Rosie

Here for the fucked up book recs.

[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”

[airandangels]

And do this even if you have actually done something wrong and want to take responsibility for it. Rights aren’t just for wrongly accused people and you cannot count on the police to do the right thing because you’re trying to do the right thing. You may end up charged with far more or worse than what you actually did. Even if, in the best possible scenario, you deal only with honest officers who bear you no malice, they could make honest mistakes that put you in a worse position, and you may not notice because you’re not familiar with all the rules they’re supposed to follow. Your lawyer should know all about that and can speak up for you if procedures are not followed properly. Good luck!

[nubiana-americana-deactivated20]

idk if any of this works for Black people but just gonna reblog so we at least have the knowledge

[odinsblog]

Wow. Talk about attention to detail.

Video here: https://twitter.com/javi_draws/status/965260617790738432?s=21

[mockwa]

🐯 🐯 🐯

[bunjywunjy]

good morning everyone have an absolutely furious mongoose

[ari-nemera]

It’s cuter when you recognize that the lion with visible spots is a juvenile. There’s a very high chance the other lion that runs over to investigate is the MOTHER.

The first lion is asking for comfort because she was given a big spook!!! and she needs mommy to tell her it’s safe and ok!!!! (What’s cuter is that mommy clearly reassures her, and goes on to take the parent role of ‘deal with the scream rat in order to protect my large and easily frightened daughter’)

this is all in all an adorable video 10/10

[cryoverkiltmilk]

Who Would Win?

Three apex predators

OR

One Screaming Long Boi

[lenialenient]

[ephemeraldesiderata]

WOW THIS ONE IS TOO CLOSE

[ithelpstodream]

buzz aldrin looks like he’s about to tie trump to a rocket and launch him off into space

[gluten-free-pussy]

Do it, buzz

[anarchapella]

Now that’s a facial journey

[teknon-deactivated20190112]

Some of my favorites:

[basura-official]

Its like hes going through the 5 stages of grief but he keeps flip flopping between bargaining and anger

[onlyblackgirl]

2017 mood.

[jackironsides]

I think this one is my favourite

[skylorennn]

I normally don’t reblog things like this but honestly this is one of a kind and buzz is fantastic

[ginathethundergoddess]

God bless

[okayysophia]

Saw this on Essence Magazine’s Snapchat and thought it would be helpful💕

[tumblunni]

Yeah seriously, sex education never told me any of this in school. Little me was panicked seeing the dark coloured bits and i had no clue that’s just the normal colour blood goes when its clotted or dried.

[camwyn]

I got more information about what to expect from my period blood from reading The Odyssey than I did from actual educational sources. Seriously- the first time I looked at a pad after I’d used it (this was in the days before 75% of all pads came with some kind of cover layer to keep you from coming in contact with the actual absorbent material), it was basically dark brown to nearly black thanks to having oxidized all that time, and all I could think was ‘so that’s what they meant when they described blood as ‘black blood’.’

Mind you,  I never actually got formal sex ed in school- I changed schools a few time due to moves and whatnot, and got my sex ed from books my mom gave me about the human body. Which were generally pretty accurate and informative, except for one thing that…

Well.

My mother was very informative on a lot of subjects regarding the human body, and human reproduction, and menstruation. She was great that way. So were the books.

But nobody, no book, no human, NOBODY, told me what the external stuff surrounding the general vaginal area was. NOBODY. The children’s books of the human body gave a general impression of a slight dent or divot on women. No details at all about what that was supposed to look like or what I was supposed to expect. I occasionally watched medical mystery television shows and there was one that involved a child who had been born with less-than-distinct genitalia and undescended testicles who only found out that they were 46,XY when things started developing at puberty and I started SERIOUSLY worrying about what that external region was supposed to actually be.

I didn’t find out what my external anatomy was until I sent fifty cents and a self-addressed stamped envelope to the company that produced Tampax for their booklet on ‘what to expect now that you’re menstruating’. THEY had a chart. A properly labeled one. No damn divots.

Just goes to show that even if you think you’re teaching your kid what they need to know, or giving them access to what you think they need to know… you need to seriously, genuinely consider whether there’s something else you should tell them.

[alicehaeffner]

You will be very, very sorry…. Forever.

Gotham Adventures #26

[wcreaf]

This should be the new “is your Batman remotely like Batman” test. Can your version of Batman be caring enough to hold and care for a small child, yet still menace four criminals into surrendering, and even then still not be scary enough that a civilian can just go up to him and say “hey you holding that baby wrong, you clearly do not know what you’re doing. Let me help.” And he accepts her help, doesn’t try pretend he doesn’t need help because it’d hurt his image. 

That’s Batman.

[memewhore]

[sonandheirofnothinginparticular]

[leviprime-deactivated20220203]

Crossover episode

[hexusproductions]

For the love of god please make it happen

[badjokesbyjeff]

Call me a racist if you want, but south of the border is a sea of violence, corruption and stupidity I wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole.

Keep reading

[letsstartacommune]

True

[eustasskidsx]

i encourage ya’ll to click the ‘keep reading’ 

[m--ood-deactivated20181217]

Firefighter demonstrates how to put out a kitchen fire

[chronotriggerwarning-deactivate]

Reblog to actually save a life

[dirtyteeth-deactivated20130913]

[dionesyia]

And could we throw in the fact that if you were for a sensible equality  you should be demanding not bombing anybody and not demand that just different people should have been killed?

[thegreatnessideserve]

Okay kids, gather round because you seem to be under the impression that this website owes you an education AND that your education on this subject is sufficient. Neither of those is true, but I’m gonna help you out anyway!

First, let’s discuss the “reasons for dropping the bomb” that are commonly given, but also happen to be totally wrong:

Japan wasn’t willing to surrender

Actually, Japan was totally down to surrender! America was very good at cracking Japanese codes, and had intercepted several diplomatic messages sent to other countries where Japan expressed the terms of their conditions, with the only major term being that the emperor remain in power (Which would have been necessary to ensure a peaceful transition to foreign government for the Japanese people). Harry Truman ignored these messages and prolonged the war until the completion of the atomic bomb so that it could be used. More on that later.

In his 1965 study, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (pp. 107, 108), historian Gar Alperovitz writes:

Although Japanese peace feelers had been sent out as early as September 1944 (and [China’s] Chiang Kai-shek had been approached regarding surrender possibilities in December 1944), the real effort to end the war began in the spring of 1945. This effort stressed the role of the Soviet Union …

In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.

It would have saved more lives than it took

Nah. Japan was actually on it’s last legs, and wouldn’t have been able to fight much longer at all, thanks to effective embargoes, blockades, and traditional bombing. They had all but run out of fuel, ammunition, and other war supplies.

Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

Destroying two major military targets helped us out

LOL Nagasaki and Hiroshima weren’t selected because they were military targets (Because they weren’t military targets at all!). They were selected because they were large cities where the bombs would have the most devastating affect.

President Truman steadfastly defended his use of the atomic bomb, claiming that it “saved millions of lives” by bringing the war to a quick end. Justifying his decision, he went so far as to declare: “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.”

This was a preposterous statement. In fact, almost all of the victims were civilians, and the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (issued in 1946) stated in its official report: “Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population.”

General George Marshall agreed:

Contemporary documents show that Marshall felt “these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave–telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers….”

As the document concerning Marshall’s views suggests, the question of whether the use of the atomic bomb was justified turns  … on whether the bombs had to be used against a largely civilian target rather than a strictly military target—which, in fact, was the explicit choice since although there were Japanese troops in the cities, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was deemed militarily vital by U.S. planners. (This is one of the reasons neither had been heavily bombed up to this point in the war.) Moreover, targeting [at Hiroshima and Nagasaki] was aimed explicitly on non-military facilities surrounded by workers’ homes.

Now, let’s discuss the the actual reasons for dropping the bomb:

To send a message to the Soviet Union

That’s it

It was strictly political

History.com notes:

By August 1945, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States had deteriorated badly. The Potsdam Conference between U.S. President Harry S. Truman, Russian leader Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill (before being replaced by Clement Attlee) ended just four days before the bombing of Hiroshima. The meeting was marked by recriminations and suspicion between the Americans and Soviets. Russian armies were occupying most of Eastern Europe. Truman and many of his advisers hoped that the U.S. atomic monopoly might offer diplomatic leverage with the Soviets. In this fashion, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan can be seen as the first shot of the Cold War.

New Scientist reported in 2005:

The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.

Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago wasdone more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.

New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman’s main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.

According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.

“Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” says Selden.

So let’s recap:

Harry Truman purposely killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians to make a political statement.

The US detonated the world’s first weapon of mass destruction simply to send a message to the Soviet Union and stop Red expansion into Asia.

I’m not saying the fact that one group of people (Who happened to be Asian) was viewed as disposable just to put on a show for another group of people (Who happened to also be white) is an act of racism.

I’m also not saying that we should examine the fact that no German or Italian families living in the US were put into containment camps out of fear of spies, but pretty much all Asian-Americans were (Because Asia is a country, obviously).

I AM saying that maybe you should consider that your history lessons in school were taught from books written by old white men, and they might read a little differently if they weren’t. 

Oh, and I’ll leave on this little note from President Truman’s youth. Again, I’m not saying he’s racist or anything, but…

In Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Bomb, Japanese American historian Ronald Takaki writes about the man who made the final decision to destroy two Japanese cities, President Harry Truman. This was the same man who, when he was younger, wrote the following in a letter to his future wife, Bess: I think one man is as good as another, so long as he’s honest and decent and not a nigger or a Chinaman. My uncle Will says that the Lord made a white man of dust, a n*gger from mud, then threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion that negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia, and white men in Europe and America.

Hey look, sources where you can go and educate yourself about all of this, and fact check me while you’re at it!

Hiroshima Hoax: Japan’s ‘Wllingness to Surrender Before the Bomb

The REAL Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan (It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives)

forget the whiteness of the bomb

[youngbadmanbrown-deactivated201]

deleting most of the dumb white bullshit for the historical mic drops

[ju55y-deactivated20150927]

Wow.

[nefertiti--edgeskinky]

oh my

[mxnrique]

hayley williams continues to be one of the few white women i stan.

[cr1mson5thestranger]

I love Ghost Adventures, because if you don’t believe in ghosts, it’s three grown-ass dudes scaring themselves shitless with equipment failure, and if you do believe in ghosts, it’s three grown-ass dudes antagonizing the powers of Hell.

[kintatsujo]

Me: I don’t know if I ever want to be pregnant, I’d rather adopt a kid or two that are a bit older

Someone: Are you SURE? Older adoptees present UNIQUE CHALLENGES

Me: We are discussing human beings not digital pets

[plenoptic07]

Literally every child every born and/or parented presents unique challenges. It’s like people are unique individuals…..or something………….

[kintatsujo]

An amazing and revolutionary concept

[indigo-night-wisp]

When people ask me, “Why do you want to adopt teenagers?” I always answer, “Because you asked like that.”

I’m real over it. If I become a foster mom to a 17 year old kid and I get the privilege of the option to adopt them? You better believe I am legally making that kid mine.

“They’ll be a legal adult in no time, why spend the money to adopt? They’ll be aged out of the system.”

There’s no aging out of family, Marvin.

“They might be rebellious or smoke or do drugs or steal things! What if they won’t listen to you?”

Then I guess I’ll have to step up and do some fruxking parenting, Stanley.

“You want to adopt problem children then?”

All. Children. Are. Problem. Children. If you’re not prepared to deal with the fact that at some point, any child ever, whether you birthed them yourself or adopted them at any age, could become a problem? Then you are NOT ready to have children, and should really just step off and let the people who actually want to be parents live in peace with their kids.

[tearyourcurtainsdown]

Hey I’m so glad this post is picking up

[digivolvin]

elizabeth swan and will turner are actually SO romance in the first movie and not enough people acknowledged this because the early 2000s were the age of the edgelords who only valued jack sparrow’s moral ambiguity and that is the TRUTH

[digivolvin]

the part where she’s like “how many times do i have to tell you to call me elizabeth” and he shyly says “once more, miss swann” and once she walks away he gazes adoringly after her and whispers “elizabeth” to himself like he’s unworthy of it

[digivolvin]

then when he’s patching up the cut on her hand and she flinches and he says “i know, blacksmith’s hands… they’re rough” because he thinks that’s what’s bothering her HE KNOWS HE’S NOT WORTHY OF HER!!! THAT’S THE PINING I’M TALKING ABOUT BINCH!!! I DON’T ACCEPT LESS!!!!

[digivolvin]

he has like 10 chances to confess his love to her but waits until he’s dressed like this to do it: 

my man knows 1) the importance of a good outfit when shooting your shot 2) how to ACCESSORIZE. take NOTES.

[katiezookat]

@romancingthebookworm

[capriceandwhimsy]

Will Turner was pretty sure he was going to fail to rescue Jack Sparrow, so he dressed up to the nines to do it, because if you’re going to hang for rescuing a pirate, you may as well be wearing a nice hat while you do.

[mikkeneko]

*history side of tumblr comes diving in through a window*

Funny you should say that! See, there was a thing in England for a while (maybe before this time period) where the hangman got to keep anything that was on the condemned’s body at the time they were hanged. Nice clothing, sweet hat, money in your pockets, it’s all his.

What this meant was that you could get on the hangman’s good side  by showing up to your execution in nice clothes or with money on your body. What good will getting on the hangman’s good side do you, you ask? You’ll still get hanged. Well yes, but the hangman has the option to arrange a nice clean broken neck, compared to a lingering drawn out suffocation or – as was also common – drawing and quartering.

So is that what Will is intending here by showing up in a nice suit with an expensive hat? Probably not what the film makers intended, but damn.

[digivolvin]

dress every day like you’re ready to woo your honey, do crimes, and impress an executioner

[witchyoons-remade-deactivated20]

reblog if you’re gay, shy or a fucking idiot

[chokied-deactivated20200101]

how about all three

[thestereotypebuster]

Triple threat