He wasn’t under arrest. He didn’t have to go to the police office. He didn’t have to answer questions. He didn’t “remain silent” he clammed up when he didn’t want to answer a question.

This article also seems framed to indicate that his silence is THE reason he was convicted. If you have a voluntary conversation with a cop and the cop is called to the stand, what is he supposed to say?

“I asked him his name, he answered Roy”
“I asked if he owned any guns, he answered “Yes, a shotgun”
“I asked him if his shotgun would match the crime scene shells… sorry can’t tell you what happened after that because it would violate his right..”

How the fuck does that make any sense? It’s a freaking witness statement, the jury decides what means what.

Also from the article:

How can an individual who is not a lawyer know that these particular words are legally magic?”

Yea that describes practically the entire code of laws in this country.