Celebrating 10 years! 2007-2017

Lawyer Dog

From Louisiana: "Nonetheless, the defendant argues he inv bingojackson10/31/17
Ha. Ha. Ha. Ebonics strikes again. shuiz10/31/17
Hahaha, wjw. 3lol10/31/17
so funny defensivelawyer11/01/17
Oh sh!t lol!! Damn dawg, you got jammed up by 5-0. isthisit11/01/17
SJW acquaintances from LS are freaking out on FB about how h wolfman11/01/17
In this case, the SJW may have a point. rubbersoul1411/01/17
I am hardly a SJW and this was not the right decision. Once loblawyer11/01/17
I think the court would say that a "lawyer bro" is less ambi malletofmalice11/01/17
but what if he was saying 'dawg' which is a reference to a p fartacus11/01/17
Right. I totally agree with you on the meaning being clear. malletofmalice11/01/17
the operative word is "lawyer", nothing else really matters. triplesix11/01/17
I'm a racist misogynist and even I'll admit that it's clear isthisit11/01/17
Clearly the court needs to read some jdu and my work in part triplesix11/01/17
pretty sure he'd beg to differ https://www.google.com/search wolfman11/01/17
Has anyone phoned Al or Jesse on this one yet?? esquire13811/01/17
I'm conservative enough that I'm still not sure use of fire inho2solo11/01/17
I was mostly being a smart ass, but this is 100% racist if w esquire13811/01/17
You are stretching the term racism... this is police misc triplesix11/01/17
it's the supreme court ruling that's racist, not the police dingbat11/02/17
If it's fueled by racism, then it's racist. esquire13811/02/17
The quote is being presented out of context. Defendant twice tacocheese11/02/17
Sjw?nah. Just water being wet. Court stresses the word dog a esquire13811/02/17
actually, no, the court adds "lawyer dog" in to make the def wolfman11/02/17
The news to mention it gives their mens rea. esquire13811/02/17

bingojackson (Oct 31, 2017 - 9:34 pm)

From Louisiana:

"Nonetheless, the defendant argues he invoked his right to counsel. And the basis for this comes from the second interview, where I believe the defendant ambiguously referenced a lawyer— prefacing that statement with “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 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."

http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2017/17KK0954.sjc.addconc.pdf

Reply Like (0)
shuiz (Oct 31, 2017 - 10:26 pm)

Ha. Ha. Ha.

Ebonics strikes again.

Reply Like (0)
3lol (Oct 31, 2017 - 10:29 pm)

Hahaha, wjw.

Reply Like (0)
defensivelawyer (Nov 1, 2017 - 1:15 am)

so funny

Reply Like (0)
isthisit (Nov 1, 2017 - 7:14 am)

Oh sh!t lol!!

Damn dawg, you got jammed up by 5-0.

Reply Like (0)
wolfman (Nov 1, 2017 - 12:28 pm)

SJW acquaintances from LS are freaking out on FB about how he clearly asked for a lawyer and this is "racism" because if white frat guy said "yo, I want a lawyer, bro" he'd have gotten one... who are you people and why did I spend three years in fake graduate school with you?

Reply Like (0)
rubbersoul14 (Nov 1, 2017 - 12:29 pm)

In this case, the SJW may have a point.

Reply Like (0)
loblawyer (Nov 1, 2017 - 1:53 pm)

I am hardly a SJW and this was not the right decision. Once it's clear the defendant wants lawyer that's that imo. It was pretty clear here that dog was dawg, like bro, referenced below.

Granted this is Louisiana; I live in a state where I think this easily would've gone the other way.

Reply Like (0)
malletofmalice (Nov 1, 2017 - 12:58 pm)

I think the court would say that a "lawyer bro" is less ambiguous than a "lawyer dog", because a "bro" clearly refers to a human rather than a quadrupedal animal.

Reply Like (0)
fartacus (Nov 1, 2017 - 1:51 pm)

but what if he was saying 'dawg' which is a reference to a person

Reply Like (0)
malletofmalice (Nov 1, 2017 - 3:18 pm)

Right. I totally agree with you on the meaning being clear. I was just saying...

It seems the problem was that the court records transcribed it as "lawyer dog" rather than "lawyer, dog" or "lawyer, dawg." Placing the comma there would have solved 90% of the supposed "ambiguity."

Reply Like (0)
triplesix (Nov 1, 2017 - 5:47 pm)

the operative word is "lawyer", nothing else really matters.

so very weak legal analysis for a bunch of pseudo lawlyers haha

"omg dude said dog, i don't understand what he is saying, wtf is a lawyer dog, fuk him, he is not a getting a dog, this is da mother fuking court of law!!!11!!"

Reply Like (0)
isthisit (Nov 1, 2017 - 6:35 pm)

I'm a racist misogynist and even I'll admit that it's clear to me that this guy asked for a lawyer.

Like the eses who say "give me a lawyer homes." Clearly does not want the houses of attorneys during his police interview.

Reply Like (0)
triplesix (Nov 1, 2017 - 4:27 pm)

Clearly the court needs to read some jdu and my work in particular. This would never be an issue. That judge needs to step down since he is a racist who is trying to cover it with being out of touch with reality.

Saying lawyer is sufficient... Irrelevant what else is said before or after.

Reply Like (0)
wolfman (Nov 1, 2017 - 4:42 pm)

pretty sure he'd beg to differ https://www.google.com/search?q=lawyer+dog+pic&rlz=1C1CHNQ_enUS531US531&tbm=isch&source=iu&pf=m&ictx=1&fir=uErzqyophxrn0M%253A%252Cd0RCHzSKSKhIeM%252C_&usg=__96PLRI3wOOokjTylV_3ycqLbK_s%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjHt4KOnp7XAhXQaFAKHTdmCkMQ9QEIMjAE#imgdii=Q9TjO5Q7b5ZaQM:&imgrc=GHe1M6AvldeZvM:

Reply Like (0)
esquire138 (Nov 1, 2017 - 6:16 pm)

Has anyone phoned Al or Jesse on this one yet??

Reply Like (0)
inho2solo (Nov 1, 2017 - 10:31 pm)

I'm conservative enough that I'm still not sure use of fire is warranted in cooking.

But as as lawyer, I am pretty sure this dawg expressed his desire to have legal counsel.

From a conservative viewpoint, I always want requests for representation as against a potentially hostile group of gummint actors interpreted liberally.

Reply Like (0)
esquire138 (Nov 1, 2017 - 10:51 pm)

I was mostly being a smart ass, but this is 100% racist if we are honest. It just is. Its racist. 100%. And we all know it. (the court not you)

Reply Like (0)
triplesix (Nov 1, 2017 - 11:04 pm)

You are stretching the term racism...

this is police misconduct that is likely fueled by racism... but first and foremost it is police misconduct. it should be treated as such. pigs should lose their jobs, but "vicitm" should not be getting that fat taxpayer cheddar.

Reply Like (0)
dingbat (Nov 2, 2017 - 9:07 am)

it's the supreme court ruling that's racist, not the police who will always try and skate past a suspect's rights

Reply Like (0)
esquire138 (Nov 2, 2017 - 11:49 am)

If it's fueled by racism, then it's racist.

Reply Like (0)
tacocheese (Nov 2, 2017 - 9:27 am)

The quote is being presented out of context. Defendant twice agreed to be interviewed, was read Miranda warnings, and then asked "why don't you just give me a lawyer." We don't have context for the question (not a demand for a lawyer) or the officer's response, if any. I've seen plenty of interrogations where someone refers ambiguously to the right to counsel but then just keeps inn yammering... For like half a hour almost uninterrupted.

This is a concurring opinion. The reference to "lawyer dog" does not necessarily mean the opinion hinged on the word "dog." Almost certainly same result of the word "dog" had been omitted. SJW calm down.

Reply Like (0)
esquire138 (Nov 2, 2017 - 11:50 am)

Sjw?nah. Just water being wet. Court stresses the word dog as reason for denial.

Reply Like (0)
wolfman (Nov 2, 2017 - 3:40 pm)

actually, no, the court adds "lawyer dog" in to make the deft. sound even more ridiculous than he already does... that may or may not be a nice thing to do, but it really doesn't affect the outcome one way or another, IMHO... as tacocheese said

Reply Like (0)
esquire138 (Nov 2, 2017 - 4:49 pm)

The news to mention it gives their mens rea.

Reply Like (0)
Post a message in this thread