That this was not interpreted as a request for a lawyer and (worse) that that interpretation was upheld on appeal is a grave miscarriage of justice, IMO.
Sure, it’s a clear intentional misinterpretation. Probably not the worst miscarriage of justice that occurred in that person’s case. Probably they were arrested for something that shouldn’t have even been a crime in the first place. But the person who said it is also an idiot.
> Probably they were arrested for something that shouldn’t have even been a crime in the first place.
I wouldn't say that.
> [T]wo juvenile victims told investigators that Warren Demesme, 22, sexually assaulted them. Baddoo said one victim reported that Demesme “would portray the rape as a game, and the child articulated the sexual contact caused her pain.”
“Probably” indicates a likelihood, not a statement about one particular instance. You’re discussing one particular instance. Statistically, very many people arrested for things that I do not believe should be a crime, such as marijuana possession, and that is to what I am referring.
Your prior sentence literally ended in "in that person's case". IMO, it takes a significantly tortured reading of your words to interpret them as you suggest above.
I said “probably” because I didn’t know anything about it. You’re making a bizarre and pointless assertion and I’m not going to try to bother figuring out what you’re talking about. You seem to think we have them serve philosophical differences or opposing facts, but in reality, you do seem to have had a hard time understanding the phrasing of what I wrote. Sorry.
I said “probably… In that person’s case”. That means, if you randomly select one case, according to me, the likelihood is that some more serious bullshit occurred during the supposed application of justice. I said this in the absence of knowledge about the specifics of this case, and in fact, since I’m speaking in generalities, the specifics of this case don’t matter, at all.
If the legal system was to analyze the situation that you said was such a great miscarriage of justice, they would not be concerned about the underlying crime. They would be concerned about the legal principle of whether it was legal to interpret someone’s words in that way. I think we both agree it was unfair. What was your point again?
That this was not interpreted as a request for a lawyer and (worse) that that interpretation was upheld on appeal is a grave miscarriage of justice, IMO.