Louisiana Supreme Court rules "give me a lawyer, dawg" = not requesting a lawyer

[Jeff Robinson]

when a suspect in an interrogation told detectives to “just give me a lawyer dog,” the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the suspect was, in fact, asking for a “lawyer dog,” and not invoking his constitutional right to counsel.

The suspect told police ‘give me a lawyer dog.’ The court says he wasn’t asking for a lawyer.

WTF?!

 

[Poi E]

State rights, innit.

 

[Raheem]

Looks like one of those where what the journalist is saying happened didn't actually happen even by the journalist's own account. The court did not rule that he was asking for a "lawyer dog".

 

[Plumdaff]

Louisiana, in many ways more terrifying than Mississippi.

 

[CRI]

There is actually a UK firm of dog lawyers, if not lawyer dogs.

Welcome to DogLaw.co.uk

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Looks like one of those where what the journalist is saying happened didn't actually happen even by the journalist's own account. The court did not rule that he was asking for a "lawyer dog".

“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.”

Barely less ridiculous. He obviously asked for ‘a lawyer, dawg’ not ‘a lawyer dog’. The court’s reading in ambiguity to a sentence that only had one plausible meaning is literalist pedantry at its finest.

 

[Pickman's model]

“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.”

Barely less ridiculous. He obviously asked for ‘a lawyer, dawg’ not ‘a lawyer dog’. The court’s reading in ambiguity to a sentence that only had one plausible meaning is literalist pedantry at its finest.

Yeh. Even the most attentive überpedant here would blush at such a reading

 

[Combustible]

Looks like one of those where what the journalist is saying happened didn't actually happen even by the journalist's own account. The court did not rule that he was asking for a "lawyer dog".

It certainly looks like they decided what he said was not a clear unequivocal request which is what is apparently required

What he was reported to have said was "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.”

So it seems like the actual issue was what came before the words "lawyer dog". The real ridiculous thing is that it seems to be necessary to know the exact correct incantation so as to be protected by the constitution. And the judge is obviously an idiot for making sarcastic comments about "lawyer dog" which has led to this story spreading.

 

[Raheem]

The real ridiculous thing is that it seems to be necessary to know the exact correct incantation so as to be protected by the constitution. And the judge is obviously an idiot for making sarcastic comments about "lawyer dog" which has led to this story spreading.

The judge is clearly displaying usual judgy biases and social prejudice. It's not really news, though.

 

[dessiato]

If the punctuation is changed slightly it becomes much more clear what he meant. Since the punctuation was provided by the people who most benefit from making the meaning more obscure we can only speculate on their intent when punctuating the sentence.

 

[Smangus]

Yeh. Even the most attentive überpedant here would blush at such a reading

Who he/she/they ?

 

[Pickman's model]

Who he/she/they ?

a few names leap to mind - maomao, CRI, lurcio, gromit, andysays, flavour, George & Bill...