569
He took it literally (files.catbox.moe)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works
63 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

You can simply remain silent, which doesn't answer the questions but isn't considered asserting the right. The important bit is to clearly and unambiguously invoke your right to a lawyer while not answering questions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It's actually different. Remaining silent doesn't invoke the right to not incriminate yourself. Simply remaining silent means they can use your silence to incriminate you.

    In the court case where they decided that a man didn't answer a question about a murder weapon. They used his silence and looking nervous as evidence for his guilt because he didn't say he intended to remain silent, and he remained silent before he was informed he had a right to do so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    but isn’t considered asserting the right.

    I put it right there, I know that simply remaining silent is not asserting your right to silence. It is ideal to affirmatively invoke your right to silence as well.

    I emphasized clearly demanding a lawyer as that is what, legally, makes the questions stop.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    And what I was saying was adding to that, and including that without invoking the right to silence simply remaining silent can be used for self incrimination.
    If you are not under arrest and not in custody, not answering questions by remaining silent can be used against you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent