Believe whatever you want. If you're idiotic enough to believe you can reason your way out of being hooked up(arrested), then good luck. Though, you were being overly simplistic in your commentary, and nothing you posted makes any sense.
In order to initiate a stop for DUI/DWI/[insert whatever title impaired driving is labeled as in one's state/nation], an officer needs to, or should observe a driving pattern to allow to said stop. If a stop is initiated for reasons other than suspicion of DUI(Driving Under the Influence), and the smell of an alcoholic beverage is observed, then a test(s) will be administered, none of which requires speech. A roadside, inadmissible test of one's breathe will show whether or not alcohol has been consumed, and the BAC(blood alcohol content), though the level reading itself is the inadmissible portion.
One can utilize speech to refuse that, or any other "roadside" test, but an arrest may be effected, a warrant sought to test the blood, breathe, and/or urine. This is called, at least in Georgia, "Implied Consent". Though, no amount of speech will reason one out of an arrest, if intoxification is observed.
Breaking the window of your own vehicle doesn't require speech to avoid an arrest either. If the event is observed by law enforcement, and said law enforcement chooses to get involved(discretion, or if one simply is intelligent and doesn't assume criminality in every event), identification can be provided in silence, and the vehicle tag will verify ownership. If authorization was given by a third-party, and the vehicle in question belongs to that third-party, then no speech would be required of you, the person suspected of a criminal act.
So, in closing, I wouldn't attempt to provide my own legal advice, if I were you.