this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2025
542 points (98.6% liked)
Greentext
7061 readers
727 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I agree that he should have gotten a lawyer. That wasn't the point of my comment. The point of my comment is that by fixating on the irrelevant "lawyer dog" aspect people are reacting to that part of the case that doesn't matter.
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.
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.
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.