🔥 Popular | Latest

Animals, Apparently, and Ass: tumblintuck Follow 1r PETA you guys remember when PETA stole people pets off their porches and you guys remember how it came out that PETA kills about 90% of the animals it takes in, including healthy and adoptable puppies and kittens, stating We could become a no-kill shelter immediately. It means we wouldn't do as much work"? you guys remember when PETA advocated killing all pit bulls for the crime of being pit bulls? you guys remember when PETA handed out these comics to children when there you guys remember when they made a porn site and then filled it with videos of animal abuse, and (also in that link) claimed cats should be vegetarian? you guys remember when PETA lied about sheep shearing, got caught, and defended the lie as true even after they admitted the sheep in their picture wasn't even real? you guys remember when they tried to excuse their horrifying ways by claiming that the person who exposed them was manipulating the facts by taking them and putting them in the wrong context? Because I remember. I remember everything And I'm gonna make sure everyone else test Why would they kill pit bulls they're sweeties Because PETA does not care about animals. they do not care that these dogs live and breathe and feel and want love like every other dog. they do not care about the history of human/dog bonding and co-evolution, they do not care that dogs and human beings have relied on each other for millennia, they do not care that its cruel and morally repugnant to put down an animal just because you can, they do not care about animals. PETA cares about money and publicity, its a corporation run by a psychopath who is afraid of pitts as it states in the ink: she was apparently bit by one, and now she hates them. PETA doesn't give a rats ass about animals. They just want to kill and make money off of idiots who fall of their spiel. testi Some celebs support them i-n-m-h ah c'mon, dear-tumb1r, I think you're being a bit harsh. I mean, okay, PETA'S done some questionable things, but it's not like they've also -spread false information about milk causing autism based on outdated -used holocaust imagery to compare the meat industry to concentration camps -used a young man's brutal death as a way to say "yeah that's awful but it happens to animals every day and nobody cares about that" (tw: no pictures but the way the guy died is described and it is really horrible) -dressed up in KKK robes and protested outside of the Westminister Dog Show to protest breeding/pure bred dogs (tw: racism) -offered to pay the water bill for literally the poorest neighborhood in Detroit if and only if they all went vegan for a month (tw: self-righteous shitheads) -and they definitely didn't have two of their workers accept perfectly healthy animals from an animal hospital, with the implication that they would give them good homes, clarify that these animals were all healthy and well-tempered, and then euthanized them all in the back of a kill-van before dumping their dead bodies behind a grocery store (tw PICTURES OF DEAD ANIMALS, animal death) -and they totally didn't get off pretty much scot-free for it because PETA has oads of money and lawyers to defend themselves, which coincidentally might be why the Cerate family hasn't seen justice for their kidnapped and murdered dog, Maya. (tw: animal death) Nah. PETA's not that bad. /the heaviest of all my fucking sarcasm, I am salty as a fucking winter road, lord do l fucking hate PETA) Did you think i was fucking joking, PETA? I will make sure everyone fucking remembers what you've done. 1r Bringing it back, because it's charity season and people need to know NOT to give charity to these fuckers. Source 12,250 notesD Friendly reminder about PETA
Save
Animals, Apparently, and Ass: E tumblintuck Follow dear-tumb1r PETA you guys remember when PETA stole people pets off their porches and you guys remember how it came out that PETA kills about 90% of the animals it takes in, including healthy and adoptable puppies and kittens, stating " We could become a no-kill shelter immediately. It means we wouldn't do as much work"? you guys remember when PETA advocated killing all pit bulls for the crime of being pit bulls? you guys remember when PETA handed out these comics to children when there you guys remember when they made a porn site and then filled it with videos of animal abuse, and (also in that link) claimed cats should be vegetarian? you guys remember when PETA lied about sheep shearing, got caught, and defended the lie as true even after they admitted the sheep in their picture you guys remember when they tried to excuse their horrifying ways by claiming that the person who exposed them was manipulating the facts by taking them and putting them in the wrong context? Because I remember. I remember everything. And I'm gonna make sure everyone else too. testingforcake23 Why would they kill pit bulls they're Because PETA does not care about animals. they do not care that these dogs live and breathe and feel and want love like every other dog. they do not care about the history of human/dog bonding and co-evolution, they do not care that dogs and human beings have relied on each other for millennia, they do not care that its cruel and morally repugnant to put down an animal just because you can, they do not care about animals. PETA cares about money and publicity, who is afraid of pitts as it states in the link: she was apparently bit by one, and now she hates them. PETA doesn't give a rats ass about animals. They just want to kill and make money off of idiots who fall of their spiel. testingforcake23 Some celebs support them ah c'mon, dear-tumbir, I think you're being a bit harsh. I mean, okay, PETA's some not like they've also -spread false information about milk causing autism based on outdated bullshit information used holocaust imagery to compare the meat industry to concentration camps (no pictures) used a young man's brutal death as a way to say "yeah that's awful but it happens to animals every day and nobody cares about that" (tw: no pictures but the way the guy died is described and it is really horrible) -dressed up in KKK robes and protested outside of the Westminister Dog Show to protest breeding/pure bred dogs (tw: racism) offered to pay the water bill for literally the poorest neighborhood in Detroit if and only if they all went vegan for a month (tw: self-righteous shitheads) -and they definitely didn't have two of their workers accept perfectly healthy animals from an animal hospital, with the implication that they would give them good homes, clarify that these animals were all healthy and well-tempered, and then euthanized them all in the back of a kill-van before dumping their dead bodies behind a grocery store (tw: PICTURES OF DEAD ANIMALS, animal and they totally didn't get off pretty much scot-free for it because PETA has loads of money and lawyers to defend themselves, which coincidentally might be why the Cerate family hasn't seen justice for their kidnapped and murdered dog, Maya.(tw: animal death) Nah. PETA's not that bad. /the heaviest of all my fucking sarcasm, am salty as a fucking winter road, lord do lfucking hate PETA) dear-tumb1r Did you think i was fucking joking, PETA? I will make sure everyone fucking remembers what you've done. Bringing it back, because it's charity season and people need to know NOT to give charity to these fuckers. Source: dear-tumbir 312,250 notes > Just a reminder this holiday season, spread the word.
Save
Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.
Save
9/11, America, and Bad: CAN Following @CNN Former President George W Bush said he is "disturbed" by the immigration deba taking place in the United States because it "undermines the goodness of America." cnn.it /2uhH6uB 6:31 PM - 12 Jul 2018 730 Retweets 3,902 Likes Brotha EB @BlakeDontCrack Following George Bush literally created ICE CNN@CNN Former President George W Bush said he is "disturbed" by the immigration debate taking place in the United States because it undermines the goodness of America." cnn.it/2uhH6uB 9:35 PM-12 Jul 2018 391 Retweets 903 Likes c-bassmeow: fightinginthenameofnothing: whyyoustabbedme: whyyoustabbedme: Dropping bombs on major cities full of civilians because you thought they had “weapons of mass destruction” (and they didn’t) undermined our goodness too. Bottom line about Bush and immigration is that post 9/11 immigration policies rarely if ever caught any potential terrorists but it did spike the number of deportations with the creation of ICE. http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/260/ Deporting people who are not legally residing in your country isn’t a bad thing. I don’t know much about ICE as an organization, but the premise of a government department keeping people out of their country who are not there legally is just fulfilling what a government should do, which is protecting its citizenry. Maybe ICE how it is now needs reform, but if more people who are here illegally are getting caught, I can’t be upset at that in and of itself. Do you even know what you’re talking about? Why even comment if You don’t even know what ICE is about and what ICE has done? Not only that but this view that “following the law blindly” is good which is basically the implication of what you said is fatuous and illogical. Moreover you’re ASSUMING kicking out immigrants is equivalent to protecting “its citizenry”. So do you really think separating powerless children from their poor, war torn refugee fleeing parents is protecting the Citizenry? On what grounds? On what empirical evidence? Do these kids know krav Maga and are secret little terrorists that are going to end us all? WhAt exactly are you trying to say? Immigrants actually commit less crimes than citizens so with that logic we should deport citizens to protect citizens. there comes a time when you have to challenge the law if it’s immoral. Seperatimg children from their families is immoral and authoritarian. Causing conflict in Central America and then turning the people fleeing from the warfare you’ve either created or contributed to is immoral. Sometimes the law and the system is stupid. The government is not protecting us by kicking mostly innocent people out of the country. Also you’re a libertarian and you’re literally endorsing very anti libertarian views which is the irony with libertarians nowadays in the Age of trump despite being a leftist I’m more libertarian than you are. Y’all hate big government only when convenient. LMAO

c-bassmeow: fightinginthenameofnothing: whyyoustabbedme: whyyoustabbedme: Dropping bombs on major cities full of civilians because you tho...

Save
9/11, America, and Bad: CAN Following @CNN Former President George W Bush said he is "disturbed" by the immigration deba taking place in the United States because it "undermines the goodness of America." cnn.it /2uhH6uB 6:31 PM - 12 Jul 2018 730 Retweets 3,902 Likes Brotha EB @BlakeDontCrack Following George Bush literally created ICE CNN@CNN Former President George W Bush said he is "disturbed" by the immigration debate taking place in the United States because it undermines the goodness of America." cnn.it/2uhH6uB 9:35 PM-12 Jul 2018 391 Retweets 903 Likes fightinginthenameofnothing: whyyoustabbedme: whyyoustabbedme: Dropping bombs on major cities full of civilians because you thought they had “weapons of mass destruction” (and they didn’t) undermined our goodness too. Bottom line about Bush and immigration is that post 9/11 immigration policies rarely if ever caught any potential terrorists but it did spike the number of deportations with the creation of ICE. http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/260/ Deporting people who are not legally residing in your country isn’t a bad thing. I don’t know much about ICE as an organization, but the premise of a government department keeping people out of their country who are not there legally is just fulfilling what a government should do, which is protecting its citizenry. Maybe ICE how it is now needs reform, but if more people who are here illegally are getting caught, I can’t be upset at that in and of itself. Do you even know what you’re talking about? Why even comment if You don’t even know what ICE is about and what ICE has done? Not only that but this view that “following the law blindly” is good which is basically the implication of what you said is fatuous and illogical. Moreover you’re ASSUMING kicking out immigrants is equivalent to protecting “its citizenry”. So do you really think separating powerless children from their poor, war torn refugee fleeing parents is protecting the Citizenry? On what grounds? On what empirical evidence? Do these kids know krav Maga and are secret little terrorists that are going to end us all? WhAt exactly are you trying to say? Immigrants actually commit less crimes than citizens so with that logic we should deport citizens to protect citizens. there comes a time when you have to challenge the law if it’s immoral. Seperatimg children from their families is immoral and authoritarian. Causing conflict in Central America and then turning the people fleeing from the warfare you’ve either created or contributed to is immoral. Sometimes the law and the system is stupid. The government is not protecting us by kicking mostly innocent people out of the country.

fightinginthenameofnothing: whyyoustabbedme: whyyoustabbedme: Dropping bombs on major cities full of civilians because you thought they had...

Save
Climbing, College, and Fire: In Case of Fire Do lot Use Elevator Use Stairs thesilencedmasses: adminover20: radglawr: haedia: thewolfofnibu: stahscre4m: there are guys in my dorm who decided to play cards in the elevator see what intrigues me about college isn’t the intellectual pursuit or the bonding or whatever, its the fact that people have the freedom to do random shit like this Okay, everybody, I have a story about random shit in college. When I was in college, there was a particular class I took where, no matter what time you walked into class, if you made it into the room before the professor, you wouldn’t be counted late. I mean, that’s a pretty cool policy, given how some professors are really obnoxious about attendance.  Well, one time, a fellow student of mine was running late to class. As she reached the edge of the building, she saw her professor making it to the front steps (super long rectangular building here). He looks up from walking and he sees her. He then points to his watch, gives her a well-meaning “Look who’s late” face, and walks on inside. What he didn’t know, though, was that this particular student was like freakishly good at bouldering and related climbing skills, so she was just like “Fuck it” and SCALED THE BUILDING! She tapped on the window of the 4th floor classroom (the floors had like 20ft ceilings, so, she was quite a ways up there), nearly making one student piss himself. They opened the window, she rolled through, onto the floor, and slid into her seat about five seconds before the professor opened the door to the classroom.  He did a double take, started to say “How the hell d—” when a security guard ran in, red-faced and panting, pointed at her and bellowed “STOP DOING THAT!” omfg the amount of fucks college kids don’t give astounds me IVE ONLY SEEN THIS POST IN SCREENSHOTS I LOVE THE IMPLICATION THAT THIS STUDENT HAS A REPUTATION FOR SCALING THE BUILDINGS
Save
Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 peteschult: libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation. Cops are *never* your friends. And they are under no obligation to protect you. Ever. Get rid of pigs!
Save
Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 <p><a href="http://gvldngrl.tumblr.com/post/166513263494/wolfoverdose-rikodeine-seemeflow-because" class="tumblr_blog">gvldngrl</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="http://wolfoverdose.tumblr.com/post/166265395771/rikodeine-seemeflow-because-of-the-fifth" class="tumblr_blog">wolfoverdose</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://rikodeine.tumblr.com/post/131562629300">rikodeine</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://seemeflow.tumblr.com/post/131556627065">seemeflow</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><b>Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.</b></p> <p><b>1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”</b><br/>Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.</p> <p><b>2) “Do you have something to hide?”</b><br/>Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.</p> <p><b>3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”</b><br/>The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”<br/>(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)</p> <p><b>4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”</b><br/>Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.</p> <p><b>5.) We have someone who will testify against you</b><br/>Police “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.</p> <p><b>6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”</b><br/>Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.</p> <p><b>7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”</b><br/>Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.</p> <p>U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).</p> <p>Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.</p> <p>Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.</p> <p><a href="http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want">http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want</a><br/></p> </blockquote> <p>One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else</p> </blockquote> <p>Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.</p> </blockquote> <p>Important </p> </blockquote> <p>Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.</p>
Save
Apparently, Bones, and Christmas: ladyjanelly E yanethyrael tumblr Follow STILL ON PATROL I learned something new and horrifying today which is... that.. no submarine is ever considered "lost".there is apparently a tradition in the U.S. Navy that no submarine is ever lost. Those that go to sea and do not return are considered to be "still on patrol. There is a monument about this along a canal near here its... the worst thing I have ever seen. it says "STILL ON PATROL' in huge letters and then goes on to specify exactly how many WWIl submarine ghosts are STILL OUT THERE, ON PATROL (it is almost 2000 wwil submarine ghosts, ftr). Here is the text from it U.S. Navy Submarines paid heavily for their success in WWll. A total of 374 officers and 3131 men are still on board these 52 U.S. submarines still on patrol. THANKS A LOT, US、NAVY, FOR HAVING THIS TOTALLY NORMAL AND NOT AT ALL HORRIFYING TRADITION, AND TELLING ALL OF US ABOUT IT THANKS. THANK YOU anyway now my mother and I cannot stop saying STILL ON PATROL to each other in ominous tones of voice tharook There's definitely something ominous about that-the implication that, one day they will return from patrol thehoneybeewitch Actually, it's rather sweet. I don't know if this is common across the board, but my dad's friend is a radio op for subs launched off the east coast, and he always is excited for Christmas, because they go through the list of SoP subs and hail them, wishing them a merry Christmas and telling them they're remembered Imagine a country whose seamen never die, and whose submarines can't be destroyed...because no ones sure if they exist or not. No but imagine. It's Christmas. A black, rotting corridor in a forgotten submarine The sound of dripping water echoes coldly through the hull. You can't see very far down the corridor but then, a man appears, he's running, in a panic, but his footsteps make no noise. The spectral seaman dashes around the corner and slips through a rusty wall. He finds himself at the back of a crowd of his They part to let him through. He feels the weight of their hollow gaze as he reaches the coms station. Even after all these years a sickly green light glistens in the dark. The captain's skeleton lays a sharp hand on his shoulder and nods at him encouragingly, the light sliding over the bones of his skull. The ghost of the seaman steadies himself and slips his fingers into the dials of the radio, possessing it. It wails and screeches. A bombardment of static. And then silence. The deathly crew mates look at each other with worry with sadness, could this be the year where there is no voice in the dark? No memory of home? The phantasm of the sailor pushes his hand deeper into the workings of the radio, the signal static but warm and kind, echoes from the darkness, "Merry Christmas boys, we're all thinking of you here at home, have a good one A sepulchral tear wafts it's way down the seaman's face. The bony captain embraces him. The crew grin through rotten jaws, laughing silently in their joy They haven't forgotten us. They haven't forgotten. lears, and then a strong voice, distant with the I am completely on board with this. It's not horritying, it's heartwarming Personal story time: whenever I go to Field Museum's Egypt exhibit,I stop by the plaque at the entrance to the underground rooms. It has an English translation of a prayer to feed the dead, and a list of all the names they know of the mummies on display there.I always recite the prayer and read aloud the list of names. They wanted to live forever, to always have their souls fed and their names spoken. How would they feel about being behind glass, among strangers? Every little thing you can do to give respect for the dead is warranted I love the idea of lost subs still being on patrol. Though if you really want something ominous, let me say that the superstitious part of me wonders: why are they still on patrol? If they haven't been found, do they not consider their mission completed? What is it out there that they are protecting us from? There's been something in the water since we first learned to float on it. Not marine life, although there's more of that than we'll ever knoW. Not rocks and currents and sand bars and icebergs either, although they've all taken more than their share of human life But something deeper. Something Other. Something not natural. Sailors have always been superstitious. Not one of them described it right. You don't hear about it so much now that we don't lose ships anymore, really not like we did at the height of the sea trade when barely an inch of ocean floor didn't bear some wreck or other. And better ships and GPS and weather satellites have all played their part in that But we have protection now that we didn't before. They don't intertere with war and battle, even on behalf of what used to be their country, or with rocks and weather and human stupidity. Those are concerns for the living But the Other Things, the Things that shouldn't be there They can't get to us now without a tight. It's a fight They haven't won in a very long time As long as we remember them, as long as we call out to them-not very often just once a year will do- they will keep protecting us from the Things that go bump in the deep More than tifty submarines, Still On Patrol I love everything about this, but it's the last bit that made me say "okay now I'I reblog it. Source:pipistrellus 51,990 notes Best of tumblr: On sailors lost, but not forgotten

Best of tumblr: On sailors lost, but not forgotten

Save
Animals, Apparently, and Ass: E tumblintuck Follow dear-tumb1r PETA you guys remember when PETA stole people pets off their porches and you guys remember how it came out that PETA kills about 90% of the animals it takes in, including healthy and adoptable puppies and kittens, stating " We could become a no-kill shelter immediately. It means we wouldn't do as much work"? you guys remember when PETA advocated killing all pit bulls for the crime of being pit bulls? you guys remember when PETA handed out these comics to children when there you guys remember when they made a porn site and then filled it with videos of animal abuse, and (also in that link) claimed cats should be vegetarian? you guys remember when PETA lied about sheep shearing, got caught, and defended the lie as true even after they admitted the sheep in their picture you guys remember when they tried to excuse their horrifying ways by claiming that the person who exposed them was manipulating the facts by taking them and putting them in the wrong context? Because I remember. I remember everything. And I'm gonna make sure everyone else too. testingforcake23 Why would they kill pit bulls they're Because PETA does not care about animals. they do not care that these dogs live and breathe and feel and want love like every other dog. they do not care about the history of human/dog bonding and co-evolution, they do not care that dogs and human beings have relied on each other for millennia, they do not care that its cruel and morally repugnant to put down an animal just because you can, they do not care about animals. PETA cares about money and publicity, who is afraid of pitts as it states in the link: she was apparently bit by one, and now she hates them. PETA doesn't give a rats ass about animals. They just want to kill and make money off of idiots who fall of their spiel. testingforcake23 Some celebs support them ah c'mon, dear-tumbir, I think you're being a bit harsh. I mean, okay, PETA's some not like they've also -spread false information about milk causing autism based on outdated bullshit information used holocaust imagery to compare the meat industry to concentration camps (no pictures) used a young man's brutal death as a way to say "yeah that's awful but it happens to animals every day and nobody cares about that" (tw: no pictures but the way the guy died is described and it is really horrible) -dressed up in KKK robes and protested outside of the Westminister Dog Show to protest breeding/pure bred dogs (tw: racism) offered to pay the water bill for literally the poorest neighborhood in Detroit if and only if they all went vegan for a month (tw: self-righteous shitheads) -and they definitely didn't have two of their workers accept perfectly healthy animals from an animal hospital, with the implication that they would give them good homes, clarify that these animals were all healthy and well-tempered, and then euthanized them all in the back of a kill-van before dumping their dead bodies behind a grocery store (tw: PICTURES OF DEAD ANIMALS, animal and they totally didn't get off pretty much scot-free for it because PETA has loads of money and lawyers to defend themselves, which coincidentally might be why the Cerate family hasn't seen justice for their kidnapped and murdered dog, Maya.(tw: animal death) Nah. PETA's not that bad. /the heaviest of all my fucking sarcasm, am salty as a fucking winter road, lord do lfucking hate PETA) dear-tumb1r Did you think i was fucking joking, PETA? I will make sure everyone fucking remembers what you've done. Bringing it back, because it's charity season and people need to know NOT to give charity to these fuckers. Source: dear-tumbir 312,250 notes > PETA is shit
Save
Animals, Apparently, and Ass: E tumblintuck Follow dear-tumb1r PETA you guys remember when PETA stole people pets off their porches and you guys remember how it came out that PETA kills about 90% of the animals it takes in, including healthy and adoptable puppies and kittens, stating " We could become a no-kill shelter immediately. It means we wouldn't do as much work"? you guys remember when PETA advocated killing all pit bulls for the crime of being pit bulls? you guys remember when PETA handed out these comics to children when there you guys remember when they made a porn site and then filled it with videos of animal abuse, and (also in that link) claimed cats should be vegetarian? you guys remember when PETA lied about sheep shearing, got caught, and defended the lie as true even after they admitted the sheep in their picture you guys remember when they tried to excuse their horrifying ways by claiming that the person who exposed them was manipulating the facts by taking them and putting them in the wrong context? Because I remember. I remember everything. And I'm gonna make sure everyone else too. testingforcake23 Why would they kill pit bulls they're Because PETA does not care about animals. they do not care that these dogs live and breathe and feel and want love like every other dog. they do not care about the history of human/dog bonding and co-evolution, they do not care that dogs and human beings have relied on each other for millennia, they do not care that its cruel and morally repugnant to put down an animal just because you can, they do not care about animals. PETA cares about money and publicity, who is afraid of pitts as it states in the link: she was apparently bit by one, and now she hates them. PETA doesn't give a rats ass about animals. They just want to kill and make money off of idiots who fall of their spiel. testingforcake23 Some celebs support them ah c'mon, dear-tumbir, I think you're being a bit harsh. I mean, okay, PETA's some not like they've also -spread false information about milk causing autism based on outdated bullshit information used holocaust imagery to compare the meat industry to concentration camps (no pictures) used a young man's brutal death as a way to say "yeah that's awful but it happens to animals every day and nobody cares about that" (tw: no pictures but the way the guy died is described and it is really horrible) -dressed up in KKK robes and protested outside of the Westminister Dog Show to protest breeding/pure bred dogs (tw: racism) offered to pay the water bill for literally the poorest neighborhood in Detroit if and only if they all went vegan for a month (tw: self-righteous shitheads) -and they definitely didn't have two of their workers accept perfectly healthy animals from an animal hospital, with the implication that they would give them good homes, clarify that these animals were all healthy and well-tempered, and then euthanized them all in the back of a kill-van before dumping their dead bodies behind a grocery store (tw: PICTURES OF DEAD ANIMALS, animal and they totally didn't get off pretty much scot-free for it because PETA has loads of money and lawyers to defend themselves, which coincidentally might be why the Cerate family hasn't seen justice for their kidnapped and murdered dog, Maya.(tw: animal death) Nah. PETA's not that bad. /the heaviest of all my fucking sarcasm, am salty as a fucking winter road, lord do lfucking hate PETA) dear-tumb1r Did you think i was fucking joking, PETA? I will make sure everyone fucking remembers what you've done. Bringing it back, because it's charity season and people need to know NOT to give charity to these fuckers. Source: dear-tumbir 312,250 notes > PETA is shit
Save