The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Raffel v. U.S

(See in situ)

Raffel v. U.S

In stark comparison to the decision made in Miranda v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Raffel v. U.S. that once the suspect begins cooperating with law enforcement and answers questions or consents to a search, he or she gives up the right to remain silent and must continue to cooperate throughout his or her arrest, trial, and judgment.

THE LAW is contradictory. Yeah, they have to tell you IF you still have those AND you don't know you have them. However:

...If you remain silent from the start, silence is acquiescence
...If you cooperate and talk, you no longer have them
...And if you claim they didn't tell you, then you already knew about them

...There is ALWAYS a way around marandizing the suspect, thanks to Raffel vs. US. Either you already knew your rights, or you already gave them up due to your ignorance. In both instances, "reading" you your rights is pointless.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."