Haha, you crack me up, did you read the original post? Maybe, I shouldn't assume such simple things.
"But the protection offered by the court in Stevens' 1986 opinion is especially important for vulnerable defendants, including the mentally and developmentally disabled, profanityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityfilterprofa nityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityf ilter, juveniles and the poor, the lawyers said."
People make uninformed choices all the time, choices that have can have grave consequences, people that are particularly vulnerable, this protects them, what is so hard for you to understand about that?? You ever read a legal book? Ever tried reading the penal code? Do you understand it completely? Would you feel comfortable if a cop essentially forced you to make a decision?
Perhaps you think you have the steel resolve to resist, not everyone does. The point is everyone should be given that protection.
Incidentally, I find it ironic you are arguing against protections in the very document you are sworn to protect. Of course you also do your fair share of criticizing the President and when I was in the military that was a violation of the UCMJ, maybe it's changed now? You want to talk to a lawyer before you get back to me?