SCOTUS-suspects can't sue officers for self-incriminating statements without Miranda Rights given

[Ferguson97]

The hit parade of terrible terrific Supreme Court decisions continues.

please tell me how this is "terrific".

There is nothing in the Constitution that says the police must read you a canned statement about shutting up. Miranda frankly was wrong; a long line of bs rulings from the awful 60s and 70s activist SCOTUS. But at least the only effect was that a criminal who said something bad could not be criminally prosecuted. This case involved a criminal not just escaping punishment over lack of a canned statement, but literally suing for money over it. The nerve of trying to profit off that is terrible. I have zero sympathy for some criminal not being allowed to sue a cop for money because the cop didnt deliver a canned statement about shutting up. That is far beyond reasonable in my mind.

I don't know how you can write this and consider yourself to be a good person.

[Ferguson97]

The hit parade of terrible terrific Supreme Court decisions continues.

please tell me how this is "terrific".

There is nothing in the Constitution that says the police must read you a canned statement about shutting up. Miranda frankly was wrong; a long line of bs rulings from the awful 60s and 70s activist SCOTUS. But at least the only effect was that a criminal who said something bad could not be criminally prosecuted. This case involved a criminal not just escaping punishment over lack of a canned statement, but literally suing for money over it. The nerve of trying to profit off that is terrible. I have zero sympathy for some criminal not being allowed to sue a cop for money because the cop didnt deliver a canned statement about shutting up. That is far beyond reasonable in my mind.

I don't know how you can write this and consider yourself to be a good person.

Lmao. I consider this a compliment coming from you.

I don't know man, I think it's pretty reasonable that the government should have to formally tell you what your rights are before placing you into custody. That seems like something that's pretty important in a liberal democracy.

[Ferguson97]

The hit parade of terrible terrific Supreme Court decisions continues.

please tell me how this is "terrific".

There is nothing in the Constitution that says the police must read you a canned statement about shutting up. Miranda frankly was wrong; a long line of bs rulings from the awful 60s and 70s activist SCOTUS. But at least the only effect was that a criminal who said something bad could not be criminally prosecuted. This case involved a criminal not just escaping punishment over lack of a canned statement, but literally suing for money over it. The nerve of trying to profit off that is terrible. I have zero sympathy for some criminal not being allowed to sue a cop for money because the cop didnt deliver a canned statement about shutting up. That is far beyond reasonable in my mind.

I don't know how you can write this and consider yourself to be a good person.

Lmao. I consider this a compliment coming from you.

I don't know man, I think it's pretty reasonable that the government should have to formally tell you what your rights are before placing you into custody. That seems like something that's pretty important in a liberal democracy.

Thats not what miranda did. Miranda requires they give you a canned statement prior to interrogation, not mere arrest and not mere questioning. The definition of interrogation is not clear and keeps shifting. Besides, you could require it by statute. Shoehorning it into the constitution when it isnt there is wrong. And again, this isnt about evidence obtained, this is a lawsuit for money. Criminals shouldnt profit off crime.

Fun fact: you are not a criminal until you have been proven guilty, and we are presumed innocent in this country. I'm sorry you disagree with that principle.