▲ 325 ▼ With new law taking effect next year, California police must tell drivers why they’re being stopped (1ft.io) submitted 2 years ago by DougHolland@lemmy.world to c/thepoliceproblem@lemmy.world 51 comments fedilink hide all child comments Original link
[–] JustSomePerson@kbin.social -4 points 2 years ago (2 children) Exercising your rights is perhaps not hostile and confrontational. Stating "I'm exercising my rights" is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) For some reason, your right to silence doesn't count unless you say you're invoking your right to silence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nougat@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) This is why. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago The article I linked brings up the Salinas v. Texas case. My "For some reason" was more of a sarcastic nod to me thinking that ruling is wrong, that most rights don't need to be invoked, the main reason counsel needs to be invoked is because you usually need someone else to do something (e.g. give you a phone to call your lawyer), but that doesn't apply to being silent. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nougat@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago Stating "I'm exercising my rights" is. One, it's not. Two, where did anyone say to state that? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] candybrie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) For some reason, your right to silence doesn't count unless you say you're invoking your right to silence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nougat@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) This is why. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago The article I linked brings up the Salinas v. Texas case. My "For some reason" was more of a sarcastic nod to me thinking that ruling is wrong, that most rights don't need to be invoked, the main reason counsel needs to be invoked is because you usually need someone else to do something (e.g. give you a phone to call your lawyer), but that doesn't apply to being silent. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nougat@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) This is why. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago The article I linked brings up the Salinas v. Texas case. My "For some reason" was more of a sarcastic nod to me thinking that ruling is wrong, that most rights don't need to be invoked, the main reason counsel needs to be invoked is because you usually need someone else to do something (e.g. give you a phone to call your lawyer), but that doesn't apply to being silent. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] candybrie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago The article I linked brings up the Salinas v. Texas case. My "For some reason" was more of a sarcastic nod to me thinking that ruling is wrong, that most rights don't need to be invoked, the main reason counsel needs to be invoked is because you usually need someone else to do something (e.g. give you a phone to call your lawyer), but that doesn't apply to being silent. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nougat@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago Stating "I'm exercising my rights" is. One, it's not. Two, where did anyone say to state that? permalink fedilink source parent