this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2025
542 points (98.6% liked)
Greentext
7061 readers
727 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There's also the supreme court ruling a bit ago that weakened the right. Changed it from something you can simply do to something you need to invoke.
Simply remaining silent does not invoke your right to remain silent, you must state that you wish to not speak. This applies before you're read your rights and arrested. So without ever being told your rights or that you can leave at any time, silently refusing to answer questions can be used as evidence against you. Look nervous when the police ask if shell casings found at a murder scene would match a gun you own? That can be used as evidence of guilt, along with your choice not to answer the question.
Coupled with police being able to lie to you more than a lot of people believe, it's possible to remain silent, say "I should probably have a lawyer for this" (note how that's not actually a request for legal counsel, just an observation), and for the police to imply that this has stopped the interrogation ("alright, I'll go do the paperwork. I'll send someone in to sit with you, can't leave people unsupervised").
A lot of people have difficulty not chatting with someone who's been presented to them as a neutral party, particularly if they think there's no harm to it.