We'll I tried it tonight, and I think the result is promising. My son walloped the cat and I immediately rushed to the cat, checking to see if it was okay. Soothing the cat. Asking my son why he did that, if any of the people he liked would do that. It kind of spooked him and he started apologizing to the cat. This could work. If he was looking for attention before, it's sure going to backfire. Hitting the cat gets attention for the cat, not for him.

It's also way easier on me. I don't have to yell, I don't have to hear my son cry during time out, I don't have to watch the clock. We'll see, but this feels more constructive. The cost of hurting the cat is emotional, not physical. That's the real lesson I want him to learn.

Thanks for your advice!

One of the other responders to my post had a good idea I'm going to try. I'm going to try emotionally manipulating him to feel guilt for hitting the cat, which is what I really want. And associating the cat's bad feeling with his own guilty feeling. Empathy, to make him not want to hit the cat, rather than simply learning there's a rule to not hit cats because I say so. So if he hits the cat, I'm going to check out the cat, comfort the cat, ask my son why he would do such a thing, "would Curious George ever hit a cat? No, of course not..." Make him apologize to the cat, etc. If it works he might develop what I actually want, which is empathy. Can't hurt..time outs haven't worked yet and I don't think they're going to start magically working now...

Thanks for your helpful replies. One of the other responders to my post suggested emotionally manipulating the child, and I think I'm going to try that. Time outs haven't worked. The problem, as the poster you're responding to said, is my son doesn't yet understand the reason we don't hit cats. He hasn't yet developed the empathy that I need him to actually feel. So what I'm going to try doing is instead of yelling at my kid, I'll try comforting the cat, checking to see that he's all right, asking my son "Why would you do that? Have you ever seen Curious George hit a cat? George would never hit a cat," etc. Perhaps I can guilt him into not hitting the cat. When you hit the cat, you don't get "punished," you get made to feel guilty, so perhaps the sympathy seen for the cat will make my son realize the cat's been hurt, feel bad, and associate his bad feeling with the cat's bad feeling. That's empathy, which is the real goal, to make him not want to hit the cat, rather than just learning there's a rule about not hitting cats (because I say so) that results in punishment.

We'll see how it goes...can't hurt. Time outs haven't worked yet and it's not like they're going to magically start now...

Or many of the other old age related diseases of which there is no treatment. Wishful thinking.

That sounds reasonable. I'll give that a go. Time outs have worked for everything else, but not the cat thing.

I wish he would, but the cat just takes it. If the cat would just bite back at him he'd learn real quick.

I felt the exact same way. "Oh, okay, so no spanking, no time outs. What should I do?" And finally at the end of the article they say something about teachable moments.

Ummmm...so what do I do when my 2 year old hits the cat? Most of the time he's loving and playful with the cat. But then sometimes for no reason he throws a toy truck at the poor cat. So I yell at him "NO!" and send him for a time out. Then I explain what he did was wrong, and make him apologize to the cat, and then explain that we only love and pet our kitty.

What the fuck is wrong with that? What else am I supposed to do? Let him go right on doing it and wait for some teachable moment about not hitting the cat? TFA says "what you're doing is wrong" with little explanation why and then fails to tell you what to do instead except some hippy crap about talking to your kids.

For simplified (and entertaining) explanations, read the fifth amendment guide at lawcomic.net. And here's a handy flowchart.

They only must stop if you have also asked for your lawyer. The "right to an attorney" means "right to an attorney to be present at all interrogations." So they cannot continue to interrogate you after you've asked for an attorney. And "interrogate" does not mean "put you under a light back at the station and ask you questions." It means any action intended to provoke an incriminating response. So perhaps they could ramble on about the case and see if you react. And if you don't specifically invoke your right to silence, your silence can be used against you. See Salina vs. Texas.

If you've only invoked your right to silence but not an attorney, they're supposed to stop questioning you. If they don't, and you answer anything, those answers cannot be used against you during trial. However...if answers that you give them lead them to new evidence, that evidence can be used at trial. If you said "I invoke my right to remain silent." And they say, "sure, sure. But say, you wouldn't happen to know where the knife is?" and you foolishly say "Oh, yeah, I threw it in the dumpster," they cannot testify that you said you threw the knife in the dumpster. But they can go get the knife from the dumpster and present the knife itself as evidence. Also, if you tell them something (in response to questioning. That should have stopped, but didn't. Not something you voluntarily say) and then you say something different at trial, they can now introduce what you said to them here. On the stand you say "I never had a knife" and the cop can say "actually, he told us he threw the knife in the dumpster." You were either lying to the cops then or the court now, and you can't do either of those things. That is a different matter than the crime you were accused of.

Also, after time has passed, they can come back and start asking you questions about a different matter than whatever question you invoked your right to silence on before. And then you need to assert your right again.

So you have to clearly say you invoke your right to silence, AND that you want an attorney present, AND then shut your stupid mouth.

These ideas primarily involve times you are in police custody. Custody means "I can't just walk away." If you can just walk away...do it. This is about dealing with interrogations where you can't walk away.

You might want to read this. Or perhaps start here.

Yes, you can just "stay silent." But that won't stop the interrogation, and your silence can and will be used against you. You might want to read Salina vs. Texas. If you invoke your right to silence and request a lawyer, interrogation must end without presence of a lawyer and nothing you do or do not say can be used against you.

Otherwise the cops are free to go right on talking and observing you. And at trial..."I asked Mr. Ihtoit if he killed the victim and he said nothing. Just sat there like a stone. I told him how brutal the scene looked. Over the next three hours I told him several times about the horrific scene. The blood. The poor victim's family. Not a word from Mr. Ihtoit. His silence was chilling. I've been on the force for 15 years now and I've never seen anyone react so completely without emotion as Mr. Ihtoit. There's a monster in there for sure."

Once you're in custody, the magic words are "I invoke my right to remain silent and I want a lawyer." It doesn't make you look more guilty. They already think you're guilty, or they wouldn't have taken you in to custody. You can't talk your way out. You can't silence your way out. Invoke your right, ask for a lawyer, and shut up.

But they had to figure out where the servers were located in order to seize them. How did they know where the servers were such that they could present the location to a judge for him to sign off on a warrant? If that method was illegal, the search is no good.

Yes, because the person was deprived of it while you took it. Theft requires deprivation.

The cops can commit crimes in the pursuit of justice. They cannot hurt anyone, there are standards, their actions have to be authorized, and there is a review process. This has always been the case. Cops can sell drugs while busting those buying or selling drugs. But they're not commiting crimes for personal gain or entertainment.

Really, the problem is people only object when the cops bust people for things they don't think should be crimes like drugs or prostitution. When they ask somebody to buy or sell drugs, give then drugs to sell, pay them, whatever, and they say "yes" people scream "entrapment!" When that's not what entrapment is. You were free to say no and walk away at any time. Entrapment is the corruption of your free will. Coercsion. "Commit this crime or we'll kill you or your mom." That's actually entrapment. But it's perfectly fine to ask people to commit crimes and then bust the ones who say yes.

When the same tactics work for other crimes, nobody cares. People cheer. Like a cop posing as a hitman a woman hires to kill her husband. Busted! And nobody cries "Entrapment!"

Part of the purpose of jail is to separate those who would harm from the rest of society so they can't hurt us.

"Wanna go rape and murder toddlers?" "Boy would I!" Jail.
"I wanna rape and murder toddlers but I don't have a stabbin' knife." "Oh I'll give you one!" "Thanks!" Jail.
"I don't wanna rape and murder toddlers." "Give you $50." "Okay then!" Jail.

Do you really not want any of the people who would say yes to (and actually attempt to carry out) those actions in jail? Of course you would! The practice is fine. People only get butt-hurt when the target is a drug user instead of a toddler murderer.

Make sure to explicitly say that, though. "I'm invoking my right to stay silent and I want an attorney." Then actually shut up. Once you say the words, they must stop all interrogation, unless you open your stupid mouth (about your case).

No. Cops are absolutely allowed to break the law undercover. Do not spread myths, please.

They have to read you your rights if you are in custody and they're interrogating you (interrogation does not have to be formal or even ask questions. It means anything attempting to illicit an incriminating response). Also, custody means any time you are not free to leave unless its obviously temporary, like a traffic or street stop.

Also, Miranda is there to protect the cops. It proves that if you've been read your rights and you still don't shut your stupid mouth, you can't claim "I didn't know I didn't have to answer!"

The answer is, as soon as you're in custody, explicitly state you're invoking your right to silence and that you want a lawyer. Then they must stop all interrogation until you have a lawyer. Unless of course your stupid ass starts talking (about your case. You can ask to use the bathroom or about the weather. Just not your case). Say you're using your rights, then actually use them. They only tell them to you so it's clear if you keep talking awterwards that you're waiving them.