Posted on 11/03/2017 8:13:07 AM PDT by Blue House Sue
LOL, chances on appeal? 100%
> They know what he meant, just an excuse to trample rights. <
Correct. What really surprises (and disturbs) me is that a state supreme court went along with it.
He did, he said “GIVE ME A LAWYER.....DOG”
just because he added “dog” doesn’t mean he didn’t say “Give me a lawyer.” They knew exactly what he meant, but used it to violate his constitutional rights as an American.
Maybe the cops and judge should not violate peoples rights.
I hope your rights are raped by the justice system one day, then you’ll understand how badly the justice system is in our country. Until then, you won’t.
The liberals are focusing you on the wrong part of the statement.
““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”
It is the front end, the IF, that was the reason the trial court, the appellate court, and then the Supreme Court ruled that he did not ask for an attorney.
He did not say ‘give me an attorney’
He said ‘if you think that, why don’t you just give me an attorney’
Previously, he had twice agreed to waive his rights and be interviewed.
Later in the interview he confessed to the crime.
If he wanted an attorney, he should have stopped talking
The cops knew what he meant, too.
The next court up will overrule this nonsense.
The article says after invoking his right he made admissions to the crime. But it doesn’t give the exact quote. Funny that it gives the exact quote when he invoked his right to counsel. But not when he “confessed.”
He should have said “give me a lawyer pig.”
Sick disgusting abuse of the judicial system. But it’s par for the course.
0% chance on appeal.
Already rejected by the Supreme Court if Louisiana.
Misinterpretations like this are why the courts usually just stamp ‘rejected’ on a claim.
Here is the justices concurrence with the Supreme Court decision.
https://www.lasc.org/opinions/2017/17KK0954.sjc.addconc.pdf
A dog’s a lawyer only if he’s a member of the Bar(k).
The only ‘next court’ is The US Supreme Court ...
They don’t take many cases.
He has already been rejected by:
...Trial court
...Appellate court
...Louisiana Supreme Court.
This line is done.
I took it as an insult to the cops. He’s calling them dogs so f him. Introduce his ass to a k9 unit.
Chief justice is a Democrat. Interesting.
And Justice Crichton is a “Democrat-turned-Republican”. Even more interesting.
That is NOT the legal standard. If he requested an attorney, the police are required to stop talking, not the suspect.
comma fault
Words mean things. Even in Louisiana.
He is referring to the dogs you see every day chasing ambulances.
But he didn’t request one. He made a conditional statement, not a request.
So he did not meet the legal standard.
https://www.lasc.org/opinions/2017/17KK0954.sjc.addconc.pdf
Nice explanation. Let’s pretend he said the same thing in standard English.
“This is how I feel, if everyone of you think I did this, then give me a lawyer.” So if one person just simply was not completely convinced he did it or just thought it’s up to a jury to decide then he does not get a lawyer.
Sorry but police are not expected to guess at your meaning and neither are the courts. “Give me a lawyer dawg” would have been clear enough.
He trampled on his own rights. But even plenty of smart standard English speaking people are too dumb to “Never Talk to the Police”. see the video on YouTube.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.