[flagged]
You aren't asking for anything, you are making a statement.
Another example is “If y’all, 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.” which is a statement of innocence, not asking for anything.
Anything more is presumptive.
A witness saying he did it could be lying. A confession could be to sheild a child or another person or an expression of guilt that a death could have been prevented had they done something different.
Shock has odd effects.
Even police arriving on scene minutes after a shot is heard to find the accused holding a gun with blood splatter on their clothes doesn't mean they did it.
Some time in the near future there'll likely be a murder with a time stamped HiDef video of person shooting the victim .. and it'll turn out to be a state of the art AI "fake" for a class project | upcoming film that was being put together just as a third person shot the victim and clubbed the scapegoat over the head.
And if they did, the mere fact that they contacted an attorney to say "does this person's request for a lawyer constitute a valid legal request for a lawyer?" says they absolutely knew that was precisely what was being requested, and were just playing fuck-fuck games.
Because if they weren't, are you (and they) going to argue with a straight face, "No, it was sincerely believed that he was requesting a canine who was admitted to the bar in the state of Louisiana to provide him counsel" then at best you're being absurdist, and at worst, well...
Apropos of ANY of that, the moment the suspect requests counsel (or requests something that sounds sooooo close to requesting counsel that you need to contact an attorney to verify whether they agree that it was a request for counsel or not) you're supposed to immediately terminate the interview. They did not.
This is still asking for a layer. They "y'all" DO think "he did this", and there was a request attached to answering that if in the affirmitive.
Not a lawyer either but I think you could find lawyers claiming both contradictory things.
This is just deliberate obtuseness.
No. Not at all. From [0]:
> On Friday, the Louisiana Supreme Court declined to review the trial court’s ruling in State v. Demesme refusing to exclude incriminating statements that Desmesme allegedly made to a detective. The vote was 6-1 but there was no majority opinion—the court just denied review and noted one justice had voted to grant it. But Justice Crichton, one of the six concurring justices, did write a very brief opinion, saying he wanted to “spotlight the very important constitutional issue” presented. The conclusion above—including “reference to a ‘lawyer dog'”—is taken almost word-for-word from that opinion.
The conclusion mentioned in the quote above is in the article linked at [0]. The article is well worth reading.
> Since that wasn't an unambiguous statement saying he wanted a lawyer...
When you look at the entire sentence, it is clear that it really, really unambiguous is to anyone who isn't interested in jailing someone who talks funny:
> [I]f y’all, 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, [dawg] cause this is not what’s up.
"If you think I did it, just give me a lawyer." The desire for a lawyer is clear as day to anyone who's not using motivated reasoning to fabricate excuses to "justify" trampling over the rights of regular folks.
[0] <https://www.loweringthebar.net/2017/11/lawyer-dog.html>
People who say Putin has done nothing wrong follow a similar sort of logic. You think that what you are doing is different, but it's not - it's just slightly earlier on the slippery slope.
Either you have rights that cannot be violated, or your don't. Once you have the power to violate rights because the magic pronunciation wasn't quite right, you are inviting other sorts of abuse too.