5 ms·

>“Why don’t you just give me a lawyer, dog?” Warren Demesme asked the police when accused of sexual assault in 2017. The statements one makes to law enforcement

>“Why don’t you just give me a lawyer, dog?” Warren Demesme asked the police when accused of sexual assault in 2017. The statements one makes to law enforcement after requesting a lawyer are inadmissible—but Demesme’s rights were ignored because, it was argued, he’d requested a “lawyer dog,” not an actual attorney. No one _actually_ thinks that was a misunderstanding, right?

krapp 8y ago
No. A white suspect who said the same thing would probably have gotten a lawyer. The idiom "dog" is widely understood and used outside the black community, like "bro," "dude", "man", and there is no possible way “Why don’t you just give me a lawyer, dog?” was honestly interpreted as a request for a canid that passed the bar exam.
- burfog 8y ago
  I certainly wouldn't understand it. I have my doubts that it is even universally understood inside the black community. The most reasonable interpretation is that it is an insult, along the lines of "Why don’t you just give me a lawyer, asshole?" (or motherfucker, or asswipe, or shithead...) Note that it happens to be a question. That isn't really the proper way to ask for something. The answer to the question may well be "Because you haven't demanded one yet, parakeet".
  - krapp 8y ago
    It's still comprehensible. You understand it to be a request for a lawyer. You may find it insulting, or grammatically incorrect, but you're obviously aware that a lawyer, and not a "lawyer dog" is being asked for.
  - throwaway_3E 8y ago
    What makes insult the "most reasonable interpretation?" Couldn't this be explained as the suspect was in fact showing respect to the officer? As counterposed with: "Why don't you just give me a lawyer, bitch?"
    - burfog 8y ago
      Since "dog" is the male version of "bitch", it could be effectively the same insult. The best assumption for a random mysterious word is an insult, especially when used as name for you. If you don't know what "kike" or "tard" means and you assume it is an insult, you wouldn't be wrong.
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    > I certainly wouldn't understand it. I have my doubts that it is even universally understood inside the black community. The most reasonable interpretation is that it is an insult I'm a 40-year-old out-of-touch white dude and I know exactly what "dog" means in this context. So do my 65-year-old parents. Maybe your life has been so far removed from mainstream American culture that you haven't heard basic slang for the last quarter-century at least. That doesn't mean it's reasonable or excusable for a working cop.
treis 8y ago
No, it's wildly misleading: >And the basis for this comes from the second interview, where I believe the defendant ambiguously referenced a lawyer— prefacing that statement with “if y’all, this is how I feel, if y’all think I did it, I know that I didn’t do it so why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog cause this is not what’s up.” As this Court has written, “[i]f a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable police officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking his right to counsel, the cessation of questioning is not required.” State v. Payne, 2001- 3196, p. 10 (La. 12/4/02), 833 So.2d 927, 935 (citations omitted and emphasis in original); see also Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 462, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 2357, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994) (agreeing with the lower courts’ conclusion that the statement “[m]aybe I should talk to a lawyer” is not an unambiguous request for a lawyer). In my view, the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a “lawyer dog” does not constitute an invocation of counsel that warrants termination of the interview and does not violate Edwards v. Arizona, https://www.lasc.org/opinions/2017/17KK0954.sjc.addconc.pdf https://www.lasc.org/opinions/2017/17KK0954.sjc.addconc.pdf It's pretty obvious that the judge does not think that there are lawyer dogs and that the word "dog" in that sentence has no bearing on the judges opinion.
- unclenoriega 8y ago
  I was ready to agree with you, but the fact that opinion quotes "lawyer dog" makes me question what the judge actually thinks (or is claiming to think). Clearly it should be "lawyer, dog," instead of "lawyer dog". The judge does seem to be quoting the transcript, however, which leads us to the point of the article.
  - treis 8y ago
    I don't know why you're questioning anything. The judge gave his reasoning. He said: >defendant ambiguously referenced a lawyer— prefacing that statement... It's crystal clear that he is referring to this portion of the defendants statement: >if y’all, this is how I feel, if y’all think I did it I'm a little bit stunned that people actually think this is how the legal system works. You think that a prosecutor would seriously argue that a defendant didn't request a lawyer because they added "dog" to the end of that request? Or that a judge would take that argument seriously?

krapp 8y ago

No. A white suspect who said the same thing would probably have gotten a lawyer. The idiom "dog" is widely understood and used outside the black community, like "bro," "dude", "man", and there is no possible way “Why don’t you just give me a lawyer, dog?” was honestly interpreted as a request for a canid that passed the bar exam.

burfog 8y ago
I certainly wouldn't understand it. I have my doubts that it is even universally understood inside the black community. The most reasonable interpretation is that it is an insult, along the lines of "Why don’t you just give me a lawyer, asshole?" (or motherfucker, or asswipe, or shithead...) Note that it happens to be a question. That isn't really the proper way to ask for something. The answer to the question may well be "Because you haven't demanded one yet, parakeet".
- krapp 8y ago
  It's still comprehensible. You understand it to be a request for a lawyer. You may find it insulting, or grammatically incorrect, but you're obviously aware that a lawyer, and not a "lawyer dog" is being asked for.
- throwaway_3E 8y ago
  What makes insult the "most reasonable interpretation?" Couldn't this be explained as the suspect was in fact showing respect to the officer? As counterposed with: "Why don't you just give me a lawyer, bitch?"
  - burfog 8y ago
    Since "dog" is the male version of "bitch", it could be effectively the same insult. The best assumption for a random mysterious word is an insult, especially when used as name for you. If you don't know what "kike" or "tard" means and you assume it is an insult, you wouldn't be wrong.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  > I certainly wouldn't understand it. I have my doubts that it is even universally understood inside the black community. The most reasonable interpretation is that it is an insult I'm a 40-year-old out-of-touch white dude and I know exactly what "dog" means in this context. So do my 65-year-old parents. Maybe your life has been so far removed from mainstream American culture that you haven't heard basic slang for the last quarter-century at least. That doesn't mean it's reasonable or excusable for a working cop.

treis 8y ago

No, it's wildly misleading: >And the basis for this comes from the second interview, where I believe the defendant ambiguously referenced a lawyer— prefacing that statement with “if y’all, this is how I feel, if y’all think I did it, I know that I didn’t do it so why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog cause this is not what’s up.” As this Court has written, “[i]f a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable police officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking his right to counsel, the cessation of questioning is not required.” State v. Payne, 2001- 3196, p. 10 (La. 12/4/02), 833 So.2d 927, 935 (citations omitted and emphasis in original); see also Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 462, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 2357, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994) (agreeing with the lower courts’ conclusion that the statement “[m]aybe I should talk to a lawyer” is not an unambiguous request for a lawyer). In my view, the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a “lawyer dog” does not constitute an invocation of counsel that warrants termination of the interview and does not violate Edwards v. Arizona, https://www.lasc.org/opinions/2017/17KK0954.sjc.addconc.pdf https://www.lasc.org/opinions/2017/17KK0954.sjc.addconc.pdf It's pretty obvious that the judge does not think that there are lawyer dogs and that the word "dog" in that sentence has no bearing on the judges opinion.

unclenoriega 8y ago
I was ready to agree with you, but the fact that opinion quotes "lawyer dog" makes me question what the judge actually thinks (or is claiming to think). Clearly it should be "lawyer, dog," instead of "lawyer dog". The judge does seem to be quoting the transcript, however, which leads us to the point of the article.
- treis 8y ago
  I don't know why you're questioning anything. The judge gave his reasoning. He said: >defendant ambiguously referenced a lawyer— prefacing that statement... It's crystal clear that he is referring to this portion of the defendants statement: >if y’all, this is how I feel, if y’all think I did it I'm a little bit stunned that people actually think this is how the legal system works. You think that a prosecutor would seriously argue that a defendant didn't request a lawyer because they added "dog" to the end of that request? Or that a judge would take that argument seriously?