Thursday, November 2, 2017

The Law Is An Ass, And So Is This Judge

Meet the average Louisiana Supreme Court Associate Justice.
Probably one of the brighter ones.
(DUMBF**K, LA) When a friend says, “I’ll hit you up later dog,” he is stating that he will call again sometime. He is not calling the person a “later dog.”
But that’s not how the courts in Louisiana see it. And when a suspect in an interrogation told detectives to “just give me a lawyer dog,” the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the suspect was, in fact, asking for a “lawyer dog,” and not invoking his constitutional right to counsel. It’s not clear how many lawyer dogs there are in Louisiana, and whether any would have been available to represent the human suspect in this case, other than to give the standard admonition in such circumstances to simply stop talking.The ruling by Louisiana’s high court could have serious implications for a suspect charged with raping a juvenile, because it will allow his subsequent incriminating statements into evidence at his trial, which is pending. And it clarified that requesting a canine attorney need not cause the police to stop questioning someone. 
“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.” The punctuation, arguably critical to Demesme’s use of the sobriquet “dog,” was provided by the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s office in a brief, and then adopted by Louisiana Associate Supreme Court Justice Scott J. Crichton.
Proof yet again that there should be an IQ test for judges.

This gets tossed on federal appeal in 0.2 seconds, the perp walks because everything after the request for a lawyer will be ruled inadmissible, and the judge ought to be impeached for profound mental incapacity and retardation, let alone for making Louisiana such a laughingstock.

And if they're still alive, his parents should probably be investigated for inbreeding.
If they were even married to each other when he was conceived.


Anonymous said...

Not trying to defend a possible perp but geezus that is a stretch.
- BAP45

The Gray Man said...

Actually we should be defending that possible perp, because a possible perp is NOT guilty until proven otherwise. You could easily one day be a possible perp, and you're going to want people on your side.

Domo said...

Im all for defending innocent people whove been railroaded

This guy is a multiple child rapist who will be back on the streets to attack more.

loren said...

Let's hope this guy gets is sentence thrown out - 2 days after he's beaten to death by his fellow inmates.

Aesop said...

Do I think he did the crime? Hell yes.
That's what makes this sort of fucktarded reversible error the more egregious: the judge has now ensured an otherwise guilty man will be set free, because the judge is a freaking moron.
And he's done it by ass-raping the judicial due process as well.
Malpractice this egregious by a state's supreme court judge should be prosecutable, and the judge should get a year in prison just to drive the point home. This wasn't a simple error, it's deliberate considered stupidity, and it ought to leave a mark.
He's made it likely - in fact, near certain - that the guilty party will be set free, harmed the judicial process for every citizen in the state, and robbed the people of the state of justice on both accounts.

If that isn't worth a year, disbarring him and putting him in stocks and letting every adult in Louisiana kick him in the crotch would suffice. I'm thinking he'd rather do the year, but I'd be fine with either outcome.

Shrimp said...

Honestly, every time something like this comes up, there's that one person who says "but he's a piece of shit and he's guilty, so who cares?"
Or, like Domo above, that protecting the innocent is okay, but protecting the guilty one's rights doesn't sit well. So who cares, right?

I fucking care, that's who. And I care because every time, whether the guy is probably guilty, really guilty, or completely innocent, his rights are the same as my rights. When you fuck with his rights, you are fucking with my rights.

If it's okay to deny this guy his right to a lawyer, because some dickhead judge wants to twist his words and claim he didn't actually ask for a lawyer, then it's okay to fuck with my right to a lawyer, and claim I didn't actually ask for a lawyer because I stuttered, or coughed, or sneezed, or looked funny or had the wrong hair color, or some other bullshit reason. I say "get me a lawyer man," but the public defender is a woman, so no lawyer for me, right?

Almost every right you can name off the top of your head, there's a case and a bad guy who either got away, or had to be retried because either a cop or a judge made a huge mistake. Miranda? Check. Terry? Check. I could go on.

Your rights are protected when his rights are protected. If he's truly guilty, then find the evidence and convict him properly. If not, he goes free. Better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man goes to jail. Someone smarter than me said that a long time ago, and it still holds true today.

Badger said...

Maybe this literal idiot jurist should head off to SLC & & hear Detective Jackboots Asshat's appeal - after admitting the audio tape where Asshat's colleague admits "we do this all the time."

The host's final paragraph as a legal remedy works for me, however.

A Texan said...

Domo said:

"Im all for defending innocent people whove been railroaded

This guy is a multiple child rapist who will be back on the streets to attack more."
You know, you may be right.


The moment that we violate the due process rights of this particular defendant and assume that he is guilty because of past actions (and not because someone proved that this likely POS actually did the crime in question), and such violation is codified into our law by having federal judges who are just as stupid as the judge in this case, is the moment when people who are ACTUALLY innocent will be railroaded in just the manner you seem to want.

You have to envision EVERY SINGLE permitted power, no matter how speculative, as being wielded by your worst enemy on his worst day - then, if it is still OK with you, allow that power to be codified. If you have some reservations, then get rid of it like you'd get rid of a cake full of dog crap.

RandyGC said...

Maybe he asked for a lawyer Dog because he was afraid of snakes and therefore did not want to be in the same room with a regular lawyer> ;)

Seriously, this illustrates the fact that the first, last, and only word out of your mouth when being interrogated by the police is "lawyer".

loren said...

Miranda rights are an invented right the founders never considered and most likely have laughed at had it brought up. You ask for a lawyer and still blab away then fuck you. You're too dumb to live in polite society.
Worked out ok for Mr. Dirtbag Miranda though as he was killed later.

David said...

Loren - founding fathers like John Adams?

loren said...

John Adams? Makes a decent beer.