Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 145: Lawyer Dog, Coming to CBS Tuesdays This Fall

(+) Yeah! (+)

I don't really consider plea deals at all the same thing, and while I don't know the particular articles you're citing I'm aware there are issues with that. You can have a lot of moments where it's basically glorified coercion with those.
---

Plea deals can basically used to strong arm people into admitting guilt. They force you to weigh the risk of entering into a trial(something the defendant is probably already terrified of), with a lawyer they don't know and probably cant afford, with a jury that might vote against them just for how they look during the trial, and with the risk of losing and spending the next 30 years in prison. Or you can take the plea and get out in 10 or maybe less.

For someone who might be innocent but can't really prove it this becomes a terrifying choice you might end up having to make.

Now if you are guilty and they are offering the plea deal to save everyone's time and money or need something out of you then the plea deal is probably a no brainer.
---

EmDubyaSee posted...

Kenri posted...

Lopen posted...

It's particularly difficult to exploit these loopholes in a harmful way against someone who's truly not guilty of the crime they're confessing to unless the lawyer is incompetent or also corrupt.

You should uh... probably read into the issues with plea deals. It's not exactly the same thing but it's definitely in the area of "loopholes that punish the innocent disproportionately".

Can I get a link?

You can but tbh I'm very drunk right now so it's gonna have to wait til tomorrow lol

But lordloki explained it well if all you need is a summary
---

Yeah. Like I said it's basically coercion for those reasons Loki listed. I don't even need to read an article to know that I just need to know how plea deals are generally offered as a risk/reward type deal.

Guy admitting guilt to the cops doesn't really have those things to weigh though.
---

One thing I did want to touch on earlier but forgot... Somebody brought up "Making a Murderer" or whatever when talking about false confessions.

I just wanted to point out that "Making a Murderer" is basically poison.

The makers of it set out to do everything they could to get people to draw the same conclusion: That the guys were innocent, and were purposely and maliciously framed by the police. The problem is... They leave out a loooot of details that muddy up their premise immensely. They don't get into the main guy's violent past, they don't get into how the other guy knew details of an event that would only be possible to know if it actually happened. They flat out ignore a piece of DNA evidence that would have been nearly impossible to replicate. And so on. Obviously there's no way to know what truly happened. But there ARE enough details (that they conveniently ignore/leave out) to say that the idea that they were purposely framed is something that absolutely cannot be said with any conviction, as such details highly suggest they either did the act, or... Or atleast provide enough evidence to see why a mistake could have been made if they didn't.

The other example was good, but "Making a Murderer" is basically propaganda.

This isn't an attack or anything. I just think it's good to know. There are hundreds of articles on it.
---

Making a Murderer is terrible for many reasons. They were extremely slanted and ignored a lot of evidence against Avery to push their narrative.

The confession out of Brendan Dassey though is abhorrent.

This is the last one, after they already prepped him several times, and he still doesn't get basic facts right, is obviously guessing at parts, and contradicts himself throughout the course of one interview. Also he's borderline mentally handicapped and didn't have a parent present.

http://convolutedbrian.com.s3.amazonaws.com/dassey/13May2006/13May06Transcript.pdf

Did you watch it, read any of the confession transcripts, or are you basing your opinion off of it secondhand?

EDIT: Terrible is probably too strong a word choice here. But it was clearly slanted.
---

Oh, I'm not saying his specific confession wasn't bad or anything. I'm just making an overall comment about Making a Murderer.

Like, Dassey himself just makes things so muddled. His confessions are so bad and shouldn't have even been accepted at face value, let alone as actual evidence... And yet at the same time, he also knew details that he shouldn't have at other times. It makes it so hard to say if he was involved or not.

I get your point about confessions overall. My initial argument was that the one on this particular case did not seem to come under any duress or coercion at all, so it should be taken at face value moreso than not unless there are contradictions.
---

Could you bring up which details you think he knew that he shouldn't? Most of the stuff I am aware of was either lead deliberately there by the detectives or was the one they stuck with after he guessed and missed like three other times.

Not saying you're wrong, just that I didn't see anything about that when this was buzzing in the media!

His confessions are so bad and shouldn't have even been accepted at face value, let alone as actual evidence...

A couple of judges last year agreed that his confession was coerced and should not have been admissible. (So I suppose at the very least the show did at least one thing well)

And I agree that this confession probably wasn't made under duress (the dog lawyer case, I mean). I'd have to look a the transcript to be certain, but it is likely that any lawyer that was halfway decent and not completely overworked would pick up on that and present it as part of their case, true.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Could you bring up which details you think he knew that he shouldn't?

I can't remember super specifically, and maybe it's something that was later gone over more, but I remember seeing stuff about him knowing details about what happened with the Jeep that he could have only known if he had actually seen it. Like, knowing Avery opened up the hood and such, which he later changed it to saying he never saw it, but they found Avery's sweat DNA on the hood latch.
---

Yeah that's one that always gets brought up. Here is where he "knows that" from the original transcript.

F: OK, what else did he do, he did somethin' else, you need to tell us what he did, after that car is parked there. It's extremely important. (pause) Before you guys leave that car.

Brendan: That he left the gun in the car.

F: That's not what I'm thinking about. He did something to that car. He took the plates and he, I believe, did something else in that car. (pause).

Brendan: I don't know.

F: OK. Did he, did he did he go back and look at the engine, did he raise the hood at all or anything like that? To do something to that car?

Brendan: Yeah.

F: What was that? (pause)

W: What did he do, Brendan? It's OK. What did he do?

F: What did he do under the hood, if that's what he did? (pause)

B: I don't know what he did, but I know he went under.

That's him knowing that Avery went under the hood, which ties him to one of the physical pieces of evidence (sweat DNA under the hood of the car). You're free to disagree, but to me that is 100% leading. That isn't good police work. That's having something that *could* corroborate the narrative, but blowing it by telling the witness what it is before he can say it. He "knew" Avery went under the hood, but only after the detectives were like:

"What did he do?"
"He did this"
"No, not that, what else. Did he go under the hood?"
"Yeah"

A bunch of sites that are slanted towards law enforcement ran stuff like that after the show but without ever really checking any of the transcripts themselves. "The detectives say it was good enough so it has to be!" kind of thing.

Now I don't believe in any crazy conspiracy that the cops framed Avery. I don't even think what these guys did was malicious. But they used techniques that are suited to normal criminals, not mentally handicapped 16 year olds that are just agreeing and saying whatever it is they think they want you to say.

EDIT: SEP was right it was sweat, not blood. Been a while since I saw the show.
---

Like I would agree with your assessment that Making a Murderer was biased and that it is extremely likely Avery did it.

I brought it up though because Lopen said something along the lines of "hey if he confessed he confessed", with my general point being "confessions aren't always solid evidence and here is one recent pop culture example of that".
---

(Thank you for joining us on today's episode of SEP and Suprak rehash a documentary that hasn't been culturally relevant for several years. Next week we will discuss KONY 2012 and how you can dispose a brutal dictator by sending a really, really well worded tweet)
---

Fair enough.

It just kinda puts it in a tough place, because... Dassey had to know SOMETHING in general, because there was more than enough evidence to say Avery did it. Just... How much he knew, how much he was involved, etc. was entirely up to question. And yeah, I agree the confessions shouldn't have been admissible.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Like I would agree with your assessment that Making a Murderer was biased and that it is extremely likely Avery did it.

I brought it up though because Lopen said something along the lines of "hey if he confessed he confessed", with my general point being "confessions aren't always solid evidence and here is one recent pop culture example of that".

Oh, right. That's entirely fair.

I only brought it up because MaM itself is trash, even if some of the points it brings up are worth discussing.
---

I'm not saying every confession that is made should be taken at face value. I'm saying if a confession was sketchy you think the lawyer would've brought it up as a point of attack. The fact that the guy focused entirely on making the confession inadmissible, and the fact that the follow up to the confession looked pretty above the table imo, heavily implies there wasn't anything sketchy about what was done beyond "they should have told him the best way to approach the interrogation" which no they are not required to do that. Nor should they.
---

Right. Telling him the best way to approach the interrogation is a job for his lawyer, who they chose not to get for him.
---

They didn't choose not to get it for him. They chose not to spell out the law that requires him to be 100% unambiguous with the request, but they did give him an opportunity to be 100% unambiguous with the request. He did not take that opportunity, and so the interrogation continued and he made a presumably non-coerced confession (and if it did have some hints of being coerced, his lawyer was awful for taking the approach they did and couldn't have helped him anyway)
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Fair enough.

It just kinda puts it in a tough place, because... Dassey had to know SOMETHING in general, because there was more than enough evidence to say Avery did it. Just... How much he knew, how much he was involved, etc. was entirely up to question. And yeah, I agree the confessions shouldn't have been admissible.

I don't necessarily know if he did. It's a lot to read through, but feel free to check out his transcripts. Anything he said was either public knowledge, was pushed by the investigators, or was only selected after he guessed wrong multiple other times.

Again, I don't think they were even trying to frame him. It was just the justice system not knowing how to deal with a mentally handicapped 16 year old. At one point, right after he says he helped murder her, he asks if he's going to be back in school for sixth period because he has a project due. He has no idea what he's saying or at the very least doesn't understand what's going on.

This isn't particularly pertinent to the discussion though so I'll drop it.
---

Lopen posted...

They didn't choose not to get it for him. They chose not to spell out the law that requires him to be 100% unambiguous with the request, but they did give him an opportunity to be 100% unambiguous with the request. He did not take that opportunity, and so the interrogation continued and he made a presumably non-coerced confession (and if it did have some hints of being coerced, his lawyer was awful for taking the approach they did and couldn't have helped him anyway)

My only hesitation here is that public defenders (which I am almost certain is what he had) are often overworked to the point they can't review all the evidence. It's a terrible system, so it's possible the lawyer just didn't check everything. I agree your way is more likely, but that's why I am hesitant to be so certain without seeing the full transcript itself.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/17/poor-rely-public-defenders-too-overworked

In Florida in 2009, the annual felony caseload per attorney was over 500 felonies and 2,225 misdemeanors.

Like that's insane. I don't have evidence that happened here, obviously, but just offering up a possible alternative to "well the lawyer would have to be awful".
---

That is a pretty ridiculous figure, but yeah I kinda don't think that would be the case. Or at least, there's no particular reason to think it's even close to as likely that was the case vs he just gave a legitimate confession.

Keep in mind that if he's combing over the interrogation for issues, finding that particular area of the interrogation where he asked for a lawyer is not necessarily easier than trying to show it was a coerced confession if it was obvious. Any sort of even vaguely arguable coercion present would have to be very subtle, subtle to the point where it's debatable it even was.

Like you're not getting any sort of sob story from a kid who is wondering if he can return to school at 6th period cause that is gonna jump right out at you, you know? Well before "oh he requested a lawyer here" would. The fact that you're trying to throw out a part of the interrogation on a technicality in the law, it just doesn't seem like an intuitive defense to take if the interrogation wasn't on the level.

Basically people seem upset that a law could not be abused by a rapist better than it was abused by the police. That's just really backwards thinking to me.
---

Jesus guys this Nazi thing is everywhere.

Swastikas all over Delhi today. Even on temples! Mad how this is spreading.
---

While the policies of President Trump who left Friday on his own trip to Asia have made Ivankas fashion line one of the most negatively perceived brands in the U.S. (a recent YouGov survey ranked it one of the bottom 10 brands in the U.S. by consumer perception out of 1,600 companies), there is a much different perception of her in Japan, China and other Asian nations.

Sales of her fashion line have skyrocketed in Japan and China over the last year and dozens of Chinese businesses have filed for trademarks to use Ivankas name to sell everything from wallpaper to alcohol.

"Many people think shes like a princess," Lully Miura, a political scientist at the University of Tokyo, told the Washington Post. "Shes well educated, beautiful, sophisticated and rich. And its very surprising to Japanese women that she can also talk about things that are important to society."
---

Lopen posted...

That is a pretty ridiculous figure, but yeah I kinda don't think that would be the case. Or at least, there's no particular reason to think it's even close to as likely that was the case vs he just gave a legitimate confession.

Keep in mind that if he's combing over the interrogation for issues, finding that particular area of the interrogation where he asked for a lawyer is not necessarily easier than trying to show it was a coerced confession if it was obvious. Any sort of even vaguely arguable coercion present would have to be very subtle, subtle to the point where it's debatable it even was.

Like you're not getting any sort of sob story from a kid who is wondering if he can return to school at 6th period cause that is gonna jump right out at you, you know? Well before "oh he requested a lawyer here" would. The fact that you're trying to throw out a part of the interrogation on a technicality in the law, it just doesn't seem like an intuitive defense to take if the interrogation wasn't on the level.

Basically people seem upset that a law could not be abused by a rapist better than it was abused by the police. That's just really backwards thinking to me.

Disagree. Asking for a lawyer is your right and should have been honored. The law is clear on this. The ruling regarding it is astronomically silly, and I cannot see how it could stand up upon appeal.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

My only hesitation here is that public defenders (which I am almost certain is what he had) are often overworked to the point they can't review all the evidence.

My wife is a public defender, and yeah. They definitely don't always have time to look over all the evidence. Which is really unfortunate.

People are still looking at this case, though, from a 'guilty' perspective. It doesn't matter if the guy did it or not. It doesn't even matter how the cops handled the rest of the investigation. Point blank, when he asked for a lawyer--they didn't stop the interview as they were supposed to do. And so everything after that point should be inadmissible in court.

I know people want to make the police's job easier, because they generally trust the police to do the right thing, and trust the court system to do the right thing. But the court system works BECAUSE we provide people with an attorney when they ask for one.
---

They didn't choose not to get it for him. They chose not to spell out the law that requires him to be 100% unambiguous with the request, but they did give him an opportunity to be 100% unambiguous with the request.

I do not think that accused persons should suffer because the police are able to parse their statements in ways favorable to the police (and unfavorable to the accused). That's a really bad road to go down. Your ability to gain your legal rights under the U.S. justice system should NOT be dependent on your experience with the justice system. That's the reason why you're entitled to someone who is familiar with the justice system in the first place!

But, we're getting circular here.
---

MalcolmMasher posted...

They didn't choose not to get it for him. They chose not to spell out the law that requires him to be 100% unambiguous with the request, but they did give him an opportunity to be 100% unambiguous with the request.

I do not think that accused persons should suffer because the police are able to parse their statements in ways favorable to the police (and unfavorable to the accused). That's a really bad road to go down. Your ability to gain your legal rights under the U.S. justice system should NOT be dependent on your experience with the justice system. That's the reason why you're entitled to someone who is familiar with the justice system in the first place!

But, we're getting circular here.

I believe that was my argument as well.
---

It basically comes down to thinking about the spirit of the law. The spirit behind the law, believe it or not, is not to provide loopholes for criminals, or throw out testimony that is obtained in a completely above the table manner.

You're entitled to a lawyer to protect you from being screwed over by corrupt legal process. However, nothing in the actual process of obtaining the confession was attacked by the lawyer, once he got one. The lawyer attempted to get his confession to "not count" on a technicality that isn't really what the spirit of the law is for.

Like consider the following-- if the man had straight up not mentioned a lawyer whatsoever, would the interrogation have been questioned at all? If not, then you really shouldn't be outraged. The only reason the whole lawyer thing is a thing, is so a lawyer doesn't have to jump through hoops to prove there was some form of corruption in the interrogation process and can just get the whole interrogation thrown out, because it's a lot easier to prove "hey this guy asked for a lawyer here" than to prove some sort of coercion. The non-corrupt ones will generally just allow the lawyer, or be completely above the table about the unambiguous request being necessary, so it streamlines the process a lot. That does not mean it is suddenly impossible to throw out an interrogation where a lawyer is not asked for.

So basically, the entire argument made was on the letter of the law, trying to get the guy off on a technicality more than any real wrongdoing. Dude lost on the letter of the law. So it's basically fair, next. If there was something shady done during the process, then that should've been the point of attack.
---

The spirit behind the law, believe it or not, is not to provide loopholes for criminals

Incorrect, sir. The spirit behind the law is to protect the innocent. Until and unless their trial concludes otherwise, the person accused of a crime is presumed innocent.

Like consider the following-- if the man had straight up not mentioned a lawyer whatsoever, would the interrogation have been questioned at all?

If he had never requested a lawyer, then no, I do not believe this would be questioned. The law does not protect people from being stupid. It does try to protect people from being ignorant; that's why the Miranda warning is an actual thing that exists. That's why the police were required to, and presumably did (or his lawyer should have challenged that instead), notify the suspect that he had the right to an attorney. Because he does have the right to an attorney, and for the police to infringe on that right is reprehensible. That right is not conditional on his ability to speak perfect legalese. Hell, it's not conditional on his ability to speak English.
---

MalcolmMasher posted...

The spirit behind the law is to protect the innocent. Until and unless their trial concludes otherwise, the person accused of a crime is presumed innocent.

Lets ignore the second half of this for a moment. Let's ignore the "slippery slope" nonsense and all that stuff.

Do you truly believe the man is innocent of the crime?
---

MalcolmMasher posted...

The spirit behind the law, believe it or not, is not to provide loopholes for criminals

Incorrect, sir. The spirit behind the law is to protect the innocent. Until and unless their trial concludes otherwise, the person accused of a crime is presumed innocent.

Like consider the following-- if the man had straight up not mentioned a lawyer whatsoever, would the interrogation have been questioned at all?

If he had never requested a lawyer, then no, I do not believe this would be questioned. The law does not protect people from being stupid. It does try to protect people from being ignorant; that's why the Miranda warning is an actual thing that exists. That's why the police were required to, and presumably did (or his lawyer should have challenged that instead), notify the suspect that he had the right to an attorney. Because he does have the right to an attorney, and for the police to infringe on that right is reprehensible. That right is not conditional on his ability to speak perfect legalese. Hell, it's not conditional on his ability to speak English.

And to make one thing clear, that is NOT cintingent on respect either.

Had he said.

"Fuck you asshole, get me a lawyer" that's still enough.
---

Lopen posted...

MalcolmMasher posted...

The spirit behind the law is to protect the innocent. Until and unless their trial concludes otherwise, the person accused of a crime is presumed innocent.

Lets ignore the second half of this for a moment. Let's ignore the "slippery slope" nonsense and all that stuff.

Do you truly believe the man is innocent of the crime?

No, guilty as the day is long.
---

So if this guy's case was overturned for this, would that mean he's automatically not guilty or would he just get a new trial without his confession as evidence?
---

Xeybozn posted...

So if this guy's case was overturned for this, would that mean he's automatically not guilty or would he just get a new trial without his confession as evidence?

I don't know for sure. But I think he would just be free same way you are if your Miranda rights are not read. Because it doesn't seem there would actually be a mistrial. Nothing was done wrong there, it would just be evidence that technically doesn't exist any longer.
---

I want to say the only thing this impacts is whether the grand jury would accept the interrogation and subsequent confession as evidence for the trial that is still pending. The other evidence may still clearly implicate him and result in a conviction anyway.
---

Esuriat posted...

I want to say the only thing this impacts is whether the grand jury would accept the interrogation and subsequent confession as evidence for the trial that is still pending. The other evidence may still clearly implicate him and result in a conviction anyway.

The trial is pending?

I thought it was done hence why I've heard him called a convicted child rapist..
---

No. His trial is pending. This decision only allows his confession to be allowed as evidence in the trial.
---

From the WaPo article:

Demesme subsequently made admissions to the crime, prosecutors said, and was charged with aggravated rape and indecent behavior with a juvenile. He is being held in the Orleans Parish jail awaiting trial.

The interrogation was in 2015, but the appeals regarding the interrogation have slowed down the process a lot.
---

Like...

Either you go strictly by the legalese, in which case the guy lost, as it was not 100% unambiguous, nor was it made 100% unambiguous when the guy was pressed for more details.

Or you go by the spirit of the law, which is basically being abused here to give a criminal an out on a legitimate confession that technically shouldn't count because he mentioned a lawyer, as there were no signals that there was anything untoward in the process but that.

That's really all it is, man. The spirit of the law basically is to give a guy a 100% rock solid escape valve if they feel the interrogation process is unfair to them. Despite mentioning a lawyer, the fact that the he continued the interrogation after this point signals that this wasn't really the case for him.

And it would apply either way. Say the interrogation continued and the guy provided certain rock solid details about his whereabouts during the point of the crime which suggested he wouldn't have been in a position to rape, which were 6 months later collaborated by newfound evidence, but after a year and a half of appeals, he'd forgotten those details of where he was at that moment at the time of the trial. You couldn't flip and toss that part out either to assure a conviction.
---

Lopen posted...

Like...

Either you go strictly by the legalese, in which case the guy lost, as it was not 100% unambiguous, nor was it made 100% unambiguous when the guy was pressed for more details.

Or you go by the spirit of the law, which is basically being abused here to give a criminal an out on a legitimate confession that technically shouldn't count because he mentioned a lawyer, as there were no signals that there was anything untoward in the process but that.

That's really all it is, man. The spirit of the law basically is to give a guy a 100% rock solid escape valve if they feel the interrogation process is unfair to them. Despite mentioning a lawyer, the fact that the he continued the interrogation after this point signals that this wasn't really the case for him.

And it would apply either way. Say the interrogation continued and the guy provided certain rock solid details about his whereabouts during the point of the crime which suggested he wouldn't have been in a position to rape, which were 6 months later collaborated by newfound evidence, but after a year and a half of appeals, he'd forgotten those details of where he was at that moment at the time of the trial. You couldn't flip and toss that part out either to assure a conviction.

And that's why it's a slippery slope. I'd rather it be abused by a criminal now as sad as that is, then ever let an innocent man pay in the future because of not knowing the right terms to use.
---

Innocent men have nothing to fear by this law in and of itself, because an innocent man won't confess a crime they didn't commit without some major corruption in the process. This stuff would be caught with or without a lawyer being requested, as this is not the only way to throw an interrogation out, or it would be so deep rooted that the lawyer being present wouldn't matter to begin with. In the case of the latter, your enemy isn't this law in particular, but something else.

The law merely existing is basically enough to fulfill its purpose. A guy who feels pressured by the interrogation to the extent they should be protected isn't just going to half suggest a lawyer and then continue along answering questions.
---

Do you truly believe the man is innocent of the crime?

I don't know, and I don't care. A judge shouldn't decide how many rights a man has based on whether they think he's guilty. (Nor should the cops.)
---

If it makes you feel better, ultimately that part being admitted as evidence isn't likely to matter in the grand scheme of things anyway. If the guy is clearly innocent of the crime then I doubt that isolated confession holds much weight. Also keep in mind that in a trial I'm pretty sure you can still mention that the guy shouldn't ever have had to made the confession because he requested a lawyer.

Like the only real distinction you're making for the guy is whether we get to scrub that from the record books or not, which you should only really support if you think that he said it for a reason other than he believed it the truth (which is what the law is designed to protect, btw)-- not because of some technicality in a law not going his way.
---

So Bowe Bergdahl is getting time served.

I honestly expected he'd get worse what with all of trumps "he should be shot"
---

Eddv posted...

So Bowe Bergdahl is getting time served.

I honestly expected he'd get worse what with all of trumps "he should be shot"

FFDragon posted...

Speaking of trials, did we cover the Bergdahl verdict yet?

Because it seems he got a lighter sentence in great part due to Trump's twitter comments against him while he was a candidate.

So this would be one of the great examples of where he should not vomit all of his thoughts out whenever he has them.

---

Im just never gonna defend stupid criminals.

They read you your rights. The whole was his request ambiguous or not thing doesnt even really come into play because he chose to keep talking. It is not, nor should it be the cops job to go You better stop talking and request a lawyer clearly. I do not for a second believe anybody doesnt think they can just... Stop talking. So if a criminal is an idiot and gets them self caught up in the letter of the law, thats on them.

It should not be law enforcements job to literally tell people to not talk/confess. It seems like people in here want cops to basically sit suspects down and go Now hold on. Before you say anything, repeat after me: I want a lawyer. Okay, good. Now we cant talk to you.
---

People keep arguing from the point that he's guilty. It doesn't matter if he's guilty or innocent. I don't care if you don't want to let him get off on a technicality--if you don't want him to do that, then police should do things the right way and should have gotten him a lawyer when he asked for one. Then there would be no technicality for him to get off on. Police don't get to ignore the request because they 'know' he's guilty.
---

Ashethan posted...

People keep arguing from the point that he's guilty. It doesn't matter if he's guilty or innocent. I don't care if you don't want to let him get off on a technicality--if you don't want him to do that, then police should do things the right way and should have gotten him a lawyer when he asked for one. Then there would be no technicality for him to get off on. Police don't get to ignore the request because they 'know' he's guilty.

Me and Lopen's arguments have nothing to do with whether he's guilty or not

It entirely has to do with the letter of the law. By the letter of the law, he did not request a lawyer. They gave him a second chance to, and he instead just kept talking. At that point, it's on him.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Ashethan posted...

People keep arguing from the point that he's guilty. It doesn't matter if he's guilty or innocent. I don't care if you don't want to let him get off on a technicality--if you don't want him to do that, then police should do things the right way and should have gotten him a lawyer when he asked for one. Then there would be no technicality for him to get off on. Police don't get to ignore the request because they 'know' he's guilty.

Me and Lopen's argument have nothing to do with whether he's guilty or not

It entirely has to do with the letter of the law. By the letter of the law, he did not request a lawyer. They gave him a second chance to, and he instead just kept talking. At that point, it's on him.

I don't think anyone is arguing by letter anything was done wrong.

SSJBGenkiDama posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Ashethan posted...

People keep arguing from the point that he's guilty. It doesn't matter if he's guilty or innocent. I don't care if you don't want to let him get off on a technicality--if you don't want him to do that, then police should do things the right way and should have gotten him a lawyer when he asked for one. Then there would be no technicality for him to get off on. Police don't get to ignore the request because they 'know' he's guilty.

Me and Lopen's argument have nothing to do with whether he's guilty or not

It entirely has to do with the letter of the law. By the letter of the law, he did not request a lawyer. They gave him a second chance to, and he instead just kept talking. At that point, it's on him.

I don't think anyone is arguing by letter anything was done wrong.

Atleast one person is saying the cops should be held accountable instead/it should be thrown out, though.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

SSJBGenkiDama posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Ashethan posted...

People keep arguing from the point that he's guilty. It doesn't matter if he's guilty or innocent. I don't care if you don't want to let him get off on a technicality--if you don't want him to do that, then police should do things the right way and should have gotten him a lawyer when he asked for one. Then there would be no technicality for him to get off on. Police don't get to ignore the request because they 'know' he's guilty.

Me and Lopen's argument have nothing to do with whether he's guilty or not

It entirely has to do with the letter of the law. By the letter of the law, he did not request a lawyer. They gave him a second chance to, and he instead just kept talking. At that point, it's on him.

I don't think anyone is arguing by letter anything was done wrong.

Atleast one person is saying the cops should be held accountable instead/it should be thrown out, though.

By spirit it probably should be thrown out. But the cops shouldn't be held accountable... they didn't do anything wrong.
---