but isn’t considered asserting the right.

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.

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.

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.

The full thought:

they think they can talk their way out of it if they just explain themselves enough.

The answer is that most people have never been in a police interrogation and they think they can talk their way out of it if they just explain themselves enough.

It’s panic thinking. And once you pop you don’t stop.

If you’re in a police interrogation room you have to assume and internally accept that you’re getting charged with something, and not try to talk your way out of it.

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.

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.

All I’ve got is the tablet and the phone for work. Gosh either I’m an executive or not all workplaces and job types are alike.

The point is that private sellers have been asking to access NICS (the background check system) but politicians, who are in charge of giving that access through laws, have not allowed it. It is not “strawmanning” to be talking about the people with the actual ability to provide the access.

You can dial manually as long as you bring your own power source.

Oh wow, now I want to make one of those physics gimmick games where you fire houses out of a trebuchet.

I wake up every day grateful that I’m not into speedrunning.