Just remember to explain why you’re remaining silent, Californians. Your modern-day ephors insist you do so. We wouldn’t want to confuse your silence for guilt, would we?
Which brings up an interesting quandary. What if the suspect is deaf and cannot hear questions? Or mute and cannot speak? Or the trauma of the incident leaves them in a catatonic state? How is a jury supposed to know? I suppose we’ll have to take the officer’s word for it, even if it contradicts video evidence.
Putting aside the idiocy or plain arrogance of judges who make these claims, rulings like this help to give government the behavioral patterns of an emotionally unstable boyfriend/girlfriend. It’s the sort of “do these pants make my butt look fat?” question. No answer is correct.
On one hand, the government tries to silence our speech or at the very least restrict it with “First Amendment Zones” and campaign financing laws. But when your speech benefits them at your expense, they make it a liability if you don’t talk.
Silence, citizen! We do not want to hear about these counterrevolutionary ideals you espouse! If you do not desist from advocating them we will be forced to give a closer examination of your tax returns. And while you’re advocating, you can only spend as much money as we say, and you can only speak about it in these zones.
……Why are you so quiet all of a sudden, citizen? Are you to trying to hide your counterrevolutionary ideals? Don’t worry. We have ways of making you admit to your deviationism! Answer us!