🔥 Popular | Latest

Donald Trump, New York, and News: BuzzFeed News REPORTING TO YOU Secret Files Show How Trump Moscow Talks Unfolded While Trump Heaped Praise On Putin Ahead of Michael Cohen's testimony, read the original paper trail behind the campaign to build Europe's tallest tower in Moscow- and how it played out alongside Donald Trump's presidential campaign. Azeen Ghorayshi BuzzFeed News Reporter Jason Leopold BuzzFeed News Reporter Anthony Cormier BuzzFeed News Reporter Enma Loop BuzzFeed News Reporter Posted on February 5, 2019, at 9:20 a.m. ET Very truly yours TRUM ACQU SUTION, LLO y: Name: Title: THE ABOVE ISKNOWLEDGED CONSENTED T ND AGREED TOB 1.C. EXPE STMENT COMP By: Andre Obtained by BuzzFeed News As a candidate, Donald Trump had a lot of praise for Vladimir Putin - and no business, he kept insisting, in Russia. These documents tell a different story October 11, 2015 Trump is asked about similarities with Putin I think that we are very different. I think that I would at the same time get along very well with him." October 28, 2015 A final version of the letter of intent gets the Russian developer's signature, along with Donald Trump's Very truly yours, TRUM ACQUSITION, LLC By: mc Title: November 3, 2015 THE ABOVE IS ACKNOWLEDGED, CONSENTED TO AND AGREED TO BY: I.C. EXPERT INVE ENT COMPANY y: Andre CEO TE HOUSE The day Trump signed the LOI was also the day of the third Republican primary debate The day after the countersigned letter of intent is circulated, Trump holds a press conference at Trump Tower in New York City T believe we will have a very good relationship with Russia.I believe that I will have a very good relationship with Putin Мария Бутина 11 июл 2015 Только что спросила кандидата в президенты США Дональда Трампа о его позиции в отношении России и санкций Трамп r。ворит о необходимости смягчения санкций, если будет избран. Вот вам и республиканцы, которые якобы против России Михаил Бутримов масонский круг США сам потом решит, смягчать ли или ужесточать. 11 июл 2015 Ответить rump Константин Николаевич пиздеть-не мешки ворочать 11 июл 2015 Ответить Виталий Фризен Трамп-барыга. Говорит одно, думает второе, делает третье. Таким как он веры нет. 11 июл 2015 Ответить Константин Тогай заигрывает. Понравилась наверное 11 июл 2015 Ответить Антон Карлович шнур-Выборы 2:15 11 июл 2015 Ответить Buzzfeed's new Trump Tower Moscow timeline missed my favourite bit of Putin-Praise : 11th July 2015, Freedomfest, Las Vegas

Buzzfeed's new Trump Tower Moscow timeline missed my favourite bit of Putin-Praise : 11th July 2015, Freedomfest, Las Vegas

Save
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 one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.
Save
Being Alone, Apparently, and Disneyland: talesfromyourlocalcashier: victorian-sexstache: mizuaoi: musicalhell: madhattey: rusticbabe: spiderman-against-pedos: witchcryptid: alittlebitpessimistic: azalea-in-time: ziamlevinestylinson: 2ollux-captor-ii2-my-dance2tor: useless-worthless-nobody: azalea-in-time: When you go to a haunted house, it may seem like you’re being funny by trying to scare the actors or jump out at them when you go through a second time, but guess what? ITS NOT FUNNY. You pay us to scare you. It is your choice to go, so don’t fucking go through if you’re going to ignore the rules and get too close to the actors as a ‘joke’. These bruises happened because over the course of 4 hours, several people ignored the instructions that CLEARLY stated that they were to wait in the front room until told otherwise. Rather than listen, they ran into the next room and slammed into me- effectively throwing me into the wall. This didn’t only happen once. It happened ten times at LEAST. Then we had this asshole who thought that once I ‘died’ for the haunt, he could pretend to kick me to see if I’d moved. I, being used to people abusing me- jumped back and slammed my head into the concrete wall. YOU ARE NOT FUNNY BY BEING RUDE AT A HAUNTED HOUSE. WE ARE PAID ACTORS THAT YOU CHOOSE TO COME AND SEE PERFORM. YOU PAY US TO SCARE THE SHIT OUT OF YOU, SO DONT HIT US WHEN WE DO I feel that this is relevant considering it is October and more Haunted Houses are opening up. I know it seems funny to scare the ‘monsters’ but all you do is hurt real people. So stop. It’s not even October but I’m still spreading this SIGNAL BOOOOOOOOSSSSSTTTTT!!!!!!! Now Yeah…your director may want to consider reblocking We don’t have a director? Or blocking??? It’s a haunted house bro, not a play Reblogging for relevance- I work at a Haunted House every October, and have been for the past few years. Our house in particular is staffed by Volunteer workers who are either earning credits for Graduation, or people who know the Family that owns the haunted attraction. In our City, we’re one of two Haunted Houses, so while we open in late September, we tend to get incredibly busy during the month of October and often work from 6pm until 2, 3am on weekends.  We do not get paid to help out. Due to our location, we get a lot of drunk guys coming through, and a lot of ‘funny’ teenagers. In my several years working there, I’ve seen Actors get grabbed and thrown, stomped on, kicked, bitten, everything. A lot of the Actors at this attraction are young teenagers, Middle and Secondary School students, so this kind of abuse is terrifying and potentially emotionally scarring. There’s a position half-way through the house we call ‘Psych Ward’, and it’s essentially a jump scare. The scare is a corner-room, boxed in with walls and broken windows, that the Actor pops out of and shouts and taunts the people going through. October, 2012, a couple were going through the Psych Ward corner and the scare went off as per usual. The girlfriend of this couple got very startled but laughed it off and continued on. The boyfriend, however, back-tracked and went up to the broken window and punched the Actor in the face for scaring his girlfriend. The Actor, who I’m going to call Tracy, had a black eye for a good two weeks solid and the couple had to be escorted out of the house and were banned from the property. Ever since we’ve ruled that Veteran Actors (someone who’s been there for 3+ years) are the only ones allowed in this particular Scaring Spot. He paid to get scared and then got violent when we delivered. There are so many stories I can tell of ignorant customers banging back on scares and injuring the Actors inside, grabbing props from the actors and hurting them with it, destroying props because they thought it would be ‘funny’.  I just want to raise awareness that the ACTORS ARE STILL PEOPLE. We’re instructed to get the best kind of scare out of you, sometimes with no pay at all (like this particular attraction), so please respect our work. We wouldn’t come to your job, mock you, and push you around trying to be ‘funny’. Don’t come to our job and do that to us! I literally cannot believe people are angry over this post saying “don’t fucking beat up actors” I work at a haunted hayride and a guy tried to dropkick me in the chest and knee me in the face because he thought it was funny. I got in trouble for breaking character to tell him to fucking stop. Ive been hit so many times this season it has left cuts and bruises. Back in 2015 I was fucking choked and dragged behind a wagon because a lady was drunk and her son had to pry her hands off me because IM NOT ALLOWED TO TOUCH YOU OR FIGHT BACK. Most recently, a customer groped my breasts and twisted my fucking nipples. Apparently, she did it to AT LEAST twenty other actors. THAT IS SEXUAL ASSAULT YOU ASSHOLES. ITS NOT OKAY. Most recently a customer fucking kicked me and sent me to the goddamned hospital. WHEN YOU GO TO A HAUNTED HAYRIDE / HAUNTED HOUSE, REMEMBER YOU LITERALLY PAID US TO SCARE YOU. THE ACTORS ARE REAL PEOPLE. DO NOT FUCKING HIT US. Why the fuck would you even do this holy shit Hey guys i know this is out of theme but that comment from @witchcryptid was me and my old url. I plan on working this job again this year if at all possible, so here’s an added psa: If your family or friend(s) force you into a haunting, be upfront as best you can and tell actors as they come up “please do not scare me i am too anxious / scared” and 9.99/10 times we will listen and leave you alone. just communicate with us even though we most often cannot communicate back. We may be playing monsters, but we are NOT monsters. Also, please remember to keep your hands off of us during your haunting, and also please try to step in or speak up if you see people trying to touch us, assault us, or talking about planning to touch or hurt a staff member. We cannot do anything and will most likely get in legal trouble for touching you in defense. Thank you and have a spooky fall 🌻🍁🍂🍃 I…I feel really upset that this has to be a reminder ._. I mean they should know you’re…justacting. jesus christ… I don’t even do haunted houses (I’m one of those aforementioned anxious people) but boosting the signal because this is seriously not cool. Hey guys it’s that time!! You paid for a ticket which means you consented to be scared! As an ex haunt monster please for fucks sake if you KNOW your reflex is to strike when scared DO NOT GO TO THESE. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE NO ONE GOES TO DISNEYLAND AND PUNCHES DONALD DUCK WHY WOULD YOU DO THE SAME TO HAUNTED HOUSE WORKERS?!?!?!?! Please don’t attack workers for doing their jobs.
Save
Ass, Bill Cosby, and Children: jesse farrar Follow BronzeHammer Woody Allen married his own kid. Remember that? He married her. Just married the damn kid. Took care of the kid a while and thought, "Well, guess I'll marry her now." And everyone was just like "Alrighty." Kept makin movies. 7:01 PM-12 Mar 2018 16,055 Retweets 59,072 Likes 20 <p><a href="http://lovelyardie.tumblr.com/post/174993419237/last-house-on-the-right-because-social-media-is" class="tumblr_blog">lovelyardie</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://last-house-on-the-right.tumblr.com/post/174945361442" class="tumblr_blog">last-house-on-the-right</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>Because social media is a virus, I feel the need to clear some things up. Soon-Yi Previn is not Woody Allen’s kid. She is the adopted daughter of his ex girlfriend, Mia Farrow, and her ex husband. It’s important to note that Soon-Yi was of age and consented to everything. Yes, it’s still fucking creepy but she is not his kid.</p> <p>Woody Allen is a hugeantic piece of shit so if you want to rag on him, let’s focus on the true things:</p> <p>- He pursued a sexual relationship and eventual marriage with a young woman he helped raise for 12 years and described his relationship with her before the marriage as “paternal.” (The way that tweet should have been worded.)</p> <p>- He included jokes in his stand up comedy routine about his first wife’s sexual assault.</p> <p>- He definitely more than likely sexually abused his adopted daughter, Dylan. You can read about the case and decide for yourself. But come on.</p> <p>- He has always romanticized gigantic age differences in relationships in his films with girls that are barely-legal. (Juliette Lewis was 19 when she played opposite him. He was 56.)</p> <p>- He has most of Hollywood wrapped around his skeevy finger and it’s gross. No one wants to let Dylan Farrow have a voice against him because he’s so “loved” and celebrated as an icon in Hollywood. Much like Bill Cosby was…hmm…</p> <p>- Seriously Dylan has been trying to talk about this for 25 years and people won’t listen. He had been in therapy for inappropriate behavior toward her before anything was presented to the police.</p> <p>- 2 babysitters and a tutor backed up Dylan’s claim.</p> <p>- <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/205403621/Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993#">Here’s the judge’s 33 page ruling in which he basically says Mr.Allen’s behavior is gross and disgusting and children need to be protected from him.</a></p> </blockquote> <p>2017 was the year we called out Weinstein.. 2018 can be he purge of Woody Allen </p> </blockquote> <p>Woody Allen should have been purged a long ass time ago. Right up there with Roman Polanski on the list of nasty child predators that Hollywood allows to have a career.</p>
Save
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 one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation. Cops are *never* your friends. And they are under no obligation to protect you. Ever. Get rid of pigs!
Save
Anime, College, and Tbh: LAW & ORDER SPECIAL VICTIMS UNIT NBC <p><a href="http://theultradork.tumblr.com/post/172456608283/theultradork-muslimahcrow-theultradork" class="tumblr_blog">theultradork</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://theultradork.tumblr.com/post/172456170903/muslimahcrow-theultradork-libertarirynn" class="tumblr_blog">theultradork</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://muslimahcrow.tumblr.com/post/172456020101/theultradork-libertarirynn" class="tumblr_blog">muslimahcrow</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://theultradork.tumblr.com/post/162261244523/libertarirynn-oldfashionedfeminist-probably" class="tumblr_blog">theultradork</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/162260821699/oldfashionedfeminist-probably-the-dumbest" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://oldfashionedfeminist.tumblr.com/post/160939030179/probably-the-dumbest-episode-ive-seen-yet-woman" class="tumblr_blog">oldfashionedfeminist</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>Probably the dumbest episode I’ve seen yet. Woman willingly sleeps with Admissions Director in order to help her daughter to get into a college. The man who she slept with lied about his identity, so they say that he raped her - even though she consented. Who thought this one up? Can someone logically explain this episode? Maybe I misunderstood something.</p></blockquote> <p>More evidence that SVU should’ve gone off the air years ago.</p> </blockquote> <p>NOTHING will top the gamer episode tbh.</p> </blockquote> <p>Wasn’t there an anime episode, though?</p> </blockquote> <p>Nah man. Hard to top the amount of pure, made-up BS in this. So much cringe.</p> <figure class="tmblr-embed tmblr-full" data-provider="youtube" data-orig-width="540" data-orig-height="304" data-url="https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dx2klLy8r8Ro"><iframe width="540" height="304" id="youtube_iframe" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/x2klLy8r8Ro?feature=oembed&amp;enablejsapi=1&amp;origin=https://safe.txmblr.com&amp;wmode=opaque" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></figure></blockquote> <p>Ah, and this little gem before that.</p><figure class="tmblr-embed tmblr-full" data-provider="youtube" data-orig-width="540" data-orig-height="304" data-url="https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2Fx6VtUEB3krY"><iframe width="540" height="304" id="youtube_iframe" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/x6VtUEB3krY?feature=oembed&amp;enablejsapi=1&amp;origin=https://safe.txmblr.com&amp;wmode=opaque" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></figure></blockquote>

theultradork: theultradork: muslimahcrow: theultradork: libertarirynn: oldfashionedfeminist: Probably the dumbest episode I’ve seen ye...

Save
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 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.</b></p> <p><b>1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”</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 “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.</p> <p><b>2) “Do you have something to hide?”</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 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.</p> <p><b>3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”</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 “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.”<br/>(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.)</p> <p><b>4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”</b><br/>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.</p> <p><b>5.) We have someone who will testify against you</b><br/>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.</p> <p><b>6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”</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 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.</p> <p><b>7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”</b><br/>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.</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 “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).</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</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 you’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 don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.</p>
Save
Bad, Be Like, and Boner: Just because he has an erection, doesn't mean he wants to f**k. an erection is not consent DON'T BE THAT GIRL. http:l/www.huffingtonpost.com 2012/12101/women-raping-men-a-surviv_n_2224204.html Shortlink huff.tolTANFFR http:l/www.ibtimes.com/six-women-rape-man-death-nigeria-uroko-onoka-wealthy-nigerian-bentue-state-killed-his-six-wives Shortlink: bit.lylQ5vBxx someoneintheshadow446: tree-of-blue-squirrel: cognitivedissonance: hakuna-mituna: dreamsofkittens: abbysucks: mundanematt: The swinging pendulum of sexism arrives! Ladies, Men can get raped too. Remember that. Just to put some perspective in this for those people who may be confused at how a guy can get a boner but not really be sexually charged, so to speak…Ladies, you know how your nipples get hard for seemingly no reason (sans stepping into a cold room anyway)? You go to put on a shirt and your nipples are poking out like they haven’t seen daylight in over 40 years? Or you brush them up against something and BAMMO, nipple town? Or someone slaps you in the tits and they’re standing full mister? You get where I’m going with this? Your sexual organs are built to respond to stimulus, be it one you personally find sexually gratifying or not.  Saying a dude who gets a boner while he’s otherwise not consenting to sex is lying about the fact would be like saying any girl who gets wet while getting raped is actually enjoying it/wants it. so… you know… dont be stupid about this people. guys can get raped too and girls can most definitely be the fuckin perps. People who think men don’t get raped are just as bad as the people who think men can’t control their urges to rape women. It happens less often, but it still happens, and it’s just as traumatizing for the male victim. You can’t just disregard a victim based on their gender. Can we also include that females can rape other females and males can rape other males too?Every.Single.Person.Can.Be.A.Victim.Or.An.Offender All of the above. Basically, if a person doesn´t give you any verbal consent, IT IS NO CONSENT!ALSO! If they are under influences of legal or illegal drugs/alcohol, IT IS STILL NOT A CONSENT! like seriously, what´s so hard to understand about that geez Also a common response to rape is to freeze in fear and allow it to happen. So just because a person didn’t scream or fight back, doesn’t mean they consented to it. 
Save
Bloods, Memes, and Police: Two Officers Placed On Leave After Utah Nurse Confrontation @balleralert Salt Lake City Police Two Officers Placed On Leave After Utah Nurse Confrontation- blogged by @niksofly ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ The Salt Lake City Police Department announced that Detective Jeff Payne and a second employee are on paid administrative leave "pending the results of an investigation." ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Detective Payne was the officer that sparked national outrage after he arrested a Utah nurse that would not consent to giving the officer a blood sample from a critical patient. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ According to law, Alex Wubbels (the nurse) can not give a blood sample without a warrant or consent from the patient. To make matters worse, the patient was burned badly in a road accident. The unconscious patient needed every bit of the blood in his body. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Because Wubbels refused, she was forcefully arrested. The July 26th incident was caught on tape. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Do you think the officer should be terminated?

Two Officers Placed On Leave After Utah Nurse Confrontation- blogged by @niksofly ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ The Salt Lake City Po...

Save
Being Alone, Beautiful, and Life: FOR OF CAN YoU PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE By @florencegivenart · there is a huge difference between a compliment and language that harasses & objectifies someone. Anti-feminists like to act like this line is soOooOo confusing when it's not. There is a clear difference between your partner saying"hey beautiful" and you walking down the street trying to live your life and getting "hey beautiful" shouted - creepily murmured at you by a stranger. The difference between a compliment and harassment has to do with a lot of things, including: Consent, Space, Tone, Relationship, Environment, Context, etc. If you want to pay someone a compliment but arent sure if it's appropriate... Then it's probably best to not say it, because it's better to withhold one comment than make someone feel violated-uncomfortable. The feeling of living your life and getting objectified by random people is very uncomfortable and hard to put into words...But some that come to mind are invasive, feeling like you're just a walking sex object-not an actual human, feeling humiliated & devalued, feeling small & defenseless. ALSO for the derailers: "it doesn't make ME uncomfortable though" ok that is great but it makes other people uncomfortable. "Shouldn't you focus on other issues than cat calling" lucky enough my brain can think about more than one issue at a time and talking about catcalling doesn't mean I am any less committed to ending rape, acid attacks, FGM, etc. (Also as many of you know, these issues are all connected anyway). "women can't take compliments anymore" if that is your takeaway plz reread this post 🙂🙂🙂🙂 "you're restricting my free speech!!!" if you're upset because I'm telling you not to harass people then you probably should reevaluate your priorities in life. 🕊

By @florencegivenart · there is a huge difference between a compliment and language that harasses

Save
Books, Fake, and Fanfiction: Shelley Zhang @shelzhang Friend is reading Harry Potter for the first time. He suddenly realizes he's read a fanfiction Order of the Phoenix instead of the real one Did you get all your booias from the same placet t was al of them in one collection. Maybe it sequed into the sth? So Dudley dies in Harry Potter right? Cudley is never forced to commit suicide No I juss get to the part where he was kiled but Juia cidnt remember that so I just want to make sure iIm not reading some weird fan fictiorn And i assume the scenes where Harry and hermonie gec intimate? What book are Nope Finisting up order of the Phoena He doesnt de in order of the Phoenk Wizarding age of consent is 15 what?! The order of the Phoenix was full of e you serious? He doesnt jump off a bulding? In the real order of the phoenix Harry is baroly able t0 kiss a girl tor the first time, and it's not Hermione heck, no l guess ir's not a hoge spoler, but he doese't de l no point did you think, wait this seems kind of weird or a kid's book? What the what?rl Youre troling me ARE YOU SERIOUS? I mean rd heard they g0t more mature and dark as it No, rm not. Dudley doesnt de. in fact翁the books go on, he gets almost no screen time. Why is he jumping off a buiding? Oay, sol think I know what the answer is going to be, but did Draco and Ginny fake a rape scene? He was paced under the imperious curse and made to jump off his school 0y the rat guy Uh, I don't lonow what you're reading but it's not I'm lauching so hard I'm eryieg the phoeni Ok, Im going to need you to give me a rundown of everything that's happened so far in these books What sick freak wrote thisP:2 OMG This is worth reading and OMG AFSGSYSGSHSHSYDYIEJD 🥗❤️ (if you don't know how to zoom in you can pinch to zoom)

This is worth reading and OMG AFSGSYSGSHSHSYDYIEJD 🥗❤️ (if you don't know how to zoom in you can pinch to zoom)

Save
Bodies , Complex, and Doctor: YOUR OPINION OF MY HEALL H my message to fat shaming assholes (specifically to those who use "health" as a viable excuse to make fat people feel like shit) : Are you taking this persons lifestyle into account? Maybe they eat healthy, exercise and look after themselves, maybe you shouldn't be making assumptions based on how they look. Plenty of skinny people treat their bodies like shit, eating fatty and sugary food and never exercising. A lot of it comes down to metabolism in the end. Personally, I literally starved myself for a year, I didn't eat any meals besides dinner, and I lost a dangerous amount of weight. Fat-shamers are still more likely to label my body a "healthy" one though. It comes back to the societal belief that healthy= skinny and unhealthy=fat but the issue is far more complex and layered than that. Who are you to judge someone's health anyway? Are you their doctor? You must be a Doctor For The People™, judging people's health without their consent and despite having no actual qualifications and no clue what you're talking about. Do you care so passionately about everyone's health, or just the health of fat people who are probably minding their own business, just trying to exist happily? you could learn a thing or two about minding your own damn business. What makes health so important anyway? Since when did physical capability become the epitome of meaningful existence? Your concerns about health are little more than excuses, because you know you hate fat people but you're too busy searching for excuses to address your subconscious biases and change your shitty behaviour. Get it together.
Save
Being Alone, Home Alone, and Life: Me: *home alone* hears noise Me WHO'S THERE? l HAVE A BELT AND I'M NOT AFRAID TO HANG MYSELF For those of you who have read my other stories and asked if there was more and received cryptic answers from me, I want to apologize for being dishonest. I said several times in the comments that nothing really happened after “Footsteps,” but that wasn’t true. The events of the following story weren’t locked away in the recesses of my mind; I’ve always remembered them. It wasn’t until I remembered “Balloons” and spoke with my mother about the following events that I realized how intertwined this story was with everything else, but I originally hadn’t really planned on sharing this anyway. My desire to withhold this memory was due mostly to the fact that I don’t think I showed good judgment in it; I also wanted consent from another person to tell it, so as to not misrepresent what transpired. I didn’t expect there to be a lot of interest in my other stories, so I never thought I’d really get pressed for more details, and I would have been happy to keep this to myself for the rest of my life. I haven’t been able to reach the other party, but I would feel disingenuous withholding this story from those who wanted more information now that I’ve spoken with my mother and another connecting line has been drawn. What follows is as accurate a recollection as I could manage. I apologize for the length. I spent the summer before my first year of elementary school learning how to climb trees. There was one particular pine tree right outside my house that seemed almost designed for me. It had branches that were so low I could easily grab them without a boost, and for the first couple days after I first learned how to pull myself up I would just sit on the lowest branch, dangling my feet. The tree was outside our back fence and was easily visible from the kitchen window which was just above the sink. Before too long my mother and I developed a routine where I would go play on the tree when she washed the dishes because she could easily see me while she did other things.

For those of you who have read my other stories and asked if there was more and received cryptic answers from me, I want to apologize for be...

Save