4 ms·

There is nuance to that - simply remaining silent is not the same thing as asserting silence, and is not as effective. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/

by DenisM 7y ago

There is nuance to that - simply remaining silent is not the same thing as asserting silence, and is not as effective. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-how-invoke-your-right-silence.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-how-invoke-your...

6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
Wow, how messed up is that? "You have a right to remain silent" can't be interpreted in the most direct manner?
- megous 7y ago
  The example person in the article didn't stay silent to the end.
- dahfizz 7y ago
  There is a bit of nuance. The executive summary is that you have to actually "plea the fifth" instead of just remaining silent. The legal system is super complicated. Never assume you know everything you need to know and always have a lawyer present when dealing with police.
jc01480 7y ago
Consider that some states have laws considering silence, or a refusal to deny allegations, as direct evidence of culpability. Texas is one of those states. Laws reflect human nature about as much as fire is similar to ice.
- dahart 7y ago
  Since Miranda rights are part of a Federal, constitutional right to not require self-incrimination, I was curious about what you mean, and found this: https://harronlaw.com/blog/miranda-rights-texas/ https://harronlaw.com/blog/miranda-rights-texas/ "No discussion of Texas Miranda laws is complete without mentioning the 2013 case Salinas v. Texas. In this case, the Supreme Court said that you must affirmatively invoke your right to remain silent, or it doesn’t count. It’s not enough just to shuffle your feet and look away." Edit: reading a bit more about it, I don't think this specific case amounts to a law against being silent or one that is specific to Texas. This was a Supreme Court case, and the issue is the defendant wasn't under arrest and wasn't Mirandized and was already talking to police when he went "silent". https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-246 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-246 "Question: Does the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause protects a defendant's refusal to answer questions asked by law enforcement before he has been arrested or read his Miranda rights?" Conclusion: No, by 5-4 decision. What this means is, if you haven't been arrested, then you do have to say out loud something like "I'm exercising my right to remain silent." As far as I can tell this is true in all US states. Once arrested you still presumably have the right to literally remain silent, even in Texas, under the Fifth Amendment. Is this the one you were thinking of, or is there some other law or case you're thinking of?
quickthrower2 7y ago
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2897 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2897

by DenisM 7y ago

6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago

Wow, how messed up is that? "You have a right to remain silent" can't be interpreted in the most direct manner?

megous 7y ago
The example person in the article didn't stay silent to the end.
dahfizz 7y ago
There is a bit of nuance. The executive summary is that you have to actually "plea the fifth" instead of just remaining silent. The legal system is super complicated. Never assume you know everything you need to know and always have a lawyer present when dealing with police.

jc01480 7y ago

Consider that some states have laws considering silence, or a refusal to deny allegations, as direct evidence of culpability. Texas is one of those states. Laws reflect human nature about as much as fire is similar to ice.

dahart 7y ago
Since Miranda rights are part of a Federal, constitutional right to not require self-incrimination, I was curious about what you mean, and found this: https://harronlaw.com/blog/miranda-rights-texas/ https://harronlaw.com/blog/miranda-rights-texas/ "No discussion of Texas Miranda laws is complete without mentioning the 2013 case Salinas v. Texas. In this case, the Supreme Court said that you must affirmatively invoke your right to remain silent, or it doesn’t count. It’s not enough just to shuffle your feet and look away." Edit: reading a bit more about it, I don't think this specific case amounts to a law against being silent or one that is specific to Texas. This was a Supreme Court case, and the issue is the defendant wasn't under arrest and wasn't Mirandized and was already talking to police when he went "silent". https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-246 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-246 "Question: Does the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause protects a defendant's refusal to answer questions asked by law enforcement before he has been arrested or read his Miranda rights?" Conclusion: No, by 5-4 decision. What this means is, if you haven't been arrested, then you do have to say out loud something like "I'm exercising my right to remain silent." As far as I can tell this is true in all US states. Once arrested you still presumably have the right to literally remain silent, even in Texas, under the Fifth Amendment. Is this the one you were thinking of, or is there some other law or case you're thinking of?

quickthrower2 7y ago

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2897 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2897