https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/suspect-asks-for-a-lawyer-dawg-judge-says-he-asked-for-a-lawyer-dog.html

Land of the free smh

In the UK people usually say "no comment"

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.

It should be added that, "Once a suspect requests a lawyer, police are generally required to stop questioning until an attorney is present. The Supreme Court case Edwards v. Arizona further strengthened this rule, holding that any attempt by law enforcement to continue questioning without an attorney present violates the suspect’s rights."

Once you ask for a lawyer questioning is 'suppose' to stop. If you're still alone and they keep prying. That's only more cause for concern.

People try and talk their way out of it and dig a deeper hole. For example, what I imagined happening with that Briton arrested for carrying a garden trowel:

"But that tool is sharp, right?"

"A bit"

"If someone attacked you, would you stab them with it?"

"Probably"

"You've just admitted to carrying an offensive weapon. Accept this caution or we'll escalate this further"

Everyone is the hero of their own story. This implies that every person thinks they're doing the right thing.

So if they've been accused of a crime, there must be some misunderstanding. If I explain what happened they'll let me out because I didn't do anything wrong.

It's not the only reason people talk, but it's a big one.

Remember, the line is: " you have the right to remain silent, anything you say, can and will be used against you".

There's also the supreme court ruling a bit ago that weakened the right. Changed it from something you can simply do to something you need to invoke.
Simply remaining silent does not invoke your right to remain silent, you must state that you wish to not speak. This applies before you're read your rights and arrested. So without ever being told your rights or that you can leave at any time, silently refusing to answer questions can be used as evidence against you. Look nervous when the police ask if shell casings found at a murder scene would match a gun you own? That can be used as evidence of guilt, along with your choice not to answer the question.

Coupled with police being able to lie to you more than a lot of people believe, it's possible to remain silent, say "I should probably have a lawyer for this" (note how that's not actually a request for legal counsel, just an observation), and for the police to imply that this has stopped the interrogation ("alright, I'll go do the paperwork. I'll send someone in to sit with you, can't leave people unsupervised").
A lot of people have difficulty not chatting with someone who's been presented to them as a neutral party, particularly if they think there's no harm to it.

Well, technically speaking you can talk your way out of it, it's just that talking your way out of it means speaking one sentence and one sentence only "I'm exercising my right to a lawyer and to remain silent" over and over again

I watch this video every time it pops up or randomly when I think of it. Great video

They've been telling people not to talk to them since Miranda.

The line is: "you have the right to remain silent, anything you say, can and will be used against you"

Idk how people have missed that. Just stfu. Jeez.

This is the key thing many criminals fail to understand. The fact Miranda rights exist and the officer just had the balls to read them to you and still wants to engage, should be a red flag as to just how much of a disadvantage you are at in the impending battle of wits.