🔥 Popular | Latest

valquainton: ms-demeanor: ms-demeanor: the-barista-who-became-a-rabbit: meganphntmgrl: panic-boy-21: blckrapunzel: laughingacademy: interficio-vos: thatpettyblackgirl: The White Wash is real. One of the Earliest Memorial Day Ceremonies Was Held by Freed Slaves The Statue of Liberty was created to celebrate freed slaves, not immigrants, its new museum recounts Just wait until you google what the original Statue of Liberty(that got refused by America)looked like For those of you who don’t want to look it up yourselves: Lady Liberty is a black woman. Guys, this has been thoroughly debunked since 2000, and it does the statue on the left there a huge disservice to treat her as an unwanted copy. That’s Lady Liberty of St. Maarten, an homage from 2007 (post-dating the debunking, even) that was dedicated to the anniversary of the ending of slavery there: The Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor is a representation of Libertas, the Roman goddess of freedom, with bonus American iconography: HOWEVER: Lady Liberty in New York is not based on a white woman, either.  She’s a Muslim Arab woman, at least in terms of the modeling of her face. Her face was reused from an abandoned project to build a colossal statue of a modern Egyptian Arab peasant woman near the Suez Canal (as verified by the Smithsonian, no less). While she wasn’t originally dedicated specifically for immigrants, the poem “The New Colossus” was added specifically because of the position she occupied in the harbor and the symbolic visual power she would have to immigrants coming in. The author, Emma Lazarus, was Jewish. It’s important to fight back on the whitewashing of history, because it happens left and right, but it shouldn’t happen at the cost of misinformation that treats Lady Liberty of St. Maarten as an unwanted prototype rather than a powerful monument in her own right and, ironically, claims that she’s now a white woman when she’s not while also ignoring the powerful influence of the Jewish-American community on the final version. Geez, I’m really tired of people trying to spout false shit all over tumblr. Like, this post has 37K notes, But I assure you, that like many other false posts, ¾ of the notes are from people who saw the false bit and prefered to reblog it that way and be mad, instead of just making a simple google search Hi Darling Friends of Tumblr. I’ve been taking too long to do data entry and I’m not good at actually doing analysis so it’s time to start naming and shaming. @thatpettyblackgirl is a blog that I’ve been observing for a while that has a really interesting pattern of behavior. Namely, posting a bunch of shit like this. Remember that tweet about Olive Garden supporting Donald Trump that was debunked? Well when it circulated on tumblr two weeks ago it was because of @thatpettyblackgirl You know the misreported post about the school lunch program that refused donations from a local businessman? That was a different blogger but thatpettyblackgirl has circulated another version of it. That other blogger has a posting history that’s full of the same kinds of things thatpettyblackgirl posts - lots of reposts from twitter, lots of screenshots from other sites, not a lot of commentary, and things that are decontextualized enough to make them seem worse than they are or to totally misrepresent the actions depicted (like this reposted video and tweets indignant about a man being arrested when the very specific purpose of his protest was to get arrested). It reminds me of that post about coconut husks as a wood alternative that’s been circulating recently - a screenshot of a white man above a news article is posted with the complaint that white people “discovering” coconuts after disregarding them as useless when the article is about a new method of processing coconut husks that allows them to be put to new uses. That blog is fascinating. And has a lot in common with thatpettyblackgirl - both of them reblog their own posts at a rate that’s higher than I’ve seen on most tumblrs (btw, you should know that a while back I asked for volunteers who would let me explore their tumblrs and while my research sample isn’t random it is a collection of small and large blogs and none of them have *checks notes* reblogged their own post of a bunch of screencaps of a tweet storm five times in the last couple of days). Both of them tend to post screencaps, neither one really writes much. They reblog a lot of memes, and both have some pretty big textposts that are just straight rip-offs of tweets (”bi folks have you eaten today? answer quick and iced coffee doesn’t count” is one of thatpettyblackgirl’s recent popular textposts and it’s ripped off from twitter.) They also reblog eachother a fair amount - along with @whyyoustabbedme and @endangered-justice-seeker, who ALSO have really weird posting patterns. Also all four of those blogs are part of a group of nine blogs that were created in a three-week period of 2017 that I’ve been watching that don’t seem to follow a pattern of normal tumblr behavior and that also post an awful lot of incorrect viral posts and are staggeringly popular (for clarity: blackqueerblog is not one of the nine created in that time period). ANYWAY this is all reminding me very strongly of bellygangstaboo and lagonegirl. I know I probably sound like this image: But there are excellent, thoughtful bloggers who discuss police brutality, racism in the US, class warefare, and institutional bias who aren’t ALSO unflaggingly committed to having their own dedicated Snopes pages. @odinsblog, Franchesca Ramsey, @antifainternational, and @mostlysignssomeportents might be a good place to start. My dudes, I don’t want to be depressing so I’ll let Vanity Fair do it for me: That Russian operatives could so effectively engage Americans with tactics as simple as Facebook ads, fake-news postings, and Twitter trolls, shows how dangerous misinformation is in the social-media age, when propaganda can be so easily amplified. More important, it highlights how primed Americans already were for manipulation. When the ICE raids started up again a few months ago thatpettyblackgirl was posting about how shameful it was that there was nothing that could be done. A lot of these blogs are writing about how it’s impossible for black people to succeed in America, they’re writing about how voting is always rigged and you can’t fight the system. And you know what that goes against every fucking principle of my cold little anarchist heart. These blogs are full of despair - they look like they’re full of cute memes and fresh news but they’re a poisoned pill telling you not to bother because you can’t fight the system. They’re not offering help, they’re training you not to bother fighting for your rights (there was a popular post about how the Hong Kong protesters are light years ahead of US protesters - that post didn’t talk about mutual aid or sharing tactics, it just said “people in the US would never” and left it at that, like we can’t learn from each other and share information across borders) Fucking. Anyway. I’ve been fairly quiet about this because I’ve been trying to be all good and data sciencey about it but I’ve seen this post on my dash fifty times this week. Keep your eye out for @thatpettyblackgirl  @uncommonbish @whyyoustabbedme and @blackqueerblog - all of them have large followings and are known to post tweets and news articles out of context and if you’re considering reblogging information from one of their blogs please make a point to fact-check the post yourself. Not everything they post is wrong. I don’t know if these are real bloggers who don’t care about the potential negative impact of their tweet thievery or if they’re weird psyops blogs that are intended to make you feel hopeless about your place in the political process. Whatever they are it doesn’t matter when they continually post misinformation and don’t seem to care about stopping so please be cautious. Anyway, I’m cataloguing these sorts of posts at @psyops-redux so if you want to keep an eye out for stuff that’s debunked I’ll tag by originating blogger over there. Stay safe, buds. Dammit, I got all fired up and I forgot to add: THERE’S A GAME THAT HELPS YOU RECOGNIZE WHEN PEOPLE ARE POSTING MISINFORMATION AND MAKES YOU LESS SUSCEPTIBLE TO THIS KIND OF PROPAGANDA AND YOU SHOULD ALL GO PLAY IT. Ah. The number reposts from their own blogs had puzzled me in the past. I assumed it was something to do with the way Tumblr runs that I wasn’t tech-savvy enough to understand. But this makes a lot of sense. Unless someone tells me otherwise, I’m gonna go ahead and unfollow the blogs listed. Any recommendations for actual historical/current affairs poc blogs to follow instead? : Mira Jacob @mirajacob Two things I didn't know until I was yesterday years old: 1) Memorial Day was started by African Americans honoring fallen Union solders 2) The Statue of Liberty was gifted to America to celebrate freed slaves, not immigrants. Erasure is real, you all. But that part we knew. 7:28 AM May 27, 2019 Twitter for iPhone 37.2K Likes 12.2K Retweets valquainton: ms-demeanor: ms-demeanor: the-barista-who-became-a-rabbit: meganphntmgrl: panic-boy-21: blckrapunzel: laughingacademy: interficio-vos: thatpettyblackgirl: The White Wash is real. One of the Earliest Memorial Day Ceremonies Was Held by Freed Slaves The Statue of Liberty was created to celebrate freed slaves, not immigrants, its new museum recounts Just wait until you google what the original Statue of Liberty(that got refused by America)looked like For those of you who don’t want to look it up yourselves: Lady Liberty is a black woman. Guys, this has been thoroughly debunked since 2000, and it does the statue on the left there a huge disservice to treat her as an unwanted copy. That’s Lady Liberty of St. Maarten, an homage from 2007 (post-dating the debunking, even) that was dedicated to the anniversary of the ending of slavery there: The Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor is a representation of Libertas, the Roman goddess of freedom, with bonus American iconography: HOWEVER: Lady Liberty in New York is not based on a white woman, either.  She’s a Muslim Arab woman, at least in terms of the modeling of her face. Her face was reused from an abandoned project to build a colossal statue of a modern Egyptian Arab peasant woman near the Suez Canal (as verified by the Smithsonian, no less). While she wasn’t originally dedicated specifically for immigrants, the poem “The New Colossus” was added specifically because of the position she occupied in the harbor and the symbolic visual power she would have to immigrants coming in. The author, Emma Lazarus, was Jewish. It’s important to fight back on the whitewashing of history, because it happens left and right, but it shouldn’t happen at the cost of misinformation that treats Lady Liberty of St. Maarten as an unwanted prototype rather than a powerful monument in her own right and, ironically, claims that she’s now a white woman when she’s not while also ignoring the powerful influence of the Jewish-American community on the final version. Geez, I’m really tired of people trying to spout false shit all over tumblr. Like, this post has 37K notes, But I assure you, that like many other false posts, ¾ of the notes are from people who saw the false bit and prefered to reblog it that way and be mad, instead of just making a simple google search Hi Darling Friends of Tumblr. I’ve been taking too long to do data entry and I’m not good at actually doing analysis so it’s time to start naming and shaming. @thatpettyblackgirl is a blog that I’ve been observing for a while that has a really interesting pattern of behavior. Namely, posting a bunch of shit like this. Remember that tweet about Olive Garden supporting Donald Trump that was debunked? Well when it circulated on tumblr two weeks ago it was because of @thatpettyblackgirl You know the misreported post about the school lunch program that refused donations from a local businessman? That was a different blogger but thatpettyblackgirl has circulated another version of it. That other blogger has a posting history that’s full of the same kinds of things thatpettyblackgirl posts - lots of reposts from twitter, lots of screenshots from other sites, not a lot of commentary, and things that are decontextualized enough to make them seem worse than they are or to totally misrepresent the actions depicted (like this reposted video and tweets indignant about a man being arrested when the very specific purpose of his protest was to get arrested). It reminds me of that post about coconut husks as a wood alternative that’s been circulating recently - a screenshot of a white man above a news article is posted with the complaint that white people “discovering” coconuts after disregarding them as useless when the article is about a new method of processing coconut husks that allows them to be put to new uses. That blog is fascinating. And has a lot in common with thatpettyblackgirl - both of them reblog their own posts at a rate that’s higher than I’ve seen on most tumblrs (btw, you should know that a while back I asked for volunteers who would let me explore their tumblrs and while my research sample isn’t random it is a collection of small and large blogs and none of them have *checks notes* reblogged their own post of a bunch of screencaps of a tweet storm five times in the last couple of days). Both of them tend to post screencaps, neither one really writes much. They reblog a lot of memes, and both have some pretty big textposts that are just straight rip-offs of tweets (”bi folks have you eaten today? answer quick and iced coffee doesn’t count” is one of thatpettyblackgirl’s recent popular textposts and it’s ripped off from twitter.) They also reblog eachother a fair amount - along with @whyyoustabbedme and @endangered-justice-seeker, who ALSO have really weird posting patterns. Also all four of those blogs are part of a group of nine blogs that were created in a three-week period of 2017 that I’ve been watching that don’t seem to follow a pattern of normal tumblr behavior and that also post an awful lot of incorrect viral posts and are staggeringly popular (for clarity: blackqueerblog is not one of the nine created in that time period). ANYWAY this is all reminding me very strongly of bellygangstaboo and lagonegirl. I know I probably sound like this image: But there are excellent, thoughtful bloggers who discuss police brutality, racism in the US, class warefare, and institutional bias who aren’t ALSO unflaggingly committed to having their own dedicated Snopes pages. @odinsblog, Franchesca Ramsey, @antifainternational, and @mostlysignssomeportents might be a good place to start. My dudes, I don’t want to be depressing so I’ll let Vanity Fair do it for me: That Russian operatives could so effectively engage Americans with tactics as simple as Facebook ads, fake-news postings, and Twitter trolls, shows how dangerous misinformation is in the social-media age, when propaganda can be so easily amplified. More important, it highlights how primed Americans already were for manipulation. When the ICE raids started up again a few months ago thatpettyblackgirl was posting about how shameful it was that there was nothing that could be done. A lot of these blogs are writing about how it’s impossible for black people to succeed in America, they’re writing about how voting is always rigged and you can’t fight the system. And you know what that goes against every fucking principle of my cold little anarchist heart. These blogs are full of despair - they look like they’re full of cute memes and fresh news but they’re a poisoned pill telling you not to bother because you can’t fight the system. They’re not offering help, they’re training you not to bother fighting for your rights (there was a popular post about how the Hong Kong protesters are light years ahead of US protesters - that post didn’t talk about mutual aid or sharing tactics, it just said “people in the US would never” and left it at that, like we can’t learn from each other and share information across borders) Fucking. Anyway. I’ve been fairly quiet about this because I’ve been trying to be all good and data sciencey about it but I’ve seen this post on my dash fifty times this week. Keep your eye out for @thatpettyblackgirl  @uncommonbish @whyyoustabbedme and @blackqueerblog - all of them have large followings and are known to post tweets and news articles out of context and if you’re considering reblogging information from one of their blogs please make a point to fact-check the post yourself. Not everything they post is wrong. I don’t know if these are real bloggers who don’t care about the potential negative impact of their tweet thievery or if they’re weird psyops blogs that are intended to make you feel hopeless about your place in the political process. Whatever they are it doesn’t matter when they continually post misinformation and don’t seem to care about stopping so please be cautious. Anyway, I’m cataloguing these sorts of posts at @psyops-redux so if you want to keep an eye out for stuff that’s debunked I’ll tag by originating blogger over there. Stay safe, buds. Dammit, I got all fired up and I forgot to add: THERE’S A GAME THAT HELPS YOU RECOGNIZE WHEN PEOPLE ARE POSTING MISINFORMATION AND MAKES YOU LESS SUSCEPTIBLE TO THIS KIND OF PROPAGANDA AND YOU SHOULD ALL GO PLAY IT. Ah. The number reposts from their own blogs had puzzled me in the past. I assumed it was something to do with the way Tumblr runs that I wasn’t tech-savvy enough to understand. But this makes a lot of sense. Unless someone tells me otherwise, I’m gonna go ahead and unfollow the blogs listed. Any recommendations for actual historical/current affairs poc blogs to follow instead?
Save
danji-doodle: Related comic posts: [ #ExorJosh Master Post ] So.. I was about to take a small break from working on a longer comic for one of the commissions.. then I saw this msg:  @insaneficitonbr said:I really wanna see a picture of josh sleeping under the bed and chris finding him purring and dying of adorableness from Leaveitbrii’s Dislocated Fan fiction :3 [<- link] …and because it was something that I’ve been actually wanting to draw for a while…I couldn’t resist the urge….hahaha… So yup, I decided to take a break from drawing a comic by drawing another small comic.. OTL………….. I’m a freakin workaholic. : UGH WHAT'S UP WITH THAT SOUND? PURRRRRRRRRRR PURRRRRRRRRRR (JoSH?! PURRRRRR- DANJI-DOODLE TUMBLR COM IS HE PURRING.? DANJI-DOODLE TUMBLR COM THE FUCK MAN IT WAS SOMETHING, "HE'D NEVER ADMIT TO BEING ABSOLUTELY ADORABLE SCENE EXCERPT PROM LEAVEITBRII'S 'DISLOCATED'- BY DANJI:DANJI-DOODLE. TUMBLR.COM danji-doodle: Related comic posts: [ #ExorJosh Master Post ] So.. I was about to take a small break from working on a longer comic for one of the commissions.. then I saw this msg:  @insaneficitonbr said:I really wanna see a picture of josh sleeping under the bed and chris finding him purring and dying of adorableness from Leaveitbrii’s Dislocated Fan fiction :3 [<- link] …and because it was something that I’ve been actually wanting to draw for a while…I couldn’t resist the urge….hahaha… So yup, I decided to take a break from drawing a comic by drawing another small comic.. OTL………….. I’m a freakin workaholic.
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
Hmm spooky: You xxpurpleshadowsxx whoopsrobots l figured I'd put up a list of all the weird crap l've found aroung home as a kid 1. When I was six, a mummified hairless cat just sort of appeared by the house. I had to jump over it wheneverI went anywhere. Nobody moved it, it was just there for a few months and then it disappeared 2. There was a cow head just laying out back for a while. I think my gramma was feeding it to the chickens. I fucking hate the chickens 3. Every Halloween, my mom would send me to the dead pile to get bones to scatter around the yard for decorations. I never really realized it was weird that we had things called 'dead piles', but there you go 4. My brain went fuzzy during a family barbecue and I don't know what to tell you but left for twenty minutes and came back with four other girls wearing cow pelvises and tubing as armour and claiming myself to be the mighty lord magnet-tron 5. I found a kayak in the forest once. I brought it home, but my gramma stole it 6. Found a cracked fish tank buried under a tree once. I took it home, but my gramma stole it 7. There's a lot of bathtubs in the forest and I don't know why 8. Someone left a deer head on the porch once. Not sure why Just the whole head, cut off at the neck. That was odd 9. There's just these... Weird, powdery chunks of.. I dunno, something. Just buried all over. I don't know if they're soft rocks or what 10. Some friends and I found something big and dead inside a garbage bag under a log, once. We told an adult but they said not to worry about it so we sort of let it go. It's been nine years and nobody's questioned it 11. Our rooster killed itself. Not sure how, but it did 12. A bird carried my cat away when I was 7 and nobody told me so l spent 6 weeks looking for it. I only found half. 13. There's a lot of skulls 14. There's a spot out back where kitchen appliances just show up. I found a wok, a toaster, a toaster oven, and two sinks so far 15. A bunch of porn was just.. In the woods. DVDs. And a couple bible on-casette albums. 3 pairs of prescription glasses. Someone was into some weird shit, I guess 16. Sometimes the air smells like death and my mom just goes, 'think it was something big? And I have to go find it 17. My gramma keeps collecting toilets and 4 foot tall solid wooden lawn gnomes and decorating the driveway with them 18. Every once and a while the sky just doesn't go all the way dark at night and I've stopped questioning it whoopsrobots Okay I don't know how this got so popular al of a sudden, but I've gotten a lot of messages asking if I live in Nightvale or a supernatural episode and I feel the need to clarify that while some of this stuff is kinda freaky my town is actually a rather pleasant place to live. I mean, there's the ocassional imploded fence and something in the forest that whistles back, but we get some lovely sunsets and the sheep don't bite 142,417 notes Hmm spooky
Save
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! : 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
<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>: 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
Is Love a Feeling or a Choice?: oo US. Cellular - 10:38 AM 0 100% acutelesbian A lot of people ask me what my biggest fear is, or what scares me most. And I know they expect an answer like heights, or closed spaces, or people dressed like animals, but how do I tell them that when I was 17 I took a class called Relationships For Life and I learned that most people fall out of love for the same reasons they fell in it. That their lover's once endearing stubbornness has now become refusal to compromise and their one track mind is now immaturity and their bad habits that you once adored is now money down the drain. Their spontaneity becomes reckless and irresponsible and their feet up on your dash is no longer sexy, just another distraction in your busy life Nothing saddens and scares me like the thought that I can become ugly to someone who once thought all the stars were in my eyes fat-thin-skinny this fucks me up every single time acutelesbian I never expected this to be my most popular poem out of the hundreds I've written. I was extremely bitter and sad when I wrote this and I o0 U.S. Cellular I never expected this to be my most popular poem out of the hundreds I've written. I was extremely bitter and sad when I wrote this and I left out the most beautiful part of that class 10:38 AM 100% After my teacher introduced us to this theory she asked us, "is love a feeling? Or is it a choice?" We were all a bunch of teenagers. urally we said it was a feeling. She said that if we clung to that belief, we'd never have a lasting relationship of any sort. She made us interview a dozen adults who were or had been married and we asked them about their marriages and why it lasted or why it failed At the end, I asked every single person if love was an emotion or a choice Everybody said that it was a choice. It was a conscious commitment. It was something you choose to make work every day with a person who has chosen the same thing. They all said that at one point in their marriage, the "feeling of love" had vanished or faded and they weren't happy. They said feelings are always changing and you cannot build something that will last on such a shaky foundation. The married ones said that when things were bad, they chose to open the communication, chose to identify what broke and how to fix it, eeeoo U.S. Cellular 10:38 AM 100% bad, they chose to open the communication, chose to identify what broke and how to fix it, and chose to recreate something worth falling in love with The divorced ones said they chose to walk away Ever since that class, since that project, I never looked at relationships the same way. I understood why arranged marriages were successful. I discovered the difference in feelings and commitments. I've never gone for the person who makes my heart flutter or my head spin. I've chosen the people who were committed to choosing me, dedicated to finding something to adore even on the ugliest days I no longer fear the day someone who swore I was their universe can no longer see the stars in my eyes as long as they still choose to look until they find them again. fr3ight-train This is so fucking important and I think it's something I needed right novw Since you've been gone Source: acutelesbian 1,226,982 notes Is Love a Feeling or a Choice?
Save
Always remember to be insightful on tumblr: oo U.S. Cellular 10:38 AM o 100% acutelesbian A lot of people ask me what my biggest fear is or what scares me most. And I know they expect an answer like heights, or closed spaces, or people dressed like animals, but how do I tell them that when I was 17 I tooka class called Relationships For Life and I learned that most people fall out of love for the same reasons they fell in it. That their lover's once endearing stubbornness has now become refusal to compromise and their one track mind is now immaturity and their bad habits that you once adored is now money down the drain. Their spontaneity becomes reckless and irresponsible and their feet up on your dash is no longer sexy, just another distraction in your busy life. Nothing saddens and scares me like the thought that I can become ugly to someone who once thought all the stars were in my eyes. fat-thin-skinny this fucks me up every single time acutelesbian I never expected this to be my most popular poem out of the hundreds I've written. I was extremely bitter and sad when I wrote this and I oo U.S. Cellular 10:38 AM 0 100% I never expected this to be my most popular poem out of the hundreds I've written. I was extremely bitter and sad when I wrote this and I left out the most beautiful part of that class. After my teacher introduced us to this theory, she asked us, "is love a feeling? Or is it a choice?" We were all a bunch of teenagers. Naturally we said it was a feeling. She said that if we clung to that belief, we'd never have a lasting relationship of any sort. She made us interview a dozen adults who were or had been married and we asked them about their marriages and why it lasted or why it failed. At the end, I asked every single person if love was an emotion or a choice. Everybody said that it was a choice. It was a conscious commitment. It was something you choose to make work every day with a person who has chosen the same thing. They all said that at one point in their marriage, the "feeling of love" had vanished or faded and they weren't happy. They said feelings are always changing and you cannot build something that will last on such a shaky foundation. The married ones said that when things were bad, they chose to open the communication, chose to identify what broke and how to fix it, oo U.S. Cellular o 100% 10:38 AM bad, they chose to open the communication, chose to identify what broke and how to fix it, and chose to recreate something worth falling in love with. The divorced ones said they chose to walk away. Ever since that class, since that project, I never looked at relationships the same way. I understood why arranged marriages were successful. I discovered the difference in feelings and commitments. I've never gone for the person who makes my heart flutter or my head spin. I've chosen the people who were committed to choosing me, dedicated to finding something to adore even on the ugliest days. I no longer fear the day someone who swore I was their universe can no longer see the stars in my eyes as long as they still choose to look until they find them again. fr3ight-train This is so fucking important and I think it's something I needed right now Since you've been gone Source: acutelesbian 1,226,982 notes Uber Humor 2013, stt no tlying cars Instead, bankets with sleeves Always remember to be insightful on tumblr
Save
It Was Something: Dear neighbors who were partying last night, Being loud in your own apartment is one thing, but letting Becky stumble around slur-yelling in the hallway at 3:30 AM is another. I understand that Kristin is excited about her new stewardess job at Air Canada, but she needs to tone it the fuck down because your neighbors are trying to sleep, and quite frankly we all know that WestJet is better anyways. Have fun with those shitty benefits, Kristin. And while it's super tragic that Jen found out Chad has been cheating on her, and only a few days after they did that couple's sleigh ride in Canmore, Christ knows that nobody wants to hear about it at 4 in the fucking morning. Now my cat's awake, he's wondering what the fuck is going on, and I've got to explain to him why Tracy is so upset about the way Gilmore Girls season 8 ended that she feels the need to wander the goddamn hallway of our apartment building yelling about it right now. BTW Jen, the only reason Chad took you on that sleigh ride is because he found a cheap Groupon. You must not have heard the battlecry I let out at exactly 3:37, after listening to Megan give her 2 cents on the serious issue of the gender pay gap, for over an hour. It was something to the effect of, "SHUT THE FUCK UP!" No, you must not have heard it, because Jen's aggressive cry-yelling didn't let up until 4:02, at which point she was ushered into the back of a yellow checkered cab with fresh puke starting to crust on her new Artizya flannel. My point is that after last night, I know your friends better than I know my own friends. I don't have any friends, but that's besides the point. Your friends are fucking loud, and the hallway is a ridiculous place to hang out late at night. Or ever. Actually, you should probably just move out. You're sort of the worst. Luke-warm regards, your super pissed off neighbors
Save
Guy poses as woman on dating app and got more than 400 messages. Some are really WTF: Sy Thomas, 36, a comedian from London, underwent a makeover to pose as a woman on dating sites and to his shock he received more than 400 messages in three days This is how he looks without makeup: Here's what "his" profile looks like after makeover: NOPE LIKE Simone, 28 Sy received an influx of messages from lots of different men and was confused by what he read. Most of the messages either included dirty messages, rude come-ons and dodgy chat-up lines. Here're some of the responses: Back Simone More Damn Girl! Message Back Simone Do you like Harry Potter? If so you should open up your Chamber of Secrets and let my Basilisk Slytherin Message Back If you were a washing machine, I'd put my dirty load inside you Message Back Simone Are you a cigarette? Because you're smoking hot and I want to put your butt in my mouth Back Do you think is natural for Beta like me to dreaming about smelling your feet? Thomas said he couldn't understand what men were hoping to achieve by sending messages like this. "I'd heard from a lot of female friends about 'dick pics' and creepy messages, but as it was something that I'd never experienced in my own online dating experience it was a real eye-opener," he said. "I just can't understand how men can think it's a good idea or what they expect to achieve by it." WHY THE FUCK DO GUYS HAVE TO SEND THESE MESSAGES? Guy poses as woman on dating app and got more than 400 messages. Some are really WTF
Save
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://nostalgiacollective.tumblr.com/post/127239849295">nostalgiacollective</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>When I was younger, reading wasn’t exactly my forte. Actually, I’d be terrified whenever the teacher would call my name to read out loud in class. After barely passing English each year, I decided that was enough. The summer vacation after freshman year I decided to spend everyday in the library.</p> <p>At first it was something simple, The Outsiders by S. E. Hinton. Then it was Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck. On the last day of vacation I stumbled upon the Lord of the Rings and I never looked back.</p> <p><br/></p> <p>Be different, read books.</p> </blockquote>: BE DIFFERENT NE <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://nostalgiacollective.tumblr.com/post/127239849295">nostalgiacollective</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>When I was younger, reading wasn’t exactly my forte. Actually, I’d be terrified whenever the teacher would call my name to read out loud in class. After barely passing English each year, I decided that was enough. The summer vacation after freshman year I decided to spend everyday in the library.</p> <p>At first it was something simple, The Outsiders by S. E. Hinton. Then it was Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck. On the last day of vacation I stumbled upon the Lord of the Rings and I never looked back.</p> <p><br/></p> <p>Be different, read books.</p> </blockquote>

<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://nostalgiacollective.tumblr.com/post/127239849295">nostalgiacollective</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>Whe...

Save
<p><a href="http://homodemon.tumblr.com/post/134589768555/weaintaboutshit-fallout4crazy" class="tumblr_blog">homodemon</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://weaintaboutshit.tumblr.com/post/134571865873/fallout4crazy-thighetician-florydaa" class="tumblr_blog">weaintaboutshit</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://fallout4crazy.tumblr.com/post/134571656809">fallout4crazy</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://thighetician.tumblr.com/post/134571535310">thighetician</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://florydaa.tumblr.com/post/134562964874">florydaa</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://priceofliberty.tumblr.com/post/134562803668">priceofliberty</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>You couldn’t pay me to look at them<br/></p> </blockquote> <p>Gross. Go back to directing your crappy show, pedophile.</p> </blockquote> <p>They might as well be actual dick pics.</p> </blockquote> <p>why is “nudes” in quotes I’m fucking dying.</p> </blockquote> <p>This may as well said, “Mediocre White Woman Forces Herself On You”</p></blockquote> <p>Their nail wraps and with nude people on them like god facts check a little bit</p></blockquote> <p>And that is better… How? I figured it was something like that since &ldquo;nudes&rdquo; was in quotations, but it definitely doesn&rsquo;t make it better.</p>: O0O AT&T LTE 3:06 PM 96% InStyle Gregg DeGuire/Getty Images Lena Dunham Wants You to Buy Her "Nudes" by Marianne Mychaskiw <p><a href="http://homodemon.tumblr.com/post/134589768555/weaintaboutshit-fallout4crazy" class="tumblr_blog">homodemon</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://weaintaboutshit.tumblr.com/post/134571865873/fallout4crazy-thighetician-florydaa" class="tumblr_blog">weaintaboutshit</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://fallout4crazy.tumblr.com/post/134571656809">fallout4crazy</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://thighetician.tumblr.com/post/134571535310">thighetician</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://florydaa.tumblr.com/post/134562964874">florydaa</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://priceofliberty.tumblr.com/post/134562803668">priceofliberty</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>You couldn’t pay me to look at them<br/></p> </blockquote> <p>Gross. Go back to directing your crappy show, pedophile.</p> </blockquote> <p>They might as well be actual dick pics.</p> </blockquote> <p>why is “nudes” in quotes I’m fucking dying.</p> </blockquote> <p>This may as well said, “Mediocre White Woman Forces Herself On You”</p></blockquote> <p>Their nail wraps and with nude people on them like god facts check a little bit</p></blockquote> <p>And that is better… How? I figured it was something like that since &ldquo;nudes&rdquo; was in quotations, but it definitely doesn&rsquo;t make it better.</p>
Save