2 ms·

I was indeed able to read that -- poorly edited, since the "prefacing" part ends up referencing the entire statement -- opinion in its entirety from the link I

I was indeed able to read that -- poorly edited, since the "prefacing" part ends up referencing the entire statement -- opinion in its entirety from the link I shared. I think it beggars belief that a "reasonable police officer" could have found the statement in any way ambiguous. At best, if we take your reading of the opinion, putting the phrase "lawyer dog" in quotes like it's a single lexical item is a completely unnecessary jab at the defendant's mannerisms that doesn't inspire confidence in the judge's impartiality.

koalemosXo784I 5y ago
Enthusiastic agreement. The ruling is a plain affront to reason; Anyone supporting it is doing so in bad faith. He didn't say "lawyer dog", he said "give me a lawyer, dog", where "dog" is one of the many colloquial vocatives used in American English like "sir" "dude" "man" "yo". Naturally, everyone involved in this case was aware of this. They just decided to enjoy abusing their power by feigning misunderstanding, because it worked to their advantage, because they wanted to, and most importantly, because they knew they could get away with it. Truth is less important that power. If the defendant hadn't spoken English, they would have been obliged to provide a translator. It is obvious that linguistic barriers don't cede ones constitutional rights. This is somehow even worse, however, than not providing a translator. It is a bad-faith abuse of the inherent diversity of English to deny someone their rights.