I'm having an argument on YouTube comments. I think the other side is total B.S., but I thought I'd ask here first, to find out if there is any truth to this. Now I understand that one should say, "I'm asserting my fifth Amendment right to silence and I want a lawyer.". And then, of course, STFU.
But the other side of this argument is suggesting that you gain some kind of legal advantage by denying that you understand the Miranda warning. Or that you want a lawyer to explain it to you. This is what the other side is saying. I've added bold to some sentences.
> I watched a video from an attorney that beat 148 DUI charges. He recommended not talking and refusing to understand Miranda. Only after an attorney explains Miranda, then charges can be brought. By then most of the evidence has worn off.
> If you refuse Miranda understanding that just means you are not aware of the legal case and need an attorney to explain it. You cannot be tested for DUI and by the time the attorney shows up you will be sober. Understand? Have you read Miranda and Escobedo vs Illinois?
> when they read the Miranda and ask the last line "Do understand ALL your rights as I have read them to you?"... Attorneys will tell you to say no.
> No you don't understand ALL your rights as read. Because they are not reading everything. They just go over stuff briefly. The 5th amendment is longer than "you can choose to remain slient". But call any law firm and ask them about the Miranda part and if you should say you understand.
> Officers can't go forward unless you understand it and you say "no I don't understand all my rights, I will like to speak with my lawyer to understand".
>Officer have changed the way they say the Miranda Rights. They ask each sentence now and ask you if you understand the sentence. So they say "You have the right to remain silent, do you understand that part? You can have an attorney present...do you understand that? Anything you say can be used against you...do you understand that?"... so they caught what people have been doing by saying "No I don't understand all of my rights".
> You are supposed to say you don't understand ALL of your rights and would like your attorney to explain them to you. The police can't go forward with most investigations until you understand or go forward with charges..
I don't think they ever finish the Miranda warning in the show, it always cuts right after "you have the right to an attorney"
So, place your bets, do the actors actually know the whole Miranda warning?
I know that the US's is considered so strong and thorough some countries like South Korea have adopted it almost word for word (translated into their language of course) but the UK's is controversial because it says "you do not have to say anything" but that not saying something you want to bring up in court can harm your case, aka not a complete right to silence.
So what is it in Canada? I can't find it.
or they answer no
You’re welcome, you poor bastard who gets my book next.
I will preface this by saying I'm an actual lawyer though I don't practice criminal law.
My understanding is that police are required to read people Miranda warnings prior to a custodial interrogation or else the confession isn't admissible.
I've seen a lot of videos where police arrest someone and read the Miranda warnings and then IMMEDIATELY ask "Are you willing to waive these rights" and the arrestee says "No."
Why not read the Miranda warning, put the guy in the car for a while, and then 5 minutes later just start asking him questions? Or start asking him questions two hours later down at the station?
Are police actually required to ask "Are you willing to talk to me?" and to get a "Yes" to that (an affirmative waiver of the right to remain silent)? Can't they just read the Miranda warnings, get the guy to say he understands them, wait a bit, then ask questions? He can choose to waive his rights (talk) or not talk.
Why give him the obvious "out" by asking "So, in light of the warnings I just read to you, are you willing to answer questions without a lawyer?" To which the answer is often "Um, no."
**Miranda Warning:**
The Miranda warning is a right to silence warning given by the Police in the United States to *criminal suspects* in police custody before they are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedings.
In the (state's) latest desperate attempt to keep Brendan in prison, their response to the Amicus brief not only incorrectly states that Steven mutilated a corpse (he was not convicted of this), but they also continue to lie about how and why they kept interviewing Brendan.
They claim:
"Before Dassey confessed to the "horrific acts" involving Halbach, investigators viewed him only as a "potentially helpful witness,"
So they want everyone to believe that he was only considered a "potentially" helpful witness? This implies they didn't expect to get anything useful out of him, or at least nothing on the radar at all to think he may have been involved with anything. They want everyone to believe they just, you know, just had a few routine cop questions is all.
Bullshit.
I personally have been witness to car accidents, fights and petty theft. I have been asked questions by the police in more than one of those instances, as a potentially helpful witness. I will tell you for certain, I was never once read the Miranda warning. I'm not even sure they asked my name until they even evaluated whether I actually had any useful information to provide in the first place.
So why, if they merely thought of Brendan as a potentially helpful witness (which is not the same as a "person of interest"), did they feel they needed to read him the Miranda warning? Solicitor junior LB takes "great care" to make sure he emphasizes the fact that Brendan had his Miranda warning read to him, while he was simply being helpful and talking to the investigators while on a comfy couch in a soft room with soft drinks and sandwiches and cookies.
" Dassey spoke with the interrogators freely, after receiving and understand‐ ing Miranda warnings. The interrogation took place in a comfortable setting, "
I contend, when I witnessed the car accident on the the highway, I was not whisked away to a comfortable setting to answer potentially useful questions. I was not read my Miranda warning. They didn't do those things, because I was actually being treated as a potentially helpful witness, not the criminal.
Come to think of it, let's see who else was not read their Miranda warnings in the TH "m
... keep reading on reddit ➡
I'm not American but I love police procedurals. Yesterday a question about the Miranda warning popped in to my mind. I know that not every jurisdiction has the same exact wording but there always seems to be an emphasis on making sure the questioned/arrested person understands their rights. Now what if the person doesn't understand or doesn't want to understand? For example if the person is under the influence of drugs/alcohol, if there is a language barrier or if a person were just to say no to the question if they understand their rights?
The last part is always, "Do you understand?" What if I say "No"? I'm sure they would explain it to me again, but what if I kept saying I didn't understand?
EDIT: I was semi-inspired by the video Don't Talk To the Police. This guy is amazing & entertaining. Excellent break down of why you DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE!!! ...without a lawyer.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to an attorney; if you can not afford one, one will be appointed to you by the state. Do you understand your rights?
