569
He took it literally (files.catbox.moe)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works
63 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think you missed my point, that everyone involved pretended like they didn't understand his statement because it would throw the case out. Even the precedent case the SC uses (Davis vs. US) is purposefully ignorant to allow flexibility for the cops. The minute any suggestion of legal representation comes up, that should be it, period.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I didn't miss your point. My original point was the people, guided by headlines, think a court ruled that he asked for a "lawyer dog". That's not what the ruling hinged on. I agree that the ruling should have gone the other way, but the popular fixation on the "lawyer dog" aspect stops the actual examination dead.

    That's it. That's my whole point. You're basically agreeing with me that the ruling was wrong, so I'm not sure what the problem is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    There wasn't a problem nor was I disagreeing with you, if anything I was focusing on the specifics of the issue that you said were being deflected from. I'm not sure why you're defensive since we think the same thing and I just talked more about it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent