🔥 Popular | Latest

memecollegeextra: memecollege: “I used to drug and rob niggas” - Cardi B If yall dont cancel her, Im quitting all social media forever. No argument honestly. At this point, if someone defends her, then this just blatant Double Standards. Sexual Assault is Sexual Assault.  Roofing is Roofing. Yall accused MJ of crimes that were never on camera, and they were dismissed with no evidence.  Cardi B just admitted to a crime, that she actually did. If she gets off scott free with no repercussions, then yeah Im done too. The thing I like to add as well.MJ was accused, and he was acquitted.Cardi B ADMITTED TO A CRIME, and she is free.This would be different if some ACCUSED her of the crime she ADMITTED.BUT SHE ADMITTED TO A CRIME.WHY ARE U HOES DEFENDING HER??????????????????????: CARDİ B Admits to using SEX to DRUG men and ROB them for their MONEY! thedailycunt ЕЕ memecollegeextra: memecollege: “I used to drug and rob niggas” - Cardi B If yall dont cancel her, Im quitting all social media forever. No argument honestly. At this point, if someone defends her, then this just blatant Double Standards. Sexual Assault is Sexual Assault.  Roofing is Roofing. Yall accused MJ of crimes that were never on camera, and they were dismissed with no evidence.  Cardi B just admitted to a crime, that she actually did. If she gets off scott free with no repercussions, then yeah Im done too. The thing I like to add as well.MJ was accused, and he was acquitted.Cardi B ADMITTED TO A CRIME, and she is free.This would be different if some ACCUSED her of the crime she ADMITTED.BUT SHE ADMITTED TO A CRIME.WHY ARE U HOES DEFENDING HER??????????????????????
Save
faikitty: mermaibee: ultrafacts: According to the CDC, in 10 percent of those drownings, the adult will actually watch the child do it, having no idea it is happening. Drowning does not look like drowning—Dr. Pia, in an article in the Coast Guard’s On Scene magazine, described the Instinctive Drowning Response like this: “Except in rare circumstances, drowning people are physiologically unable to call out for help. The respiratory system was designed for breathing. Speech is the secondary or overlaid function. Breathing must be fulfilled before speech occurs. Drowning people’s mouths alternately sink below and reappear above the surface of the water. The mouths of drowning people are not above the surface of the water long enough for them to exhale, inhale, and call out for help. When the drowning people’s mouths are above the surface, they exhale and inhale quickly as their mouths start to sink below the surface of the water. Drowning people cannot wave for help. Nature instinctively forces them to extend their arms laterally and press down on the water’s surface. Pressing down on the surface of the water permits drowning people to leverage their bodies so they can lift their mouths out of the water to breathe. Throughout the Instinctive Drowning Response, drowning people cannot voluntarily control their arm movements. Physiologically, drowning people who are struggling on the surface of the water cannot stop drowning and perform voluntary movements such as waving for help, moving toward a rescuer, or reaching out for a piece of rescue equipment. From beginning to end of the Instinctive Drowning Response people’s bodies remain upright in the water, with no evidence of a supporting kick. Unless rescued by a trained lifeguard, these drowning people can only struggle on the surface of the water from 20 to 60 seconds before submersion occurs.” This doesn’t mean that a person that is yelling for help and thrashing isn’t in real trouble—they are experiencing aquatic distress. Not always present before the Instinctive Drowning Response, aquatic distress doesn’t last long—but unlike true drowning, these victims can still assist in their own rescue. They can grab lifelines, throw rings, etc. Look for these other signs of drowning when persons are in the water: Head low in the water, mouth at water level Head tilted back with mouth open Eyes glassy and empty, unable to focus Eyes closed Hair over forehead or eyes Not using legs—vertical Hyperventilating or gasping Trying to swim in a particular direction but not making headway Trying to roll over on the back Appear to be climbing an invisible ladder So if a crew member falls overboard and everything looks OK—don’t be too sure. Sometimes the most common indication that someone is drowning is that they don’t look like they’re drowning. They may just look like they are treading water and looking up at the deck. One way to be sure? Ask them, “Are you all right?” If they can answer at all—they probably are. If they return a blank stare, you may have less than 30 seconds to get to them. And parents—children playing in the water make noise. When they get quiet, you get to them and find out why. Source/article: [x] Follow Ultrafacts for more facts! BOOST FOR THE SUMMER. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE. Can I just say thank you to OP for putting such a detailed description on this? I’ve been a lifeguard for 6 years now and of all the saves I’ve done, maybe two or three had people drowning in the stereotypical thrashing style. And even those, like the save I made last weekend, it was exactly like OP describes where the person’s head is going in and out of the water but it isn’t long enough to get any air. Mostly you recognize drowning by the look on someone’s face. If someone looks wide eyed and terrified or confused, chances are they’re drowning. That look of “oh shit” is pretty easily recognizable. And even if you can’t tell for sure: GO AFTER THEM ANYWAY. I’ve done “saves” where a kid was pretending to drown and I mistook it for real drowning, but that’s preferable to a kid ACTUALLY drowning. Also please remember that even strong swimmers can drown if they have a medical emergency, get cramps, or get too tired. If your friend knows how to swim but they’re acting funny get them to land. And even if someone can respond when you ask them if they need help, if they say they do need help? GO HELP THEM. However . If the victim is a stranger, I can’t recommend trying to get them. Lifeguards literally train to escape “attacks,” because people who are drowning can freak the fuck out and grab you and make YOU drown as well. If you do go in after someone, take hold of them from the back and talk to them the whole time. IF YOU ARE GRABBED: duck down into the water as low as you can get. The person is panicking and won’t want to go under water and should release you. Shove up at their hands and push them away from you as you duck under. Don’t die trying to save someone else. Please guys, read and memorize this post. Not all places have lifeguards. Being able to recognize drowning is such an important skill to have and you can save someone’s life. : Drowning in real life looks nothing like in the movies, and in fact many parents actually watch their children drown, having no idea that it's happening Ultrafacts.tumblr.com faikitty: mermaibee: ultrafacts: According to the CDC, in 10 percent of those drownings, the adult will actually watch the child do it, having no idea it is happening. Drowning does not look like drowning—Dr. Pia, in an article in the Coast Guard’s On Scene magazine, described the Instinctive Drowning Response like this: “Except in rare circumstances, drowning people are physiologically unable to call out for help. The respiratory system was designed for breathing. Speech is the secondary or overlaid function. Breathing must be fulfilled before speech occurs. Drowning people’s mouths alternately sink below and reappear above the surface of the water. The mouths of drowning people are not above the surface of the water long enough for them to exhale, inhale, and call out for help. When the drowning people’s mouths are above the surface, they exhale and inhale quickly as their mouths start to sink below the surface of the water. Drowning people cannot wave for help. Nature instinctively forces them to extend their arms laterally and press down on the water’s surface. Pressing down on the surface of the water permits drowning people to leverage their bodies so they can lift their mouths out of the water to breathe. Throughout the Instinctive Drowning Response, drowning people cannot voluntarily control their arm movements. Physiologically, drowning people who are struggling on the surface of the water cannot stop drowning and perform voluntary movements such as waving for help, moving toward a rescuer, or reaching out for a piece of rescue equipment. From beginning to end of the Instinctive Drowning Response people’s bodies remain upright in the water, with no evidence of a supporting kick. Unless rescued by a trained lifeguard, these drowning people can only struggle on the surface of the water from 20 to 60 seconds before submersion occurs.” This doesn’t mean that a person that is yelling for help and thrashing isn’t in real trouble—they are experiencing aquatic distress. Not always present before the Instinctive Drowning Response, aquatic distress doesn’t last long—but unlike true drowning, these victims can still assist in their own rescue. They can grab lifelines, throw rings, etc. Look for these other signs of drowning when persons are in the water: Head low in the water, mouth at water level Head tilted back with mouth open Eyes glassy and empty, unable to focus Eyes closed Hair over forehead or eyes Not using legs—vertical Hyperventilating or gasping Trying to swim in a particular direction but not making headway Trying to roll over on the back Appear to be climbing an invisible ladder So if a crew member falls overboard and everything looks OK—don’t be too sure. Sometimes the most common indication that someone is drowning is that they don’t look like they’re drowning. They may just look like they are treading water and looking up at the deck. One way to be sure? Ask them, “Are you all right?” If they can answer at all—they probably are. If they return a blank stare, you may have less than 30 seconds to get to them. And parents—children playing in the water make noise. When they get quiet, you get to them and find out why. Source/article: [x] Follow Ultrafacts for more facts! BOOST FOR THE SUMMER. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE. Can I just say thank you to OP for putting such a detailed description on this? I’ve been a lifeguard for 6 years now and of all the saves I’ve done, maybe two or three had people drowning in the stereotypical thrashing style. And even those, like the save I made last weekend, it was exactly like OP describes where the person’s head is going in and out of the water but it isn’t long enough to get any air. Mostly you recognize drowning by the look on someone’s face. If someone looks wide eyed and terrified or confused, chances are they’re drowning. That look of “oh shit” is pretty easily recognizable. And even if you can’t tell for sure: GO AFTER THEM ANYWAY. I’ve done “saves” where a kid was pretending to drown and I mistook it for real drowning, but that’s preferable to a kid ACTUALLY drowning. Also please remember that even strong swimmers can drown if they have a medical emergency, get cramps, or get too tired. If your friend knows how to swim but they’re acting funny get them to land. And even if someone can respond when you ask them if they need help, if they say they do need help? GO HELP THEM. However . If the victim is a stranger, I can’t recommend trying to get them. Lifeguards literally train to escape “attacks,” because people who are drowning can freak the fuck out and grab you and make YOU drown as well. If you do go in after someone, take hold of them from the back and talk to them the whole time. IF YOU ARE GRABBED: duck down into the water as low as you can get. The person is panicking and won’t want to go under water and should release you. Shove up at their hands and push them away from you as you duck under. Don’t die trying to save someone else. Please guys, read and memorize this post. Not all places have lifeguards. Being able to recognize drowning is such an important skill to have and you can save someone’s life.
Save
i-care-to-live: culdeefell: lumbaghini: consultingdoctorwholock: loki-against-onision: libertarirynn: keyhollow: klubbhead: gaypussyretard: panzerkampfwagentigerrausfb: libertybill: cecaeliawitch: radical-f: girlsmoonsandstars: kittyit: darren-fucking-chriss: verysiriusly: legendarylangst: mnemophile: gonefashion: psyducked: heterophobiac: This is the most bizarre yet pure thing I’ve ever encountered on grindr Are you going? these guys went and said it was wholesome and fun! and look what he said https://www.buzzfeed.com/juliareinstein/grindr-bbq-not-orgy?utm_term=.ur27oKlpv#.yfXpzGdkZ update: he had a thanksgiving dinner and is having a christmas dinner in case y’all missed out on the bbq!! lgb-bq :’) The guy is a registered sex offender. Kidnapping of a minor and sexual assault. http://sexoffender.ncsbi.gov/details.aspx?SRN=011019S7 a serial child rapist trying to get “families” to attend his bbq. jesus christ god damn it it was literally shady from the fact that he posted it to Grindr like of course he was trying to reach a specific audience no wonder his family doesn’t talk to him Holy fuck i used to really like this post, thought it was cute. shame. Written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan Well this took an unpleasant turn since the last time I saw it No worries @loki-against-onision , I got one Ok, so, I researched this. I read his court files. What this guy did was he let two young couples who wanted to have sex away from their parents’ eyes into his house. Here’s a “statement of the facts” from an appeal after he was convicted: “Fourteen-year-old Stephanie was dating 18 year-old Timothy Cutshall; fifteen-year-old Rachelle was dating 23 year-old Chris Hall.  On the night in question, Hall and Cutshall asked the defendant to let them use his house for a liaison with the girls. The girls lied to their parents about where they were going, went to the defendant’s house, and had sex with Cutshall and Hall; the defendant never had sex with either girl. “The evidence was in conflict as to whether the defendant knew that the girls were underage.  There was no evidence that he knew they were younger enough than the men to render their otherwise consensual intercourse statutory rape.  Finally, there was no evidence that he knew that the girls did not have their parents’ permission to go to his house. Nonetheless, the defendant was convicted of aiding and abetting statutory rape, second degree kidnapping, and taking indecent liberties with children.” The person who shared his sex offender registry completely made up the “sexual assault” charge, and “kidnapping” didn’t sit right with me, so I looked into it. What actually happened was complicated. What it looks like to me is this dude, possibly under the influence of the alcohol he said ruined his life, made a stupid decision to trust these kids and had some creative prosecutors throw the book at him in every way they could think of. Wow that’s way worse. BBQ man is un-canceled. Let’s try and give him some happiness, he’s had shit luck. can we acknowledge how important CONTEXT is when we are “exposing” peoples lives, past, and especially convictions? thanks. : BBQ not n ORGY 61 Online now 7 miles away BBQ not n ORGY 61 Online now 1 7 miles away 5th annual 4th of July BBQ June 30th from1 until ? Why do 90% of u think this is an orgy? t's not t's open to all Is it because I'm on this app? I try to invite all types of people men, women, gay, bi, str8, trans doesn't matter to me. Height Weight Ethnicity Body Type 6'0" 240 lbs White Stocky Gender Man BBQ not n ORGY 7 miles away Sun, Jun 17 Hey 2:47 PM Today I'm having my annual BBQ June 30th from 1pm until? slow cook pig, chicken wings, hamburgers, fish and vegetarian meals. No cost just bring your own booze. Sodas, tea, water is provided. Please feel free to bring ur wife, partner or just a date. This party is open to men, women, families. Gay, str8, bi, and the unknown. 3:48 PM Say something i-care-to-live: culdeefell: lumbaghini: consultingdoctorwholock: loki-against-onision: libertarirynn: keyhollow: klubbhead: gaypussyretard: panzerkampfwagentigerrausfb: libertybill: cecaeliawitch: radical-f: girlsmoonsandstars: kittyit: darren-fucking-chriss: verysiriusly: legendarylangst: mnemophile: gonefashion: psyducked: heterophobiac: This is the most bizarre yet pure thing I’ve ever encountered on grindr Are you going? these guys went and said it was wholesome and fun! and look what he said https://www.buzzfeed.com/juliareinstein/grindr-bbq-not-orgy?utm_term=.ur27oKlpv#.yfXpzGdkZ update: he had a thanksgiving dinner and is having a christmas dinner in case y’all missed out on the bbq!! lgb-bq :’) The guy is a registered sex offender. Kidnapping of a minor and sexual assault. http://sexoffender.ncsbi.gov/details.aspx?SRN=011019S7 a serial child rapist trying to get “families” to attend his bbq. jesus christ god damn it it was literally shady from the fact that he posted it to Grindr like of course he was trying to reach a specific audience no wonder his family doesn’t talk to him Holy fuck i used to really like this post, thought it was cute. shame. Written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan Well this took an unpleasant turn since the last time I saw it No worries @loki-against-onision , I got one Ok, so, I researched this. I read his court files. What this guy did was he let two young couples who wanted to have sex away from their parents’ eyes into his house. Here’s a “statement of the facts” from an appeal after he was convicted: “Fourteen-year-old Stephanie was dating 18 year-old Timothy Cutshall; fifteen-year-old Rachelle was dating 23 year-old Chris Hall.  On the night in question, Hall and Cutshall asked the defendant to let them use his house for a liaison with the girls. The girls lied to their parents about where they were going, went to the defendant’s house, and had sex with Cutshall and Hall; the defendant never had sex with either girl. “The evidence was in conflict as to whether the defendant knew that the girls were underage.  There was no evidence that he knew they were younger enough than the men to render their otherwise consensual intercourse statutory rape.  Finally, there was no evidence that he knew that the girls did not have their parents’ permission to go to his house. Nonetheless, the defendant was convicted of aiding and abetting statutory rape, second degree kidnapping, and taking indecent liberties with children.” The person who shared his sex offender registry completely made up the “sexual assault” charge, and “kidnapping” didn’t sit right with me, so I looked into it. What actually happened was complicated. What it looks like to me is this dude, possibly under the influence of the alcohol he said ruined his life, made a stupid decision to trust these kids and had some creative prosecutors throw the book at him in every way they could think of. Wow that’s way worse. BBQ man is un-canceled. Let’s try and give him some happiness, he’s had shit luck. can we acknowledge how important CONTEXT is when we are “exposing” peoples lives, past, and especially convictions? thanks.
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
its-bewitched: anti-fem-anti-stupid: jalopyrustbucket: anti-fem-anti-stupid: pesthouse: classic-ash: wtfokcreepy: poppunkvampire: well I found my high school rapist on okcupid which allows me to out this fucker this man is named Ian Dickinson. he lives in Vancouver WA and he is 24 years old. when I was 16 and he was 19, he and an accomplice (who I will not out for personal reasons) assaulted me in his bed while I cried and begged them to stop. when I told him afterwards that what he had done wasn’t ok, he told me I shouldn’t have worn the skirt I had on and I deserved it, and then he laughed. we were both sober. he’s studying Engineering at Clark Community College in Vancouver. stay away from him. Stay safe, ladies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I live on the other side of the continent, but I’m still reblogging this because this man is a straight up cunt and deserves to be signal boosted. I hope you never have sex again. Ian Dickinson do not employ Ian Dickinson he is a rapist use his name as many times as possible so this post shows up when you google him So when his employer googles him they will see Ian Dickinson is a rapist Ian Dickinson rapes women Ian Dickinson is a criminal Ian Dickinson should have an arrest warrant Ian Dickinson should not have a job Ian Dickinson is in Vancouver WA What the fuck is wrong with you people? You’re trying to out this guy as a rapist with no evidence that he’s actually a rapist. One person makes an allegation, work am attempt are an emotional story behind it to drum up support, and several other people decide to smear this person.I hope their using the wrong name.For all we know, this person is just angry at an Ex. If the allegations are true, then law enforcement would know it, and there’d be controls on his behavior. That’s what’s fairly likely. Especially since there’s an “accomplice” that doesn’t matter apparently. It doesn’t make any sense. How could people go along with this? So don’t name the accomplice due to personal reasons, though ruin this guys life? I can taste fuckery all around. “Let’s just casually try to ruin this random person‘s life just because another random person says he’s a rapist while providing absolutely no proof whatsoever.“ -Tumblr : its-bewitched: anti-fem-anti-stupid: jalopyrustbucket: anti-fem-anti-stupid: pesthouse: classic-ash: wtfokcreepy: poppunkvampire: well I found my high school rapist on okcupid which allows me to out this fucker this man is named Ian Dickinson. he lives in Vancouver WA and he is 24 years old. when I was 16 and he was 19, he and an accomplice (who I will not out for personal reasons) assaulted me in his bed while I cried and begged them to stop. when I told him afterwards that what he had done wasn’t ok, he told me I shouldn’t have worn the skirt I had on and I deserved it, and then he laughed. we were both sober. he’s studying Engineering at Clark Community College in Vancouver. stay away from him. Stay safe, ladies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I live on the other side of the continent, but I’m still reblogging this because this man is a straight up cunt and deserves to be signal boosted. I hope you never have sex again. Ian Dickinson do not employ Ian Dickinson he is a rapist use his name as many times as possible so this post shows up when you google him So when his employer googles him they will see Ian Dickinson is a rapist Ian Dickinson rapes women Ian Dickinson is a criminal Ian Dickinson should have an arrest warrant Ian Dickinson should not have a job Ian Dickinson is in Vancouver WA What the fuck is wrong with you people? You’re trying to out this guy as a rapist with no evidence that he’s actually a rapist. One person makes an allegation, work am attempt are an emotional story behind it to drum up support, and several other people decide to smear this person.I hope their using the wrong name.For all we know, this person is just angry at an Ex. If the allegations are true, then law enforcement would know it, and there’d be controls on his behavior. That’s what’s fairly likely. Especially since there’s an “accomplice” that doesn’t matter apparently. It doesn’t make any sense. How could people go along with this? So don’t name the accomplice due to personal reasons, though ruin this guys life? I can taste fuckery all around. “Let’s just casually try to ruin this random person‘s life just because another random person says he’s a rapist while providing absolutely no proof whatsoever.“ -Tumblr
Save
Four caveman comics for your reading pleasure (+ bonus panels in comments): car & friends - prehistory HELLO, I'M GRANK, AND DONT WATCH A LOT OF TV. NO ONE DOES! IT'S 16O00 BC! THE SENSE OF SMUG SATISFACTION GET FROM NOT WATCH NG TV IS BETTER THAN ANY TELEVISION SHOW, THAT'S LIKE... 18000 BTV. I'M SURE. YOU ARE SUCH A ZOE. O @map_entertainments carandfriends.mapentertainments.com car & friends - prehistory GRANK HERE, AND TODAY I'D LIKE TO TALK WITH YOU ABOUT NVESTMENT BANKING WHAT? WE DON'T HAVE AN ECONOMY WE JUST STARTED US NG PILL BUGS AS OUR CURRENCY TWO WEEKS AGO PROVIDING A LITTLE ATMOSPHERE CAN GO A LOOOOONG WAY. OBVI USLY YOU'LL WANT YOUR ASSETS TO GROW N NUMBER OVER TIME, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO SIT IDLY BY AND WAIT FOR THE BUGS TO, WELL, DO THEIR THING. MARVIN AYE O @map_entertainments carandfriends.mapentertainments.com car & friends - prehistory Mllred IM GRANK THE CAVEMAN, AND I CONSUME ONLY THE FINEST ORGANIC PRODUCE. UMM... WE EAT STUFF WE FIND ON THE GROUND, THERE'S BASICALLY NO EVIDENCE THAT ORGANIC F DS ARE HEALTHIER THAN THEIR CONVENTIONALLY GROWN COUNTERPARTS... BUT THAT'S ONLY BECAUSE SCIENCE HASN'T BEEN INVENTED YET! O @map_entertainments carandfriends.mapentertainments.com car & friends - prehistory GRANK HERE! SIGN UP WITH ME TO BE YOUR OWN BOSS SELLING ESSENT AL RED WATER! EARN THOUSANDS OF P LL BUGS A MONTH IN YOUR SPARE T ME! ALL YOU HAVE TO DO GET THREE PEOPLE TO SIGN UP UNDER y U. THEN EACH F THEM W LL GET THREE MORE PEOPLE, AND THEN-- HOLD UP... GRANK, WE ONLY KNOW OF SIX PEOPLE BESIDES US, AND YOUR "ESSENT AL RED WATER" LOOKS SUSPICIOUSLY LIKE SQU RREL BLOOD. NATURALLY-HARVESTED SQU工RREL BLOOD!! O @map_entertainments carandfriends.mapentertainments.com Four caveman comics for your reading pleasure (+ bonus panels in comments)

Four caveman comics for your reading pleasure (+ bonus panels in comments)

Save
An entomologist rates the ant emojis: an entomologist rates ant emojis Apple Beautful big almand eye, realistic and fuil of espression as she gazes gently at you. Ebowed antennze and delicately segmented legs and body. Gorgeous pearascent shean lke slhe is glowing This ant moisturizes. This ant is round and huggable. This ant is a star 11/10 Google Beautfully detailed, elike pose but with an unexpecled neck and odd antennae, perhaps scared straight. Her eyes sugpest she has seen things. Her eepression confirms she has seen too much, Sha is haunted and I want to know more7/10 Microsoft Floppy antens pointy muppet fsc, oddy posed legs. What is she? She has no waist. May be she ls some kind of bee in doguise? l ind her unsetting 3/10 This ant has an unexplained, double jointed thorax, and no evidence of a ist Her four-looled pose suggests that she s centaur rather than an ant ants would be re what was iniended here. 2/10 WhatsApp Good rst impression, kind of bland in the details. This ant has no parscular waist to speak of, floppy rather han ebowed anlennae, and an inexpressive face. Her color scheme is soft and hazy. Iike the sharp angles of her styishly sophisticated laga. This ant may not know quie were she is going, but she knows how she is geting there.6/10 Twitter Were you even trying 0/10 Facebook Gasp This ant is elegant. This ant has a beauttul tapered thorax, a segmented abdomen, alert, ebowed antennae, and a ight-looled pose. This ant's face supgests ouriosity and a desire to explore the world. This ant nspires me. I want to be ike her 10/10 EmojiOne 3-legged. waistless centaurant with strange, linp antennae and a beak. I囟n't know what this is kind af reminds me of & Hork-Bair 1/0, not n ant emojidex This ant... makes me sad. All of her legs are broken The MS Paint art style and gradent abuse cowey distress. She has a duck beak Despie his, her expresnon suggests perseveranoe and determined deertless י want this ant to have a better Iite.I am rooting for her. 3/10 Messenger This ant is a bold and challenging mbture of photorealism and caricature. She is broad and low-bull and seerns very sturdy. She looks like sh๑ would help you mave. This ant is a dependable friend. 9/10 LG A picture of an ant from a children's book. She is wearing Ittle boots. This ant is wrong irevery way, and yet I can't stay mad齜her. T/10 HTC An interesing, op-down view of an ant, her legs are postioned with sighdy iamng symmetry Nevertheless, her overal impresson that of a gracett stylzed design, lke a piciograph. She is sutable for adorning fine garments and jewelry ar parhaps gracing the wals of a Sny ant church 1ike this Mozilla This is a Sermile-1010 An entomologist rates the ant emojis

An entomologist rates the ant emojis

Save
An entomologist rates the ant emojis via /r/funny https://ift.tt/2AJ9ifk: an entomologist rates ant emojis Apple Beautful big almand eye, realistic and fuil of espression as she gazes gently at you. Ebowed antennze and delicately segmented legs and body. Gorgeous pearascent shean lke slhe is glowing This ant moisturizes. This ant is round and huggable. This ant is a star 11/10 Google Beautfully detailed, elike pose but with an unexpecled neck and odd antennae, perhaps scared straight. Her eyes sugpest she has seen things. Her eepression confirms she has seen too much, Sha is haunted and I want to know more7/10 Microsoft Floppy antens pointy muppet fsc, oddy posed legs. What is she? She has no waist. May be she ls some kind of bee in doguise? l ind her unsetting 3/10 This ant has an unexplained, double jointed thorax, and no evidence of a ist Her four-looled pose suggests that she s centaur rather than an ant ants would be re what was iniended here. 2/10 WhatsApp Good rst impression, kind of bland in the details. This ant has no parscular waist to speak of, floppy rather han ebowed anlennae, and an inexpressive face. Her color scheme is soft and hazy. Iike the sharp angles of her styishly sophisticated laga. This ant may not know quie were she is going, but she knows how she is geting there.6/10 Twitter Were you even trying 0/10 Facebook Gasp This ant is elegant. This ant has a beauttul tapered thorax, a segmented abdomen, alert, ebowed antennae, and a ight-looled pose. This ant's face supgests ouriosity and a desire to explore the world. This ant nspires me. I want to be ike her 10/10 EmojiOne 3-legged. waistless centaurant with strange, linp antennae and a beak. I囟n't know what this is kind af reminds me of & Hork-Bair 1/0, not n ant emojidex This ant... makes me sad. All of her legs are broken The MS Paint art style and gradent abuse cowey distress. She has a duck beak Despie his, her expresnon suggests perseveranoe and determined deertless י want this ant to have a better Iite.I am rooting for her. 3/10 Messenger This ant is a bold and challenging mbture of photorealism and caricature. She is broad and low-bull and seerns very sturdy. She looks like sh๑ would help you mave. This ant is a dependable friend. 9/10 LG A picture of an ant from a children's book. She is wearing Ittle boots. This ant is wrong irevery way, and yet I can't stay mad齜her. T/10 HTC An interesing, op-down view of an ant, her legs are postioned with sighdy iamng symmetry Nevertheless, her overal impresson that of a gracett stylzed design, lke a piciograph. She is sutable for adorning fine garments and jewelry ar parhaps gracing the wals of a Sny ant church 1ike this Mozilla This is a Sermile-1010 An entomologist rates the ant emojis via /r/funny https://ift.tt/2AJ9ifk

An entomologist rates the ant emojis via /r/funny https://ift.tt/2AJ9ifk

Save
macgregor1013: I can’t wait to learn what Putin has on Trump - it got to be consequential. Whatever Putin wants, he supports. Why would you give G status to a country that invades to annex another nation, hacks your voting systems, meddles in your election, and who knows what else? This line of reasoning that Trump is controlled by the Kremlin is a level of red baiting, hive mind, groupthink  that is just frightening. it’s sad how liberals fall for this nonsense. I am no conservative nor Trump supporter but this has got to stop. Also the homophobic undertones that the “resistance” are promoting with Trump and Putin being in love has got to stop (to be fair in this post it is not used).  My opinion is that Trump and his lackeys did money laundering in Russia. There is ample evidence of this. There is, so far, a lot of nothingburgers when it comes to the claims that Trump is controlled by the Kremlin and even the more simple claim that Russia is working hard to appease Putin. If Putin and Trump are so cozy and so in bed with each other then answer this: 1. why did Russia not vote with the USA in regards to Israel? 2. Trump is also nice to Duerte, Kim Jong un, and Netanyahu. is he their puppet too? 3. Trump is being more hawkish to Russia than Obama was. The Trump administration has sold weapons to Ukraine something Obama did not take a side on as to not exacerbate the separatist tensions why would a putin puppet do that? 4. Trump admitted a new NATO member, Montenegro, despite Russia’s objections 5. He has increased NATO military numbers outside of the border of Russia  6. Trump has bombed Syria multiple times against Assad while Putin supports Assad, what kind of great relationship is this? Trump is increasing the proxy war not deescalating it. 7. Trump appointed Mattis and pentagon say that Russia and China are a greater threat to national security than terrorism 8. John Bolton is pushing for increasingly hawkish measures on Russia and many other countries 9. There is ample evidence that Trump administration officials including Kushner were manipulated by Israel, yet no one is complaining about that. Israel the sacred cow of both parties isn’t seen as an issue since it’s all Russia. Also after a year of investigating the 19 or so indictments, and the guilty pleas involved, NONE of them have anything to do with Trump Russia Election conspiracy ie- Manafort and Gates were accused of money laundering for funds in Ukraine (as ive been saying for months money laundering is where the evidence points to). With Flynn and papadopoulos both lied to the intelligence agencies but none of it directly pointed to election meddling. In flynns case it was to undermine obama in Israel and one step was to talk to a Russian ambassador the second convo was about sanctions. There is speculative evidence that perhaps was being so nice to Putin because Trump thought he wasn’t going to win and he wanted to push a Trump tower in Moscow and also money laundering. But the evidence that Putin or the Kremlin is controlling Trump and colluded in overturning democracy is weak. Meme farms have not been connected to the kremlin and even if they were . come on give me a break. Memes did not change the election. Democrats need to take responsibility for pushing a lifeless corpse of a candidate who colluded with her party to win, shunned progressives while pretending to be one, and who was known for lying, scandals, and flip flopping. Democrats are just embarrassed that they poured hundreds of millions of dollars into an “inevitable” candidate who lost to a reality TV star.  Liberals should focus on Trump’s corruption, his policies, and their own policies as a more effective way of galvanizing people. The democrats need to stand up for something besides Russiagate hysteria and Trumps tweets. Immigrant families are being pulled apart while Rachel Madow and the liberals go full on looney tunes with Russia hysteria. Also note how Obama made fun of Romney for being so ardently against Russia even calling it McCarthyism and now that Trump rhetoric-wise doesn’t want to murder Putin in his sleep, the same democrats who laughed at Romney now want Trump to be hawkish and antagonistic towards Russia, which ironically, at least policy-wise, he has been. Also I love how liberals now in a tribalist reversal revere the FBI and CIA, two very corrupt agencies that have lied to us many times before, have spied on activists, leftists, and its own citizens, and responsible for regime changes around the world. Liberals also now love Mueller who lied to us about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. This is insanity. I am not saying it is impossible that Trump and Putin can be working together, What I am saying is that is seems based on the evidence highly improbable. Skepticism is an important tool in the toolbox of critical thinking. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Here are some sources that might whet your appetite for an alternative view of this nonsense  1  (author on collusion fails to show how Russia and Trump colluded. offers no evidence 2  (an hour long debate on Russia and Trump being a traitor; both sides discuss evidence; it is clear which side is lacking in evidence at least to me) 3   (a year after the Russia Trump investigation: an analysis)  : Trudeau, Merkel and Macron are now the leaders of the free world. Because Trump is an unstable, infantile, bully who works for Russia instead of the American people. ge Credit: wI h /eptod hitips/ /ortiy/ ad Hitj/ /bit.ly/23potou macgregor1013: I can’t wait to learn what Putin has on Trump - it got to be consequential. Whatever Putin wants, he supports. Why would you give G status to a country that invades to annex another nation, hacks your voting systems, meddles in your election, and who knows what else? This line of reasoning that Trump is controlled by the Kremlin is a level of red baiting, hive mind, groupthink  that is just frightening. it’s sad how liberals fall for this nonsense. I am no conservative nor Trump supporter but this has got to stop. Also the homophobic undertones that the “resistance” are promoting with Trump and Putin being in love has got to stop (to be fair in this post it is not used).  My opinion is that Trump and his lackeys did money laundering in Russia. There is ample evidence of this. There is, so far, a lot of nothingburgers when it comes to the claims that Trump is controlled by the Kremlin and even the more simple claim that Russia is working hard to appease Putin. If Putin and Trump are so cozy and so in bed with each other then answer this: 1. why did Russia not vote with the USA in regards to Israel? 2. Trump is also nice to Duerte, Kim Jong un, and Netanyahu. is he their puppet too? 3. Trump is being more hawkish to Russia than Obama was. The Trump administration has sold weapons to Ukraine something Obama did not take a side on as to not exacerbate the separatist tensions why would a putin puppet do that? 4. Trump admitted a new NATO member, Montenegro, despite Russia’s objections 5. He has increased NATO military numbers outside of the border of Russia  6. Trump has bombed Syria multiple times against Assad while Putin supports Assad, what kind of great relationship is this? Trump is increasing the proxy war not deescalating it. 7. Trump appointed Mattis and pentagon say that Russia and China are a greater threat to national security than terrorism 8. John Bolton is pushing for increasingly hawkish measures on Russia and many other countries 9. There is ample evidence that Trump administration officials including Kushner were manipulated by Israel, yet no one is complaining about that. Israel the sacred cow of both parties isn’t seen as an issue since it’s all Russia. Also after a year of investigating the 19 or so indictments, and the guilty pleas involved, NONE of them have anything to do with Trump Russia Election conspiracy ie- Manafort and Gates were accused of money laundering for funds in Ukraine (as ive been saying for months money laundering is where the evidence points to). With Flynn and papadopoulos both lied to the intelligence agencies but none of it directly pointed to election meddling. In flynns case it was to undermine obama in Israel and one step was to talk to a Russian ambassador the second convo was about sanctions. There is speculative evidence that perhaps was being so nice to Putin because Trump thought he wasn’t going to win and he wanted to push a Trump tower in Moscow and also money laundering. But the evidence that Putin or the Kremlin is controlling Trump and colluded in overturning democracy is weak. Meme farms have not been connected to the kremlin and even if they were . come on give me a break. Memes did not change the election. Democrats need to take responsibility for pushing a lifeless corpse of a candidate who colluded with her party to win, shunned progressives while pretending to be one, and who was known for lying, scandals, and flip flopping. Democrats are just embarrassed that they poured hundreds of millions of dollars into an “inevitable” candidate who lost to a reality TV star.  Liberals should focus on Trump’s corruption, his policies, and their own policies as a more effective way of galvanizing people. The democrats need to stand up for something besides Russiagate hysteria and Trumps tweets. Immigrant families are being pulled apart while Rachel Madow and the liberals go full on looney tunes with Russia hysteria. Also note how Obama made fun of Romney for being so ardently against Russia even calling it McCarthyism and now that Trump rhetoric-wise doesn’t want to murder Putin in his sleep, the same democrats who laughed at Romney now want Trump to be hawkish and antagonistic towards Russia, which ironically, at least policy-wise, he has been. Also I love how liberals now in a tribalist reversal revere the FBI and CIA, two very corrupt agencies that have lied to us many times before, have spied on activists, leftists, and its own citizens, and responsible for regime changes around the world. Liberals also now love Mueller who lied to us about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. This is insanity. I am not saying it is impossible that Trump and Putin can be working together, What I am saying is that is seems based on the evidence highly improbable. Skepticism is an important tool in the toolbox of critical thinking. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Here are some sources that might whet your appetite for an alternative view of this nonsense  1  (author on collusion fails to show how Russia and Trump colluded. offers no evidence 2  (an hour long debate on Russia and Trump being a traitor; both sides discuss evidence; it is clear which side is lacking in evidence at least to me) 3   (a year after the Russia Trump investigation: an analysis)  

macgregor1013: I can’t wait to learn what Putin has on Trump - it got to be consequential. Whatever Putin wants, he supports. Why would y...

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="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/172655026164/origamirosefactory-libertarirynn-have-a-spicy" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://origamirosefactory.tumblr.com/post/172648085970/libertarirynn-have-a-spicy-new-reaction-image" class="tumblr_blog">origamirosefactory</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/172643558684/have-a-spicy-new-reaction-image" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>Have a spicy new reaction image</p></blockquote> <p>K yeah but when I looked up gun laws in Arizona i was actually astounded at the lack of regulations that are in place to buy a gun but go off I guess</p> </blockquote><p>I’ll tell you the same thing I tell my students: if it doesn’t apply to you then I wasn’t talking to you.</p><p>Also Arizona also has a much lower number of gun homicides than a place with stricter gun control like DC. Funny how that works, ain’t it?</p></blockquote> <p>Updated this to compare AZ to DC rather than NY because it better illustrates my point. I figured someone might bring up murders per capita and for that DC is much, MUCH higher than Arizona despite strict gun laws.</p>: "Gun control doesn't currently exist l mean sure l've never looked this up and I have absolutely no evidence to back it up but it has to be true because I saw something on Jimmy Kimmel live that said Republicans don't want gun control and we don't have enough so you need to listen to me because I car about children and-" MARCH FOROUR LIVES <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/172655026164/origamirosefactory-libertarirynn-have-a-spicy" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://origamirosefactory.tumblr.com/post/172648085970/libertarirynn-have-a-spicy-new-reaction-image" class="tumblr_blog">origamirosefactory</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/172643558684/have-a-spicy-new-reaction-image" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>Have a spicy new reaction image</p></blockquote> <p>K yeah but when I looked up gun laws in Arizona i was actually astounded at the lack of regulations that are in place to buy a gun but go off I guess</p> </blockquote><p>I’ll tell you the same thing I tell my students: if it doesn’t apply to you then I wasn’t talking to you.</p><p>Also Arizona also has a much lower number of gun homicides than a place with stricter gun control like DC. Funny how that works, ain’t it?</p></blockquote> <p>Updated this to compare AZ to DC rather than NY because it better illustrates my point. I figured someone might bring up murders per capita and for that DC is much, MUCH higher than Arizona despite strict gun laws.</p>

<p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/172655026164/origamirosefactory-libertarirynn-have-a-spicy" class="tumblr_blog">liberta...

Save
<p><a href="https://origamirosefactory.tumblr.com/post/172648085970/libertarirynn-have-a-spicy-new-reaction-image" class="tumblr_blog">origamirosefactory</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/172643558684/have-a-spicy-new-reaction-image" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>Have a spicy new reaction image</p></blockquote> <p>K yeah but when I looked up gun laws in Arizona i was actually astounded at the lack of regulations that are in place to buy a gun but go off I guess</p> </blockquote><p>I’ll tell you the same thing I tell my students: if it doesn’t apply to you then I wasn’t talking to you.</p><p>Also Arizona also has a much lower number of gun homicides than a place with stricter gun control like DC. Funny how that works, ain’t it?</p>: "Gun control doesn't currently exist l mean sure l've never looked this up and I have absolutely no evidence to back it up but it has to be true because I saw something on Jimmy Kimmel live that said Republicans don't want gun control and we don't have enough so you need to listen to me because I car about children and-" MARCH FOROUR LIVES <p><a href="https://origamirosefactory.tumblr.com/post/172648085970/libertarirynn-have-a-spicy-new-reaction-image" class="tumblr_blog">origamirosefactory</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/172643558684/have-a-spicy-new-reaction-image" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>Have a spicy new reaction image</p></blockquote> <p>K yeah but when I looked up gun laws in Arizona i was actually astounded at the lack of regulations that are in place to buy a gun but go off I guess</p> </blockquote><p>I’ll tell you the same thing I tell my students: if it doesn’t apply to you then I wasn’t talking to you.</p><p>Also Arizona also has a much lower number of gun homicides than a place with stricter gun control like DC. Funny how that works, ain’t it?</p>

<p><a href="https://origamirosefactory.tumblr.com/post/172648085970/libertarirynn-have-a-spicy-new-reaction-image" class="tumblr_blog">or...

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