Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (302585)	4/25/2009 11:17:08 PM
From: D. Long	3 Recommendations Respond to of 794025

But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers' questions Are they kidding? This invites us to return to the times when cops would ignore an invocation of right to counsel. The 5th and 6th Amendment right to counsel opinions are, IMO, the best of an otherwise muddled lot. Under the 5th, the cops can't question you after invoking your right to counsel unless you initiate the communication. If you want to talk you already can, after fresh Miranda warnings. But the cops can't initiate. What Justice wants is to allow cops to initiate or use indirect interrogation to get dumb or impulsive suckers to talk. I don't think we should cross that line again. Keep the sharp red line that the authorities cannot cross once you say you want a lawyer.