🔥 Popular | Latest

capsgirl19: residesatshamecentral: groot-scamander: troublesomegay: spontaneousmusicalnumber: fox-smulders: STUART SEMPLE FOUND THE PINK NARC. God this is the greatest art feud of our time. Read the conditions of settlement. It’s gold. Captioned because even I’m having trouble reading this: [A screenshot from snapchat of a document that is cut off on the extreme edges, erasing the first and last two or three letters from each line. Doing my best to correctly transcribe] Breach of terms of service: culturehustle.comIllegal acquisition on behalf of Anish Kapoor of the World’s Pinkest Pink Dear Sirs, I am aware that you represent Mr. Anish Kapoor, and I write today not to dob him in so that you can tell him off but rather to try and resolve this matter. Unlike Kapoor I am not one to ‘point the finger’ however on this occasion it has become important to do so.  I hold your gallery in the highest esteem, I am a fan of several of your artists, but on this occasion you have been extremely naughty. You have been part of a conspiracy to obtain my PINK and provide Mr. Kapoor with it. We have now finished fully researching this situation and it has come to your attention that you have been part of a conspiracy to obtain my PINK and provide Mr. Kapoor with it enabling him to exploit the substance against my wishes. Further, this juvenile behavior made much of the wider artistic community sad thanks to his extremely petty and childish post on Instagram.  The terms of service on my site CultureHustle.com are incredibly clear:Quote: By adding this product to your cart you agree that you are not Anish Kapoor, you are in no way affiliated with Anish Kapoor, you are not purchasing this item on behalf of Anish Kapoor or an associate of Anish Kapoor. To the best of your knowledge, information and belief this product will not make its way into that hands of Anish Kapoor.  In direct violation to the above, on 10th of December 2016 a person by the name of Mr [Blanked out] placed an order via the culturehustle.com website, for one jar of PINK at 5:36 am. This order was placed on behalf of your gallery and was delivered to the Lisson Gallery in London at 11:38 am on the 13th of December. Shortly after which your gallery provided Mr. Kapoor with the substance and on the 23rd of December 2016 Mr. Kapoor posted a photograph on Instagram showing he was indeed in possession of the substance, he also included the caption ‘Up Yours’. The comments on this post clearly demonstrate the negative impact such a gesture has had upon a wide community. He needs to say sorry for hurting everyone’s feelings. I remind you, hoarding colours and stealing other people’s colours without asking nicely isn’t big -rd it’s simply bad.  I said I think it would be best to resolve this matter amicably without this silly business escalating any further. However, if we are unable to resolve this in a timely and grown up way I am fully prepared to take further action which will no doubt become stressful and expensive.  Therefore I would appreciate it if:1. Your gallery would say sorry for giving my pink to Mr. Kapoor. 2. Mr. Kapoor would give me my pink back. I don’t want him to have it. 3. He will write 100 times, ‘I will be nice, I will share my colours’ and he will post the same to his Instagram. Failing the above, an agreeable settlement would also be:1. The reimbursement of $3.99 (the cost of PINK minus shipping)2. And Mr. Kapoor to void his exclusive agreement to the use of Vanta Black in art. If you were to settle as above I will be more than happy to share all my colours with him, so he doesn’t feel left out and can join in with the rest of us. I look forward to resolving this matter.  Yours, Stuart Semple Thank you for captioning this! I’d seen it before but never been able to read it. Alright this is hilarious because Since they broke contract, he can sue them To avoid getting sued, they need to humilate themselves publicly AND convince Kapoor to do likewise If they don’t want to humiliate themselves and avoid getting sued, they need to convince Kapoor to give up his color copyright Stuart Semple everybody! I… oh my gods this was always the plan. An irresistible Trojan horse. Of course Kapoor would get his hands on it, that was only a matter of time, and now Semple’s backed them into a corner. Is this what watching chess feels like? : stuartsemple 23m And the narc is... Send Message : X stuartsemple 23m The Lisson Gallery Send Message stuartsemple 23m Stuart Semp e Directors SSON GALLERY -54 Bell Street ndon, NW1 5DA mail and email to: contact@lissongallery.com BREACH OF TERMS OF SERVICE: CULTUREHUSTLE.COM ILLEGAL ACQUISITION ON BEHALF OF ANISH KAPOOR OF THE WORLD'S EST PINK PII ear Sirs aware that you represent Mr. Anish Kapoor, and I write today not to dob him in so that yo n tell him off but rather to try and resolve this matter. Unlike Kapoor I am not one to 'point th ger however on this occasion it has become important to do so old your gallery in the highest esteem, I am a fan of several of your artists, but on this casion you have been extremely naughty. You have been part of a conspiracy to illegally tain my PINK and provide Mr. Kapoor with it e have now finished fully researching this situation and it has come to our attention that you we been part of a conspiracy to obtain my PINK and provide Mr. Kapoor with it enabling him exploit the substance against my wishes. Further, this juvenile behaviour made much of the der artistic community sad thanks to his extremely childish and petty post on instagram e terms of service on my site CultureHustle.com are incredibly clear Hote: By way affiliated to Anish Kapoor, you are not purchasing this item on behalf of Anish Kapoor associate of Anish Kapoor. To the best of your knowledge, information and belief this paint Il not make its way into that hands of Anish Kapoor this duct to your cart you confim that you are not Anish Kapoor, you are direct violation to the above, on 10th of December 2016 a person by the name of Mr placed an order via the culturehustle.com website, for one jar of PINK at 5.36am. This Send Message stuartsemple 22m der was placed on behalf of your gallery and was duly delivered to The Lisson Gallery in ndon at 11.38am on the 13th of December. Shortly after which your gallery provided Mr. poor with the substance and on 23rd of December 2016 Mr. Kapoor posted a photograph or stagram showing he was indeed in possession of the substance, he also included the captio p Yours. The comments on this post clearly demonstrate the negative impact such a gesture shad upon a whole community. He needs to say sorry for hurting everyone's feelings. emind you, hoarding colours & stealing other people's colours without asking nicely isn't big rd it's simply bad. i said I think it would be best to resolve this matter amicably without this silly business calating any further. However, if we are unable to resolve this in a timely and grown up way n fully prepared to take further action which will no doubt become stressful and expensive. erefore I would appreciate it if: 1. Your gallery would say sorry for giving my pink to Mr. Kapoor 2 Mr. Kapoor would give me my PINK back. I don't want him to have it 3. He will write 100 lines 'I will be nice, I will share my colours and he will post the same his instagram iling the above, an agreeable settlement would also be 1. The re-imbursement of £3.99 (the cost of the PINK minus shipping) 2 And Mr. Kapoor to void his exclusive agreement over the use of Vanta Black in art. you were to settle as above I will be more than happy to share all my colours with him, so he esn't feel left out and can join in with the rest of us. ok forward to resolving this matter ours uart Semple Send Message capsgirl19: residesatshamecentral: groot-scamander: troublesomegay: spontaneousmusicalnumber: fox-smulders: STUART SEMPLE FOUND THE PINK NARC. God this is the greatest art feud of our time. Read the conditions of settlement. It’s gold. Captioned because even I’m having trouble reading this: [A screenshot from snapchat of a document that is cut off on the extreme edges, erasing the first and last two or three letters from each line. Doing my best to correctly transcribe] Breach of terms of service: culturehustle.comIllegal acquisition on behalf of Anish Kapoor of the World’s Pinkest Pink Dear Sirs, I am aware that you represent Mr. Anish Kapoor, and I write today not to dob him in so that you can tell him off but rather to try and resolve this matter. Unlike Kapoor I am not one to ‘point the finger’ however on this occasion it has become important to do so.  I hold your gallery in the highest esteem, I am a fan of several of your artists, but on this occasion you have been extremely naughty. You have been part of a conspiracy to obtain my PINK and provide Mr. Kapoor with it. We have now finished fully researching this situation and it has come to your attention that you have been part of a conspiracy to obtain my PINK and provide Mr. Kapoor with it enabling him to exploit the substance against my wishes. Further, this juvenile behavior made much of the wider artistic community sad thanks to his extremely petty and childish post on Instagram.  The terms of service on my site CultureHustle.com are incredibly clear:Quote: By adding this product to your cart you agree that you are not Anish Kapoor, you are in no way affiliated with Anish Kapoor, you are not purchasing this item on behalf of Anish Kapoor or an associate of Anish Kapoor. To the best of your knowledge, information and belief this product will not make its way into that hands of Anish Kapoor.  In direct violation to the above, on 10th of December 2016 a person by the name of Mr [Blanked out] placed an order via the culturehustle.com website, for one jar of PINK at 5:36 am. This order was placed on behalf of your gallery and was delivered to the Lisson Gallery in London at 11:38 am on the 13th of December. Shortly after which your gallery provided Mr. Kapoor with the substance and on the 23rd of December 2016 Mr. Kapoor posted a photograph on Instagram showing he was indeed in possession of the substance, he also included the caption ‘Up Yours’. The comments on this post clearly demonstrate the negative impact such a gesture has had upon a wide community. He needs to say sorry for hurting everyone’s feelings. I remind you, hoarding colours and stealing other people’s colours without asking nicely isn’t big -rd it’s simply bad.  I said I think it would be best to resolve this matter amicably without this silly business escalating any further. However, if we are unable to resolve this in a timely and grown up way I am fully prepared to take further action which will no doubt become stressful and expensive.  Therefore I would appreciate it if:1. Your gallery would say sorry for giving my pink to Mr. Kapoor. 2. Mr. Kapoor would give me my pink back. I don’t want him to have it. 3. He will write 100 times, ‘I will be nice, I will share my colours’ and he will post the same to his Instagram. Failing the above, an agreeable settlement would also be:1. The reimbursement of $3.99 (the cost of PINK minus shipping)2. And Mr. Kapoor to void his exclusive agreement to the use of Vanta Black in art. If you were to settle as above I will be more than happy to share all my colours with him, so he doesn’t feel left out and can join in with the rest of us. I look forward to resolving this matter.  Yours, Stuart Semple Thank you for captioning this! I’d seen it before but never been able to read it. Alright this is hilarious because Since they broke contract, he can sue them To avoid getting sued, they need to humilate themselves publicly AND convince Kapoor to do likewise If they don’t want to humiliate themselves and avoid getting sued, they need to convince Kapoor to give up his color copyright Stuart Semple everybody! I… oh my gods this was always the plan. An irresistible Trojan horse. Of course Kapoor would get his hands on it, that was only a matter of time, and now Semple’s backed them into a corner. Is this what watching chess feels like?

capsgirl19: residesatshamecentral: groot-scamander: troublesomegay: spontaneousmusicalnumber: fox-smulders: STUART SEMPLE FOUND THE...

Save
demolitonlover: Blunt Magazine, February 2009 (x x) Additional record review which was not scanned and received 8 out of 10:When guitarist for New Jersey pretty boys My Chemical Romance, Frank Iero, gets some time away from the band, he likes to relax by getting down in his basement with his other band and screaming till the veins pop out in his forehead. He’s been doing this for the past few years, making recordings with some friends under the banner, LeATHERMOUTH. XO, the full-length debut by the side-project, is brutal hardcore with raw, savage production (it really was recorded in Iero’s basement) and lyrics that are matched for passion and aggression by the guttural delivery. There’s no pop hooks, no emo choruses - nothing to cry over, but plenty to get you fired up. While on one hand it’s sure to attract a lot of curious My Chem fans, mayn of whom are sure to either disappointed or downright frightened, this connection mean it’s also liable to miss its target market slightly due to the fact that regular fans of this type of raging hardcore are sure to be put off by Iero’s day job. Too bad for the snobs who think that way - they’re missing out big time. : LEATHERMOUTH BLUNT # 77 TO BE QUITE FRANK a singer and maybe we'll do a record. So they had a friend they tried out on vocals but it didn't work out because he didn't write any lyrics. So they were just like, "We're probably gonna scrap the band. I was like There's no way you can kill this band!' Iasked them to have one practice with me singing. I convinced them to book a practice studio on a weekend and I wrote a few lyrics and we had a practice and that was it." For a long time LeATHERMOUTH was a studio-only project, recording in lero's basement during times when he wasn't touring the world with The Black Parade. "We recorded everything with me and Rob (Hughes) and couple of other guys. Now it's like two years later and it's just me Rob left. The rest of guys that started the band, a couple went off and started another band, "The world is full of people that are hiding from thestuff that's going on in the world today.I wanted to attack these things head-on."-Frank lero that broke up, some people got married, moved away, whatever. So when we wanted to tour, we recruited James DeWees (Get Up Kids, Reggie & The Full Effect) to play drums, my friend John Maguire to play bass and my other friend, Eddie Auletta, to play guitar." Signed to indie godhead Epitaph/Shock, LeATHER MOUTH will release their debut full-length, XO, this January. Subscribing to an unwavering musical aes thetic of relentless, heavy hardcore punk, XO's lyrical tirades are directed towards everyone from the cops to drug dealers to the government to school bullies. With very little melodic ambition to speak of, lero screams like a man literally bursting with things to say. On the touring side of things, the band completed a mini US tour in September with Reggie & The Full Effect, followed in December by four dates support- ing Mindless Self Indulgence "That was a thing where convenience came into play," lero says of the brief bouts of touring. "My Chem was on tour, so of course my good friend James DeWees was on tour with us, he plays keyboards with My Chem. We were talking about doing other bands and stuff, we'd been practicing on the road and we decided a LeATHERMOUTH tour would be cool. James HOLD ONTO YOUR FRINGES MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE FANS FRANK IERO IS ONE PISSED OFF DUDE AND LEATHERMOUTH IS ONE PISSED-OFF SIDE-PROJECT. BY MATT REEKIE hallenging an audience to think is tanta- mount to commercial suicide in the rock game. So it's a damn lucky thing that shift ing units was the last thing on My Chemical Romance guitarist Frank lero's mind when he conceived LeATHERMOUTH Pissed off at the world and all the evil sons of bitches in it, LeATHERMOUTH is set to inflame debate both musical and political. The group's hardcore punk sound is too brutal and unrelenting to appeal to a mass audience, but that's beside the point as far as My Chem then for one, they would probably be really disappointed and two, very offended. "Another reason I wanted to keep it anonymouUS is because I was a little scared of what people would think. But on the other hand, I don't want to run away from anything or pretend that I didn't say some of the things I've said. The world is full of people that are hid- ing from the stuff that's going on in the world today. wanted to attack these things head-on. People are so PC, parents want to shield their kids' eyes to what's actually going on, and I think that's just adding to the misery that's running rampant in the world today." Formed in New Jersey in 2007 by some friends of lero, including Rob Hughes, LeATHERMOUTH could just as easily have never happened. To hear lero explain the whole story, one starts to understand how much his own personal passion and drive brought the thing to life. Clearly,he needed this outlet "It was actually right before [My Chemical Ro- mance] recorded The Black Parade," he begins. "I was back home, we had taken some time off, and a couple of my friends were thinking of starting a new band. "I remember it like it was yesterday. It was right before we were going to see a movie; we were in the parking lot of the movies and we all crowded into their Volkswagen. They played me this 3 song demo, there were no vocals or anything like that, just simple verse- chorus punk rock, and I was like, Wow, how can I be involved with this band? "I have my record label, Skeleton Crew that Irun with a few friends so I told these guys they should find was going to do a Reggie & The Full Effect tour, so we decided that I'd play in Reggie with him and we'd both do LeATHERMOUTH "We had done a few shows here and there but it never felt real until we did the Reggie & The Full Effect tour. It actually felt like the band was finally doing things after two years of just recording in my basement. All these emotions started to come out and the shows just got better every day. By the time we were like, 'This is turning into something incred- ible,' the tour was over. We were like, "We need to lero is concerned book something else.' But then life comes in and you have to do certain things." These "certain things" for lero include his duties with My Chemical Romance, which will almost certainly ensure that LeATHERMOUTH gigs are fewer and farther between in 2009. It remains to be seen whether the thrashy hardcore sound of LeATHERMOUTH will influence lero's con- tribution to the new MCR album. He's fairly certain it won't, but he's not ruling anything out "That's the thing with My Chem, you never say never because anything can come out.I don't know what will "If I kept this inside any longer, I would probably explode," he says flatly of the project, which features himself on vocals alongside an old Jersey friend, Rob Hughes, on guitar LeATHERMOUTH inhabits a completely different realm to the highly commercial one ruled over by My Chemical Romance. Likewise, it's a long way from the singer/songwriter folk ballads, electronica dabbling, or white boy rap that so often rear their ugly heads when members of popular rock bands embark upon side-projects. LEATHERMOUTH is all about hard, fast LEATHERMOUTH and raw punk rock. "It's not better than My Chem, it's not worse than My Chem, it's just different, and I really feel like I need both," lero states. In an effort to soften the blow for MCR fans, he stresses that the two bands could not be more dissimilar. "Originally I thought maybe l'd keep it completely anonymous. I thought if people would automatically check this out solely because they like ATHEAMAUTH Xo happen. Maybe we'll throw a heavy-ass breakdown on the new record? I'd put my money on no, but you never can tell." B XO is out on January 24th on Epitaph through Shock. demolitonlover: Blunt Magazine, February 2009 (x x) Additional record review which was not scanned and received 8 out of 10:When guitarist for New Jersey pretty boys My Chemical Romance, Frank Iero, gets some time away from the band, he likes to relax by getting down in his basement with his other band and screaming till the veins pop out in his forehead. He’s been doing this for the past few years, making recordings with some friends under the banner, LeATHERMOUTH. XO, the full-length debut by the side-project, is brutal hardcore with raw, savage production (it really was recorded in Iero’s basement) and lyrics that are matched for passion and aggression by the guttural delivery. There’s no pop hooks, no emo choruses - nothing to cry over, but plenty to get you fired up. While on one hand it’s sure to attract a lot of curious My Chem fans, mayn of whom are sure to either disappointed or downright frightened, this connection mean it’s also liable to miss its target market slightly due to the fact that regular fans of this type of raging hardcore are sure to be put off by Iero’s day job. Too bad for the snobs who think that way - they’re missing out big time.
Save
libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation. : 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.
Save
squided: tlitookilakin: engineer-pearl0: tastefullyoffensive: “Not use collective punishment as it is not fair on the many people who did nothing and under the 1949 Geneva Conventions it is a war crime.” Wait it’s a fucking WAR CRIME?!?! I mean that might not be 100% accurate but now I gotta know holy crap, collective punishment is a war crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Collective_punishments and according to the exact legal phrasing- No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. This technically counts, as students are civilians, and thus considered a “protected person”. So yes, collective classroom punishment breaks the fourth Geneva Convention, and she should be rewarded for standing up for human rights and doing her research. Power-move: accuse your teacher of a war crime using knowledge they supplied you with : Mason Cross @MasonCrossBooks My daughter actually submitted this feedback at school. Not sure if I shoulo ground her or buy her ice cream... Things my teacher(s) can do better. squided: tlitookilakin: engineer-pearl0: tastefullyoffensive: “Not use collective punishment as it is not fair on the many people who did nothing and under the 1949 Geneva Conventions it is a war crime.” Wait it’s a fucking WAR CRIME?!?! I mean that might not be 100% accurate but now I gotta know holy crap, collective punishment is a war crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Collective_punishments and according to the exact legal phrasing- No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. This technically counts, as students are civilians, and thus considered a “protected person”. So yes, collective classroom punishment breaks the fourth Geneva Convention, and she should be rewarded for standing up for human rights and doing her research. Power-move: accuse your teacher of a war crime using knowledge they supplied you with
Save
squided: tlitookilakin: engineer-pearl0: tastefullyoffensive: “Not use collective punishment as it is not fair on the many people who did nothing and under the 1949 Geneva Conventions it is a war crime.” Wait it’s a fucking WAR CRIME?!?! I mean that might not be 100% accurate but now I gotta know holy crap, collective punishment is a war crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Collective_punishments and according to the exact legal phrasing- No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. This technically counts, as students are civilians, and thus considered a “protected person”. So yes, collective classroom punishment breaks the fourth Geneva Convention, and she should be rewarded for standing up for human rights and doing her research. Power-move: accuse your teacher of a war crime using knowledge they supplied you with : Mason Cross @MasonCrossBooks My daughter actually submitted this feedback at school. Not sure if I shoulo ground her or buy her ice cream... Things my teacher(s) can do better. squided: tlitookilakin: engineer-pearl0: tastefullyoffensive: “Not use collective punishment as it is not fair on the many people who did nothing and under the 1949 Geneva Conventions it is a war crime.” Wait it’s a fucking WAR CRIME?!?! I mean that might not be 100% accurate but now I gotta know holy crap, collective punishment is a war crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Collective_punishments and according to the exact legal phrasing- No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. This technically counts, as students are civilians, and thus considered a “protected person”. So yes, collective classroom punishment breaks the fourth Geneva Convention, and she should be rewarded for standing up for human rights and doing her research. Power-move: accuse your teacher of a war crime using knowledge they supplied you with
Save