Timothy Out Loud

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 you Police “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.

“How much is it to fill a Venti with Espresso?”

“I- I’m sorry?”

“A venti cup. How much to fill it with Espresso?”

“Oh. uh. Well, it’d be I suppose… I only have a button for a Quad. I don’t have special pricing for twenty ounces of espresso in a single… drink.”

“Price is the furthest thing from my mind right now. How many ‘add shots’ is that?”

*deep breath of fear* “It’d be a quad with,” *clears throat* “uh, sixteen additional shots of espresso. But, ma’am, I should tell you that the shots will start to get really bitter if they have to sit and wait for us to pull twenty of them-”

“Taste means nothing to me.”

At this point I am truly fearing for my very existence in the presence of what must clearly be an eldritch being.

“Oh. Well, okay.” I put on my absolute best customer service smile to hide my terror and accept that I must face this dragon, fae, or demon with dignity. “We can certainly get that for you! The price will be _____.”

She begins to pay, I shit thee not, with golden Sacajawea dollar coins. We are a block from Wall Street, and this eldritch demi-being is paying for an unholy elixer with golden coins. My life will end soon, I am sure of it.

“Do you still have the ‘Add Energy’ packets?”

My heart began to race at this request. “Yes ma’am.”

“How many can I add?”

Futile though it is, at least I know the rote response to this. “For health reasons, we won’t add more than one per drink and we cannot sell the packets individually.”

“One then.”

I alter the order and tell her the new price. She pays, dumps the change and five golden dollars into the tip box. I write the order on the venti cup and pass it silently to the girl working the hot beverage station. Normally we called and pass, but this was … not something to be spoken aloud.

My fellow takes the cup, not thinking anything of the minor break with protocol, until she sees the order. She stares at me. “No.”

The woman, which I call her for no other greater insight into her terrifying being is within my grasp, simply stands on the other side and says, calmly but with a commanding tone I expect of Admirals in bad movies, “Yes.”

My fellow barista pales before her task. But we are dutiful, we are true to our task, great though it may be. She sets about clearing the two brand new Mastrena’s of all distraction, and sets two tall cups in the ready position. The energy packet is emptied into the venti cup, and the shots begin pouring. 

The barista was damn near shaking. This woman’s gaze felt like the fires of the sun. Finally, the shots are pulled, the cup is filled, and the hand off takes place.

Our visiting Incomprehensible takes it to our milk bar and adds a dollop of cream. Satisfied, she proceeds to down what must have been half the damn cup.

Then she smiled at us, like a benediction and I was honestly filled with joy. And horror. She left, and we knew nothing more of her after that.

When I talk with other former employees, we quickly begin talking about “The Company” as if we’d never left, perhaps knowing that part of our soul still powers that awesome and terrible corporate machine. And when I share this story, other Baristas at first act shocked but quickly settle and comes the chorus, 

Her: “I want you to know that I double checked the number of pumps on this next drink and it’s correct”

Me: “ok, why is it a lot?”

Her: “just know that it’s right.”

So I go okay man, because she is already helping another customer and I have drinks to make. And I look down to read the sticker I just pulled and it is for a Trenta iced coffee, no ice, 40 pumps of classic syrup.

And the other person on bar is like: “maybe she added an extra zero on accident”

And I say, “no she told me she double checked”

And the barista on register confirms “that’s what he asked for.” And points to a guy in a hoodie with a buz cut who looked to be in his 30’s.

So I buckle down and my fellow bar barista counts with me as I pump 40 pumps of classic syrup. (And other barista know that if you put your hand over the cup as you pump it to keep syrup from going everywhere, it splashes up and makes your hand all sticky, well my hand felt like one of those rubber sticky hands you get from the prize box at school, except my hand was industrial strength stickiness with the amount of syrup on it.) So i finish pumping and it is about three inches of pure syrup.

Lets do some math! I looked it up and a Starbucks hot bar pump is around 0.25 oz. multiplied by 40 means this drink had around 10 oz of pure sugar. This is in a trenta, the largest size available at 32 oz. and he got no ice or other add ins. Which means this man was ordering about a 2:1 ratio of coffee to sugar.

A thought i had was “maybe he’s taking it home to water is down” because people do that sometimes. But as I called it out and handed it to him he took a straw and took a sip. He said nothing that I remember. No comment, no response to my usual “Thank you, have a nice day!” No readable emotion. And he walks out the door. We had never seen that man before and we never saw him again.

art by the wonderful @franshookie-art (DO NOT REPOST this image without their specific permission. check out more of their art on twitter.)

hi, all.. i know that a lot of our focus is on the BlackLivesMatter movement atm (which is wonderful and should’ve happened a long time ago), and i hate to distract you from that, but there’s something horrible happening in my country, the Philippines (yes, the one being lead by the so-called Filipino version of Donald Trump), right now.

our national government has passed a bill that’ll essentially take away our constitutional rights to freedom of speech and fair trial. it’s called the Anti-Terrorism Bill, but we’ve dubbed it Terror Bill. here’s a summary of what it entails:

if you want to read the actual bill in its entirety, here’s a link to the official Senate of the Philippines website, where you can download a pdf copy. i’d like you to keep in mind the political climate in our country, though, and just how rampant corruption and police brutality are here.

it has already been passed by the Senate; all it needs is the House of Representatives’ approval, and it will be enforced. if you want to help stop this from happening, here are a few ways:

sign and share this petition. we’re so close to 300,000 signatures!!!

send e-mails to the Office of the President and the Senate. there’s an e-mail protest currently going on. i have qualms about copy-pasting the message, but ultimately, this method is a lot more effective than petitions:

these posters were made and posted by @tentenyukki on twitter.

educate yourself about the bill and how it will affect us when it’s approved. here are some news articles, editorials, and thought pieces to get you started:

🗞 gov’t endorsing/defending the bill: 1, 2, 3, 4

🗞 reactions to the bill’s passing: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

spread the word. on social media, our tags are #JunkTerrorBill and #JunkTerrorBillNow, but don’t stop there; tell your friends and family. please. people need to know this is happening.

your help could save the lives of millions of Filipinos, and we’d really, really appreciate it. i don’t usually ask for much, but when it comes to urgent issues like this, i can’t stay silent. unlike with BLM, i can speak my truth about this because i know personally what it’s like to be a Filipino citizen and to live in the Philippines. i hope it’s heard, and we keep an ounce of what little dignity we have as a “sovereign” country and rights as a “sovereign” people.

some of you might unfollow or get mad because this isn’t strictly studyblr content, but it’s not about aesthetic right now. i need your help. we need to hurry.

“I always remember having this fight with a random dude who claimed that ‘straight white men’ were the only true innovators. His prime example for this was the computer… the computer… THE COMPUTER!!! THE COM-PU-TER!!!

Alan Turing - Gay man and ‘father of computing’ Wren operating Bombe - The code cracking computers of the 2nd world war were entirely run by women Katherine Johnson - African American NASA mathematician and ‘Human computer’ Ada Lovelace - arguably the 1st computer programmer”

- Sacha Coward

Also Margaret Hamilton - NASA computer scientist who put the first man on the moon - an as-yet-unmatched feet of software engineering, here pictured beside the full source of that computer programme. #myhero

Grace Hopper - the woman that coined the term “bug”  

also computing was typically a job for women (many of whom were black women that made incredible contributions) back in the day, so it’s absolutely fucking wild that straight white men think they are the foundation of computer innovation. men PUSHED women out and took the credit.

“What? No, I’m Edward. Y'know, Slytherin’s resident Weasley?”

“Wh…huh???”

“Next you’ll be telling me you don’t know Hubert!”

Listen up you fucks because I’m not wasting thousands of dollars on an art degree to watch y’all fuck up basic color theory.

Red, yellow, and blue are the primary colors

If you’re using p i g m e n t.

Do you hear me? When you’re using traditional media, fucking actual goddamn paint, Bob Ross style, your primary colors are!

When you use paint, your primary colors are red yellow and blue and don’t forget it.

NOW THAT CHANGES COMPLETELY WHEN YOU GO FUCKING DIGITAL.

THE DIGITAL PRIMARY COLORS ARE RED BLUE AND GREEN IF AND ONLY IF YOUR WORK IS GOING TO STAY DIGITAL, ON THE SCREEN, AND NEVER LEAVE THE SCREEN, AND OF COURSE IF YOUR WORK IS GOING TO BE PRINTED. ON A PRINTER. WITH INK. THEN. AND O N L Y  T H E N.

ARE YOUR PRIMARY COLORS.

CYAN. 

MAGENTA.

AND YELLOW.

So say it with me folks!

Red yellow and blue, are the primary colors for traditional pigment that’s mostly used in paints and shit. You use red yellow and blue when you’re painting traditionally, Bob Ross style. 

Red blue and green is light, which is what you’re painting with when you pick up your tablet and go digital.

CMYK is ink, and ink only. You could use cyan, magenta, and yellow as your primary colors in paint if you wanted to be a complete dick, but they’re not your primary colors unless your work is going to be printed using. i n k. The only time they could be considered the primary colors in a traditional medium is if you’re using ink.

Is my icon. I painted this using RED. GREEN. AND BLUE. AS MY PRIMARY COLORS and they turned out fine. Of course, I used the finger smudge tool first and then the color mixing tool and then the blur tool, but hey what do I know.

Clearly using the blur tool only doesn’t cut it.

“Oh but Leo!” You say. “You used cyan and magenta in that color wheel!”

Well bitch guess what.

this is the digital color wheel. I’d say I mimicked that pretty well, don’t you think?

Oh and one other thing, notice how Blue and Yellow are directly opposite each other on this color wheel? That’s because we’re dealing with light, and with light, yellow and blue are complimentary colors.

Which is why when you mix them, it looks like this:

Which is a pretty neutral gray tone: They cancel each other out on the rgb color wheel when you mix them together.

BUT WITH PIGMENT THE PLACEMENT IS DIFFERENT

If you’ll notice, yellow and violet are now opposite each other, meaning they’re complimentary colors and if you mix  them, they’ll make a neutral gray.

But if you mix yellow and blue, same colors as before, YOU GET THIS:

Now keep in mind that the person in the video uses a darker blue, so they get a darker green, but the point is that it doesn’t make that neutral gray.

Now what happens when we mix yellow and violet paint?

Ah yes, you get a bunch of muted colors the more evenly you mix them.

What happens when you mix yellow light and purple light?

The reason the primary colors for light are so dramatically different from the primary colors for paint and ink is because your eye only receives combinations of red light, blue light, and green light. Our eyes do not have a sensor (cone cell) for yellow light. So when we paint with light, red green and blue are our primary colors. Because of our eyes.

Furthermore, paint primary colors are colors that cannot be created by mixing other colors together. For paint, they are red yellow and blue, because you cannot mix orange and green to get yellow. Mixing orange and purple paint does not make red. And mixing green and purple paint does not make blue.

Mixing blue and green paints will make cyan. Mixing red and blue paints will make magenta.

That’s why cyan and magenta aren’t primary paint colors.

However, you can’t mix yellow and blue ink and get cyan. You can’t mix red and blue ink to get magenta.

And that’s why cyan and magenta are the primary ink colors.

Brighter and stronger paints are created through tints and shades, through a thorough understanding of color theory and a few quality paint recipes. Not by bullshit posts on tumblr designed to mislead you.

Why is this not FLOODING my feed?!

Don Cheadle rocking this shirt while hosting SNL is EVERYTHING.