The only reason you're being interrogated, uh, interviewed, is because they don't yet have enough evidence to convict you of anything.
If they threaten or charge you with "obstruction of justice" for not speaking to them, then wait for your lawyer to get you in front of a judge.
Remember the names and badge numbers of the thugs for later lawsuits and doxing.
Actually, your lawyer is the one person you wanna tell everything to. It’s their job to get you off the hook and if theyre getting paid enough they’ll do their best to cover things up if youre guilty
@@cuygor7132 lmao
They can lie to you but get one thing wrong an your under the jail house !!!
Also ignorance of the law is no excuse unless you're charged with upholding it. It's an inversion of both common sense and justice. Have you read No Treason?
Assuming guilt because of silence seems like projection. People react differently. Most Americans assume they have the right to remain silent, not the right to to say they will be invoking their 5th amendment right. At the least, he should've been allowed to say why he had remained silent. Also, seems like having to say why you're remaining silent is compelled speech
Anytime a cop is asking you anything you say you want a lawyer
Remain silent and invoke the 5th from the beginning.
I got pulled over the other day in Fairfield, OH and when the cop asked me where I was coming from I told him I didn’t want to answer any questions. I meant to say I’d like to remain silent but it came out wrong. He didn’t like that. Then he sees the can in my cup holder and wants to know what’s in it. I told him no and he said well now I know it’s alcohol and you’ll have to get out of the car. I knew that was a lawful order so I stepped out. He wouldn’t let me shut the door and then reached in to inspect the Rockstar energy drink. He yelled “seriously?” I said I don’t answer questions. I got back in my car and he went back to his to write the ticket for improperly displayed plates. I’m happy to pay the ticket but I’m not entirely sure if he violated any of my rights. I’m familiar with plain view doctrine but can he demand I show him the can and then when I don’t use that against me? Would he have had probable cause to search even if I didn’t remain silent?
i hope they get rid of this loophole. this is disgusting and a slap in the face of the United States Constitution. This is treasonous.
Convicting someone because their behavior was not consistent with someone’s expectations of how an innocent person should behave is wrong. Difference between assumed guilty and proven, lies in evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
People who are not guilty of any crime(s) should not talk to police: that is what lawyers are for. As for "feeling uncomfortable" when police officers stare at a silent person, that is better than a person talking just to fill the silence.
I've never had to actually consider what this meant. I only found out recently, and that was only by watching many of this type of video that you must actually proclaim that you wish to remain silent. As far as I'm concerned, this Miranda warning isn't exactly clear about wishing to remain silent. That's all a cop tells you about it, is that you have the right, but they don't tell you that your silence will be used as an admission of guilt, only that anything you say will. "Anything you say can and will..." actually sounds like you need to keep your mouth shut. To someone who is being arrested for the first time, or has never watched this type of video, or has never had anyone explain it to them, if you're accused of something that you had absolutely nothing at all to do with, your ass could be going away for a long time because so called "law enforcement" only told you half of what you really need to know. How many innocent people have been dragged through our "justice" system because they thought they understood their rights, when in reality, all they were guilty of was following the directions to the letter, exactly the way a cop explained it to them? I don't think there's any way of ever really knowing how many innocent people went to prison and were released many, many years later a completely different person than the way they went in, and all because they followed the directions on the tin.
The police have never been "fair". Before the Miranda ruling, they didn't explain anything. And the part that blows my mind is that it is legal for them to lie to you, but illegal for you to lie to them.
That's why we have Miranda rights in the first place. A man named Miranda was arrested and was unaware of his rights. So, they made it standard practice to read you your rights when the police place you under arrest.
The courts are full of sophistry
The Supreme Court got this one completely wrong. Splitting hairs is always a dangerous act and should not be allowed.
It's a way the conservatives on the court allowed cops to "legally" hem up up ignorant people
They have gotten a lot wrong. Weirdly they have been chipping away at our rights since going conservative in the 70's.
They should read Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
The ones who voted for this got it right because police, prosectors and many judges don't like this right so they are trying to take this right away to making thesed rulings. It doesnt matter what the Constitution says its whatver these people say it says.
Also tell the cops to stop asking questions until an attorney is present. Demand they stop immediately. Not have a "how are you doing?" or "Don't you want to give me your side of the story"?
In any encounter with the police you should invoke your 4,5,and 6th admendment rights, and ask if you are free to leave. If not shut up. The only thing that you should say after that if they ask you more questions is I don't talk to police without the advice and assistance of an attorny. In many conversations with public defenders they said that they never had a client talk their way out of trouble but many who had talked themselves into jail.
Law exists to deny justice to the poor and set free the rich and guilty.
The laws were originally put in place to protect everyone innocent and guilty alike now it seems to be just the guilty that are protected see an innocent man sentenced to life in prison for a crime he didn't commit and finally released after 46 years after it was found the police lied and withheld evidence
That's not why the law exists.
underrated comment
@@richardlahan7068 cope
Such a minor detail! Alito got that wrong...back in the day when we didn't have so much evidence that police are crooked as can be. Now we know.
Weird that the justice that is always evil and wrong was evil and wrong....
Alito gets almost everything wrong...
It took 5 judges.
All this was born out of mistake #1: having voluntary interaction with the police.
Great information! You have to verbally invoke your Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights!
The courts got this, so unbelievably wrong. What should have happened is a jury instruction telling jurors that his silence cannot be used to infer guilt.
The fifth Amendment: provides that citizens not be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment without due process. Citizens may not be tried on the same set of facts twice and are protected from self-incrimination (the right to remain silent). The amendment also establishes the power of eminent domain, ensuring that private property is not seized for public use without just compensation. - It is about self-incrimination (not necessarily silence), but some how we have lost that.
This guy screwed up before he even got to the part where he remained silent. NEVER talk to the police!
I think selective silence is the issue here. Dont answer any questions and the refusal to answer 1 isn't suspicious.
Its like a cops body cam. When the whole body cam footage is there except for the moment the cop claims his victim pulled a gun on him, it looks a bit suspicious. If the whole day of footage is missing, his claim of a malfunction or innocently forgetting to turn it on is a bit more believable.
The problem is the scenario mentioned in the video. Many people want to cooperate with the police, particularly if they beleive they are innocent of the crime the police claim to be investigating. So they will answer questions until they realise those questions are leading to a place they don't want to be. Sometimes, it's necessary to cooperate with police if you want crimes to be discovered and stopped. But if the officer has an agenda and wants to twist things so it makes you look guilty when you aren't, then you would have been better off staying quiet from the start. But if the cop's clever, you won't know that until it's too late.
@@rodh1404 Precisely why I simply do not ever cooperate with cops, I still deal with them as respectful as I can be, but it's always invoking right to silence + do not consent to anything + ask am I being arrested + film the interaction. Unless I am the one who call the cop, I see very little reason to ever cooperating with one, even if they are off duty. Trust is earned, not given, sadly this has to be the case.
The problem is that people notice when you ask a blatant leading/framing question like "are these shell casings we found at the scene the same type that your father's gun uses?" and then start thinking maybe this officer isn't just being thorough but is asking me to dig my own grave.
In the exact same situation, if he said "I invoke the fifth amendment", his refusal to answer can't be used against him. But literally any other way of refusing to answer, for some reason, can be used against him. Yes, being selective about which questions you answer can paint a picture, but if someone is trying to paint you as a villain by getting you to answer technically-true statements, dignifying that with a response is irresponsible.
The magic words to stop all interrogations, "I want a lawyer". Can't be used agsinst you/ Can't infer guilt.
ALL interactions with pigs need to start the same way. "I invoke ALL of my rights under the constitutions of the United States AND this state." Some states actually have greater protections than the federal constitution. Repeat on loop.
"I would like to speak to an Attorney"
OUR IN-JUSTICE SYSTEM IS CRUMBLING!
NEVER talk to LEOs without an attorney!!!
Never volunteer to talk to the po-po. Always ask am I being arrested? What are the charges? Then say I plead the 5th & I would like an attorney only after your miranda rights are read. If 5-0 fails to read them you will walk. The police are not your friend. Remember that.
Thank you for educating everyone about this 5th amendment loophole. I have never known about this before.
"I invoke my right to remain silent."
I take the fifth every time I deal with government officials. I’ll let the taxpayers pay the bill for the court costs and fees to prove my innocence.
Well, they are not proving your innocence (as you and everyone are automatically presumed to be) they are failing to prove your guilt to the standard which is required. There’s a difference.
Understand this if you are depending on the government to pay for your defense then you've already lost because the defense never has the budget of the prosecution. Just because the state is going to pay for your defense doesn't mean they're going to provide you with a competent lawyer, let alone competent council before, during or after incident.. understand this the powers that be have a vested interest in maintaining the prison-industrial system that the West has become so fond of, especially here in the United States. WHY do we have so many prisoners because it makes money is the fifth largest industry in the entire United States. The legal system from judges, the courthouses to jails to prisons to guards to cops to prosecuting attorneys and defense attorneys you are on the receiving end of a stacked dice... Never take legal advice from a cop alongside the road when he's trying to explain to you your constitutional rights, sound familiar you have the right to remain silent, anything that you say can will be used against you you can bet on that one!!! The reality is is that the cop has an interest in making sure he has a case and if you're the one and you better have a lawyer and you better watch anything and everything you're about to say, BECAUSE they will use it to screw you over whether you're innocent or guilty.....
If that difference exists. It does so outside the walls of our judicial system. As the person above stated. It’s a business. Not more. Play the game the right way, and you can suck out taxpayers dollars to fund your retirement.
Only IF...
Just tell the DMV clerk your damn name
His mistake was not being silent. His mistake was deciding to be silent after he already agreed to talk with the police.
Then why doesn't the Miranda warning include that you must verbally and explicitly state that you are invoking your right to remain silent?
Because the police WANT you to talk. They want you to confess guilt. So they're not going to inform you about your rights, because your rights get in the way of them arresting you.
So it's "adverse inference" then but the perverse result is that you shouldn't voluntarily answer any questions nor assist the police at all. Period! I am sure that there will be similar legal issues in other jurisdictions without the 5th as I have heard of the common law right to silence being eroded in its original home back in the UK.
The logic of "well if they clam up that indicates guilt" was not followed through to the logical conclusion allowing that silence to be used against them then they would logically be compelled to be a witness against themselves unless they said some very specific magic words.
Which is precisely what the 5th amendment forbids that is being compelled to be a witness against yourself.
You should not have to invoke your right to the fifth. If you have a right you just exercise it.
I exercise my right to do things every day and I don't walk outside and tell everybody what I'm doing.
Yeah, it's at that point where our Rights don't matter, well, then why does their laws and rulings matter?
All this does is ensure that those in know will or should never agree to engage with the police voluntarily. The appropriate response now whenever the police want to talk to you is just to say "Sorry, I don't talk to the police without my lawyer present." and just repeat that afterwards if they keep asking questions.
What if they start questioning you and you just say I want a lawyer ???
Never talk to police without a lawyer.
The judicial branch needs to be nerfed. Laws and rights should be able to be changed on the whim of one, or a group, of judges. Its absurd
Supreme Court said “you have to confess to everything so that we can decide whether or not your silence is valid.” Makes perfect sense. I wonder how much they have been bought for.
Great video, but I wished it was a bit broader in scope so it includes avoiding interrogations in the first place"
"Am I being detailed?"
If "no", LEAVE.
If "yes", invoke your 5th Amendment rights and demand an attorney.
This avoids the police playing games with whether you're under arrest. It forces the issue and cuts to the chase.
IANAL
Never voluntarily speak to the police. Ever. My answer is always,” I don’t answer questions“.
Oh my god, you're not one of those "sovcits!?" 😂
If you need mindgames and trickery, are you really the good guy?
Lying, deception, and trickery such as this should not be tolerated. Some studies suggest this kind of technique, like torture, is more effective at CREATING lies than producing truth.
Never have a "voluntary" interaction with the police and you are covered.
This is one of the reasons any good lawyer will tell you to never talk to the police even when you're innocent.
Even if the police are 100% on the up and up errors can be made and those errors can make you look bad in court.
Never speak to the police without a lawyer present except to invoke your right to silence and to request a lawyer.
Remember instead of remaining silent just repeat that you want a lawyer whenever police or government agents start asking questions
Never ever talk to the police, never.
This was a bad ruling. Rights are not based on saying you are exercising them. They ARE. PERIOD. You don't need to "invoke" any Rights. I have never had to "invoke" a single other Right codified in the Constitution. I may CLARIFY that I am exercising a Right if challenged, but I have never "invoked" a Right.
That said, even as a former police officer, I say be very careful when you talk to police. And if you can in any way be considered a suspect, NEVER talk to police without a lawyer... or better yet, have your LAWYER talk to them.
THAT said, I highly doubt this one aspect of the guy's case and trial was what got him convicted.