I only am just know finding out about this and I am absolutely outraged.
Summed up: A Black male by the name of Warren Demesne in Louisiana agreed two times to talk to police/investigators regarding alleged sexual assault charges. He was allegedly read his Miranda Rights, which shouldn’t even be
brought up or make a difference on whether or not the following is right but the other side made it a part of their argument. First, what’s the issue?
As he was defending himself against allegations made, he stated the following:
“…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.”
They are claiming, because he said “dog” he was not asking for a lawyer… Thus, he wasn’t granted one. Upon taking this to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, they CLEARLY denied Warren Demesne from obtaining justice by denying his appeal which stated the police denied him the right to a lawyer, which they claim they did because in using the word “dog” it was “open to interpretation” and could be taken “multiple ways” – which is BS.
Unless absolutely utter morons, it is so clear that the ruling judge clearly exploited the law to cater to the injustice system. Not even the most idiotic person in this world would ever think a person seriously would ask for a “dog to be their lawyer” – having serious allegations against one and wanting a lawyer would not be the time to “joke” about it, either.
I don’t understand how we keep letting the government get away with this kind of thing any more than I understand why this is not a case the non-profit media has blown up. Of course main stream media won’t; but why aren’t we, as activists, not speaking out more on this slap to the face of racial equality, justice and equality in the legal system?
In the end? I’ll end it with the asinine opinion of a Justice Scott Christon, who defends the choice to deny the appeal made by Mr. Demesne, who had requested a lawyer but not in a way “proper” – that is an opinion, and opinion is subjective; the majority of people are not stupid- yet these clowns must think us as such to even attempt, let alone defend and get away with, this sort of unjust ruling.
After Justice Scott Chricton insists Demesme only “ambiguously referenced a lawyer.” [Ambiguously is used because saying “open to more than one interpretation” would have been too complex a task, apparently.
“Chricton notes that under current legal precedent set by Davis v. United States, if a suspect makes an “ambiguous or equivocal” reference to a lawyer—one where a “reasonable” cop could conclude that that the suspect only “might” be invoking his right to an attorney—police can continue their interrogation. “Maybe I need a lawyer,” for example, is considered too ambiguous.
Read his ludicrous opinion on this reflective decision by the LA Supreme Court, by clicking here. From the legal decision to deny him his appeal to this opinion piece, it all is all too reflective of the racist nature of our legal system as much as it is telling of both American society but also, sadly, it stands as a harsh reminder of how far we still have to go; this is NOT THE TIME TO REST! We need SERIOUS action.
Read more legal info here.
[I’d like to note that the fact he agreed to speak to these jerks, twice, speaks volumes. Sadly, as most people know, the media and legal system use both past “criminal history” if available and, as in this case, they abuse the allegations made in an attempt to damn him to a deliberate outcome of guilty before evidence or a trial has even begun. This should be a crime in and of itself, however, it’s not such here in America for that sort of justice system is only available to those living in nations that are made up of a just, equitable society and legal system.]