QUESTION??? MAKING miranda optional a mistake....KNOW YOUR RIGHTS

thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/351772...step-up-on-policing/

The Supreme Court now seems poised to reverse its decision in Miranda, which, much like Dobbs, would give states—and, to a significant extent, individual towns—the power to decide an important question of policy: whether police should be legally required to give these warnings.

Not having the official HA interpreter available, I will attempt a translation.

"The Supreme Court now seems poised to reverse its decision in Miranda, which, much like Dobbs, would give states—and, to a significant extent, individual towns—the power to decide an important question of policy: whether police should be legally required to give these warning".

the body of her comment (above)v is verbatim from the citation, therefore we must look to the title of the post "QUESTION??? MAKING miranda optional a mistake....KNOW YOUR RIGHTS" to be her comment. I take this to mean that HA is of the opinion that, should the USSC rule in favor of Tekoh, the concept of a Miranda warning would be moot.
That is not the case proffered in the filing and I would recommend that reading more that a headline would be advisable.

inally, states must take seriously their responsibility to establish statewide minimum standards for policing. This is crucial for improving policing across a state rather than leaving the adoption of best practices to the discretion of individual local departments. To do this, states could use an existing regulatory apparatus: Police Officer Standards and Training councils, or POSTs.

BOLDED is the problem....present standards r NOT being meet now and u think that adding THIS "best practices" to individual local departments POSTS is going to be a really splendid standard???? NOT

Miranda rights r the ONLY thing that can keep u safe.....JMO.....it makes it crystal clear what the police
CAN/CANNOT DO....when u r in a legal situation.(with P.D.) knowing what is the safest position to take is mandatory. Going down to the station to "chat" is NOT a good thing,when ANYTHING U SAY CAN AND WILL BE HELD AGAINST U. (innocent,naive people believe this is the right thing to do and will willing be
lead into an interrogation room.....BIG MISTAKE...unless Miranda rights r given.

Ironic considering that ignorance of the law is not a excuse. You should already know which rights you have when arrested.

FredHayek wrote: Ironic considering that ignorance of the law is not a excuse. You should already know which rights you have when arrested.

I'm not even talking about arrested,I have watched actually scenarios (docs) that show "person of suspicion"
agreeing to go down to "chat"...because they think it is the right thing to do (naive )......asking questions to the P.D. is not even on their radar. BIG MISTAKE

The Jon Benet Ramsey case was an eye opener for me (many moons ago)....they lawyer-ed up immediately. I thought it was an odd thing to do. (then)

Agree. Do not get involved with "The Man". It can go quite badly. Keep a low profile and don't draw attention.