Bivulatron

Hi, I'm Olivia. Canadian.

[soberscientistlife]

Dear men:

[brothertedd-deactivated20240822]

[thewickedwilds]

Me when its 1 day after Halloween and the capitalists are already blasting the christmas sale commercials

[funnytwittertweets]

[the-kestrels-feather]

[injuries-in-dust]

"So much stuff!"

[thefirelordazula]

[trlake-deactivated20200421]

what’s the pink they put in pink lemonade that makes it so poppin

[craigzlist]

that’s pussy babe!

[dankmemeuniversity]

[pukicho]

I am creating upsetting spells in my fucked up wizard tower today

[minireaper]

Not that I dont believe you but like, what makes the tower fucked up?

[pukicho]

Asbestos >:)

[jasoncanty01]

[from-dark-dunharrow]

This is how Pippin talks to Aragorn after he’s crowned 

[guerrillatech]

[minighostpan]

once more for the people in the back

[kadkadajaj]

When the unlisted duties include dealing with yt people as one of the only brown people in the workplaces 💀💀💀💀

[superunfriendlyreminder]

[guidetodreaming]

One of the most important things I learned in my Language and the Law class is that law enforcement will intentionally misinterpret every type of statement asking for a lawyer as not asking for a lawyer. Even directly saying it like this “I will not speak to you without a lawyer” can be taken as a simple statement of fact rather than a request for a lawyer. You literally have to state “I am now invoking my right to a lawyer” and every time they try to proceed with an interrogation you have to answer every question with “I am invoking my right to have a lawyer present”. You can’t just tell them you won’t talk without a lawyer or that you want a lawyer. You have to state that you are invoking your rights. Otherwise they could just say “well they just said they wouldn’t speak without a lawyer present. That’s not invoking their rights to a lawyer. It’s just stating a fact.” even just stating your right to a lawyer doesn’t count!

[penrosesun]

PLEASE share this addition. I am a lawyer who works in criminal defense, and this is one of the most avoidable things that people consistently get wrong about the Miranda rights.

Here are some more “ambiguous” phrases which courts have found DO NOT invoke your right to a lawyer:

“Maybe I should speak to my lawyer first.”

“I might like a lawyer.”

“I think I should have a lawyer present for this.”

“Could I speak to my lawyer first?”

“How long until my lawyer gets here?”

And perhaps most egregiously – “Get me a lawyer, dawg – ‘cause this is not what’s up.”

Here are the magic phrases which you need to know if you want to invoke your Miranda rights:

1) “Am I free to leave?”

It’s worth asking this even if the answer is obvious. Even if the officer does not let you leave, by forcing them to admit that you are not free to leave, you are creating a record which your attorney can use to prove that you were in custody. Miranda rights only apply if the interrogation is custodial, meaning that police officers will frequently claim that their suspects were “not in custody” to get around their Miranda rights.

2) “I am invoking my right to remain silent.”

Simply staying silent will not invoke your right to remain silent. As absurd as this is, you must explicitly say that you are invoking your right to remain silent in order to invoke that right.

3) “I am invoking my right to an attorney.”

As stated above, you must be not only clear and unambiguous, but clear and legally unambiguous. Don’t get cute. Don’t get sassy. And on the flip side, don’t get intimidated and use verbal ticks to minimize your request. Say the line with those words exactly – say it clearly, and say it once, and then say nothing else.

Because even after you’ve done all this, the police can still try to get you to talk. They’re not supposed to interrogate you, but they’re allowed to make casual conversation, and if that conversation just happens to circle back around to the thing they wanted to question you about, well, that’s really your fault for talking after you said you wouldn’t, isn’t it? Can’t possibly fault the poor officers when you initiated – if you really wanted to have your rights respected, you wouldn’t have talked to them in the first place.

The police know this, and they will mercilessly exploit this loophole. So, once you’ve successfully invoked your Miranda rights, any and all conversation you have with police officers will put those rights back into jeopardy. 

Putting it all together:

Ask: “Am I free to leave?”

If they say no, say: “I am invoking my right to remain silent and I am invoking my right to an attorney.”

And then shut up and do not say a single thing to them for any reason whatsoever until you have actually spoken to an attorney. Yes, even if it takes hours. Yes, even if they start talking to you about something else.

Finally, a very important disclaimer:

I may be a lawyer, but I’m not your lawyer, and I cannot guarantee that what I’ve just laid out here will always work for every situation. We didn’t get to this bizarre and absurd place overnight – we built this ridiculous system piecemeal, by deciding on a case-by-case basis that certain phrases were “too ambiguous” or certain types of questioning weren’t actually questioning at all. The law is still in flux, and is still fundamentally out to get you, and willing to bend plain meaning beyond all recognition to do it. Even if you invoke your rights perfectly, exactly as I have specified above, there’s a chance that your invocation of rights will be disqualified on some new technicality that no one’s even thought of yet – and that’s precisely the problem.

[lemonsharks]

Watch this video: “Don’t Talk To The Police”

[nonbinary-hawke-deactivated2021]

I am begging my followers to please watch this video from start to finish. I know it’s long, but it is incredibly valuable information that everyone needs to know, especially if you’re involved in any form of activism.

Every single cop lies. Every single cop lies and manipulates and twists the situation around to get a confession. Even when they know that the person is innocent, even when they know that what they have isn’t enough to convict someone, even when they know that that confession has been made under duress or manipulation. All they care about is getting anything to put someone behind bars.

It doesn’t matter how eloquent or innocent or experienced you are. Do not talk to cops.

[dunroamins]

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

You also have a right to legal advice, for free, in a police interview in the UK. The Crown Prosecution Service (or the Procurator Fiscal in Scotland) must provide one for you. Minors also have the right to an appropriate adult (parent, carer, social worker etc): if arrested A MINOR CANNOT LEGALLY BE INTERVIEWED IF AN APPROPRIATE ADULT IS NOT PRESENT. (A cop does not count as an appropriate adult because they are not there to advocate for you. They’re there to advocate for themselves.)

[topazandteal]

…That’s the night that the lights went out in Georgia

That’s the night that they hung an innocent man

Well, don’t trust your soul to no backwoods Southern lawyer

‘Cause the judge in the town’s got bloodstains on his hands

~ Reba McEntire, The Night The Lights Went Out In Georgia

[cazort]

The problems described above are not a problem with people’s behavior, they are a problem with the courts.

When the courts interpret “give me a lawyer, dog” as not asking for a lawyer, there is a problem either with the particular judge in that case, or with the court system as a whole.

Given the brokenness of the system, it makes sense to inform people to change their behavior, but this is not a full solution. The full solution is, if it’s a problem with isolated judges, to remove those judges, and if that is difficult to do, to make it easier to remove problematic judges. And if it’s a deeper systematic problem with the whole system then the solution is to reform the system such as by changing how people become judges, perhaps clarifying the law and perhaps enacting some sort of stricter penalty to lawyers who make such bad-faith arguments as described above.

I am not comfortable with a society in which a lawyer who makes a serious argument in a courtroom that “give me a lawyer dog” is not asking for a lawyer, being allowed to continue to practice law.

Lawyers have a high-paid, privileged profession. That sort of behavior is such an extreme stretch that it shows bad faith, it shows the desire to stretch the law and the truth so far as to have unconscionable outcomes.

And it is unconscionable to me to allow a person who would do that, to be allowed to continue to practice law (and enjoy the privileges, such as the high social status and salary, that come with it, while the people negatively affected by their actions suffer.)

[barren-and-trivial-words]

I’m skeptical of the common claims that there are particular things that, if you say them verbatim to a cop, will mean you can’t be denied the legal protections the courts have already shown themselves so willing to disregard. It reminds me too much of sovereign citizens’ claims that if you write your name a special way and use very particular language in court you can be exempted from the law.

Further, given just how little training police receive, I would not expect them to actually know the special phrases that they aren’t allowed to ignore, much less follow them.

tagging @isaacsapphire because I suspect they’ll have some insight into this.

[isaacsapphire]

The magic phrases to use with the police aren’t primarily to make the police behave a particular way, they’re setting up the situation for your lawyer to be able to kick their asses later in court.

“Am I being detained?” is not going to make the police treat you better in the moment. It’s to establish that you are in fact in police custody at that time, or alternatively that you legally are permitted to leave, for your lawyer to be able to argue later means certain other things in your favor, like your right to a lawyer (for example, there are obligations about medical care to people in custody, so if you were in custody and the police ignored your medical issue, that’s a potential area for your lawyer to go after them on, but it has to be established that you were in custody for that to work.)

Of course, the police would prefer suspects not ask for lawyers for as long as possible, so they would prefer to not interpret anything as asking for a lawyer. So of course there’s legal dickering about exactly what constitutes “asking for a lawyer” legally.

“Gimme a lawyer dawg” has been established as not counting as asking for a lawyer. Probably not fair, but that’s the rules.

[assoc-of-free-people]

[feminist-voices]

[ultrafacts]

Source: [x]

Follow Ultrafacts for more facts!

[ambris]

This is pretty meta

[elodieunderglass]

The peer reviewer’s comments are the best

[poetry-protest-pornography]

I ghost-didn’t-write this

[syolen]

and you say scientists don’t know how to have fun…

[chiamoi]

Professional BSery at it’s finest

[fadeintoyou1993]

Lisa Kudrow and Lady Gaga in Friends: The Reunion (2021)

[dykeyuu]

[sandmandaddy69]

[ottermatopoeia]

baja blast

[ariadneproserpina]

That dolphin pussy stuff

[thyrell]

the what

[cvberitual]

it's nothing, go back to bed

[albertsalo]

[marianhalcombes]

i like mad scientists bc i think we should all get to indulge in being gay, evil, and insufferably smart

[marianhalcombes]

no more of that “im gay and stupid” nonsense im gay and smart and im building a man that will be my downfall

[golden-aire-girl]

[doggosource]