Oddly, you have to actually assert that right in many jurisdictions. In the US, say something like “I plead the fifth” or “I choose to remain silent” and assert your right to an attorney, and shut up until the attorney comes and only speak at the discretion of the attorney. Just staying silent opens you up to attempted manipulation, whereas they must provide an attorney if requested and the attorney may have options to strike some of the manipulation while you wait for the attorney.
The 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 dog”. 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 demand 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 obviously indicated he wanted a lawyer, but if you’re going to make headway please stop repeating the Buzzfeed headline version of the ruling.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There wasn’t a problem nor was I disagreeing with you, if anything I was focusing on the specifics of the issue that you said were being deflected from. I’m not sure why you’re defensive since we think the same thing and I just talked more about it.
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.
All workers under capitalism are slaves in a loose sense of the word. Your labor creates more profit than what they pay you in wages (otherwise the owners wouldn’t employ anyone). Typically, your wages are only a small fraction of the money your labor makes the owner.
While the capitalist gets to pick a profitable time in which to invest their money (e.g., buy labor, machines, stocks, etc.) the worker is born into institutions that force them, on threat of destitution, to sell themselves by the hour. We are really not much different from feudal serfs.
Yes, I know. The US. has literal slave-labor in prisons and US corporations depend on slave labor overseas. But even workers who are better off are being exploited.
You can simply remain silent, which doesn’t answer the questions but isn’t considered asserting the right. The important bit is to clearly and unambiguously invoke your right to a lawyer while not answering questions.
It’s actually different. Remaining silent doesn’t invoke the right to not incriminate yourself. Simply remaining silent means they can use your silence to incriminate you.
In the court case where they decided that a man didn’t answer a question about a murder weapon. They used his silence and looking nervous as evidence for his guilt because he didn’t say he intended to remain silent, and he remained silent before he was informed he had a right to do so.
I put it right there, I know that simply remaining silent is not asserting your right to silence. It is ideal to affirmatively invoke your right to silence as well.
I emphasized clearly demanding a lawyer as that is what, legally, makes the questions stop.
And what I was saying was adding to that, and including that without invoking the right to silence simply remaining silent can be used for self incrimination.
If you are not under arrest and not in custody, not answering questions by remaining silent can be used against you.
Oddly, you have to actually assert that right in many jurisdictions. In the US, say something like “I plead the fifth” or “I choose to remain silent” and assert your right to an attorney, and shut up until the attorney comes and only speak at the discretion of the attorney. Just staying silent opens you up to attempted manipulation, whereas they must provide an attorney if requested and the attorney may have options to strike some of the manipulation while you wait for the attorney.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/suspect-asks-for-a-lawyer-dawg-judge-says-he-asked-for-a-lawyer-dog.html
The 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 dog”. You can completely disregard that. The ruling hinged on if he asserted his right in asking for a lawyer.
His exact words:
Sliced very finely, he did not directly demand 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 obviously indicated he wanted a lawyer, but if you’re going to make headway please stop repeating the Buzzfeed headline version of the ruling.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There wasn’t a problem nor was I disagreeing with you, if anything I was focusing on the specifics of the issue that you said were being deflected from. I’m not sure why you’re defensive since we think the same thing and I just talked more about it.
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.
Both terrible and admittedly hilarious.
Was there ever a conclusion?
Gonna guess he got his original sentence.
Land of the free smh
“Land of the free (labour)”
They’re trying to bring feudalism and slavery back.
Slavery never left the US. Slavery is fully constitutional in the USA.
All workers under capitalism are slaves in a loose sense of the word. Your labor creates more profit than what they pay you in wages (otherwise the owners wouldn’t employ anyone). Typically, your wages are only a small fraction of the money your labor makes the owner.
While the capitalist gets to pick a profitable time in which to invest their money (e.g., buy labor, machines, stocks, etc.) the worker is born into institutions that force them, on threat of destitution, to sell themselves by the hour. We are really not much different from feudal serfs.
I didn’t mean “This is like slavery”, I meant that literally the US Constitution specifically allows for prisoners to be used as slaves.
Yes, I know. The US. has literal slave-labor in prisons and US corporations depend on slave labor overseas. But even workers who are better off are being exploited.
In the UK people usually say “no comment”
You can simply remain silent, which doesn’t answer the questions but isn’t considered asserting the right. The important bit is to clearly and unambiguously invoke your right to a lawyer while not answering questions.
Yes, remaining silent works, but explicitly invoking your rights is better. At any rate, don’t tell the cops anything unless your lawyer tells you to.
It’s actually different. Remaining silent doesn’t invoke the right to not incriminate yourself. Simply remaining silent means they can use your silence to incriminate you.
In the court case where they decided that a man didn’t answer a question about a murder weapon. They used his silence and looking nervous as evidence for his guilt because he didn’t say he intended to remain silent, and he remained silent before he was informed he had a right to do so.
I put it right there, I know that simply remaining silent is not asserting your right to silence. It is ideal to affirmatively invoke your right to silence as well.
I emphasized clearly demanding a lawyer as that is what, legally, makes the questions stop.
And what I was saying was adding to that, and including that without invoking the right to silence simply remaining silent can be used for self incrimination.
If you are not under arrest and not in custody, not answering questions by remaining silent can be used against you.