Because everyone thinks they're just going to either explain what happened and it'll all be fine (it won't), or they think they can just weave a great big lie and the cops will buy it (they won't). Don't talk to the police without an attourney. If you're in that chair, it's because they want to implicate you in some way, regardless of right or wrong. While they might throw a fit about it, refusing to speak without an attourney present is your right and is in no way an admission of guilt.
this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2026
589 points (98.8% liked)
Greentext
7627 readers
832 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
Either that, or police use the Reid technique and subject you to interrogation and psychological torture for multiple days while keeping you in maximum security in prison, of course unfortunately without any recording (a lá Richard Allen - and what a tank he was, withstood their interrogation for superhuman amounts of time until they finally broke him).
So yeah there's 2 ways: corrupt police departments and criminals that are way too confident.
You do have to specifically invoke the right, though. But all you really have to say is, "I'm invoking my 5th amendment right to stay silent and will not be answering questions without an attorney present."
explain what happened and it'll all be fine (it won't)
A few times during traffic stops when I was younger (white male), I was so defenseless and trusting that in retrospect I can tell the cops were befuddled and just let me go even though I admitted to an infraction.
That said the stakes couldn’t have been lower, and I wouldn’t try it again.
a town next to the one i grew up in was notorious for asshole cops. i got stopped there multiple times as a teenager under false traffic bullshit 'you ran a red' etc. we were dumb and just let the cops search our cars and accuse us of being high and etc. they found nothing, but usually let us go after trying to intimidate us for an hour. i had one of them try to tell me my cd to tape player was illegal or something and threaten to arrest me for having burned cds.
i think they just want us to freak out or cry or something. they usually got pissed off with our polite compliance.
and the cops will buy it (they won't).
The vast majority of cops are really dumb, so I disagree with this statement. However, cops are highly motivated to not give a shit about whether a suspect is actually guilty. They're motivated to get a confession or conviction, regardless of innocence or guilt.
load more comments
(6 replies)
FYI:
Later, at his trial, prosecutors told jurors that his silence in the face of that question showed that he was guilty,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins
Understand how to invoke your right to remain silent and what consequences silence or otherwise may have--especially if improperly used.
Invoking your fifth amendment cannot be used to as evidence against you in a criminal court, but it can be used in civil cases. Its called adverse inference. Basically in a civil court if you refuse to provide information, it can be used against you to decide a fine or penalty. But it cannot lead to your incarceration under a criminal indictment. Griffin V California from '65
Yes, but the case being referenced involved what it means to invoke your fifth amendment rights.
Is remaining silent invoking the right, or do you have to state "I am invoking the right to remain silent", or some other statement?
Per the supreme Court, you can't passively invoke the right and can only do so actively. So simply not answering a question isn't invoking the fifth amendment and could be used against you.
That seems fucking stupid as hell, why do you need to "invoke" any right at all? And why would there be a requirement to access this right that most people wouldn't know
You're talking about a country where "I want a lawyer, dawg" is not sufficient to be provided a lawyer, because the cops can reasonably think that you want a dog that's a lawyer. The legal system in the US is beyond saving.
Please tell me this isn't true. Lie to me if required. I can't handle any more America. This may be the metaphorical straw
Every part of our collective absurdity permeates all facets of our life. Just look at our ad space and signage. Food requirements or lack thereof. Civil service (one worker, six supervisors). Everything in any system of ours is absurd on levels no one person can truly fathom.
It's our strength and weakness.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Because the US legislature stopped making laws, courts make laws instead, and they do it based on who's taking them on luxury trips.
The US legislature is in effect half a dozen sugar babies.
load more comments
(1 replies)
You're not wrong.
There is a rationale, it just fails to be consistent with the reason the right is explicitly enumerated.
Some rights are more about restraining the governments actions towards you. The right to legal counsel prohibits the government from putting you on trial totally lost and oblivious. The right to remain silent is a nickname we give to the prohibition on someone being "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".
Rights that prohibit government actions are usually automatic: free speech, no unreasonable search and seizure, and so on all prohibit the government from doing something.
The right to counsel requires the government to provide you with a lawyer if you need one, and to stop asking you questions if you ask for one until they show up.
The conservative supreme Court majority held that the "right to remain silent" was a right to make the government stop, just like asking for a lawyer, and that it didn't follow that the two rights needed to be invoked in different manners: no one has argued that their behavior should have implied they wanted a lawyer even if they didn't say so. Further, they said that if "not speaking" is what constitutes invoking the fifth, then it opens more questions about what manner of not speaking counts as an invocation. If someone doesn't answer, can the cop repeat themselves?
Invoking the right however is unambiguous, making it a better legal standard.
This falls apart not because of the nickname we give the right, but because of what it says and the intent behind it: "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". The key word is "compelled". The phrasing and intent are clear that it's about compulsion , not invoking an entitlement. Any statement you make you should be able to refuse to allow to be used against you, otherwise it's compulsion even if given willingly at the time.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
That's pretty good to know, as far as I understand the fifth is to be used exclusively in the context of presumption of innocence and protection of civils from authority. It would be very fucked up if some jerk would turn it on it's head and argue that you not saying some shit that may incriminate you as far as you know is actually incriminating itself. That's how oppressive regimes work.
load more comments
(9 replies)
Depends where you live
I heard about a guy in my country who admitted to have murdered someone
but the police couldn't prove he did it - so he walked.
They then later found the real killer. the first guy "confessed" to it because he thought he didn't have any other way out.
The police have to prove it - a confession can be unrealiable
at least where i live. in the US people are threatened with jail-time by the police, just to force a confession, so they can close the case and move on. Even though the police doesn't throw people in jail... a judge does.
Yes this only works in the US. No matter what they say, the only words that should be coming out of your mouth is "I would like to speak with a lawyer". And then close your mouth. Police in the US are allowed to lie to you to get the information they* need, but asking for a lawyer right at the start shuts the entire conversation down before they even get a chance to do so. In the US.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Many serial killers, murderers or just plain weird people would claim they've done it even if they didnt. For the most part they just want some spotlight, or if just a weird person/homeless - to go to jail just to not to stay on the streets. So, I agree that even if they admitted to it - justice system still has to prove they've done it.
load more comments
(2 replies)
FYI, you need to say "I'm invoking my right to remain silent" or similar before going quiet. Just shutting your mouth and refusing to say absolutely anything will make it worse.
Ah, right. The Supreme Court decided we only get to have the rights we can remember under any given circumstance. Don't let the cops catch you sleeping. Totally normal stuff in a totally normal democracy. Not at all a sign of any sort.
This is not entirely accurate.
If you clam up pre-Miranda warning, it can be used against you (if you didn’t specifically exercise your rights).
Case law about this: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/570/178/
Post-Miranda warning, there’s no issue. The warning literally advises you of your right to be silent.
That's not entirely accurate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins
Your fifth amendment rights haven't been invoked until you say so. The Miranda warning isn't a guide for how to invoke the rights, just a notification that you have them.
Now, it's ridiculous that we've ended up here and it was a terrible ruling, both of them, but if you're just quiet you haven't invoked your right to silence anymore than you've invoked your right to legal counsel.
Which is a hell of a position for the court to take on coerced confessions.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Yo I swear to god.
So I got arrested for "aggravated assult" because I defended myself against a racist bully in highschool
And you know what the fuck did my mom do, start fucking discussing about the details of case during the parent meeting thing.
And also like literally the next day when I had to go to the juvenile court system thing, my mom keeps saying a bunch of shit to the court staff, WHO IS NOT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER BTW.
Mom wtf, are your stupid. Are you TRYING to fuck it up even more? Shut the fuck up.
Literally I keep trying to tell her to shut the fuck up, stoping mentioning details other than just simply deny the allegations.
(Charges ended up dropped)
Also btw, I start using a non-english language to talk to my mom (cuz English isn't our Native Language) and the court staff immediately got more aggressive with their tone and treated me as though I was conspiring with mom about something. And they demanded for us to use English. Xenophobic pieces of shit court system.
I'm glad I had Citizenship, the system would literally attempt to deport a minor over a school fight. Cruel as fuck.
I mean strictly speaking by using a language other than the native one of the court you were conspiring with your mother.
Conspiring is just planning or acting jointly with another in secret in its most mundane form.
If your hiding your conversation by changing the language that is text book boring mundane conspiracy.
Even if you didn't intend to hide it, you were in fact doing so. It's entirely understandable for a court to demand you speak the language of the court or have a translator present to ensure everyone understands.
"the native one of the court" but the US doesn't have an official language
That's just his opinion, it's not a law.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Funnily enough, the supreme court ruled that you cannot invoke your right to remain silent by remaining silent. You have to actually say something about "I want a lawyer."
Why the fuck do you have to invoke it at all? It's a right. They should all be invoked by default.
Because they wanted to prosecute a guy who used that right, and they decided it needed to be reinterpreted to suit their desires.
The (obviously flawed) reasoning the supreme Court used is that it's the same as invoking the right to legal counsel: we tend to accept that you need to ask for a lawyer, they don't just get you one. Likewise, if you want them to stop asking you questions you need to say so.
Considering the right isn't the "right to remain silent" we nickname it, but No person shall be ... compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, it's a bit preposterous. Like saying it was a legal warrantless search because you never said "stop", you just locked the doors, tried to keep them out, and tried to keep them out of certain areas.
load more comments
(4 replies)
he wasn't so silent when he voluntarily went on the news and basically let everyone know he was involved by having a panic attack on live tv.
Who is this and does that matter for the sake of the post?
iirc he murdered a woman and scattered her body parts in trash cans on a college campus. I might be thinking of someone else because it has been a while but I pretty sure this is the guy. They spent hours trying to interrogate him and he effectively said nothing while remaining uncannily still. It sort of matters for the post but not that much.
The sped up video where you see him not move at all for ages is quite unnerving.
Here's a link to the wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lauren_Giddings?wprov=sfla1
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I wouldn't call life in prison "win".
Your silence will be used against you.
It actually legally can be used against you if you go silent before being told you have the right to stay silent
The logic being…why would someone go silent before they’ve even been officially warned about it
I think the problem is more like:
They trick you into talking about the weather, then suddenly be like: "Yea, such a great weather, it's such a shame that the victim couldn't enjoy seeing this because you murdered the victim"
Then you remain silent without verbally invoking the right to remain silent
So the prosecutors are gonna be like: "SEE, HE IS GUILTY SINCE HE SUDDENTLY BECAME QUIET!"
The low standards of US law enforcement never cease to amaze me...
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I remember this interrogation. Fatso on the left kept getting in his face, telling him to make eye contact, so dude stared into his soul for the entire rest of the interview without moving. The detective ended up getting uncomfortable and had to lean back in his seat hahaha. Homie was creepy as hell.
view more: next ›