"At no point during the interrogation did Thompkins say that he wanted to remain silent, that he did not want to talk with the police, or that he wanted an attorney."
"Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk with the police. Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his “ ‘right to cut off questioning.’ ” Mosley, supra, at 103 (quoting Miranda, supra, at 474). Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent."
Omitting pertinent information is the tool of debate not of discourse.
> The USSC recently decided that if you are merely silent that means you waive your right to remain silent.
I cannot seem to find any supporting text in the SCOTUS text that merely being silent waives rights. Quite the contrary, my quote indicates it that as soon as the I would assert my rights, even in the middle of the interrogation, the interrogation would have to halt. (Additionally, the interrogated Thompkins did speak and answer, it was just terce.)
>I wish I were making that up. You now have to repeatedly state it.
Again, I can find no evidence in the SCOTUS opinion that once I assert my right, I have to repeatedly re-assert it.
From your note:
> unless tou break your silence to aay that you intend to be silent, yiu will be prosecuted for your silence
I find nothing of sort in this case. I can remain truly silent, and my silence cannot be used as evidence of guilt. Of course I can still be prosecuted with other evidence. Griffin v. California (1965) , Doyle v. Ohio (1976), and Salinas v. Texas (2013) just to name a few.
If I missed these, please point me to it so I can correct myself.
Just playing devil’s advocate here, but this idea of having to invoke your fifth amendment rights reminds me of a “Silent Man” (David Hampson) in the UK who would be arrested multiple times for blocking traffic by standing in the middle of the road. I’m not sure of the details, but in the process he would never speak to anyone at all (not even to his lawyer or psychiatrists, or just to confirm his name). It does seem problematic because what happens if the person arrested is actually mute?
Not only that, but do not say say "Gimme a lawyer, dawg" or else corrupt police will maliciously pretend you were merely asking for a legally trained canine, and another incompetent judge might let them get away with it.
> The USSC recently decided that if you are merely silent that means you waive your right to remain silent.
No. Based on the opinion linked in one of the other comments, there are these possibilities:
- explicitly say you are invoking your right to remain silent -- the have to stop asking you questions
- say nothing -- you're fine, your right to remain silent means they can't use this against you
- answer questions (without being coerced) -- if they read you your rights properly and confirmed you understood, this waives your right to not do what you just did; if they messed up, then you can get your answers thrown out
Also note that repeatedly invoking your right to remain silent is going to be considered "resisting arrest" and you're going to get the shit kicked out of you.
Telling people how violent the police are tends to get applause in some circles online, but spreading misinformation that you can't get away with exercising your rights is pretty straightforwardly pro-police propaganda. The vast majority of police officers in the US will not kick you if you say you don't want to talk to them.
The correct number of police officers beating the shit out of you is zero. Not a tiny minority; zero.
And every time one is uncovered, it is always the case that they've done it before, many times. That "vast majority" may not kick the shit out of you, but they seem willing to tolerate it when others do.
It's even worse at protests, when police officers have been told to expect violence. When you go to a protest, you assume that you are taking physical risks.
I wish I were making that up. You now have to repeatedly state it.
The USSC has been off the rails for at least ten years.