4 ms·

>> The things I don't say may be used against me >This was always true (emphasis mine) On the other hand, the fact that there was a SCOTUS case about it mean

• sageikosa 13y ago
  That was my emphasis as well. There are all sorts of internal internal-psychological/perceived-sociological reasons someone may go silent when in the presence of seemingly friendly authority (if one comes from an authoritarian household or religious background) that suddenly appears to turn on you. The layman who hasn't had a brush with adversarial police investigation techniques and doesn't have an explanation for a (seemingly) factual assertion by the police may simply not know how to respond, knows he needs to tread carefully lest something get pinned on him, but is unaware that silence is not considered careful at this moment (since, if he remembers, he is talking to the police without being cautioned or under custody).
• DannyBee 13y ago
  It is still always true, legally, it just never made it to the supreme court in most contexts. SCOTUS held it could be used for purposes of impeachment in Jenkins. Most courts had held it could be used for all purposes, though there were some divisions, which were just resolved by the supreme court. So the view presented here, which seems to be "they just took away a right from me", is false.