lawyer dog i have no idea what i'm doing

Why don’t you Just give Me a lawyer Dawg?

Rather, as Krayewski writes, Demesme was plainly speaking in vernacular; his statement would be more accurately transcribed as “why don’t you just give me a lawyer, dawg.” The ambiguity rests in the court transcript, not the suspect’s actual words.

Do suspects have the right to a lawyer dog?

And 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.

Is ‘lawyer dog’ too ambiguous?

I’m not joking. The Court ruled, 8-1, that “lawyer dog” was too ambiguous. The concurring opinion from Justice Scott Chrichton highlighted this supposed ambiguity.

Did DeMesme ask for a ‘lawyer dog’?

First of all, it is the Louisiana Supreme Court, not Demesme, who is introducing ambiguity by relying on a clearly incorrect transcript of events. Demesme didn’t ask for a “lawyer dog,” he, CLEARLY, asked for a “lawyer, dawg.”

About

Lawyer Dog is an advice animal style image macro series featuring a corgi dressed up in office attire, sitting at a desk with his paw on a book. The captions typically juxtapose legalese with canine -related puns.

Origin

The original photo was first posted by Tumblr user goldipoldi [4] on February 25th, 2011. It received 1255 notes and was reposted on Reddit [5], Daily Squee [6] and the Daily What [7] over the next three days.

Spread

The original corgi image initially appeared in Halloween costume-themed photo compilations on Buzzfeed [8] and humor site Izismile [9] in October 2011, but was not associated with the Lawyer Dog image macro.

What did the Louisiana Supreme Court rule about the lawyer dog?

And 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.

Who adopted the phrase "dog"?

The punctuation, arguably critical to Demesme’s use of the sobriquet “dog,” was provided by the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s office in a brief, and then adopted by Louisiana Associate Supreme Court Justice Scott J. Crichton. Demesme subsequently made admissions to the crime, prosecutors said, and was charged with aggravated rape ...

Do police stop questioning anyone who asks for a lawyer?

In a court brief, Bunton noted that police are legally bound to stop question ing anyone who asks for a lawyer. “Under increased interrogation pressure,” Bunton wrote, “Mr. Demesme invokes his right to an attorney, stating with emotion and frustration, ‘Just give me a lawyer.'”.

Is a lawyer dog an invocation?

Crichton then concluded: “In my view, the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a ‘lawyer dog’ does not constitute an invocation ...

What happens when a suspect asks for an attorney?

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that when a suspect asks for an attorney, the interrogation must end and a lawyer must be provided. But the police disregarded Demesme’s request, and the trial court ruled that the statements he subsequently made can be used to convict him. Advertisement.

What did the suspect say in the Davis case?

In Davis, the suspect had told his interrogators: “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.”. No lawyer was provided, the interview continued, and the suspect made incriminating statements that were later used to secure his conviction. The Supreme Court held that none of this violated the Constitution.

Is Demesme a dog?

Demesme was not referring to a dog with a license to practice law, since no such dog exists outside of memes. Rather, as Krayewski writes, Demesme was plainly speaking in vernacular; his statement would be more accurately transcribed as “why don’t you just give me a lawyer, dawg.”.

Is the lawyer dog ambiguous?

The Court ruled, 8-1, that “lawyer dog” was too ambiguous. The concurring opinion from Justice Scott Chrichton highlighted this supposed ambiguity. 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.

Can you deny rights to black suspects without twirling your mustache?

You can do a lot to deny rights to black suspects without twirling your mustache and turning the adjudication of justice into a complete joke. Here, they’ve gone too far. Suspect Warren Demesme asked for a lawyer while he was being questioned by the police.

Did Demesme ask for a lawyer dog?

Demesme didn’t ask for a “lawyer dog,” he, CLEARLY, asked for a “lawyer, dawg.”. Demesme’s statement is not ambiguous. The court has made it ambiguous by misreporting the statement. DAWG, not DOG. The court is using the wrong homophone, on purpose, to deny this man his rights.