I am not arguing his right to waive, or unwaive, an attorney.

In your case, it says the court decided that the evidence against the convicted would of been discovered by detectives.

“Why should I get you a coke?”

This is not the same as, “I want a lawyer.”

If the suspect keeps talking after the lawyer is requested the fault lies on the suspect for not remaining silent, regardless if a lawyer is present or not.

Because I have cited sources backing my hypothesis, and not basing it on emotion, I’m “authoritarian apologist”?

But I’m not incorrect.

Your thinking too broadly. Narrow the scope, and your minority parties have to compromise on their pledges merely to form an opposition. Just like in the latest European elections, parties are joining with right-leaning parties, like the the Germans adding the AfD party to their ranks.

OK. Educate me, oh swamie!

For purposes of Miranda, the police must immediately cease the interrogation and cannot resume interrogating the defendant about any offense charged or uncharged unless counsel is present or defendant initiates contact for purposes of resuming interrogation and valid waiver obtained.

Having Miranda Rights does not protect you from self-incrimination if you keep talking about the crime you supposedly didn’t commit.

Nice ad hominem.

Are you reading a different blog?

Step 1: He waived his rights.

Wha?!

The moron waived his rights, which is legal, self-incriminated, then *maybe* wanted to unwaive his rights.

The point is that he waived them, then dumbly self-incriminated, then unwaived his rights. The damage was already done.

That’s not what it says at all, and Miranda v. Arizona happened two years later and has become de rigueur.

Yall are some dirty, despicable, disgusting hypocrites.

Either you missed that class, or you’re lying.