A West Virginia eighth-grader who was suspended from school for refusing to change his National Rifle Association T-shirt faces up to one year in jail and a $500 fine after being formally charged with obstructing an officer.
Jared Marcum, 14, appeared before a judge Monday and was hit with formal charges that carry a maximum $500 fine and up to a year in jail. The Logan County Police Department initially claimed that Marcum was arrested April 18 for disturbing the education process and obstructing an officer. His father said that officers even went as far as threatening to charge Jared with making terror threats.
“In my view of the facts, Jared didn’t do anything wrong,” Ben White, Jared’s attorney told WTRF. “I think officer Adkins could have done something differently.”
Arresting officer James Adkins claimed that Marcum’s refusal to talk obstructed his ability to do his job, while White argued that Adkins never made reference to any violent acts or threats in his petition.
He was silent!!!
This adds on to this story which has me spitting mad!
In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court ruled today that a potential defendant’s silence can be used against him if he is being interviewed by police but is not arrested (and read his Miranda rights) and has not verbally invoked the protection of the Fifth Amendment.
So your fucking RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT can only be used if you SPEAK OUT THAT YOU ARE REMAINING SILENT UNDER THE LAW???????
How in blue fuck do courts come to these decisions? This makes me wonder if in fact we aren’t living in total Anarchy with a veneer of lawful society painted over it.
The law means NOTHING….great!
Everyone repeat after me:
“I am invoking my 5th amendment rights. If I am being detained, questioned, or arrested, I demand to have my attorney present!”
If a LEO says “hello”, say it.
If you are stopped for rolling through a stop sign, say it.
If a dumb-ass hick cop gets called to your school because you DARE to wear an NRA t-shirt. JUST FREAKIN SAY IT!
As a matter of fact, you never know when an under-cover cop might be around, so just to be sure, maybe we should all just go through life saying that phrase over and over again because apparently, they have figured out how to charge you for a crime if you use the old stand by of “shut up and don’t say anything”. You know, what we’ve been told to do for as long as I can remember.
Dang… they moved the cheese again.
s
This makes me wonder if in fact we aren’t living in total Anarchy with a veneer of lawful society painted over it.
I think you hit the nail on the head right here.
Yet again inaction is twisted into action. This has been a theme of government intrusion since the supreme court abused the commerce clause in 1942 (Wickard v. Filburn).
(And maybe before then, that’s just the first one I know of)
If we don’t cover this in the next SQRPT, I want in on it the following week!
Re. The SCt decision. The big problem with the Supremes is that none of them have any trial experience, much less any experience defending criminal cases. Add to that the cloistered environment they have all lived in for decades, and you get people who simply cannot fathom that there are people who are falsely accused of crimes, people who are too dumb or uneducated to understand their rights, and policemen who abuse their power.
Finally, add to the mix that some of the justices are simply liars and oathbreakers who reason backwards from the result that will please their masters and cronies, and you get the idiocy that constitutional law has been since “Wickard”.
Existing judicial corruption plus the PRISM blackmail would tend to suggest that the check the Supreme Court was supposed to be no longer exists. The Executive branch has their collective balls in a vice.
Somewhere between here and the PDF for the SCOTUS ruling, there’s a broken link (on the Cato Institute site, I think).
Here’s a good one, if anyone’s interested: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-246_7l48.pdf
From what I understand, the Supreme Court decision was about a guy who answered some questions and plead the 5th on others. What was allowed was which questions he answered (and his answers) and which he declined to answer.
What got him into trouble wasn’t the times he remained silent — it was the times he answered the questions. He’d have been better off not answering ANY questions.
I think it’s deeper than that. From the SCOTUS decision summary, “At
petitioner’s murder trial in Texas state court, and over his objection,
the prosecution used his failure to answer the question as evidence of
guilt.”
If he had verbally invoked the 5th or had been under arrest and been read his Miranda rights, they can’t use simple silence as “evidence of guilt”. Because he didn’t say “I’m invoking my 5th Amendment protections” (or something similar), the prosecutor was able to effectively slander him into guilt by using his SILENCE against him. If it had been a deaf/mute man, and therefore incapable of “verbally” invoking the 5th, would he still have the protection?
Rights don’t exist only in certain contexts; they wouldn’t be “rights”. Imagine if you could not enter a church worship service – or give a political speech, or write a newspaper article, or show up at a rally demonstration, etc. – unless/until you formally invoked your 1st Amendment rights. Imagine if the police can enter your home and search for whatever they want without probable cause or a warrant, as long as you’re not there to formally invoke your 4th Amendment rights. It’s a bit of a stretch (but not much), but that’s effectively what this SCOTUS decision says. It’s a lousy ruling.
Pingback: Lee on the NRA Shirt Arrest | Weer'd World