- 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 10/31/17 at 5:13 am to Twenty 49
Posted on 10/31/17 at 5:13 am to Twenty 49
quote:
Looks like the Supreme Court just summarily denied a writ without addressing the merits of the case. Crichton concurred and wrote a few paragraphs to say why he agreed.
So there was no holding from the Supreme Court. They never granted a writ to take up the case.
This is what every other post in this thread is missing/ignoring.
0
Posted on 10/31/17 at 5:20 am to 13SaintTiger
It's funny, the left who seek tolerance are the most intolerant people on earth. The hypocrisy is real.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 5:27 am to slackster
It's a terrible ruling. Like others have said, as soon as lawyer is mentioned by the arrested one should be provided.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 5:40 am to Twenty 49
quote:
Looks like the Supreme Court just summarily denied a writ without addressing the merits of the case. Crichton concurred and wrote a few paragraphs to say why he agreed. So there was no holding from the Supreme Court. They never granted a writ to take up the case.
Right. The Court did not rule on anything. The Supreme Court gets to select which cases it takes.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 6:31 am to Macavity92
He waived his rights twice and decided to give interviews twice about having sex with minors. Frick this dog dog
Posted on 10/31/17 at 6:32 am to UpToPar
In Louisiana, wouldn't you rather have a lawyer dog than a public defender with a Southern Law degree anyway?
Posted on 10/31/17 at 7:13 am to fouldeliverer
quote:
LA Supreme Ct
Posted on 10/31/17 at 7:27 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
Wow.
What's "Wow" about that statement? It's obviously in the best interest of anyone being interrogated to get a lawyer, even if you're 100% innocent.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 7:40 am to fouldeliverer
quote:
he Court literally ruled that the guy might have been asking for a "lawyer dog."
Words mean things. At some point, being stupid doesn't pay off. This is one such instance.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 7:41 am to Epic Cajun
He’s saying everyone should automatically be provided one rather than have to ask for one.
No.
No.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 7:46 am to marinebioman
quote:
Give me a lawyer =/= can I have a lawyer
"I demand to speak with a lawyer" =/= "Give me a lawyer"?
Posted on 10/31/17 at 7:50 am to fouldeliverer
Lesson: speak like an adult when asking for a lawyer.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 8:05 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
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
ESPECIALLY when you are in the middle of your SECOND interview after having been advised of your Miranda rights BOTH TIMES and having expressly waived them BOTH TIMES.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 8:18 am to Sao
Maybe the guy could communicate his need for a lawyer better?
Posted on 10/31/17 at 8:21 am to BayouBengals03
quote:
I've literally been lol'ing at this thread for like 3 minutes
Posted on 10/31/17 at 8:26 am to fouldeliverer
quote:
LA Supreme Ct rules man who said "give me a lawyer, dog"
I’ll start by saying the rule in LA (which I would assume has withstood SCOTUS scrutiny) is complete bullshite. I.e., even according to this article, saying “maybe I need a lawyer” is too ambiguous under precedent to constitute invocations of 4th amendment right to counsel.
But, with that standard in mind, I’ll bet dollars to donuts that the rationale for the decision was not that the man might have been asking for a lawyer dog. Rather, that he did not unequivocally demand a lawyer and instead said if you think I did it why don’t you get me a lawyer. Again, bullshite rule, but that doesn’t mean that this article is not also bullshite.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 8:30 am to fouldeliverer
Article is 100% false and click bait. The ruling stated that his request for an attorney was ambiguous or equivocal, this, under La. Law (pun intended), the cops could continue the questioning. There wasn't anything I read in the opinion discussing a "lawyer dog."
I could have missed it, but doubt it.
I could have missed it, but doubt it.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 8:41 am to slackster
quote:
If they don't like the way the law is written, it's their job to do something about it.
Not just no, but absolutely fricking no. “Activists” courts doing this is the source of plenty of our problems. Elected legislature makes the rules, courts interpret and enforce the rules. Problem is, the legislature is largely comprised of fricking morons.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 9:23 am to Putty
Was this suspect being questioned by McGruff, the crime dog at the time? Because that changes the context and analysis.
Posted on 10/31/17 at 9:34 am to gthog61
quote:Pitbull, no doubt.
What breed would make the best lawyer?
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News