Jesika'sRadtasticBlog @radtasticjesika - Tumblr Blog

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”

luckyfaeth

gays: what if she cuts her hair lmao

brie: *cuts hair*

gays:

luckyfaeth

whats the opposite of the 7 stages of grief because im experiencing that

luckyfaeth

i’ve been informed by my roommate that there are only 5 stages of grief. i apologize for my mistake, but brie larson made me add on 2 stages of opposite grief

luckyfaeth

5 stages of opposite grief

approval, delight, resigning, mania, disbelief

luckyfaeth

the additional two bonus stages are gay and jkdsflskdnfladnfoidsfngslkdfng

stolentweets

benepla-deactivated20200506

can we give it up for Suzanne Collins for fucking off into oblivion with her money after hunger games fucking destroyed the YA market for like 6 years. everything YA was dystopian “EVERYONES IN A DIFFERENT QUADRANT” shit from 2010 to 2016 and we didnt hear a peep from her. true fucking power.

ruby-white-rabbit

And she hasn’t said a word since. Rowling could take some pointers

galaxiepresdechezvous

Yeah but in Collins defense, her book was really good. She perfectly showed PTSD, Katnis trauma from when her mom mentally “abandoned” her when her dad died and the parallel with Katnis depression at the end of the series, perfectly depicted the society and its inherent problems, Finick’s back story, socio-economic disparities based on skin colour, Rue and the 11th district, President Coin and how she was as bad as Snow but in an other angle, distrinct 13 and the capitol trying to use her image for the war even though she did want to, and way more stuff I can’t think of right now.

I mean the following Y/A distopian books were mostly bad knock off who thought that the reason the HG had such success was because of the love triangle, but in reality Collins created such a complexe yet very realistic world that makes a parallel to our society of entretainment and war

whatisthisplaceidonteven

The Hunger Games was baby’s first intro to social justice for a lot of kids back in the early 2010s. They were brilliant books that introduced a lot of complicated concepts in a way teens could understand and enjoy - plus, addictive, well-plotted adventure stories with A+ characterization and worldbuilding. But all the general public seems to remember about them is the love triangle, and I will always be salty about that.

princecaviar-deactivated2022113

The irony of the Hunger Games is that the media in the book and the media in the real world both chose to focus on the love story instead of the rebellion.

corisanna

One of my favorite aspects of the book series was the way it dissected the art/science of propaganda/media and the often stark differences in popular figures’ public and private personas. The movies also got that frighteningly correct. Propaganda to oppress and propaganda to uplift were laid side-by-side and used as foils to show how the techniques work to achieve the desired purpose. The direct invocation of “panem et circenses” (”bread and circuses,” keeping a population docile by controlling/bestowing distractions regarding food and entertainment) made the point all the clearer. “Look. This is what is being done to distract you.”

Having Katniss– the symbol of The Common Person at the bottom of the societal hierarchy who most heavily bears the brunt of oppression– be stiff and awful at scripted propos but a fucking goddess at unscripted, passionately angry speeches and stoking reflection and resistance and rebellion was very deliberate. It is a call to be genuine, to question media narratives and seek facts, to take a long, hard, honest look beyond the sparkling lights and glamor projected by the media to really see and take the downtrodden seriously before their collective patience wears thin enough to snap and they bring out the bombs. Or guillotines, if you want to look at IRL history.

One of my favorite scenes in the series is in Catching Fire: the interviews with the Victors being forced to take part in the Quarter Quell. Especially with the visuals of the movie. The entire thing builds up to when Peeta “drops the baby bomb” and the audience breaks into dismayed/horrified pandemonium and there are calls by the privileged to stop the injustice; it is an escalating series of oppressed, re-victimized individuals turning their glamorized re-victimization into a platform to scream their humanity at the citizens of the Capitol until it seems to finally start seeping in. Stanley Tucci play’s Caesar Flickerman’s growing discomfort perfectly; IIRC, his calling for the lights and cameras to be cut when the Victors show unity is to use the gesture of slitting a throat. It’s a common gesture, but in this case it has a greater weight: “Cut this, kill it, don’t let people see it, these people we’ve set up to hate each other joining hands in united defiance is dangerous.”

That also veers off into an extended lesson in “the powers that be seek to divide you and turn you against each other to keep you weak.” In modern terms, you can see it in such things as “wow why should burger-flippers get raises to earn more than the legit heroes who fight crime and save lives and defend our country?” to turn those groups against each other on the basis of accepted social hierarchy instead of talking together and coming to a consensus of, “You know, we’re ALL getting screwed and should ALL make more money; let’s work together to achieve that.”

It is highly relevant to this period of civilization. It resonates with the masses. That resonance is amorphous; allowing it to gel into something more solid could erode media/propagandist influence. Thus, whether conscious or just the nature of the beast,

“LOOK AT THE LOVE TRIANGLE! ROMANCE! FOCUS ON THE ROMANCE! ISN’T IT ROMANTIC?! THINKING ABOUT THE DEEPER STUFF IS UNCOMFORTABLE, SO LOOK AT THE BEAUTIFUL WOMAN AND HANDSOME MEN AND CHOOSE A SIDE AND FIGHT FOR IT! R-O-M-A-N-C-E-!”

In other words, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”

In other words, “Let’s play up the circus part of panem et circenses.”

It’s like a social ourobouros. I observe it with a sort of morbid fascination.

loonycentaur

The Hunger Games was perfect and Suzanne Collins wrote it to be a reflection of our society and her characters were realistic and had representation in the original book