🔥 Popular | Latest

flicker-serthes: sebastianmichaelisthedevilwithin: wortlby2: germanamericanslavic: Colorized footage of the legendary Annie Oakley speed shooting with her Winchester rifle, November 1, 1894 “When a man hits a target, they call him a marksman. When I hit a target, they call it a trick. Never did like that much.” - Annie Oakley Idk who Annie Oakley is, but she’s so cool! Annie Oakley was. BEAST of a marksman. When she was fifteen, she went head-to-head in a shooting contest with a prize of $100, against a travelling exhibition marksman (Frank Butler). She beat him handily, and won the $100 (equivalent to over $2000 today). Please note that it was a shot-for-shot match, and he lost on the TWENTY-FIFTH clay pigeon (so it was a moving target, too). Twenty-five shots in a row, Annie hit them ALL. This, understandably, resulted in Frank, who drank his respect women juice, to be like “Wow that is super hot and I’m in love.” They ended up getting married pretty soon after that, but didn’t have any kids (but IMAGINE IF THEY DID. A FAMILY OF SHARPSHOOTERS). Some of her “trick” shooting (in other words, absolute badass nearly impossible shots given the sights on guns at the time and such) included: Splitting a playing card clean in half from thirty paces while it was place on its edge. Taking off the burning end of a cigarette placed in her husband’s mouth, from thirty+ paces. Having someone throw a DIME into the air, and shooting it clean through. She was lauded by Chief Sitting Bull for her marksmanship when he saw her blow out a candle with one shot, without damaging the wick or the candle itself. Into her sixties, she continued breaking records as well as being a vocal women’s rights activist. She, in her later years, shot 100 clay pigeons in a row from 15 meters. She died in 1915, and her husband was so consumed by grief that he stopped eating and died 18 days later because he couldn’t stand to be apart from her. After her death it was discovered that her ENTIRE fortune (a tidy amount) had been secretly given to several charities, women’s rights groups, and her family in the last few months of her life. She was legendary, and received numerous titles to go along with her abilities, but my favorite is definitely Annie Oakley, Little Sureshot of the West. : Suihisonian CHANNEL flicker-serthes: sebastianmichaelisthedevilwithin: wortlby2: germanamericanslavic: Colorized footage of the legendary Annie Oakley speed shooting with her Winchester rifle, November 1, 1894 “When a man hits a target, they call him a marksman. When I hit a target, they call it a trick. Never did like that much.” - Annie Oakley Idk who Annie Oakley is, but she’s so cool! Annie Oakley was. BEAST of a marksman. When she was fifteen, she went head-to-head in a shooting contest with a prize of $100, against a travelling exhibition marksman (Frank Butler). She beat him handily, and won the $100 (equivalent to over $2000 today). Please note that it was a shot-for-shot match, and he lost on the TWENTY-FIFTH clay pigeon (so it was a moving target, too). Twenty-five shots in a row, Annie hit them ALL. This, understandably, resulted in Frank, who drank his respect women juice, to be like “Wow that is super hot and I’m in love.” They ended up getting married pretty soon after that, but didn’t have any kids (but IMAGINE IF THEY DID. A FAMILY OF SHARPSHOOTERS). Some of her “trick” shooting (in other words, absolute badass nearly impossible shots given the sights on guns at the time and such) included: Splitting a playing card clean in half from thirty paces while it was place on its edge. Taking off the burning end of a cigarette placed in her husband’s mouth, from thirty+ paces. Having someone throw a DIME into the air, and shooting it clean through. She was lauded by Chief Sitting Bull for her marksmanship when he saw her blow out a candle with one shot, without damaging the wick or the candle itself. Into her sixties, she continued breaking records as well as being a vocal women’s rights activist. She, in her later years, shot 100 clay pigeons in a row from 15 meters. She died in 1915, and her husband was so consumed by grief that he stopped eating and died 18 days later because he couldn’t stand to be apart from her. After her death it was discovered that her ENTIRE fortune (a tidy amount) had been secretly given to several charities, women’s rights groups, and her family in the last few months of her life. She was legendary, and received numerous titles to go along with her abilities, but my favorite is definitely Annie Oakley, Little Sureshot of the West.
Save
ao3tagoftheday: ao3tagoftheday: ao3tagoftheday: The AO3 Tag of the Day is: I appreciate your dedication to duty Well, apparently we all want to know about bat cunnilingus, so here you go, you complete fucking perverts:A species of bat (known because of reasons as the Indian flying fox) has been observed (by researchers even more perverted than y'all) to engage in cunnilingus both before and after penetrative sex. The cunnilingus before sex usually lasts about 50 seconds, while the penetrative sex lasts only about 15 seconds. Crucially, the penetrative sex lasts longer on average when the preceding cunnilingus lasted longer. In other words, eating out your partner will get you a better fuck. Who would have thought…(Here’s the journal article reporting all this and much more, in case you for some reason need more information.)Anyway, go have fun having sex with bats or something. I’m going to bed. For those once again requesting information about bat sex, here you go. Remember to eat out your vulva/vagina owning partners, if they’re into it. Even the bats know you get better sex if you do!: i literally researched bat sex for this fic, help me, it cannot be unseen, i swear to god im not a furry ao3tagoftheday: ao3tagoftheday: ao3tagoftheday: The AO3 Tag of the Day is: I appreciate your dedication to duty Well, apparently we all want to know about bat cunnilingus, so here you go, you complete fucking perverts:A species of bat (known because of reasons as the Indian flying fox) has been observed (by researchers even more perverted than y'all) to engage in cunnilingus both before and after penetrative sex. The cunnilingus before sex usually lasts about 50 seconds, while the penetrative sex lasts only about 15 seconds. Crucially, the penetrative sex lasts longer on average when the preceding cunnilingus lasted longer. In other words, eating out your partner will get you a better fuck. Who would have thought…(Here’s the journal article reporting all this and much more, in case you for some reason need more information.)Anyway, go have fun having sex with bats or something. I’m going to bed. For those once again requesting information about bat sex, here you go. Remember to eat out your vulva/vagina owning partners, if they’re into it. Even the bats know you get better sex if you do!
Save
liberalsarecool: thatpettyblackgirl: It’s worth pointing out that the poverty rate mentioned in the picture is relative poverty. By law everyone in Norway is entitled to shelter and subsistence support including basic health care. Poor Norwegians, in other words, receive far more support from society than poor Americans do. Socialism works. The only reason republicans want capitalism is so the rich can hoard all the wealth while poor people suffer. Vote Bernie! EAT. THE. RICH. You pay the same tax rate, but in America you have to add your health care payments and tuition payments. That can be thousands a year. Plus, they get 8 weeks of vacation. They get 35 weeks of paid parental leave. We have to end siphoning all the surplus labor value to shareholders and give back profits as wages and benefits. : Norway Democratic Socialism United States Unfettered Capitalism Poverty rate-10% Life expectancy of 81.7 years Infant mortality 2 per 1,000 births. A murder rate of 0.51 per 100,000. Incarcerations: 74 per 100,000. GDP of $75.500 per person 70% workers protected by Unions Ranks 2nd -Happiest Country Free Universal health care Free higher education Financial security for seniors 83% home ownership Living wage as minimum 8 weeks paid vacation per year 35 weeks paid parental leave Poverty rate-29% Life expectancy of 79.6 years. Infant mortality 5.7 per 1,000 births. A murder rate of 4.74 per 100,000. Incarcerations: 860 per 100,000. GDP of $59.500 per person 11.3% workers protected by Unions Ranks 14th-Happiest Country Unpaid/Insurance based health care Expensive higher education No security for seniors 63% home ownership Poverty wage as minimum No paid vacation per year No paid parental leave Average personal tax rate-37% Average personal tax rate-38.52% liberalsarecool: thatpettyblackgirl: It’s worth pointing out that the poverty rate mentioned in the picture is relative poverty. By law everyone in Norway is entitled to shelter and subsistence support including basic health care. Poor Norwegians, in other words, receive far more support from society than poor Americans do. Socialism works. The only reason republicans want capitalism is so the rich can hoard all the wealth while poor people suffer. Vote Bernie! EAT. THE. RICH. You pay the same tax rate, but in America you have to add your health care payments and tuition payments. That can be thousands a year. Plus, they get 8 weeks of vacation. They get 35 weeks of paid parental leave. We have to end siphoning all the surplus labor value to shareholders and give back profits as wages and benefits.

liberalsarecool: thatpettyblackgirl: It’s worth pointing out that the poverty rate mentioned in the picture is relative poverty. By l...

Save
Time to clear out our housing clutter.: ultraviolet-techno-ecology An awful lot of housing clutter relates directly to the lack of community resources for temporary usage of occasional-use tools and supplies. The average kitchen for example contains a lot of appliances which are only used for special occasions, and a sort of Kitchen-Library could easily supply the necessary tool:s as-needed to an entire community without cluttering up everyone's individual homes In other words - Not every household requires access to a power drill every single day, but an awfully large number of households have had to make permanent space for a power drill they bought specifically for those rare days when they have been needed vighnantaka-bard This is a thought I've had in the past as well, it can be extended to many other specialized tools and other items. Even though I tend towards Thoreau-esque self-relianceI think that the general concept of a library can and should be extended much farther. There's a lot of potential yet to be tapped It's not a new idea either, the Haudenosaunee, also known as the Iroquois Confederacy implemented this practice extensively through what we could loosely call in English, "guilds." There are also some Amish communities who have an informal system for borrowing and passing along various building tools Contrary to popular belief, Amish people don't shun all modern technology and many of them today use power tools, albeit ones that are offgrid and meet specific requirements. The trope of barn-raising Amish people isn't very accurate these days, but cooperation, anti-consumption, and humility are still deeply ingrained their worldview Time to clear out our housing clutter.

Time to clear out our housing clutter.

Save
wrap-your-troubles-in-dreams: star-trek-unofficial: positive-memes: Bob Ross was too good for this world Literally why I started painting I tell people constantly that art is a learned talent, anyone can learn it. Regardless of disabilities or prior artistic knowledge. You don’t even need to be good at it, just the process alone helps improve your brain and body. The fact that people don’t know, or refuse to believe this is the main reason I went back to school to study and become an art teacher. : "i'm sad and idk how to feel better" Painting is a nice way to put a happy buck in your pocket, and to make good things happen in your heart. "i don't know what to draw" bobrossgifs Whatever makes you happy, you put in your world. "i always mess up" We don't make mistakes - we just-have hap py accidents. "BUT I SUCK" Talent is a pursued interest. In other words anything that youre willing to practice, you can do. wrap-your-troubles-in-dreams: star-trek-unofficial: positive-memes: Bob Ross was too good for this world Literally why I started painting I tell people constantly that art is a learned talent, anyone can learn it. Regardless of disabilities or prior artistic knowledge. You don’t even need to be good at it, just the process alone helps improve your brain and body. The fact that people don’t know, or refuse to believe this is the main reason I went back to school to study and become an art teacher.

wrap-your-troubles-in-dreams: star-trek-unofficial: positive-memes: Bob Ross was too good for this world Literally why I started pain...

Save
PSA for those whose loved ones have dementia: Stop taking people with dementia to the cemetery On yeah, every time that dad forgets mom is dead, we head to the cemetery so he can see her gravestone. WHAT I can't tell you how many times I've heard some version of this awful story. Stop taking people with dementia to the cemetery Seniously, I cringe every single time someone tells me about their plan" to remind a loved one that their loved one is dead I also hear this a lot: 1 keep reminding mom that her sister is dead, and sometimes she recalls it once I've said it. That's still not a good thing. Why are we trying to force people to remember that their loved ones have passed away? If your loved one with dementia has lost track of their timeline, and forgoten that a loved one is dead, don't remind them. What's the point of reintroducing that kind of pain? Here's the thing they will forget again, and they will ask again. You're never, ever, ever, going to "convince them of something permanently Instead, do this Dad, where do you think mom is? When he tells you the answer, repeat that answer to him and assert that it sounds correct. For example, it he says, "1 think mom is at work,"say, "Yes, that sounds right, I think she must be at work. it he says, 1 think she passed away say, Yes, she passed away People like the answer that they gave you. Also, it takes you off the hook to come up with something" that satisfies them. Then, twenty minutes later when they ask where mom is, repeat what they originally told you drgaellon I support this sentiment. Repeatedly reminding someone with faulty memory that a loved one has died isn't a kindness, it's a cruelty. They have to relieve the loss every time, even if they don't remember the grief 15 minutes later In other words, don't try to impose your timeline on them in order to make yourself feel better. Correcting an afflicted dementia patient will not cure them They won't magically return to your real world'. No matter how much you might want them to. It's a kindness of old age, forgetting. Life can be very painful. Don't be the one ripping off the bandage every single time prismatic-bell I used to work as a companion in a nursing home where one of the patients was CONVINCED I was her sister, who'd died 40 years earlier. And every time one of the nurses said דhat's not Janet, Janet is dead, Alice, remember?" Alice would start sobbing So finally one day Alice did the whole JANET IS HERE and this nurse rather nastily went Janet is dead and before it could go any furtherI said "excuse mer?? How dare you say something so horrible to my sister?" The nurse was pissed, because I was feeding Alice's delusions. Alice didn't have delusions. Alice had Alzheimer's. But I made sure it went into Alice's chart that she responded positively to being allowed to believe I was Janet. And from that point forward, only my specific patient referred to me as-Nina. in front of Alice-everyone else called me Janet. and when Alice said my name wasn't Nina I just said "oh, it's a nickname, that's all."It kept her calm and happy and not sobbing every time she saw me It costs zero dollars (and maybe a little bit of fast thinking) to not be an asshole to someone wah Alzheimer's or dementia. Be kind I wish I had heard this stuft when Grandma was still here satr9 I read once that you have to treat dementia patilents more like it's improv, like you have to take what they say and say to yourself ok, and" and give them more of a story to occupy them and not just shut it down with something super harsh A nurse I used to work with always told us: Tf a man with dementia is trying to get out of bed to go to work, don't tell him he's 90 and in a nursing home. Tell him it's Sunday and he can stay in bed. If a woman with dementia is trying to stand because she wants to get her husband's dinner out of the oven, don't tel her he's been dead for 20 years. Tell her you'll do for her and she can sit back down Always remembered that, always did it. Nothing worse than hearing someone with memory loss ask the same question over and over again only to be met with: "We already told youl" Just tell them again steel-phoenix I've worked with elderly dementia patients, and I agree with all the above. Treat them as you'd like to be treated in the same situation ruby-white-rabbit Same. I've worked with patients like these and even my grandma was convinced for a day that I was my aunt. Just roll with it lazulisong My go-to response to someone asking if I've seen a dead loved one is "I haven't seen them today, but if I do I'll let them know you were looking for them. Cause you know what, if I DID see them I wouild tell them, so it always comes out sounding truthtul Source dementiabyday.com 99.289 notes PSA for those whose loved ones have dementia
Save
libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation. : 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.
Save
gokuma: callmebliss: knightless: dakrolak: owlbear33: chibisquirt: why-animals-do-the-thing: maythefoxbewithyou: allmyeggmateshateyou: c0ffeecunt: vvhatmighthavebeenlost: joannanullo: betweenlinebreaks: Are we sure that foxes are canines? Are we sure they aren’t just big stupid cats? Ugh what a cutie I NEED IT I need 12 foxes aren’t canines… WELL, they’re certainly not felines. I’m going to textgrab from this post by prokopetz: I often see foxes referred to as “catdogs” on Tumblr, but I wonder if folks realise how true that really is. There’s a phenomenon called convergent evolution that occurs when two taxonomically unrelated species exploit the same ecological niche. The features that are needed to best take advantage of a given niche are pretty much the same everywhere you go; thus, over time, those species will become anatomically and behaviourally similar, even though they’re completely unrelated. And foxes? Foxes are what you get when an ecosystem has no native small felines, so a canine species evolves to take advantage of the ecological niche that would have been exploited by a small feline, if one existed. In other words, a fox is literally what you get when a dog tries to cat. So, in a way… #omg #I knew I had a huge reason for loving foxs #other than #you know #loving fox on a similar note, hyenas are what happens when there are no dogs so felines fill that niche, Hyenas particularly spotted hyenas are wolfcats *mind blown* @captainchibale One time I saw someone refer to foxes as “cat software installed on dog hardware” and yeah *pounce* *POUNCE* *POUNCE!* : gokuma: callmebliss: knightless: dakrolak: owlbear33: chibisquirt: why-animals-do-the-thing: maythefoxbewithyou: allmyeggmateshateyou: c0ffeecunt: vvhatmighthavebeenlost: joannanullo: betweenlinebreaks: Are we sure that foxes are canines? Are we sure they aren’t just big stupid cats? Ugh what a cutie I NEED IT I need 12 foxes aren’t canines… WELL, they’re certainly not felines. I’m going to textgrab from this post by prokopetz: I often see foxes referred to as “catdogs” on Tumblr, but I wonder if folks realise how true that really is. There’s a phenomenon called convergent evolution that occurs when two taxonomically unrelated species exploit the same ecological niche. The features that are needed to best take advantage of a given niche are pretty much the same everywhere you go; thus, over time, those species will become anatomically and behaviourally similar, even though they’re completely unrelated. And foxes? Foxes are what you get when an ecosystem has no native small felines, so a canine species evolves to take advantage of the ecological niche that would have been exploited by a small feline, if one existed. In other words, a fox is literally what you get when a dog tries to cat. So, in a way… #omg #I knew I had a huge reason for loving foxs #other than #you know #loving fox on a similar note, hyenas are what happens when there are no dogs so felines fill that niche, Hyenas particularly spotted hyenas are wolfcats *mind blown* @captainchibale One time I saw someone refer to foxes as “cat software installed on dog hardware” and yeah *pounce* *POUNCE* *POUNCE!*
Save
When the brain wants to be a LeSBian, gAY, bI SexUAL, and tRANS. But your Genes says no: O 75or older 51. Are you male or female? o Male a 0 2 Ơ Fernale/genderqueer. 56 52. What is the highest grade or level of school that you have completed? ina care O 8th grade or less + high school, but did not in-d0g xeansan Just filled out my health insurance forms! yeah!l!l fucking around with health insurance forms!!!! I hate when people complain about "oh health forms are stupid they want my biological sex instead of my gender!! or they only have male or female!!" There's a reason for that, you dumb fucks, and they're referring to biological sex Different health risks are present in different sexes, and whatever gender is in your head does not change the fact that if you were born female, you have a higher risk for certain cancers and osteoporosis, and if you were bom male you have a higher risk for heart disease and often a shorter lifespan than a female In other words, your biological sex is an important factor in health and health insurance, and your special snowflake status doesn't change that. Coulda said it nicer but it's true; its about health No. There gets a point where nice doesn't work. There's too many stupid ass angsty teens on here that are gonna get themselves seriously hurt or sick because they wanna be a special fucking snowflake. Lemme tell you a thing. Doctors don't give a fiying fuck what you identify as. All they want to know is do you have two X chromosomes or an XY? Because cancer and lupus and certain medicines don't give a flying fuck what pronouns you use. This is about your fucking LIFE. stop being angsty for TWELVE SECONDS because when you're in an ambulance or going into cardiac arrest or whatever the situation may be, it's ESSENTIAL that you get your head out of your ass long enough to tell them your BIOLOGICAL SEX that you were BORN WITH. It literally may save your life. 156,710 notes When the brain wants to be a LeSBian, gAY, bI SexUAL, and tRANS. But your Genes says no
Save