Wow. You'd think it'd be obvious. The 5th amendment isn't a digital pin pulled down to zero and magically switched on when the Miranda rights are read.
I'm going to hold out on my outrage until the Supreme Court comments, but should they even hint at silence being a form of confession, I think that will surely be regarded as the day the judicial system in the United States finally jumped the shark for once and for all.
I agree with you, but the case isn't that simple. If he simply refused to speak, that would be one thing. The problem is that he was talking and then decided to stop right when an incriminating question was asked. The question isn't whether his silence can be used as evidence as guilt ... but whether his decision to stop talking at that specific moment can be.
It's always a good idea to keep your mouth shut when dealing with the cops, from beginning to end, not just when you find out they're gunning for you.
Where do you draw the line? A police officer randomly walks up to you and asks your name (which I believe is the one question you are required to answer, and truthfully):
"How are you doing? Nice weather today, huh? What about that Bears game last night?"
Oh, look. It's a rare friendly neighborhood police officer!
"Mind telling me where you're headed?"
I'm not going to lawyer up yet. Remember, I'm actually innocent and have no idea where this is going.
"Very nice.. Say, do you live around here?" (knowing fully well you're standing in your own drive way)
Yes, officer. As a matter of fact, I do. (Wondering where this is going, but absolutely no reason to go hire a lawyer!)
"See anything suspicious last night?"
So far, so good. I'm not being accused of anything, will gladly answer. Clearly I'm being asked to help and am not a suspect!
"So you weren't home last night? Mind telling me where you were?"
Bells start ringing. Lawyer up or not at this point.
"Ah, so you don't have an alibi for last night and you are in possession of a 9mm weapon... How interesting"
Lawyer! (or silence)
DA to jury: "Ladies and gentlemen, we have here the sworn affidavit of Officer Riley and you can see how the accused clammed up once asked about the weapon, while being perfectly cooperative until that point, and answering all the questions we asked him. As you can see, he's clearly got something to hide. It's your duty as law-abiding patriotic citizens to see to it that he spends the rest of his life in prison."
(This is especially believable for me as someone not immediately recognizable as a minority living in a fairly affluent suburb. I have no reason to distrust the police, and in fact, come across friendly officers all the time!)
And to drive the point home; let's suppose that you were out committing a victimless crime such as smoking marijuana. Your choice may be whether you admit to committing that crime or have your silence implicate you on this crime.
TWAD came about firstly to crush the chinese, then black people, then mexicans, and now finally the poor.
Your entire criminal justice system is a mockery of the concept of "justice". "Just"? Please.
Again, downvoted due to speaking the truth. I'm disappointed, HN.
The war on drugs started in California, to lock up Chinese immigrants who were taking "American jobs". They smoked opium. 1909.
Next came Cocaine. Used to be rich white folks, but then black folks started using it because it was getting mightily affordable, so you made that illegal too, so you could lock them up. Because they were taking "American jobs".
Next, the mexicans. Hemp. Useful crop. Nope, it's Marijuana, the devil's own drug. Lock them up too, keep them away from "American jobs".
Now, finally, there are no "American jobs", because you wanted everything cheap, and yesterday, so pure economics pushed your productive labour force overseas (nobody moved, but the centres of labour did). Cue mass unemployment and drug use, as the underground economy is pretty welcoming. Whoops, don't like them either, lock them up.
Sorry, I think it is that simple. You can chose if and when you would like to speak. Period. Cops can ask anything they want and you can pick and chose what you want to say. You have the right to remain silent so as not to self incriminate. If simply remaining silent is admission of guilt. Where does that leave the 5th?
I'm going to hold out on my outrage until the Supreme Court comments, but should they even hint at silence being a form of confession, I think that will surely be regarded as the day the judicial system in the United States finally jumped the shark for once and for all.