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 l

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.