Can you be more specific? Is there a court ruling you have in mind?
There should be no public safety exemption that trumps the right not to self-incriminate.
I don't care about Miranda. Excluding confessions because the police failed to tell someone that they did not have to talk is silly. We have a right to remain silent. We should all be informed enough to know it without having to be told by the police. If one is ignorant of his rights, tough.
While I understand, Eye's attitude, I disagree.
Ignorant people have rights, too. We went all through this a few years ago on this forum regarding timid people. A police officer made fun of people too nervous to exercise their right to withhold consent and remain silent in the face of a pushy cop. That cop's logical absurdity being--when you extend his logic--that timid people don't have rights. First, there is the insanity of thinking people who get easily nervous don't deserve rights because only people who can exercise them deserve them; but, second and more importantly
it was a cop who held this view while posting on this forum. Tells you a bit about how easily the government can find a justification to disregard, invalidate, or minimize a right doesn't it?
Regarding Eye's other comments on the Miranda decision, one should just read
Miranda v Arizona. The court made it clear it knew coercion still existed. The full warning covers not just the right to silence, but the right to adopt silence at any point, and the right to legal counsel.
Regarding Eye's comment "we should all be informed enough to know it without being told...", the warning includes that anything said can be used against the arrestee. But, did you really know just how comprehensive that statement is before you saw the Professor Duane video about talking to police? I'd heard the Miranda Warning a zillion times on TV since watching Adam 12 as a child, but I still had no idea just how many different ways anything you say can be used against you. Now, ask yourself, how many people have not seen that video? Does Eye
really expect vast numbers of people to understand that
even the truthful statements of an innocent witness can be used against him?
If you are new to these issues, you can find links to
Miranda v Arizona and the Prof Duane video here:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-Your-4th-and-5th-Amendment-Resources-Here!!&
And, if you're still not convinced at how easily government can diminish rights, read Justice Marshall's dissent in
Schnekloth vs Bustamonte at the same link.