Warning: mysql_real_escape_string(): No such file or directory in /home/scouser/echoesandmirrors.com/wp-content/plugins/statpress/statpress.php on line 1191

Warning: mysql_real_escape_string(): A link to the server could not be established in /home/scouser/echoesandmirrors.com/wp-content/plugins/statpress/statpress.php on line 1191

Warning: mysql_real_escape_string(): No such file or directory in /home/scouser/echoesandmirrors.com/wp-content/plugins/statpress/statpress.php on line 1194

Warning: mysql_real_escape_string(): A link to the server could not be established in /home/scouser/echoesandmirrors.com/wp-content/plugins/statpress/statpress.php on line 1194

Warning: mysql_real_escape_string(): No such file or directory in /home/scouser/echoesandmirrors.com/wp-content/plugins/statpress/statpress.php on line 1197

Warning: mysql_real_escape_string(): A link to the server could not be established in /home/scouser/echoesandmirrors.com/wp-content/plugins/statpress/statpress.php on line 1197
Echoes and Mirrors» Blog Archive » Standing up for yourself is patriotic

Standing up for yourself is patriotic

Supreme Court rules that police can ad lib Miranda warnings

Police officers are not required to use exact, cookie-cutter phrasing while advising criminal suspects of their right to have a lawyer present with them throughout a police interrogation, the US Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

I get it, the supreme court isn’t there to dictate protocol. In fact, I can see this being somewhat of an improvement, if used to that end. Some people don’t get it and need it explained to them. On the other hand, the standard Miranda warning is pretty dummy-proof. They could possibly make it incomprehensible.
Supreme Court sets aside strict ruling on Miranda ‘right to remain silent’

Reporting from Washington – A crime suspect who invokes his “right to remain silent” under the famous Miranda decision can be questioned again after 14 days, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. And if he freely agrees to talk then, his incriminatory statements can be used against him.

Why stop there? You learn about the 5th amendment in your highschool civics class, and therefore know it. Why should the police have to repeat it for you?

In the midst of all this (I’ve been sitting on this stuff for a month) I came across an article about modern day civil disobedience.

Arizona speed cameras incite a mini revolt

But, critics note, that hasn’t stopped people from wanting their day in court. About half of the total violations issued are still pending because people have ignored the tickets or have requested hearings to challenge them, according to the state Department of Public Safety.

The violations put an “inordinate” load on the courts, said Terry Stewart, a court administrator with Maricopa County. People have flocked to request hearings at Phoenix courts, and at one point last year, one court branch had cases set up through 2011.

Other people have been documented being violent, but the real thing to take away from this is that you have the right to challenge arrests in court. Most judicial proceedings are merely a formality – the method of civil disobedience to counter this is to take everything to court. Make their system of oppression too expensive. If I recall correctly, some of the civil rights activists did this.

Charles Johnson (Radgeek) mentions something similar in an historical context here:

Share
0 comments