• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

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

Billboard

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
480
Likes
254
#1
You may think this is funny, but beware they are not joking when you play with words. They are wordsmiths, and they take their job very seriously.

Notwithstanding this scum bag alleged crimes, the cops knew what they were doing in order to catch him, and in the same way, they know how to trick you to give up your rights.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...or-a-lawyer/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.30a93a3f0de5

Warren Demesme seemingly asked for a lawyer while being interviewed by police, but his use of slang negated that request, Louisiana courts say. (Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office)
When a friend says, “I’ll hit you up later dog,” he is stating that he will call again sometime. He is not calling the person a “later dog.”

But that’s not how the courts in Louisiana see it. 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. It’s not clear how many lawyer dogs there are in Louisiana, and whether any would have been available to represent the human suspect in this case, other than to give the standard admonition in such circumstances to simply stop talking.

The ruling by Louisiana’s high court could have serious implications for a suspect charged with raping a juvenile, because it will allow his subsequent incriminating statements into evidence at his trial, which is pending. And it clarified that requesting a canine attorney need not cause the police to stop questioning someone.

Warren Demesme, then 22, was being interrogated by New Orleans police in October 2015 after two young girls claimed he had sexually assaulted them. It was the second time he’d been brought in, and he was getting a little frustrated, court records show. He had repeatedly denied the crime. Finally, Demesme told the detectives:

“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.” 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 and indecent behavior with a juvenile. He is being held in the Orleans Parish jail awaiting trial.


Louisiana Associate Supreme Court Justice Scott J. Crichton wrote that a suspect asking police to “give me a lawyer dog” was not invoking his right to counsel. (Louisiana Supreme Court)
The public defender for Orleans Parish, Derwyn D. Bunton, took on Demesme’s case and filed a motion to suppress Demesme’s statement. In a court brief, Bunton noted that police are legally bound to stop questioning 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.'” The police did not stop their questioning, Bunton argued, “when Mr. Demesme unequivocally and unambiguously asserted his right to counsel.”

Orleans Parish Assistant District Attorney Kyle Daly responded in his brief that Demesme’s “reference to a lawyer did not constitute an unambiguous invocation of his right to counsel, because the defendant communicated that whether he actually wanted a lawyer was dependent on the subjective beliefs of the officers.” Daly added, “A reasonable officer under the circumstances would have understood, as [the detectives] did, that the defendant only might be invoking his right to counsel.”

Bunton’s motion to throw out Demesme’s statement was rejected by the trial court and the appeals court, so he took it to the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in a ruling issued last Friday and first reported by Reason, could have denied the appeal without issuing a written ruling, which it does in most cases. But Justice Crichton decided to write a brief concurrence “to spotlight the very important constitutional issue regarding the invocation of counsel during a law enforcement interview.”

Crichton noted that Louisiana case law has ruled that “if a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal . . . the cessation of questioning is not required.” Crichton then concluded: “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.”

Bunton said, “We’re obviously disappointed we didn’t win,” but declined to discuss the case, or the finer points of punctuation when using the term “dog.”
 

the_shootist

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
20,186
Likes
21,507
#2
You may think this is funny, but beware they are not joking when you play with words. They are wordsmiths, and they take their job very seriously.

Notwithstanding this scum bag alleged crimes, the cops knew what they were doing in order to catch him, and in the same way, they know how to trick you to give up your rights.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...or-a-lawyer/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.30a93a3f0de5

Warren Demesme seemingly asked for a lawyer while being interviewed by police, but his use of slang negated that request, Louisiana courts say. (Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office)
When a friend says, “I’ll hit you up later dog,” he is stating that he will call again sometime. He is not calling the person a “later dog.”

But that’s not how the courts in Louisiana see it. 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. It’s not clear how many lawyer dogs there are in Louisiana, and whether any would have been available to represent the human suspect in this case, other than to give the standard admonition in such circumstances to simply stop talking.

The ruling by Louisiana’s high court could have serious implications for a suspect charged with raping a juvenile, because it will allow his subsequent incriminating statements into evidence at his trial, which is pending. And it clarified that requesting a canine attorney need not cause the police to stop questioning someone.

Warren Demesme, then 22, was being interrogated by New Orleans police in October 2015 after two young girls claimed he had sexually assaulted them. It was the second time he’d been brought in, and he was getting a little frustrated, court records show. He had repeatedly denied the crime. Finally, Demesme told the detectives:

“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.” 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 and indecent behavior with a juvenile. He is being held in the Orleans Parish jail awaiting trial.


Louisiana Associate Supreme Court Justice Scott J. Crichton wrote that a suspect asking police to “give me a lawyer dog” was not invoking his right to counsel. (Louisiana Supreme Court)
The public defender for Orleans Parish, Derwyn D. Bunton, took on Demesme’s case and filed a motion to suppress Demesme’s statement. In a court brief, Bunton noted that police are legally bound to stop questioning 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.'” The police did not stop their questioning, Bunton argued, “when Mr. Demesme unequivocally and unambiguously asserted his right to counsel.”

Orleans Parish Assistant District Attorney Kyle Daly responded in his brief that Demesme’s “reference to a lawyer did not constitute an unambiguous invocation of his right to counsel, because the defendant communicated that whether he actually wanted a lawyer was dependent on the subjective beliefs of the officers.” Daly added, “A reasonable officer under the circumstances would have understood, as [the detectives] did, that the defendant only might be invoking his right to counsel.”

Bunton’s motion to throw out Demesme’s statement was rejected by the trial court and the appeals court, so he took it to the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in a ruling issued last Friday and first reported by Reason, could have denied the appeal without issuing a written ruling, which it does in most cases. But Justice Crichton decided to write a brief concurrence “to spotlight the very important constitutional issue regarding the invocation of counsel during a law enforcement interview.”

Crichton noted that Louisiana case law has ruled that “if a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal . . . the cessation of questioning is not required.” Crichton then concluded: “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.”

Bunton said, “We’re obviously disappointed we didn’t win,” but declined to discuss the case, or the finer points of punctuation when using the term “dog.”
I wonder if literacy got to this level of law during the fall of Rome...bet it did....on its way down!
 

hammerhead

Not just a screen name
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
3,987
Likes
3,681
Location
On a speck of dust
#4
If the cops spelled it the right way, the suspect would have a case about being denied legal representation. It's not spelled d-o-g, it's spelt d-a-w-g.
 

Someone_else

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
2,083
Likes
2,475
#5
I will give enormous allowance to Europeans facing our legal system who have language difficulties, but someone who has lived years here has NO excuse. The cops obviously (mis) used the difference between an adjective and a noun instead of an imperative and accusative case. The suspect probably deserves punishment, but he might have a better outcome if he had learned proper grammar.
 

the_shootist

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
20,186
Likes
21,507
#6
Unfortunate that young Warren found himself in that situation in the first place!
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
7,785
Likes
4,273
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#7
I will give enormous allowance to Europeans facing our legal system who have language difficulties, but someone who has lived years here has NO excuse. The cops obviously (mis) used the difference between an adjective and a noun instead of an imperative and accusative case. The suspect probably deserves punishment, but he might have a better outcome if he had learned proper grammar.
someone_who is else U are cruel U don't make cruel-ers do you? just asking
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,932
Likes
5,913
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#8
If the cops spelled it the right way, the suspect would have a case about being denied legal representation. It's not spelled d-o-g, it's spelt d-a-w-g.
It's even more simple than that. They left out the comma.

"just give me a lawyer dog", is grammatically very different from, "just give me a lawyer, dog".

A well placed comma can completely change the meaning. For a good example, just look at our own 2nd Amendment. If that comma wasn't there, it'd take on a whole different meaning.



but he might have a better outcome if he had learned proper grammar.
He was probably one of those kids that told his teach, "what am I ever gonna need to know this for?" lol
 

Mujahideen

Black Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,384
Likes
15,580
Location
America!
#9
Well guys you’re all wrong. Don’t believe the media.

He wasn’t not given a lawyer because he said dog. He wasn’t given one because he stated something to the effect of “if you think I’m guilty then give me a lawyer dog”.

If he would have said only “give me a lawyer dawg” then the cops would be in the wrong.

I agree with the cops here. If you don’t clearly ask for a lawyer, you shouldn’t get one.
 

Alton

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,985
Likes
5,071
Location
Michiana
#10
It's even more simple than that. They left out the comma.

"just give me a lawyer dog", is grammatically very different from, "just give me a lawyer, dog".

A well placed comma can completely change the meaning. For a good example, just look at our own 2nd Amendment. If that comma wasn't there, it'd take on a whole different meaning.



He was probably one of those kids that told his teach, "what am I ever gonna need to know this for?" lol
Alas, we speak not with jots and tittles. Neither do we speak with commas. These are artifices devised to make the written word give the sense, the understanding of the word(s) spoken.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,932
Likes
5,913
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#11
Alas, we speak not with jots and tittles. Neither do we speak with commas. These are artifices devised to make the written word give the sense, the understanding of the word(s) spoken.
Exactly. Had the po-po written it grammatically correct so that the understanding of what was actually said could be understood by all, a lot of time and money could have been saved not running crap like this all the way through the Court system.

Shoulda just acknowledged that he did in fact ask for a lawyer. All he'd have gotten was a low paid, overworked public defender and the State would have still won a conviction. Usually when one is charged with what this guy was charged with and there is even the flimsiest of evidence to support the charges, it's typically a slam dunk conviction.
...and in most cases, rightly so.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,932
Likes
5,913
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#12
He wasn’t given one because he stated something to the effect of “if you think I’m guilty then give me a lawyer dog”.

If he would have said only “give me a lawyer dawg” then the cops would be in the wrong.
The fact he was arrested by the police is proof that they indeed thought him guilty. Therefor they should have either given him a lawyer, or set him free if they thought him not guilty.

Remember, proper English has never been made an official language. We cater to other languages and make sure people have interpreters if necessary so they understand. How is this any different?

That said, I think English should be the official language, but since it's not, we can't hold it against someone for having poor English language skills. As long as the meaning comes through, it should be good enough.
 

Mujahideen

Black Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,384
Likes
15,580
Location
America!
#13
The fact he was arrested by the police is proof that they indeed thought him guilty. Therefor they should have either given him a lawyer, or set him free if they thought him not guilty.

Remember, proper English has never been made an official language. We cater to other languages and make sure people have interpreters if necessary so they understand. How is this any different?

That said, I think English should be the official language, but since it's not, we can't hold it against someone for having poor English language skills. As long as the meaning comes through, it should be good enough.
It has nothing to do with proper English. He left the door open by saying if you think I’m guilty. He should have said “if I am under investigation, then I want a lawyer, dawg. Otherwise I’m leaving.”
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,932
Likes
5,913
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#14
It has nothing to do with proper English. He left the door open by saying if you think I’m guilty. He should have said “if I am under investigation, then I want a lawyer, dawg. Otherwise I’m leaving.”
"Dog" and Dawg" are phonetically the same. So what you are saying is the same thing I'm saying. That if the cops had written it correctly using good grammar and punctuation, (even you included the comma I said was missing) none of it would have been an issue.

You're asking for proper spelling, and I'm asking for proper punctuation. Together, problem solved.
 

Mujahideen

Black Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,384
Likes
15,580
Location
America!
#15
"Dog" and Dawg" are phonetically the same. So what you are saying is the same thing I'm saying. That if the cops had written it correctly using good grammar and punctuation, (even you included the comma I said was missing) none of it would have been an issue.

You're asking for proper spelling, and I'm asking for proper punctuation. Together, problem solved.
I’m saying it had absolutely nothing at all to do with the word dog or dawg. L This is the media hype. It makes for a good headline.

It has everything to do with the suspect saying to the cop “IF you think I did it, get me a lawyer”... he left the door open to the cops feelings.

You have to unequivocally ask for a lawyer.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,932
Likes
5,913
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#16
It has everything to do with the suspect saying to the cop “IF you think I did it, get me a lawyer”... he left the door open to the cops feelings.
They obviously did think him guilty. Therefor, they should have gotten him a lawyer. They got out of doing so by representing his words in writing using bad grammar and spelling. They implied that he asked for a dog that is a lawyer.
....and by that reasoning, the fact they did not let him go is evidence that they in fact thought him guilty. No, it comes down to the comma that even you included, because you're obviously smart enough to know that's what it takes to convey the info properly within that sentence.
 

Mujahideen

Black Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,384
Likes
15,580
Location
America!
#17
They obviously did think him guilty.
Maybe.

Or maybe they were investigating what happened, and assumed he was innocent until proven guilty.

If someone says “if you think I did it then get me a lawyer”, that is NOT the same as asking for a lawyer unequivocally.

He should have said if I am under investigation, give me a lawyer.

How do you not grasp this?
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,932
Likes
5,913
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#18
Or maybe they were investigating what happened, and assumed he was innocent until proven guilty.
Yea, right. That'd be a first. lol

Whenever the cops arrest someone, they always presume guilt. Otherwise they wouldn't arrest 'em.

Bottom line is, even you included the comma because you knew it was supposed to be there.

@Mujahideen wrote: He should have said “if I am under investigation, then I want a lawyer, dawg. Otherwise I’m leaving.”[/QUOTE]

Seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee the comma right there? ^ You put it there same as I did. Without it, the meaning of the sentence is completely different. Had you not thought it mattered, why did you include it?
 

Mujahideen

Black Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,384
Likes
15,580
Location
America!
#19
Again. The dog/dawg and comma/no comma issues are irrelevant. It’s for the headline only.

The fact that the request of his lawyer was voluntarily given up to the officers feelings is the real and only issue. That’s what should be discussed.

Remember that the cops are not your friends. Do not give them an inch. Unequivocally ask for a lawyer dawg.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,932
Likes
5,913
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#20
The fact that the request of his lawyer was voluntarily given up to the officers feelings is the real and only issue.
Yep, and their feelings were that he was guilty. Otherwise there'd have been no charges. Therefor, seeing that they accepted his offer, they should have given him a lawyer.


Remember that the cops are not your friends. Do not give them an inch. Unequivocally ask for a lawyer dawg.
100% agreed.
....but best not to say dawg, because they obviously did not pay attention in their English classes when they were kids. lol
 

Usury

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,120
Likes
3,277
#21
Muja, IMO either interpretation is BS. The guy asked for a lawyer and should've been treated as such.
 

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
6,533
Likes
6,729
#22
it's spelt d-a-w-g.
That is UGA's Football team Georgia Bull Dawgs. Ax any Southern Belle from "Ja-geia' if they love the UGA bulldogs. They all say " Love them Dawgs". :blond: :popcorn:
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,932
Likes
5,913
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#24
He could appeal and state he was denied an ebonics interpreter and that it is his right to communicate in his primary spoken language.

bb
That's the whole point here. He did appeal, all the way to the top and still lost. Ie: untold million$ lost trying to deny him a low paid, over-worked public defender who would have still lost his case.