Comments:US Supreme Court relaxes strict interpretation of self incrimination ruling
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| Comments from feedback form - "Although the guy was probably ..." | 0 | 06:58, 5 June 2010 |
| The only correct answer | 0 | 02:20, 3 June 2010 |
Although the guy was probably guilty, it does seem a little childish. I know that lawyers generally inhibit the ability of police to do their jobs, but I think that you should be offered an attorney that you HAVE to turn down before questioning.
He should have answered "mu".
(Yes, I know that "no" would be correct if he hadn't committed the crime.)