deception

šŸ”„ | Latest

Blade, Blessed, and Books: The Elder Scrolls III The elder Scrolls MORROWINTD MORROWIND e9 Do not mm ORK Media company.The Elder Scrolls, Morrowind Bink Video, Copynight 1997-2001 by RAD Game of the Year Edition mvention of copy pro strictly prohibited.Confide SAFETY INFORMATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Main Menu Gameplay Controls The Game Screen Stats Menu Inventory Menu Magic Menu Map Menu Races Attributes Derived Attributes Combat Arts ABOUT PHOTOSENSITIVE SEIZURES A very small percentage of people may visual images, including flashing lights or patterns that may appear Even people who have no history of seizures or epilepsy may have a condition that can cause these photosensitve epileptic seizures while watching video experience a seizure when exposed to certain in video games. n undiagnosed These seizures may have a variety of symptoms including: lightheadedness vision, eye or face twitching, jerking or shaking of arms or legs, disorientation entation confusion, or momentary loss of awareness. Seizures may also cause loss of consciousness or convulsions that can lead to injury from falling down or strikina nearby objects. 16 mmediately stop playing and consult a doctor if you experience any of these symptoms Parents should watch for or ask their children about hildren and teenagers are more likely than adults to experience these seizures. The the above symptoms. 19 Stealth Arts of photosensitive epileptic seizures may be reduced by sitting farther from the using a smaller television screen, playing in a well-lit room, and not Combat Classes Magic Classes Stealth Classes en you are drowsy or fatigued of your relatives have a history of seizures or epilepsy, consult a doctor Increasing Your Skills and Leveling Up Weapons R IMPORTANT HEALTH AND SAFETY INFORMATION 28 29 30 .30 30 ox Instruction Manual contains important safety and health information that Using Weapons, Repairing Weapons & Armor u should read and understand before using this software School of Conjuration VOID DAMAGE TO YOUR TELEVISION School of Illusion School of Destruction not use with certain televisions. Some televisions, especially front- or rear-projection pes, can be damaged if any video games, including Xbox games, are played on them. tatic images presented during the normal course of game play may burn in to the creen, causing a permanent shadow of the static image to appear at all times, even when video games are not being played. Similar damage may occur from static images eated when placing a video game on hold or pause. Consult your television owner's nanual to determine if video games can be safely played safely on your set. If you are unable to find this information in the owner's manual, contact your television dealer or School of Restoration School of Mysticism School of Alteration Abilities, Powers, Diseases, Spells. 34 35 36 Magic Items, Magic Scrolls Spellmaking Enchanting 39 the manufacturer to determine if video games can be played safely on your set. I Unauthorized copying, reverse engineering, transmission, public performance, rental, Potions, Alchemy Stealth pay for play, or circumvention of copy protection is strictly prohibited 42 Books, Journal. Containers, Resting and Waiting, Fast Travel, Crime and Jail. Loading and Saving Preferences Credits .46 The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind The Elder ScI: Morrowind CREATING YOUR CHARACTER When you first start, you mu entered in your Name, you'l be asked to select a Race, Class, and Bithsign ist decide what kind of player you will be. After you've DARK ELF In the Empire, "Dark Elf is the common usage, but in their Morrowind homeland, they call themselves the "Dunmer." The dark-skinned, red-eyed Dunmer combine powerful intellect with strong and agile physiques, producing superior warriors and sorcerers. On the battlefield, Dark Elves are noted for their skilled and balanced integration of swordsmen, marksmen, and war wizards. RACES You may choose from 10 races commonly encountered in MORROWIND. Since each race has unique abilities, selecting your race is one of the most important decisions vou'll make. ARGONIAN Little is known and less is understood about the reptilian denizens of Black Marsh. Years of defending their borders have made the Argonians experts in guerilla warfare, and their Skill Bonuses: Long Blade +5, Destruction +10, Light Armor +5, Athletics +5, Mysticism +5, Marksman +5, Short Blade +10 Specials: Ancestor Guardian, Resistant to Fire natural abilities make them equally at home in water and on land. They are well suited for the treacherous swamps of their homeland, and have developed natural immunities to the diseases and poisons that have doomed many would-be explorers of the region. HIGH ELF The High Elves, or Altmer, are the proud, tall, golden- skinned peoples of Summerset Isle. The common tongue of the Empire, Tamrielic, is based on their speech and writing, and most of the Empire's arts, crafts, and sciences are derived from High Elven traditions. Deft, intelligent, and strong-willed, High Elves are often gifted in the arcane arts, and are far more resistant to disease than the lesser races. Skill Bonuses: Alchemy +5, Athletics +15,Illusion +5, Medium Armor +5, Mysticism +5 Spear +5, Unarmored+5 Specials: Resist Disease, Immune to Poison, Water Breathing Skill: Destruction +10, Enchant +10, Alchemy +10, Alteration +5, Conjuration +5,Illusion +5 Specials: Fortified Maximum Magicka, Weakness to Magicka, Fire, Frost, and Shock, Resistant to Disease BRETON Bretons feel an inborn, instinctive bond with the mercurial forces of magic and the supernatural. Many great sorcerers have IMPERIAL Natives of the civilized, cosmopolitan province of Cyrodiil, the Imperials are well-educated and well- spoken. Though physically less imposing than the other races, the Imperials have proved to be shrewd diplomats and traders. These traits, along with their remarkable skill and training as light infantry, have enabled them to subdue all the other provinces and to have erected the monument to peace and prosperity that comprises the Glorious Empire. from the home province of High Rock, and in addition to their quick and perceptive grasp of spellcraft, enchantment, and alchemy, even the humblest of Bretons boast a high resistance to destructive and dominating magical energies. Skill Bonuses: Conjuration +10, Mysticism +10, Restoration +10, Alchemy +5, Alteration +5 Illusion +5 pecials: Fortified Maximum Magicka, Dragon Skin, Resist Magicka SKILL BONUSES: Speechcraft+10, Mercantile+10, Long Blade +10, Blunt Weapon +S, Light Armor +5, Hand to Hand +5 SPECIALS: Star of the West, Voice of the Emperor The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind 13 The Elder crlsIII: Morowind BIRTHSIGNS In Tamriel, persons born under certain constellations are said to be fortunate in their aspects', Such persons are often blessed-or cursed- with remarkable abilities or weaknesses as a result of the magical conjunctions of celestĆ­al influences. STEALTH SPECIALIZED CLASSES THIEVES Thieves are pickpockets and pilferers. Unlike robbers, who kill and loot, thieves typically choose stealth and subterfuge over violence, and often entertain romantic notions of their charm and in their acquisitive activities cleverness THE APPRENTICE Those bom under the sign of The Apprentice have increased Magicka, but also have a weakness to it. AGENTS atives skilled in deception and avoidance, but dasTHE ATRONACH trained in self-defense and the use of deadly force. Self-reliant and independent, agents devote themselves to personal goals, or to various patrons or causes. Those born under the sign of The Atronach cannot regenerate Magicka, but have a chance of absorbing any magic cast at them. THE LADY Those born under the sign of The Lady have increased Endurande and Personality. ASSASSINS Assassins are killers who rely on stealth and mobility to approach victims undetected. Execution is performed with ranged weapons or with short blades for close work. Assassins can be ruthless murderers or principled agents of noble causes. THE LORD Those born under the sign of The Lord can regenerate Health, but are weak to fire THE LOVER Those born under the sign of The Lover have increased Agility and can paralyze others with a kiss. ACROBATS AcrobaÅ„' is a polite euphemism for agile burglars and second-story men, These thieves avoid detection by stealth, and rely on mobility and cunning to avoid capture. THE MAGE Those born under the sign of The Mage have increased Magicka. MONKS Monks are students of the ancient martial arts of hand-to-hand combat and unarmored self-defense. Monks avoid detection by stealth, mobility, and agility, and are skilled with a variety of ranged and close-combat weapons. THE RITUAL Those born under the sign of The Ritual can heal themselves and turn undead. THE SERPENT Those born under the sign of The Serpent can poison others at a loss of PILGRIMS Pilgrims are travelers, seekers of truth and enlightenment. They fortify themselves for road and wilderness with arms, armor, and magic, and through wide experience of the world, they become shrewd in commerce and persuasion their own Health. THE SHADOW Those born under the sign of The Shadow can make themselves invisible. THE STEED Those born under the sign of The Steed can move faster BARDS Bards are loremasters and storytellers. They crave adventure for the wisdom and insight to be gained, and must depend on sword shield, spell, and enchantment to preserve them from the perils of their educational experiences THE THIEF Those born under the sign of The Thief are harder to hit. THE TOWER detect things at a distance. Those born under the sign of The Warrior have an increased chance Those born under the sign of The Tower can unlock doors magically and THE WARRIOR 25 I miss the days when games came with manuals
Blade, Blessed, and Books: The Elder Scrolls III The elder Scrolls MORROWINTD MORROWIND e9 Do not mm ORK Media company.The Elder Scrolls, Morrowind Bink Video, Copynight 1997-2001 by RAD Game of the Year Edition mvention of copy pro strictly prohibited.Confide SAFETY INFORMATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Main Menu Gameplay Controls The Game Screen Stats Menu Inventory Menu Magic Menu Map Menu Races Attributes Derived Attributes Combat Arts ABOUT PHOTOSENSITIVE SEIZURES A very small percentage of people may visual images, including flashing lights or patterns that may appear Even people who have no history of seizures or epilepsy may have a condition that can cause these photosensitve epileptic seizures while watching video experience a seizure when exposed to certain in video games. n undiagnosed These seizures may have a variety of symptoms including: lightheadedness vision, eye or face twitching, jerking or shaking of arms or legs, disorientation entation confusion, or momentary loss of awareness. Seizures may also cause loss of consciousness or convulsions that can lead to injury from falling down or strikina nearby objects. 16 mmediately stop playing and consult a doctor if you experience any of these symptoms Parents should watch for or ask their children about hildren and teenagers are more likely than adults to experience these seizures. The the above symptoms. 19 Stealth Arts of photosensitive epileptic seizures may be reduced by sitting farther from the using a smaller television screen, playing in a well-lit room, and not Combat Classes Magic Classes Stealth Classes en you are drowsy or fatigued of your relatives have a history of seizures or epilepsy, consult a doctor Increasing Your Skills and Leveling Up Weapons R IMPORTANT HEALTH AND SAFETY INFORMATION 28 29 30 .30 30 ox Instruction Manual contains important safety and health information that Using Weapons, Repairing Weapons & Armor u should read and understand before using this software School of Conjuration VOID DAMAGE TO YOUR TELEVISION School of Illusion School of Destruction not use with certain televisions. Some televisions, especially front- or rear-projection pes, can be damaged if any video games, including Xbox games, are played on them. tatic images presented during the normal course of game play may burn in to the creen, causing a permanent shadow of the static image to appear at all times, even when video games are not being played. Similar damage may occur from static images eated when placing a video game on hold or pause. Consult your television owner's nanual to determine if video games can be safely played safely on your set. If you are unable to find this information in the owner's manual, contact your television dealer or School of Restoration School of Mysticism School of Alteration Abilities, Powers, Diseases, Spells. 34 35 36 Magic Items, Magic Scrolls Spellmaking Enchanting 39 the manufacturer to determine if video games can be played safely on your set. I Unauthorized copying, reverse engineering, transmission, public performance, rental, Potions, Alchemy Stealth pay for play, or circumvention of copy protection is strictly prohibited 42 Books, Journal. Containers, Resting and Waiting, Fast Travel, Crime and Jail. Loading and Saving Preferences Credits .46 The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind The Elder ScI: Morrowind CREATING YOUR CHARACTER When you first start, you mu entered in your Name, you'l be asked to select a Race, Class, and Bithsign ist decide what kind of player you will be. After you've DARK ELF In the Empire, "Dark Elf is the common usage, but in their Morrowind homeland, they call themselves the "Dunmer." The dark-skinned, red-eyed Dunmer combine powerful intellect with strong and agile physiques, producing superior warriors and sorcerers. On the battlefield, Dark Elves are noted for their skilled and balanced integration of swordsmen, marksmen, and war wizards. RACES You may choose from 10 races commonly encountered in MORROWIND. Since each race has unique abilities, selecting your race is one of the most important decisions vou'll make. ARGONIAN Little is known and less is understood about the reptilian denizens of Black Marsh. Years of defending their borders have made the Argonians experts in guerilla warfare, and their Skill Bonuses: Long Blade +5, Destruction +10, Light Armor +5, Athletics +5, Mysticism +5, Marksman +5, Short Blade +10 Specials: Ancestor Guardian, Resistant to Fire natural abilities make them equally at home in water and on land. They are well suited for the treacherous swamps of their homeland, and have developed natural immunities to the diseases and poisons that have doomed many would-be explorers of the region. HIGH ELF The High Elves, or Altmer, are the proud, tall, golden- skinned peoples of Summerset Isle. The common tongue of the Empire, Tamrielic, is based on their speech and writing, and most of the Empire's arts, crafts, and sciences are derived from High Elven traditions. Deft, intelligent, and strong-willed, High Elves are often gifted in the arcane arts, and are far more resistant to disease than the lesser races. Skill Bonuses: Alchemy +5, Athletics +15,Illusion +5, Medium Armor +5, Mysticism +5 Spear +5, Unarmored+5 Specials: Resist Disease, Immune to Poison, Water Breathing Skill: Destruction +10, Enchant +10, Alchemy +10, Alteration +5, Conjuration +5,Illusion +5 Specials: Fortified Maximum Magicka, Weakness to Magicka, Fire, Frost, and Shock, Resistant to Disease BRETON Bretons feel an inborn, instinctive bond with the mercurial forces of magic and the supernatural. Many great sorcerers have IMPERIAL Natives of the civilized, cosmopolitan province of Cyrodiil, the Imperials are well-educated and well- spoken. Though physically less imposing than the other races, the Imperials have proved to be shrewd diplomats and traders. These traits, along with their remarkable skill and training as light infantry, have enabled them to subdue all the other provinces and to have erected the monument to peace and prosperity that comprises the Glorious Empire. from the home province of High Rock, and in addition to their quick and perceptive grasp of spellcraft, enchantment, and alchemy, even the humblest of Bretons boast a high resistance to destructive and dominating magical energies. Skill Bonuses: Conjuration +10, Mysticism +10, Restoration +10, Alchemy +5, Alteration +5 Illusion +5 pecials: Fortified Maximum Magicka, Dragon Skin, Resist Magicka SKILL BONUSES: Speechcraft+10, Mercantile+10, Long Blade +10, Blunt Weapon +S, Light Armor +5, Hand to Hand +5 SPECIALS: Star of the West, Voice of the Emperor The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind 13 The Elder crlsIII: Morowind BIRTHSIGNS In Tamriel, persons born under certain constellations are said to be fortunate in their aspects', Such persons are often blessed-or cursed- with remarkable abilities or weaknesses as a result of the magical conjunctions of celestĆ­al influences. STEALTH SPECIALIZED CLASSES THIEVES Thieves are pickpockets and pilferers. Unlike robbers, who kill and loot, thieves typically choose stealth and subterfuge over violence, and often entertain romantic notions of their charm and in their acquisitive activities cleverness THE APPRENTICE Those bom under the sign of The Apprentice have increased Magicka, but also have a weakness to it. AGENTS atives skilled in deception and avoidance, but dasTHE ATRONACH trained in self-defense and the use of deadly force. Self-reliant and independent, agents devote themselves to personal goals, or to various patrons or causes. Those born under the sign of The Atronach cannot regenerate Magicka, but have a chance of absorbing any magic cast at them. THE LADY Those born under the sign of The Lady have increased Endurande and Personality. ASSASSINS Assassins are killers who rely on stealth and mobility to approach victims undetected. Execution is performed with ranged weapons or with short blades for close work. Assassins can be ruthless murderers or principled agents of noble causes. THE LORD Those born under the sign of The Lord can regenerate Health, but are weak to fire THE LOVER Those born under the sign of The Lover have increased Agility and can paralyze others with a kiss. ACROBATS AcrobaÅ„' is a polite euphemism for agile burglars and second-story men, These thieves avoid detection by stealth, and rely on mobility and cunning to avoid capture. THE MAGE Those born under the sign of The Mage have increased Magicka. MONKS Monks are students of the ancient martial arts of hand-to-hand combat and unarmored self-defense. Monks avoid detection by stealth, mobility, and agility, and are skilled with a variety of ranged and close-combat weapons. THE RITUAL Those born under the sign of The Ritual can heal themselves and turn undead. THE SERPENT Those born under the sign of The Serpent can poison others at a loss of PILGRIMS Pilgrims are travelers, seekers of truth and enlightenment. They fortify themselves for road and wilderness with arms, armor, and magic, and through wide experience of the world, they become shrewd in commerce and persuasion their own Health. THE SHADOW Those born under the sign of The Shadow can make themselves invisible. THE STEED Those born under the sign of The Steed can move faster BARDS Bards are loremasters and storytellers. They crave adventure for the wisdom and insight to be gained, and must depend on sword shield, spell, and enchantment to preserve them from the perils of their educational experiences THE THIEF Those born under the sign of The Thief are harder to hit. THE TOWER detect things at a distance. Those born under the sign of The Warrior have an increased chance Those born under the sign of The Tower can unlock doors magically and THE WARRIOR 25 I miss the days when games came with manuals

I miss the days when games came with manuals

Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 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 oneā€™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 lawā€”in letter and in spiritā€”in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) ā€œDo you know why I stopped you?ā€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 ā€œvoluntarilyā€ 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 copā€™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 ā€œMirandaā€ warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) ā€œDo you have something to hide?ā€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 havenā€™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 ā€œcooperateā€ with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) ā€œCooperating will make things easier on you.ā€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 ā€œvoluntarilyā€ answered questions and ā€œconsentedā€ to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly ā€œcooperate.ā€(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of ā€œplea-bargaining,ā€ whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guiltā€”thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anythingā€”then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, ā€œplea bargainingā€ is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) ā€œWeā€™ll just get a warrant.ā€Cops may try to persuade you to ā€œconsentā€ to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you donā€™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 ā€œcooperates.ā€ But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into ā€œconsentingā€ has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice ā€œinformantsā€ 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 didnā€™t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) ā€œWe can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.ā€Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap youā€”or threaten to kidnap youā€”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) ā€œIā€™m going to search you for my own safety.ā€Using so-called ā€œTerry frisksā€ (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 ā€œlegalā€ anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore ā€œillegal,ā€ 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 Amendmentsā€”and any other restrictions on their powerā€”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 ā€œlaw-breakersā€ (the kind who donā€™t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessingā€”falsely or truthfullyā€”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 trialā€”either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crimeā€”the ā€œexclusionary ruleā€ 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 ā€œresisting arrestā€ or ā€œassaulting an officer,ā€ and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang membersā€”officers, prosecutors and judgesā€”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 ā€œStreet Gang in Blueā€ 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 youā€™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 donā€™t say shit until youā€™ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.
Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 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 oneā€™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 lawā€”in letter and in spiritā€”in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) ā€œDo you know why I stopped you?ā€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 ā€œvoluntarilyā€ 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 copā€™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 ā€œMirandaā€ warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) ā€œDo you have something to hide?ā€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 havenā€™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 ā€œcooperateā€ with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) ā€œCooperating will make things easier on you.ā€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 ā€œvoluntarilyā€ answered questions and ā€œconsentedā€ to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly ā€œcooperate.ā€(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of ā€œplea-bargaining,ā€ whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guiltā€”thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anythingā€”then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, ā€œplea bargainingā€ is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) ā€œWeā€™ll just get a warrant.ā€Cops may try to persuade you to ā€œconsentā€ to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you donā€™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 ā€œcooperates.ā€ But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into ā€œconsentingā€ has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice ā€œinformantsā€ 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 didnā€™t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) ā€œWe can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.ā€Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap youā€”or threaten to kidnap youā€”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) ā€œIā€™m going to search you for my own safety.ā€Using so-called ā€œTerry frisksā€ (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 ā€œlegalā€ anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore ā€œillegal,ā€ 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 Amendmentsā€”and any other restrictions on their powerā€”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 ā€œlaw-breakersā€ (the kind who donā€™t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessingā€”falsely or truthfullyā€”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 trialā€”either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crimeā€”the ā€œexclusionary ruleā€ 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 ā€œresisting arrestā€ or ā€œassaulting an officer,ā€ and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang membersā€”officers, prosecutors and judgesā€”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 ā€œStreet Gang in Blueā€ 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 youā€™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 donā€™t say shit until youā€™ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.

libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced t...

Being Alone, Beer, and Crying: my favourite legend from the norse mythology is when a giant steals mjolnir and says he'll give it back if he can have Freyja as his bride, but she refuses to go so instead Thor dresses up as her and Loki as her handmaiden and then at the wedding the giant places mjolnir in his bride's (thor) lap and thor reveals himself and kills everybody and if that shouldn't be made a short film with I don't know what should Do yo think they notice (Nah 443 systlin: thehornedwitch: systlin: rowantheexplorer: systlin: rowantheexplorer: systlin: fandomsandanythingelse: I was reading Hammer of Thor and this story was referenced and i just ran across this and honestly i canā€™t think of anything else SHORT film I demand TWO HOURS OF THIS The scene where Loki shifts himself into a lovely maiden and somehow smooth talks Freyja into letting them borrow Brisingamen for the escapade alone is worth a short film.Ā  Image text is missing my favorite part, that what almost gave Thor away was that he ate basically the entire wedding banquet himself, and Loki was like ā€œsee, isnā€™t she a catch with her healthy appetite?ā€ He also drank literally all of their beer and mead.Ā  All of it.Ā  All.Ā  Of.Ā  It.Ā  To be fair, pretty sure Freyja could also drink all of Jotunheim under the table if she wanted, but sheā€™d probably be classier about it. Also thereā€™s a bit where Thorā€™s eyes literally /glow with rage/ and of course the giants notice.Lokiā€™s save? ā€œSheā€™s beenā€¦ cryingā€¦ all nightā€¦. forā€¦ loveā€¦. ofā€¦. you????ā€ and it WORKS, SOMEHOW. Look Loki got 18 for Charisma and then leveled it up at every chance he got, heā€™s got like a +24 to Deception checks at this point itā€™s ridiculous.Ā  Of course Odin has a +40 to Perception, so he can usually see through it.
Being Alone, Beer, and Crying: my favourite legend from the norse mythology is when a giant steals mjolnir and says he'll give it back if he can have Freyja as his bride, but she refuses to go so instead Thor dresses up as her and Loki as her handmaiden and then at the wedding the giant places mjolnir in his bride's (thor) lap and thor reveals himself and kills everybody and if that shouldn't be made a short film with I don't know what should Do yo think they notice (Nah 443 systlin: thehornedwitch: systlin: rowantheexplorer: systlin: rowantheexplorer: systlin: fandomsandanythingelse: I was reading Hammer of Thor and this story was referenced and i just ran across this and honestly i canā€™t think of anything else SHORT film I demand TWO HOURS OF THIS The scene where Loki shifts himself into a lovely maiden and somehow smooth talks Freyja into letting them borrow Brisingamen for the escapade alone is worth a short film.Ā  Image text is missing my favorite part, that what almost gave Thor away was that he ate basically the entire wedding banquet himself, and Loki was like ā€œsee, isnā€™t she a catch with her healthy appetite?ā€ He also drank literally all of their beer and mead.Ā  All of it.Ā  All.Ā  Of.Ā  It.Ā  To be fair, pretty sure Freyja could also drink all of Jotunheim under the table if she wanted, but sheā€™d probably be classier about it. Also thereā€™s a bit where Thorā€™s eyes literally /glow with rage/ and of course the giants notice.Lokiā€™s save? ā€œSheā€™s beenā€¦ cryingā€¦ all nightā€¦. forā€¦ loveā€¦. ofā€¦. you????ā€ and it WORKS, SOMEHOW. Look Loki got 18 for Charisma and then leveled it up at every chance he got, heā€™s got like a +24 to Deception checks at this point itā€™s ridiculous.Ā  Of course Odin has a +40 to Perception, so he can usually see through it.

systlin: thehornedwitch: systlin: rowantheexplorer: systlin: rowantheexplorer: systlin: fandomsandanythingelse: I was reading Hammer...

9gag, Makeup, and Memes: How to get away with murder - 9gag makeup deception
9gag, Makeup, and Memes: How to get away with murder - 9gag makeup deception

How to get away with murder - 9gag makeup deception

Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 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 peteschult: 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 oneā€™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 lawā€”in letter and in spiritā€”in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) ā€œDo you know why I stopped you?ā€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 ā€œvoluntarilyā€ 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 copā€™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 ā€œMirandaā€ warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) ā€œDo you have something to hide?ā€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 havenā€™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 ā€œcooperateā€ with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) ā€œCooperating will make things easier on you.ā€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 ā€œvoluntarilyā€ answered questions and ā€œconsentedā€ to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly ā€œcooperate.ā€(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of ā€œplea-bargaining,ā€ whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guiltā€”thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anythingā€”then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, ā€œplea bargainingā€ is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) ā€œWeā€™ll just get a warrant.ā€Cops may try to persuade you to ā€œconsentā€ to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you donā€™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 ā€œcooperates.ā€ But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into ā€œconsentingā€ has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice ā€œinformantsā€ 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 didnā€™t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) ā€œWe can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.ā€Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap youā€”or threaten to kidnap youā€”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) ā€œIā€™m going to search you for my own safety.ā€Using so-called ā€œTerry frisksā€ (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 ā€œlegalā€ anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore ā€œillegal,ā€ 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 Amendmentsā€”and any other restrictions on their powerā€”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 ā€œlaw-breakersā€ (the kind who donā€™t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessingā€”falsely or truthfullyā€”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 trialā€”either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crimeā€”the ā€œexclusionary ruleā€ 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 ā€œresisting arrestā€ or ā€œassaulting an officer,ā€ and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang membersā€”officers, prosecutors and judgesā€”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 ā€œStreet Gang in Blueā€ 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 youā€™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 donā€™t say shit until youā€™ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation. Cops are *never* your friends. And they are under no obligation to protect you. Ever. Get rid of pigs!
Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 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 peteschult: 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 oneā€™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 lawā€”in letter and in spiritā€”in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) ā€œDo you know why I stopped you?ā€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 ā€œvoluntarilyā€ 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 copā€™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 ā€œMirandaā€ warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) ā€œDo you have something to hide?ā€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 havenā€™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 ā€œcooperateā€ with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) ā€œCooperating will make things easier on you.ā€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 ā€œvoluntarilyā€ answered questions and ā€œconsentedā€ to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly ā€œcooperate.ā€(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of ā€œplea-bargaining,ā€ whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guiltā€”thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anythingā€”then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, ā€œplea bargainingā€ is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) ā€œWeā€™ll just get a warrant.ā€Cops may try to persuade you to ā€œconsentā€ to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you donā€™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 ā€œcooperates.ā€ But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into ā€œconsentingā€ has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice ā€œinformantsā€ 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 didnā€™t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) ā€œWe can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.ā€Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap youā€”or threaten to kidnap youā€”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) ā€œIā€™m going to search you for my own safety.ā€Using so-called ā€œTerry frisksā€ (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 ā€œlegalā€ anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore ā€œillegal,ā€ 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 Amendmentsā€”and any other restrictions on their powerā€”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 ā€œlaw-breakersā€ (the kind who donā€™t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessingā€”falsely or truthfullyā€”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 trialā€”either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crimeā€”the ā€œexclusionary ruleā€ 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 ā€œresisting arrestā€ or ā€œassaulting an officer,ā€ and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang membersā€”officers, prosecutors and judgesā€”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 ā€œStreet Gang in Blueā€ 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 youā€™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 donā€™t say shit until youā€™ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation. Cops are *never* your friends. And they are under no obligation to protect you. Ever. Get rid of pigs!

peteschult: libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legall...

Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 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 <p><a href="http://gvldngrl.tumblr.com/post/166513263494/wolfoverdose-rikodeine-seemeflow-because" class="tumblr_blog">gvldngrl</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="http://wolfoverdose.tumblr.com/post/166265395771/rikodeine-seemeflow-because-of-the-fifth" class="tumblr_blog">wolfoverdose</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://rikodeine.tumblr.com/post/131562629300">rikodeine</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://seemeflow.tumblr.com/post/131556627065">seemeflow</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><b>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 oneā€™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 lawā€”in letter and in spiritā€”in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.</b></p> <p><b>1) ā€œDo you know why I stopped you?ā€</b><br/>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 ā€œvoluntarilyā€ 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 copā€™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 ā€œMirandaā€ warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.</p> <p><b>2) ā€œDo you have something to hide?ā€</b><br/>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 havenā€™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 ā€œcooperateā€ with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.</p> <p><b>3) ā€œCooperating will make things easier on you.ā€</b><br/>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 ā€œvoluntarilyā€ answered questions and ā€œconsentedā€ to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly ā€œcooperate.ā€<br/>(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of ā€œplea-bargaining,ā€ whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guiltā€”thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anythingā€”then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, ā€œplea bargainingā€ is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)</p> <p><b>4) ā€œWeā€™ll just get a warrant.ā€</b><br/>Cops may try to persuade you to ā€œconsentā€ to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you donā€™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 ā€œcooperates.ā€ But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into ā€œconsentingā€ has not truly consented to anything.</p> <p><b>5.) We have someone who will testify against you</b><br/>Police ā€œinformantsā€ 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 didnā€™t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.</p> <p><b>6) ā€œWe can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.ā€</b><br/>Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap youā€”or threaten to kidnap youā€”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.</p> <p><b>7) ā€œIā€™m going to search you for my own safety.ā€</b><br/>Using so-called ā€œTerry frisksā€ (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.</p> <p>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 ā€œlegalā€ anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore ā€œillegal,ā€ 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 Amendmentsā€”and any other restrictions on their powerā€”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 ā€œlaw-breakersā€ (the kind who donā€™t wear badges).</p> <p>Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessingā€”falsely or truthfullyā€”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 trialā€”either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crimeā€”the ā€œexclusionary ruleā€ 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.</p> <p>Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with ā€œresisting arrestā€ or ā€œassaulting an officer,ā€ and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang membersā€”officers, prosecutors and judgesā€”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 ā€œStreet Gang in Blueā€ becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.</p> <p><a href="http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want">http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want</a><br/></p> </blockquote> <p>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 youā€™re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else</p> </blockquote> <p>Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.</p> </blockquote> <p>Important </p> </blockquote> <p>Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody donā€™t say shit until youā€™ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.</p>
Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 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 <p><a href="http://gvldngrl.tumblr.com/post/166513263494/wolfoverdose-rikodeine-seemeflow-because" class="tumblr_blog">gvldngrl</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="http://wolfoverdose.tumblr.com/post/166265395771/rikodeine-seemeflow-because-of-the-fifth" class="tumblr_blog">wolfoverdose</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://rikodeine.tumblr.com/post/131562629300">rikodeine</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://seemeflow.tumblr.com/post/131556627065">seemeflow</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><b>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 oneā€™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 lawā€”in letter and in spiritā€”in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.</b></p> <p><b>1) ā€œDo you know why I stopped you?ā€</b><br/>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 ā€œvoluntarilyā€ 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 copā€™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 ā€œMirandaā€ warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.</p> <p><b>2) ā€œDo you have something to hide?ā€</b><br/>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 havenā€™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 ā€œcooperateā€ with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.</p> <p><b>3) ā€œCooperating will make things easier on you.ā€</b><br/>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 ā€œvoluntarilyā€ answered questions and ā€œconsentedā€ to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly ā€œcooperate.ā€<br/>(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of ā€œplea-bargaining,ā€ whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guiltā€”thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anythingā€”then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, ā€œplea bargainingā€ is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)</p> <p><b>4) ā€œWeā€™ll just get a warrant.ā€</b><br/>Cops may try to persuade you to ā€œconsentā€ to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you donā€™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 ā€œcooperates.ā€ But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into ā€œconsentingā€ has not truly consented to anything.</p> <p><b>5.) We have someone who will testify against you</b><br/>Police ā€œinformantsā€ 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 didnā€™t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.</p> <p><b>6) ā€œWe can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.ā€</b><br/>Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap youā€”or threaten to kidnap youā€”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.</p> <p><b>7) ā€œIā€™m going to search you for my own safety.ā€</b><br/>Using so-called ā€œTerry frisksā€ (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.</p> <p>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 ā€œlegalā€ anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore ā€œillegal,ā€ 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 Amendmentsā€”and any other restrictions on their powerā€”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 ā€œlaw-breakersā€ (the kind who donā€™t wear badges).</p> <p>Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessingā€”falsely or truthfullyā€”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 trialā€”either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crimeā€”the ā€œexclusionary ruleā€ 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.</p> <p>Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with ā€œresisting arrestā€ or ā€œassaulting an officer,ā€ and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang membersā€”officers, prosecutors and judgesā€”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 ā€œStreet Gang in Blueā€ becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.</p> <p><a href="http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want">http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want</a><br/></p> </blockquote> <p>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 youā€™re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else</p> </blockquote> <p>Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.</p> </blockquote> <p>Important </p> </blockquote> <p>Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody donā€™t say shit until youā€™ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.</p>

gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against...