Courts can be shockingly corrupt.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02...
> The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the suspect was, in fact, asking for a “lawyer dog,” ..
That's bad, dawg.
The full quote - "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." - can be argued to be equivocal. It's a common construction to express a hypothetical, e.g. "well if that's how you feel we should cancel the wedding" etc.
The precedent should really be the other way around. You should treat any reference to wanting a lawyer as legitimate unless unambiguously established to not be.
[0] https://www.lasc.org/opinions/2017/17KK0954.sjc.addconc.pdf
> In my view, the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a “lawyer dog” does not constitute an invocation of counsel that warrants termination of the interview and does not violate Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981).
"Equivocal" probably refers to Demesme saying "if y'all think I did it", but nonetheless it's hard for me to read the concurrence as anything other than a bad faith interpretation of his request for counsel.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/suspect-asks-for...