Louisiana Justice
Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:30 am
Virginia Tech fans discussing politics, religion, and football
https://uwsboard.com/
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 guessBigDave 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?
They don't dispute that he was read his rights.CFB Apologist wrote: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 guessBigDave 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?
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.BigDave wrote:They don't dispute that he was read his rights.CFB Apologist wrote: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 guessBigDave 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?
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 ...
Louisiana.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?
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.ip_law-hokie wrote:http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... iguous_jus
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That’s great.FireFuente wrote:
I don’t know what he said. That’s not at all the point.cwtcr hokie wrote: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.ip_law-hokie wrote:http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... iguous_jus
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But if they throw it out just prove it another way, there is still a trial to do
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 kidsip_law-hokie wrote:I don’t know what he said. That’s not at all the point.cwtcr hokie wrote: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.ip_law-hokie wrote:http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... iguous_jus
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But if they throw it out just prove it another way, there is still a trial to do
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Got it.cwtcr hokie wrote: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 kidsip_law-hokie wrote:I don’t know what he said. That’s not at all the point.cwtcr hokie wrote: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.ip_law-hokie wrote:http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... iguous_jus
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But if they throw it out just prove it another way, there is still a trial to do
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk