Page 1 of 1

Louisiana Justice

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:30 am
by ip_law-hokie

Re: Louisiana Justice

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:50 am
by awesome guy
What's your take? How can law enforcement extract meaning from retard language? This looks like a case of playing a stupid game and winning a stupid prize. If he spoke English then he'd have no problem, though there is merit in the arguments to give him the benefit of doubt.

Re: Louisiana Justice

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 11:14 am
by CFB Apologist
Ebonics and (allegedly) raping two juveniles will get after ya

Re: Louisiana Justice

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 12:58 pm
by BigDave
I don't get it. Are the cops so dumb that they actually thought the perp wanted a canine attorney? And even if they did, how does that not count as invoking his right to counsel?

Re: Louisiana Justice

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 12:59 pm
by CFB Apologist
BigDave wrote:I don't get it. Are the cops so dumb that they actually thought the perp wanted a canine attorney? And even if they did, how does that not count as invoking his right to counsel?
I'm guessing perhaps that they he was read his rights and his scum defense attorney is using semantics to try to beat a double rape charge.. just a guess

Re: Louisiana Justice

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:02 pm
by BigDave
CFB Apologist wrote:
BigDave wrote:I don't get it. Are the cops so dumb that they actually thought the perp wanted a canine attorney? And even if they did, how does that not count as invoking his right to counsel?
I'm guessing perhaps that they he was read his rights and his scum defense attorney is using semantics to try to beat a double rape charge.. just a guess
They don't dispute that he was read his rights.

At issue is that if you ask for a lawyer, all questioning has to stop until you are provided with a lawyer. If they question him after that point, then it's inadmissible. The request is on tape, so there's no question what the sequence of events was.

He asked for a lawyer dog (or lawyer, dawg). If that constitutes a request for a lawyer, then his confession is inadmissible ...

Re: Louisiana Justice

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:04 pm
by CFB Apologist
BigDave wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:
BigDave wrote:I don't get it. Are the cops so dumb that they actually thought the perp wanted a canine attorney? And even if they did, how does that not count as invoking his right to counsel?
I'm guessing perhaps that they he was read his rights and his scum defense attorney is using semantics to try to beat a double rape charge.. just a guess
They don't dispute that he was read his rights.

At issue is that if you ask for a lawyer, all questioning has to stop until you are provided with a lawyer. If they question him after that point, then it's inadmissible. The request is on tape, so there's no question what the sequence of events was.

He asked for a lawyer dog (or lawyer, dawg). If that constitutes a request for a lawyer, then his confession is inadmissible ...
Got it.. and yeah if they are really saying that "lawyer dawg" in this context is ambiguous, then charges should be dropped and he should be set free. No detective that advanced past 6th grade would mistake that for him asking for a talking law school grad dog, or a lawyer for his dog at home..nobody would think that.

Re: Louisiana Justice

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:13 pm
by ip_law-hokie
BigDave wrote:I don't get it. Are the cops so dumb that they actually thought the perp wanted a canine attorney? And even if they did, how does that not count as invoking his right to counsel?
Louisiana.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Louisiana Justice

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:29 pm
by cwtcr hokie
ip_law-hokie wrote:http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... iguous_jus


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
what did he say to the cops he wants suppressed? per the story he said he did not do it, I would want that in the court case if I was him. But if he confessed to the crimes then for sure we should let a guy confessing to committing acts on minors to be set free so he can continue to do that to other people.....great plan.

But if they throw it out just prove it another way, there is still a trial to do

Re: Louisiana Justice

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:39 pm
by FireFuente
Image

Re: Louisiana Justice

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:45 pm
by ip_law-hokie
FireFuente wrote:Image
That’s great.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Louisiana Justice

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:50 pm
by ip_law-hokie
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... iguous_jus


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
what did he say to the cops he wants suppressed? per the story he said he did not do it, I would want that in the court case if I was him. But if he confessed to the crimes then for sure we should let a guy confessing to committing acts on minors to be set free so he can continue to do that to other people.....great plan.

But if they throw it out just prove it another way, there is still a trial to do
I don’t know what he said. That’s not at all the point.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Louisiana Justice

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:53 pm
by Major Kong
The State Supreme Court should have found for Mr. Demesme in my honest non legal opinion.

Re: Louisiana Justice

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:00 pm
by cwtcr hokie
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... iguous_jus


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
what did he say to the cops he wants suppressed? per the story he said he did not do it, I would want that in the court case if I was him. But if he confessed to the crimes then for sure we should let a guy confessing to committing acts on minors to be set free so he can continue to do that to other people.....great plan.

But if they throw it out just prove it another way, there is still a trial to do
I don’t know what he said. That’s not at all the point.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is still a trial wether his admission is part of it or not but again, I really want a molester let go on that weak of a technicality, maybe you can let him babysit your kids

Re: Louisiana Justice

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:04 pm
by ip_law-hokie
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... iguous_jus


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
what did he say to the cops he wants suppressed? per the story he said he did not do it, I would want that in the court case if I was him. But if he confessed to the crimes then for sure we should let a guy confessing to committing acts on minors to be set free so he can continue to do that to other people.....great plan.

But if they throw it out just prove it another way, there is still a trial to do
I don’t know what he said. That’s not at all the point.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is still a trial wether his admission is part of it or not but again, I really want a molester let go on that weak of a technicality, maybe you can let him babysit your kids
Got it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk