
'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You? - jcater
http://www.npr.org/2014/10/05/353893046/you-have-the-right-to-remain-silent-or-do-you?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social
======
s_q_b
Technically no, because there isn't actually a right to remain silent under
the United States Constitution.

Miranda readings, which most people conflate with this "right to remain
silent" are a bit of a bizarre invention of the Warren Court from other
preexisting rights:

1\. The against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. 2\. The right to
have counsel present during interrogation, since interrogation is considered
an inherently coercive environment under the Sixth Amendment.

If the goal is for the suspect to understand his or her legal rights during
questioning, "You have the right to remain silent," is a very bad way to
phrase Fifth and Sixth to an average Jane.

A more sane way might be an exclusionary rule that throws out all statements
before the suspect has the chance to talk to an attorney.

To patch up the corner cases, you could probably import quite a few hearsay
exceptions, like excited utterance.

Plus, I don't like this "know the magic words or else" type jurisprudence. "Am
I free to leave?" "Am I being detained?" "Do you have a warrant?"

In everyday police interactions, a citizen should never have to assert
Constitutional rights. The onus should be on the state's system to ensure
they're granted.

~~~
ithought
Of course, the Constitution doesn't grant rights. Do you have a natural right
to be left alone if you so choose? Do you have a natural right to not be a
witness against yourself? It seems a society based on popular sovereignty
should define these rights as inherent and innate to being a person.

And if you do assert your Constitutional rights, it's an easy way to escalate
a situation where you soon learn the meaning to "you can beat the rap, but you
can't beat the ride."

~~~
anonbanker
Asserting your rights is a fantastic ride, if you know how to do it. Everyone
should Google how Geithner beat both rap and ride from the NYPD in four
hours.that guy's a pro.

If you don't know how to properly assert your rights, then you have none;
expect to have your window smashed in, and be pulled out of your car. Or have
cops and social workers come to remove your kids from an "unsafe" house 30
minutes after the power company shuts off the power for some reason.

But if you do it right, you're treated extremely politely by policemen and
justice system participants.

~~~
bagels
Do you have a link to a story? A cursory search reveals people complaining
about being duped by a video that was posted two years after some event.

~~~
anonbanker
Forgive the lack of a link. This was discussed at a lunch with fellow bankers
a few years back, and one of my acquaintances had a rather detailed run-down.
I figure it was more publically-discussed. As I have no citation, take this
with as large a grain of salt as you'd like. :-)

------
mnw21cam
In the UK, the police warn people on arrest "You do not have to say anything,
but it may harm your defense if you fail to mention during questioning
something you later rely on in court." Which sounds quite a lot like how this
is going in leftpondian areas.

The idea is that if you suddenly come up with some claim in court without
having mentioned it beforehand, it could be made up, but if you are sticking
to the same story throughout then the court is more likely to believe you. Of
course, it is absolutely the right thing to ask for a lawyer to be present
during all questioning, and that is one's right. The lawyer may advise you to
answer every question with "No comment", or (if the evidence is damning) to
fess up.

------
Guvante
The illustrated guide to criminal law -
[http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2897](http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2897) just
finished up the 5th amendment.

You have to assert your right to silence, it isn't enough to be silent.

~~~
razster
That was actually useful, thanks.

------
fiatmoney
There's a really terrible trend of requiring magic spells to be cast to
"invoke" 4th and 5th amendment rights. You _have_ a right to remain silent, as
the Supreme Court has codified it; it doesn't make any sense to talk about
"invoking" it specifically. You don't have to declare "I invoke my First
Amendment rights" as a magic spell to avoid being prosecuted for writing
something on the internet.

~~~
DannyBee
" You have a right to remain silent, as the Supreme Court has codified it;"

So let's a few things things straight :)

1\. This particular right does not explicitly appear in the constitution.
There is nobody who argues otherwise. The history of the fifth amendment does
not support any other reading than being about compulsion to testify (IE
torture, etc).

2\. The Supreme Court are the ones who say you have to invoke it explicitly

So the Supreme Court, who you say "codified" this right, are the very people
saying you need to explicitly invoke it.

So it does make sense to talk about invoking it, since the same people who
have explained this right have said, as part of that explanation, that you are
required to do it. Basically "that it is your right to invoke your silence".
Not "you have an unabrogated right to silence and not have that silence used
against you".

"You don't have to declare "I invoke my First Amendment rights" as a magic
spell to avoid being prosecuted for writing something on the internet."

Of course, you can be prosecuted for plenty of stuff you write on the
internet, because the first amendment is not absolute, as the Supreme Court
has codified it.

~~~
chimeracoder
Unlike you, I am not a laywer, so take this for what it's worth:

I agree with most of what you say, but I do think the following statement is a
bit unfair:

> So it does make sense to talk about invoking it, since the same people who
> have explained this right have said, as part of that explanation, that you
> are required to do it.

Unless I'm mistaken, you're referring to two separate SCOTUS decisions that
are separated by several decades (the latter decision is very recent). I don't
think it's right to treat the Supreme Court as a singular, monolithic entity
even within a given session (let alone separated by many years and with
different chief justices, etc.)

Our public understanding of the supposed 'right to remain silent' developed
after the Warren court decision, and while it's true that the Roberts court
clarified (or imposed) the requirement that this be explicit, AFAICT it's not
the only way to interpret the Warren ruling.

Again, I agree with the rest of what you're saying, but I don't think it's
unfair to criticize the most recent SCOTUS ruling for appearing to[0] reverse
or mitigate our understanding of the earlier SCOTUS ruling.

[0] I say 'appearing to' because it's easily arguable that this is a
clarification, not a reversal, which AFAICT is the whole controversy to begin
with

~~~
DannyBee
"Again, I agree with the rest of what you're saying, but I don't think it's
unfair to criticize the most recent SCOTUS ruling for appearing to[0] reverse
or mitigate our understanding of the earlier SCOTUS ruling."

It's certainly fair to criticize, but honestly, this is the problem with
unenumerated rights in general (like "The right to privacy" and others), and
judicially made rules like the exclusionary rule - they tend to erode or
change over time, even after people come to rely on them.

I'd much prefer to see both in the constitution itself. :)

~~~
snowwrestler
The contemporaneous objection to the proposed Bill of Rights was that future
generations would come to believe that only those rights enumerated in the
Bill are protected by the Constitution.

It seems to me that that fear has basically come true. Adding a few more
amendments won't fix that; in fact they would reinforce the problem.

------
austinl
There's a lecture by a law school professor called "Don't Talk to Police" that
I've seen on HN before and is definitely worth watching. The case in the
article is unfortunate, although I'm curious what might have happened if Tom
had asked "am I under arrest?" after not being allowed to go home.

In the second example the article gives, I wonder what would've happened if
the defendant had not answered any questions voluntarily and chosen to remain
silent.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc)

~~~
anonbanker
I will politely and respectfully disagree with everything stated in this
video, but I will not stand in this fine gentleman's way of making more money
for criminal lawyers. I hope many people listen to the advice in the link, and
then call him to get out of the jam these lessons will put them in.

------
qwerta
How about right to be in shock, unable to speak? Where is basic empathy?

Guy just trashed car, possibly killing number of people including his
relatives, police arrests him just after accident. In such situation I would
shit myself , rolled into fetal position and would not talk to anyone for
hours/days.

No he gets jail, because he does not make statements for police..

~~~
Confusion
No, you see, only victims deserve empathy. Not someone of whom the media,
police and prosecuters have already determined that he is a _criminal_

------
aric
_"...the courts said the only exception is if defendants expressly tell police
they are invoking their Fifth Amendment rights..."_

The absence of speech should be protected as freedom of speech by the First
Amendment. The emphasis is on _should_. I wonder in what ways it's been
challenged in that sense. Everyone who wants to stay aware of their rights
concerning [don't talk to police] topics is hopefully taking note and updating
others on this news of last year. It's petty, troubling procedure to be forced
to verbally invoke a primary Constitutional right before one 'obtains' that
right. Yet so it goes. _" I invoke my Fifth Amendment rights. I want to speak
to a lawyer. (repeat)"_

~~~
DannyBee
"It's petty, troubling procedure to be forced to verbally invoke a primary
Constitutional right before one 'obtains' that right"

Which right are you referring to here? As has been pointed out, the right to
remain silent does not appear in the constitution. :) Only the right to not be
compelled to be a witness against yourself, which is not the same at all (and
does not need to be invoked)

~~~
aric
I'm referring to the right to not self-incriminate. That _is_ the issue at
hand. What you said is untrue twice over. It's central to this issue and it
does "need" to be invoked. The SCOTUS made some fateful rulings in 2013 and
the gist ever since is that one must invoke the Fifth in order to be perceived
as protected by the Fifth at that time. That's what the article is about.

~~~
DannyBee
"I'm referring to the right to not self-incriminate."

Also not in the constitution. Cite otherwise. The right the article is talking
about is the fifth amendment, which only says "nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself".

Not the same as a general right against self-incrimination (and no court case
has ever held otherwise ...)

"What you said is untrue twice over. "

Again, in what way? You are the one who refuses to actually back up your
statement that this right appears in the constitution, or was understood to be
primary constitutional right.

(Spoiler alert: It hasn't been. There are plenty of state and other supreme
court cases where silence was allowed to be used against people, and until the
time of Miranda, nobody believed this was part of the fifth)

" It's central to this issue and it does "need" to be invoked."

I'm still not sure what you are talking about. I know what the article is
talking about. The article is talking about an implicit right to silence
created by the Miranda decision that the court found to be necessary to
protect people, and its gradual erosion.

" and the gist ever since is that one must invoke the Fifth in order to be
perceived as protected by the Fifth at that time. That's what the article is
about."

See above

It is only in the past 50 years that any court has ever held the fifth
amendment gave you the right to remain silent, and in fact, precedent was the
exact opposite for centuries.

You are of course, welcome to look up the caselaw history if you don't believe
me.

It simply was not understood to be a primary constitutional right, contrary to
your assertion. There was not even anything you could invoke. Prosecutors were
free to use your silence against you

Talking about it as if it has always been an understood part of the fifth
amendment does nobody any favors. It hasn't. Again, you won't find any serious
legal academic who argues otherwise.

Here's an unbiased view by a preeminent con-law scholar:
[http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/17/do-you-have-a-right-to-
rema...](http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/17/do-you-have-a-right-to-remain-
silent-thoughts-on-the-sleeper-criminal-procedure-case-of-the-term-salinas-v-
texas/)

Note the section on pre-1965.

The truth is this is the problem with rights whose plain text does not appear
in the constitution, like privacy, like the exclusionary rule, like a lot of
things - they tend to erode over time.

But the solution to that is not to pretend they are written into the
constitution and then lament a changing ideology of the supreme court, but
instead actually put them there.

~~~
aric
You're confusing explicit rights with implicit rights built on precedence.
Much of what's considered Constitutional rights is not definite and explicit.
Likewise, the Constitution doesn't explicitly state that you have a right to
your physical senses as a sentient being beyond ambiguous terms pertaining to
welfare. This reminds me of a leading worry during the writing of the Bill of
Rights: a worry that the affirmation of some specific humanitarian rights
might regrettably lead society into believing that mere omission becomes the
grounds for abusing freedoms unstated.

> _It is only in the past 50 years that any court has ever held the fifth
> amendment gave you the right to remain silent, and in fact, precedent was
> the exact opposite for centuries._

Yes. It became a right. Go ahead and argue all day about what you perceive as
fulfilling the qualification of a "right." I'll argue in direct contrast if
your interpretation of rights remains narrow and dictated by the past. It
won't help the situation at hand. Miranda warnings wouldn't have resulted if
it weren't for precedence and perceived _rights_ upholding it. Now the tides
shift again. You're free to call this a _" return to the past"_ or a _" return
to previous rights I think you never had"_ or whatever you wish. I call it the
erosion of rights.

\--------------------

Edit:

> _But the solution to that is not to pretend they are written into the
> constitution and then lament a changing ideology of the supreme court, but
> instead actually put them there._

That would be ideal. That would be a colossal task, indeed, in lieu of a great
number of other _rights_ continuing to erode through an oligarchy's
surveillance institutions and corporate decree.

~~~
tptacek
You're caught in a semantic rut. Your peer in this conversation isn't
suggesting that there is no "right to silence". Re-read his comment. He's
acknowledging that there is an implied right, but pointing out that it is not
in the Constitution. He agrees with you that the right is eroding.

His disagreement regards the solution that erosion. Your solution seems to be
to shore up the implied right to silence that comes from Miranda. His is to
add an amendment to the Constitution to formalize a right to silence.

~~~
aric
It's a semantic rut, perhaps. It's not necessarily my semantic rut. Off the
bat he was arguing down this road as if to suggest that I was implying that
"remaining silent" was explicitly spelled out in the Constitution -- something
I never implied. I'm not stating solutions. I'm commenting on results. Ideas
for solutions are numerous and probably least served for attention in this
thread. A full constitutional amendment would be great. Agreed. Unfortunately,
that's a daunting likelihood given the prevailing winds.

This matter would benefit from re-reading my comments equally, as well, but I
digress. No worries. Thank you for your added thoughts.

~~~
DannyBee
You wrote: " [basically it's sad that one must] verbally invoke a primary
Constitutional right before one 'obtains' that right"

Note: you argue it is a primary constitutional right. Primary constitutional
rights are those actually found in the constitution. Yours is not.

So when you say this is "something I never implied", i strongly disagree. If
you didn't mean to imply it, fine. But I guarantee that anyone with any legal
background read your comment and came away with the same impression.

Your argument seemed to me to be "because it's a primary constitutional right,
I should not have to invoke it explicitly".

My argument is: You have to invoke it precisely because _it is not a primary
constitutional right_.

~~~
aric
The term "Constitutional right" refers to legal rights derived from and
related to the Constitution. Hence, they're termed _Constitutional_.

If you disagree with this term, you disagree with thousands upon thousands of
other rights that are equally considered Constitutional and part of
Constitutional law. Most Constitutional rights are not explicitly stated in
the Constitution. Instead they're derived from interpretation of the succinct
language used in the Constitution. This topic is rooted in Constitutional
rights. I respect that the word 'primary' could be misinterpreted. And it's
subjective. Personally, I don't know where I'd place this issue on a list of
humanitarian rights if I had to rank. Most issues related to speech and
freedom from tyranny, and its numerous forms of persecution, are issues that I
usually deem 'primary.'

~~~
DannyBee
"The term "Constitutional right" refers to legal rights derived from and
related to the Constitution. Hence, they're termed Constitutional."

Dude, you said "primary constitutional right", not "constitutional right".
They are not the same.

Additionally, you are seriously confusing primary constitutional rights and
rights and rules whose basis is implementation of constitutional rights. They
are not the same as constitutional rights either.

For example, the exclusionary rule (that excludes evidence obtained through
police violate your constitutional rights) is _not_ a constitutional right, it
is a judicial rule grounded in sane implementation of the 4th amendment.

In any case, this is not worth arguing any more for me.

~~~
aric
Like I said, I respect that using the word "primary" is contentious. If that's
your only true point, then there's little argument to be had other than a
subjective nature of what I consider primary. If your argument extends past
that, about the term "Constitutional right" itself, then, again, you'd be
wrong to imply that "rights and rules" derived from Constitutional
interpretation aren't Constitutional rights. That's not judicial wordplay.
It's common language.

Example:

\----------------------------

"What to Say to Invoke the Right to Silence

The new Supreme Court decision raises weighty questions, such as whether it’s
reasonable to place the onus of asserting constitutional rights on everyday
people, most of whom have never cracked the spine of a criminal procedure or
constitutional law book. The more practical question is what, exactly, an out-
of-custody person must say to inquisitive police officers in order to claim
the right to silence. To be safe, they should make clear that they are
invoking their Fifth Amendment right to silence and have nothing further to
say. That way their subsequent failure to answer any questions cannot be
mentioned at trial."

by: Micah Schwartzbach

[http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-how-invoke-
your-...](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-how-invoke-your-right-
silence.html)

\----------------------------

This writer uses the term _" constitutional rights"_ in context. He later
says, _"...invoking their Fifth Amendment right to silence..."_ (i.e. "...
invoking their Constitutional right to silence...") in direct context. I won't
dig up numerous other examples from lawyers who write about this subject in-
depth. Court rulings continually change the landscape of rights. They change
what's inherently so-called "Constitutional" at any point in time. Many issues
become topics of people's Constitutional rights once they're challenged on the
basis of the Constitution. This is irrespective of a changing landscape's
rulings at any point in time.

Outside of that language, we may agree more than we disagree.

------
derefr
It's not really about being silent. It'd make much more sense if the Miranda
copy was "you have the right to not be interrogated without a lawyer present;
if you invoke this right, your silence in response to further questions asked
without your lawyer present cannot be held against you. Anything else, can."

~~~
phkahler
"you have the right to not be interrogated without a lawyer present" but that
implies you have to answer questions once you get a lawyer present.

~~~
derefr
Nah, you don't have to _answer_ —but they have every right to ask all the
questions they like to you through your lawyer, and whatever response they
observe to _that_ "can and will be held against you" just as if you had
volunteered to talk.

You can work it out through this equivalence: when you choose to speak without
a lawyer present, you're basically self-representing in the interrogation. So
your "lawyer" (i.e. you) can get you in trouble. The Miranda rights are sort
of a "we will only assign mens rea to the return values from the public API of
your mind" idea: by asserting your need for a lawyer, you're asserting that
right now they're speaking directly to your private API—an internal version of
yourself they don't have the right to know anything about. You-plus-your-
lawyer becomes a full being again, and _its_ words can harm it. (But it also
has the _actual_ right to remain silent—without invoking anything—and its
silence cannot be held against it either.)

The critical thing about the lawyer right is that they actually _lose_ the
ability to interrogate you—to do anything at all that could elicit self-
incrimination—until you get that lawyer. Whereas, both in the "I invoke my
right to remain silent" pre-lawyer, and "no comment" post-lawyer cases, they
can continue interrogating you all the like. in fact, if you're re-read your
Miranda rights post-invoking-silence but pre-lawyer, your invocation goes away
until you say it again! They can keep trying all sorts of things to weasel
words out of you if all you ask is to allowed to be silent; once you ask for
the lawyer, though, they're utterly locked out until you get one.

------
nextweek2
I have always thought it best to specify that you don't understand. If you are
not a lawyer how can you know the ramifications for anything you do or do not
say.

~~~
viggity
IANAL, but my guess is that asking for an attorney is the equivalent of
asserting your right to remain silent as the police are not allowed to
continue your interrogation. The right to counsel is a part of the 6th
amendment though, not the 5th.

------
smokeyj
Some states require you consent to sobriety tests to keep your drivers
license. You have the right to remain silent. But they reserve the right to
ruin your life.

~~~
krallja
A drivers license has always been a privilege, not a right.

~~~
tedks
Likewise, having a cell phone is a privilege, not a right, but it's nearly
impossible to survive in modernity without one, so restricting access to one
becomes a form of coercion. No matter how you spin it, this is an attempt to
coerce people into incriminating themselves.

There's nothing stopping these states from going further and saying that
driving a car implies consent to have that car searched at any time, or
impounded to be emissions-checked at the state's leisure.

~~~
tptacek
Having a cell phone is a privilege? In what state, owing to what statute?

~~~
tedks
It's certainly regulatable, though it isn't now. Since cell carriers lease
public airwaves, it'd be possible to mandate that they block some people from
using their service, only sell phones if the person's ID is checked, etc..
This is drastic and would disrupt (in the traditional sense of the word) pay
as you go phones that are popular for various demographics, but it seems
possible, and there certainly isn't a reason why it couldn't happen.

If felons can be denied the right to vote, I think it'd be an easy sell to
deny them the right to cell phones. Any state could pass it as a "tough on
crime" measure.

~~~
tptacek
It's not true that anything one can imagine being regulated can legally be
regulated. The state has an extremely compelling interest in regulating
automobiles --- they are incredibly dangerous and create externalities. It is
harder to see how a restriction on free speech and association could pass
Constitutional muster.

~~~
tedks
There's no free speech or association here, only questions of who can access
government-controlled radio spectrum.

This is also incredibly dangerous -- nearly all drug trafficking is
orchestrated via cellular networks, and it's not a stretch to imagine that
felons might lose the right to use government radio spectrum to communicate in
the same way they lose the right to vote in many states.

To put it another way, which seems more of a central right in the democratic
system: voting, or controlled frequency access?

It seems very quixotic to make this an issue of free speech, when free speech
itself is so highly regulated. Ask the protesters outside the free speech zone
if free speech exists beyond state regulation -- the silence is your answer.

------
Frozenlock
What's the point of having laws, if your citizens can't possibly know/remember
them?

~~~
morganvachon
Not that I think the US is there yet, but the answer is that having so many
laws that basically waking up and going about your daily routine means
breaking at least a few laws, is the ultimate goal. If everything is a crime
and everyone is a criminal, it's much easier for the government to control the
people rather than the other way around. This concept comes up in many science
fiction works, even non-Dystopian ones.

~~~
freehunter
I've always wondered this while driving through Chicago. The speed limit is
55mph, but everyone, cops included, goes 70 when traffic allows for it. And
I've done 80mph with a cop behind me and not been pulled over.

Which leads me to believe that the speed limit is only there so the police
have a reason to pull over anyone without any other reason. Don't like the
look of the driver? Pull them over, while ignoring every other car doing 70.

~~~
morganvachon
It's even worse in some places. Here in Atlanta, there is a law against
impeding the flow of traffic. The I-285 perimeter highway around the city has
a posted speed of 55 for most of it, yet traffic constantly flows at about
70-80mph. Theoretically, if you are going 65mph in the leftmost lane while
people are flying around you and backed up behind you, you can be stopped and
cited for both impeding the flow of traffic and speeding.

Who knows if it would get thrown out in court, but most people plead guilty to
traffic citations by just paying the fine anyway, and the system knows that.

------
treehau5
The article hit the nail on the head. It is a no-win scenario. Having watched
many law professors give lectures on this very topic and something they always
make sure to point out, the issue that I always have with it is the wording:

"Anything you say or do may (or can and will for modern readings) be used
against you in a court of law"

What it does not say is it can be used __for you __. What would of changed if
Tom knew that showing good human conscious would help him in court? Yet the
Miranda Warning worded to say nothing good can come out of this for you, that
is I have absolutely nothing to gain by talking to you. It 's a lose-lose
situation. Could you imagine the frustration?

------
phkahler
"Sir, can you tell me how fast you were going?" I've always wondered what the
best answer would be.

~~~
morganvachon
Maybe it's a regional thing, but around here the question is always "Do you
know why I pulled you over?" to which I've answered, "no, sir." To answer
anything else is to incriminate yourself, and officers will write in the
comments section of the ticket (for the judge to see) that you affirmed your
offense, essentially pleading guilty on the spot.

For example, let's say you're going 10mph over the speed limit and you're
aware of that, but you don't know your tail light is out. The officer pulls
you over for the tail light, asks the question, and you answer "because I was
speeding, I guess". Now he can not only write you the ticket for the tail
light, but you just gave him a confession for the speeding too. Now you've
guaranteed that you'll get two citations when you might have just gotten off
with a "fix that tail light" warning.

~~~
anonbanker
You are absolutely correct. However, a court will accept that you tried to
plead guilty at the earliest point in time, and will usually give you a
reduced penalty for doing so. You'll usually get no points on your license,
either.

from thefreedictionary.com's legal dictionary: In civil lawsuits, the term
guilty does not imply criminal responsibility but refers to misconduct.

Source: I settle approximately 4 speeding tickets a month for customers.

------
anonbanker
Most people have watched enough "Cops" to have memorized the script. Now, go
grab a copy of a law dictionary (I use Bouvier's or Black's) and read the
definition of every word in that script. You'll be amazed at what it really
means.

Silence is considered acceptance in contempt. A cop telling you that you have
the right to put yourself in contempt, when you have a duty as a taxpaying
citizen to respond, should give you some pause.

Don't take my word for it, though; read a law dictionary.

~~~
mcherm
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.

It sounds like you are implying that keeping mum is legally equivalent to
agreeing to anything that a police officer says. That simply isn't true.

If you have something useful to contribute, please make it more clear and
include a citation somewhat more precise than "somewhere within the 2052 pages
of Black's Law Dictionary".

~~~
anonbanker
Interesting quote you put there. Did I say that?

But sure, i'll be happy to do your homework for you. Grab your book, an look
up the following words: "You" "Right" "Remain" "Silent" "Attorney" "Afford"
"Understand"

Those would probably be a good start for you. You'll learn they don't mean
what you think they mean.

Afterwards, might I suggest a book on offer and acceptance? The "Examples and
Explanations" series has a great book on Contracts, and might get you to a
deeper understanding of the meaning of silence.

~~~
mcherm
> Interesting quote you put there. Did I say that?

No. I used the quotation marks to indicate my paraphrasing of what I believed
you were implying, not your actual words.

~~~
anonbanker
We'll consider your silence to the rest of my post as agreement to its
contents.

~~~
anonbanker
And we'll consider your downvotes to be a sign of vexation, rather than
legitimate contribution to the conversation. This type of censorship is not in
the spirit of the HN guidelines.

Regardless, I have karma to burn. bury away. :-)

