3 ms·

> then shut up The Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, has ruled that you cannot exercise your right to remain silent by merely remaining silent, and that t

> then shut up The Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, has ruled that you cannot exercise your right to remain silent by merely remaining silent, and that the Prosecution can say things like "you didn't have an answer when asked questions". To exercise your right to remain silent, the Court says, you must say "I am exercising my right to remain silent". And don't say "I want a lawyer, dawg", or else the police will say they were unable to find you a canine who had passed the bar, and thus your request for counsel was not a serious one and that they are free to continue your interrogation... and the Court (in this case, the Louisiana Supreme Court) will say that that was a perfectly reasonable interpretation of your request.

Terr_ 2y ago
Other readers, please note that none of the above is an exaggeration. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/suspect-asks-for-a-lawyer-dawg-judge-says-he-asked-for-a-lawyer-dog.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/suspect-asks-for...
- decremental 2y ago
  [dead]
gmiller123456 2y ago
[flagged]
- coldtea 2y ago
  In what universe is "Why don't you just get me a lawyer, dawg" ambiguous, except in the universe of backwater town prosecutors playing wordgames?
  - wisty 2y ago
    Thus is an example of a rhetorical question. You aren't asking for anything, you are making a statement. Another example is “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.” which is a statement of innocence, not asking for anything.
    - coldtea 2y ago
      >Another example is “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.” which is a statement of innocence, not asking for anything. This is still asking for a layer. They "y'all" DO think "he did this", and there was a request attached to answering that if in the affirmitive.
      - wisty 2y ago
        If it's conditional, it's not unambiguous. But hey, I'm not a lawyer, maybe a lawyer (or better still, a judge) could clear it up?
        scotty79 2y ago
        But the conditions were unambiguously met because they were just attempting to extort a confession. The conditions wouldn't be objectively met if they tried it on a person they believed to be innocent. And even then the conditions would be met from the point of view of the person making the statement so whoever decided there wasn't a request was conveniently wrong. Not a lawyer either but I think you could find lawyers claiming both contradictory things.
    - Aerroon 2y ago
      It's a rhetorical question because it's a ridiculous situation. If the police officer is too stupid to understand what's being said then they could ask for clarification. But of course they didn't, because how else could they abuse their power?
      - wisty 2y ago
        It isn't ridiculous for police to question a guy who murded his girfriend. And IIRC they weren't stupid, they checked with a lawyer to see if that was a legally a request for a lawyer.
        2y ago
- simoncion 2y ago
  > Everything about a "lawyer dog" is just bad journalism. No. Not at all. From [0]: > On Friday, the Louisiana Supreme Court declined to review the trial court’s ruling in State v. Demesme refusing to exclude incriminating statements that Desmesme allegedly made to a detective. The vote was 6-1 but there was no majority opinion—the court just denied review and noted one justice had voted to grant it. But Justice Crichton, one of the six concurring justices, did write a very brief opinion, saying he wanted to “spotlight the very important constitutional issue” presented. The conclusion above—including “reference to a ‘lawyer dog'”—is taken almost word-for-word from that opinion. The conclusion mentioned in the quote above is in the article linked at [0]. The article is well worth reading. > Since that wasn't an unambiguous statement saying he wanted a lawyer... When you look at the entire sentence, it is clear that it really, really unambiguous is to anyone who isn't interested in jailing someone who talks funny: > [I]f 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, [dawg] cause this is not what’s up. "If you think I did it, just give me a lawyer." The desire for a lawyer is clear as day to anyone who's not using motivated reasoning to fabricate excuses to "justify" trampling over the rights of regular folks. [0] <https://www.loweringthebar.net/2017/11/lawyer-dog.html https://www.loweringthebar.net/2017/11/lawyer-dog.html>
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  > that wasn't an unambiguous statement People who say Putin has done nothing wrong follow a similar sort of logic. You think that what you are doing is different, but it's not - it's just slightly earlier on the slippery slope. Either you have rights that cannot be violated, or your don't. Once you have the power to violate rights because the magic pronunciation wasn't quite right, you are inviting other sorts of abuse too.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  He also said “just get me a lawyer”. What grammatical pedantry can be contorted from that to somehow be not a request for a lawyer? This is just deliberate obtuseness.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Sure, but that pretty much defines 90% of the legal system.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Terr_ 2y ago

Other readers, please note that none of the above is an exaggeration. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/suspect-asks-for-a-lawyer-dawg-judge-says-he-asked-for-a-lawyer-dog.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/suspect-asks-for...

decremental 2y ago
[dead]

gmiller123456 2y ago

[flagged]

coldtea 2y ago
In what universe is "Why don't you just get me a lawyer, dawg" ambiguous, except in the universe of backwater town prosecutors playing wordgames?
- wisty 2y ago
  Thus is an example of a rhetorical question. You aren't asking for anything, you are making a statement. Another example is “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.” which is a statement of innocence, not asking for anything.
  - coldtea 2y ago
    >Another example is “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.” which is a statement of innocence, not asking for anything. This is still asking for a layer. They "y'all" DO think "he did this", and there was a request attached to answering that if in the affirmitive.
    - wisty 2y ago
      If it's conditional, it's not unambiguous. But hey, I'm not a lawyer, maybe a lawyer (or better still, a judge) could clear it up?
      - scotty79 2y ago
        But the conditions were unambiguously met because they were just attempting to extort a confession. The conditions wouldn't be objectively met if they tried it on a person they believed to be innocent. And even then the conditions would be met from the point of view of the person making the statement so whoever decided there wasn't a request was conveniently wrong. Not a lawyer either but I think you could find lawyers claiming both contradictory things.
  - Aerroon 2y ago
    It's a rhetorical question because it's a ridiculous situation. If the police officer is too stupid to understand what's being said then they could ask for clarification. But of course they didn't, because how else could they abuse their power?
    - wisty 2y ago
      It isn't ridiculous for police to question a guy who murded his girfriend. And IIRC they weren't stupid, they checked with a lawyer to see if that was a legally a request for a lawyer.
      - 2y ago
simoncion 2y ago
> Everything about a "lawyer dog" is just bad journalism. No. Not at all. From [0]: > On Friday, the Louisiana Supreme Court declined to review the trial court’s ruling in State v. Demesme refusing to exclude incriminating statements that Desmesme allegedly made to a detective. The vote was 6-1 but there was no majority opinion—the court just denied review and noted one justice had voted to grant it. But Justice Crichton, one of the six concurring justices, did write a very brief opinion, saying he wanted to “spotlight the very important constitutional issue” presented. The conclusion above—including “reference to a ‘lawyer dog'”—is taken almost word-for-word from that opinion. The conclusion mentioned in the quote above is in the article linked at [0]. The article is well worth reading. > Since that wasn't an unambiguous statement saying he wanted a lawyer... When you look at the entire sentence, it is clear that it really, really unambiguous is to anyone who isn't interested in jailing someone who talks funny: > [I]f 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, [dawg] cause this is not what’s up. "If you think I did it, just give me a lawyer." The desire for a lawyer is clear as day to anyone who's not using motivated reasoning to fabricate excuses to "justify" trampling over the rights of regular folks. [0] <https://www.loweringthebar.net/2017/11/lawyer-dog.html https://www.loweringthebar.net/2017/11/lawyer-dog.html>
ClumsyPilot 2y ago
> that wasn't an unambiguous statement People who say Putin has done nothing wrong follow a similar sort of logic. You think that what you are doing is different, but it's not - it's just slightly earlier on the slippery slope. Either you have rights that cannot be violated, or your don't. Once you have the power to violate rights because the magic pronunciation wasn't quite right, you are inviting other sorts of abuse too.
FireBeyond 2y ago
He also said “just get me a lawyer”. What grammatical pedantry can be contorted from that to somehow be not a request for a lawyer? This is just deliberate obtuseness.
- lazide 2y ago
  Sure, but that pretty much defines 90% of the legal system.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]