- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 6-1 margin, LA Supreme Ct rules man who said "give me a lawyer, dog" didn't ask for lawyer
Posted on 10/30/17 at 9:28 pm to fouldeliverer
Posted on 10/30/17 at 9:28 pm to fouldeliverer
quote:
And this alleged ambiguity is attributable entirely to the lack of a comma between "lawyer" and "dog" in the transcript.[quote] As such, the ambiguity is not the suspect's but the court's. And it requires willful ignorance to maintain it."
quote:
As such, the ambiguity is not the suspect's but the court's. [quote]And it requires willful ignorance to maintain it.
quote:
And it requires willful ignorance to maintain it.
quote:
willful ignorance
Isnt that on the State flag?
"Union, Willful Ignorance, Confidence"
This post was edited on 10/30/17 at 9:29 pm
0
Posted on 10/30/17 at 9:31 pm to fouldeliverer
No interrogation should occur without a lawyer at least present. Absolutely no reason we can't have a lawyer present. Should be completely automatic even if person denies wanting one.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 9:34 pm to fouldeliverer
It’s pretty stupid, but their ruling is correct based on the existing law. After reading the article, the law will even allow interrogations to continue if a person says, “I might need to get my lawyer” or any other half-arse way of asking for a lawyer. The ruling was correct based on the way the law is written, but the law needs to be revisited.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 9:38 pm to fouldeliverer
To be absolutely fair to the Supreme Court here’s his actual statement-
In Louisiana simply asking if you need a lawyer isn’t enough; you have to make a clear declaration that you want your lawyer. Saying things like “do I need a lawyer?” Or “maybe I should speak with an attorney” isn’t enough to qualify.
Looking at it from that perspective this guy did say “if y’all think I did it [...] why don’t you just give me a lawyer” and it appears that under normal circumstances that wouldn’t be enough for the police to stop interrogating you. I think the fact that he asked for his “lawyer dog” is completely inconsequential to the totality of his statement.
This should be a good lesson to everyone though: make damned sure that you are very clear when demanding your attorney.
quote:
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.
In Louisiana simply asking if you need a lawyer isn’t enough; you have to make a clear declaration that you want your lawyer. Saying things like “do I need a lawyer?” Or “maybe I should speak with an attorney” isn’t enough to qualify.
Looking at it from that perspective this guy did say “if y’all think I did it [...] why don’t you just give me a lawyer” and it appears that under normal circumstances that wouldn’t be enough for the police to stop interrogating you. I think the fact that he asked for his “lawyer dog” is completely inconsequential to the totality of his statement.
This should be a good lesson to everyone though: make damned sure that you are very clear when demanding your attorney.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 9:41 pm to fouldeliverer
A lot of people here that:
Didn’t read the ruling.
Didn’t read the article.
Didn’t read the entire quote.
Don’t understand the law.
You have to explicitly ask for a lawyer. He didn’t. He didn’t even ask for one at all if you read his entire quote.
Didn’t read the ruling.
Didn’t read the article.
Didn’t read the entire quote.
Don’t understand the law.
You have to explicitly ask for a lawyer. He didn’t. He didn’t even ask for one at all if you read his entire quote.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 9:48 pm to airfernando
quote:
No interrogation should occur without a lawyer at least present. Absolutely no reason we can't have a lawyer present. Should be completely automatic even if person denies wanting one.
How would we ever get a confession? Guilty people usually indict themselves right there in the interrogation. If a lawyer were present at every one of these interrogations his only advice would be, "dont say a single word." Which, by the way, should be standard advice to everyone, ever, when confronted by law enforcement.
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. ie. SHUT THE frick UP and take the ride.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 9:49 pm to airfernando
quote:
No interrogation should occur without a lawyer at least present. Absolutely no reason we can't have a lawyer present. Should be completely automatic even if person denies wanting one.
Wow.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 9:52 pm to nola000
Randy Jackson (from American Idol) will never get a lawyer, dog. Not in Louisiana anyway, dog.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 9:55 pm to fouldeliverer
Maybe a spin-off. Maybe on topic but the whole understanding Ebonics and understanding Miranda bring up a question to me.
Why is being too dumb to understand Miranda law an excuse, but ignorance of a law is not and excuse.
I’m also drunk so, don’t hold me accountable
Why is being too dumb to understand Miranda law an excuse, but ignorance of a law is not and excuse.
I’m also drunk so, don’t hold me accountable
Posted on 10/30/17 at 9:55 pm to Twenty 49
He probably would have gotten a fresh-outta-lawschool, court-appointed Lawyerdog anyway.
This post was edited on 10/30/17 at 9:56 pm
Posted on 10/30/17 at 9:55 pm to Sao
quote:
Kudos to the 1 judge with a functioning brain.
No kudos to Sao for not reading the article. Bad dog.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 10:07 pm to fouldeliverer
quote:
The Court literally ruled that the guy might have been asking for a "lawyer dog."
No it didnt.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 10:17 pm to SlapahoeTribe
quote:I think this is the case.
Looking at it from that perspective this guy did say “if y’all think I did it [...] why don’t you just give me a lawyer” and it appears that under normal circumstances that wouldn’t be enough for the police to stop interrogating you. I think the fact that he asked for his “lawyer dog” is completely inconsequential to the totality of his statement.
Though in fairness, I also think the mention of a lawyer ambiguously like this, it should be standard protocol for the investigative teams to get clarification instead of just ignoring it IMO.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 10:17 pm to IT_Dawg
quote:
It’s pretty stupid, but their ruling is correct based on the existing law. After reading the article, the law will even allow interrogations to continue if a person says, “I might need to get my lawyer” or any other half-arse way of asking for a lawyer. The ruling was correct based on the way the law is written, but the law needs to be revisited.
Their ruling still isn't correct.
I might need to get my lawyer =/= why don't you just give me a lawyer dog
Also, the LA Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the law. If they don't like the way the law is written, it's their job to do something about it. They quite literally have the ability to declare a law unconstitutional.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 10:19 pm to SlapahoeTribe
quote:
This should be a good lesson to everyone though: make damned sure that you are very clear when demanding your attorney.
This should be a good lesson to everyone - the law errs on the side of the police, not the accused. That's some fricked up shite.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 10:23 pm to slackster
quote:
Also, the LA Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the law. If they don't like the way the law is written, it's their job to do something about it. They quite literally have the ability to declare a law unconstitutional.
Holy shite!
Posted on 10/30/17 at 10:23 pm to slackster
It is absolutely correct. Read the ruling and the entire quote. He didn't ask for a lawyer.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 10:25 pm to UpToPar
quote:
The Court literally ruled that the guy might have been asking for a "lawyer dog."
No it didnt.
I mean, it kinda did...
quote:
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, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct.
1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981).
Posted on 10/30/17 at 10:27 pm to UpToPar
quote:
Holy shite!
Are you suggesting they cannot declare a law unconstitutional? If a particular law is written in a way that makes it unconstitutional, can they not declare it as such?
Posted on 10/30/17 at 10:29 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
It is absolutely correct. Read the ruling and the entire quote. He didn't ask for a lawyer.
I read the opinion itself. They took issue with "lawyer dog." That's ridiculous.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News