Comment on He took it literally
setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoThe decision in this case was wrong I think, but it is better to be more accurate in criticism so that people can’t undermine you.
The ruling did not hinge on the “lawyer dawg”. You can completely disregard that. The ruling hinged on if he asserted his right in asking for a lawyer.
His exact words:
“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.”
Sliced very finely, he did not directly ask for a lawyer, but he asked a question. Instead of saying “give me a lawyer” he asked “why don’t you just give me a lawyer?”
I think the ruling was wrong by hinging so finely on his exact wording when he indicated he wanted a lawyer, but if you’re going to make headway please stop repeating the Buzzfeed headline version of the ruling.
Rhaedas@fedia.io 3 weeks ago
The question should be if the cops were not clear on his intent in the statement. They were, they just got lucky in being able to find a judge who also was "confused" on the meaning. They all knew what was meant. Btw, it wasn't a question. I don't see a question mark.
setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I agree that he should have gotten a lawyer. That wasn’t the point of my comment. The point of my comment is that by fixating on the irrelevant “lawyer dog” aspect people are reacting to that part of the case that doesn’t matter.
Rhaedas@fedia.io 3 weeks ago
I think you missed my point, that everyone involved pretended like they didn't understand his statement because it would throw the case out. Even the precedent case the SC uses (Davis vs. US) is purposefully ignorant to allow flexibility for the cops. The minute any suggestion of legal representation comes up, that should be it, period.
setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I didn’t miss your point. My original point was the people, guided by headlines, think a court ruled that he asked for a “lawyer dog”. That’s not what the ruling hinged on. I agree that the ruling should have gone the other way, but the popular fixation on the “lawyer dog” aspect stops the actual examination dead.
That’s it. That’s my whole point. You’re basically agreeing with me that the ruling was wrong, so I’m not sure what the problem is.
k0e3@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Technically, I think that’s just a question and a statement blended into one sentence as we often do in speech. But it’s obviously rhetorical and the police and judge are being stupid.