while i think that police should be required to have council present during questioning, under current law: people have to ask.
the problem seems to be not, as the reason article purports, with the phrase “lawyer dawg” – but that the person said “why don’t you give me a…” which is more of a complaint than a request.
from the published opinion:
And the basis for this comes from the second interview, where I believe the defendant ambiguously referenced a lawyer—
prefacing that statement with “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.”
the opinion they link to does make that clear, but it ends with what is probably a racist dig at the defendant’s phrasing.
reason could have called that out, but they instead tried to invent something different.
I suppose the best I can say about it is that it’s nice to see there are still lawyers who take their obligations seriously enough that they’re prepared to be held in contempt rather than breach them? Huzzah for Brigadier General Baker.
So I recall people saying that if Trump fired Mueller it would result in a firestorm and the Republicans would have to impeach him. This makes me significantly less convinced.