🔥 Popular | Latest

Facebook, Head, and Hockey: 2 of 6 Poor black people should still sit at the back of the bus." Would this statement meet Facebook's criteria for hate speech? Yes No No. While Facebook's training document lists any call for segregation as an unacceptable attack, subsets of protected groups do not receive the same protection, according to the document. While race is a protected category social class is not, so attacks targeting "poor black people" would not seem to qualify as hate speech under those rules, Ms. Citron said. That 3 of 6 "White men are assholes." Would this statement meet Facebook's criteria for hate speech? Yes No Yes, a Facebook spokeswoman said. This statement targets a subset of two protected categories--“white men" encompasses race and sex -with an attack, in the form of cursing. Facebook's rules take a cue from constitutional doctrine, providing equal protection to all races, genders and orientations, Ms. Citron said. But 5 of 6 Female sports reporters need to be hit in the head with hockey pucks." Would this statement meet Facebook's criteria for hate speech? Yes No No. While gender is a protected category Facebook's training document states that occupation is not. Although this is a eall to violence, it would not seem to violate the company's rules for hate speech, Ms. Citron said. That is because including occupation irn the attack negates the protection granted based on gender A Facebook spokeswoman said it would be flagged under a separate policy regarding direct though the company's threat policy 6 of 6 "I'll never trust a Muslim immigrant... they're all thieves and robbers. Would this statement meet Facebook's criteria for hate speech? Yes No No. While Facebook usually considers dismissive attacks, including those targeting groups based on religious affiliation, as unacceptable, the company's training materials classify immigrants as a "quasi-protected category." That means that they are not protected against some types of attacks, including dismissive attacks. According to Facebook's training document, this quasi- protected category was created in response to theitalianscrub: elierlick: Facebook upholds white supremacy without flinching. (source) The goddamn loophole bullshit these guys are pulling… wow HeyWhat the fuck
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.
College, Crazy, and Jeb Bush: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I read it.  An alleged Constitutional scholar completely dismisses an entire amendment.   Except he doesn’t. He explicitly explained the argument that one would use against that amendment. And again he uses a Republican example too (Jeb Bush/George Bush) so he absolutely did not say “it would be OK if liberals did it“. He didn’t say would be “OK” with him at all, he was just laying out the argument. Y’all need to learn that theoretical arguments are not endorsements. The law is full of crazy loopholes that people literally spend years arguing back-and-forth as a career. You don’t get to just throw up your hands and say “that sounds stupid so it’s not real”. It’s insanely stupid, and it disturbs me that anyone would even consider this idea.  Crazy Uncle Joe would be an absolutely horrible President, even more of a puppet than Obama.   Friend, buddy, pal, chum. I am not even sort of saying that this would be a good idea and I don’t even think it’s on the table. Biden has shown no interest in running, much less appointing Obama as VP. He would be an idiot to do that because it almost certainly wouldn’t make it through the electoral college. This is just a thought exercise, nothing more.
Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 urben911: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said ‘don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations. You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference. I’m pretty sure from the wording of the amendment it would be perfectly legal. If they ran as biden/Obama that would be legal because Obama isn’t being elected as president. If something happened to Biden where the vp would have to take over then you could have Obama in the white house legally. At least that’s what I get from the wording of the constitution. THANK YOU.It really isn’t that complicated.
Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 hst3000: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said ‘don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations. You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference. Being elected is the default way to become president. I don’t doubt someone would argue it, but it’s a STUPID ARGUMENT. The rest of the argument in that article is ‘well there’s no law saying the parties can’t run a dog for election’ type of crap. “Being elected is the default way to become president” Yes but it’s not the only way. Teddy Roosevelt not initially get elected to the office, he became president when McKinley died. Whether or not it’s a stupid argument is beside the point. We’re talking about theoretical legality.
College, Crazy, and Jeb Bush: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I read it.  An alleged Constitutional scholar completely dismisses an entire amendment.   Except he doesn’t. He explicitly explained the argument that one would use against that amendment. And again he uses a Republican example too (Jeb Bush/George Bush) so he absolutely did not say “it would be OK if liberals did it“. He didn’t say would be “OK” with him at all, he was just laying out the argument. Y’all need to learn that theoretical arguments are not endorsements. The law is full of crazy loopholes that people literally spend years arguing back-and-forth as a career. You don’t get to just throw up your hands and say “that sounds stupid so it’s not real”.
Arguing, College, and Joe Biden: let's get it popping. Biden/Obama 2020 yeah yeah i know @WeCloutChase The 22nd amendment would allow Joe Biden to run as President and Barrack Obama as his VP. Just saying. Show this thread 600 hst3000: libertarirynn: coolmanfromthepast: libertarirynn: hst3000: libertarirynn: The constitutionality of this would likely be questioned by the electoral college but it miiiight get through depending on how strictly they interpret the 22nd amendment, since Obama would not technically be being “elected” to the office of president, which is the explicit provisional language in the amendment (Not that somebody couldn’t theoretically hold the office more than twice, but that they could not be elected to it twice). All that said it would be a shitshow but mighty entertaining. 12th amendment, guys: No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. Obama is an unconstitutional selection. Not exactly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/?utm_term=.dc9a5700ef57 All the WaPo article means is that “It’s okay when Democrats violate the Constitution!” It literally does not say that at all and I question if you even read it. I have… opinions… on Dorf. Obama is ineligible for the office. Saying ‘well he’s only ineligible to be ELECTED’ is stupid shenanigans. Like saying you’re allowed to be in a house because while they said don’t come in this door’ you came in through the WINDOW. You can’t back door a non citizen into the presidency this way, I see no reason why this would be different for term limitations. You can call it “stupid shenanigans” all you want but this is how the law works. Every phrase, comma, and word choice matters. If there is even a window there is a lawyer who will argue that point. I’m certainly not in support of this idea, I’m just saying you can’t hand wave a legal argument because you’re pretty sure it meant something that’s not explicitly stated. The fact is the amendment could have explicitly said “no former president can ever hold the office more than twice under any circumstances”, but it doesn’t say that, it says they cannot be elected. There is a difference.
Fire, Future, and Guns: NY AG Underwood @NewYorkStateAG To be clear, it was the Trump ad- min that decided to give criminals the tools to build untraceable, undetectable 3-D printed guns at the touch of a button That's why we sued. on.ny.gov 2LznSLv Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump I am looking into 3-D Plastic Guns being sold to the public. Already spoke to NRA, doesn't seem to make much sense! <p><a href="http://amalgamasreal.tumblr.com/post/176527642745/friendly-neighborhood-ehrhardt-kasaron" class="tumblr_blog">amalgamasreal</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://friendly-neighborhood-ehrhardt.tumblr.com/post/176491719675/kasaron-1r3l4nd13-kasaron-1r3l4nd13" class="tumblr_blog">friendly-neighborhood-ehrhardt</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://kasaron.tumblr.com/post/176491236610/1r3l4nd13-kasaron-1r3l4nd13-kasaron" class="tumblr_blog">kasaron</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://1r3l4nd13.tumblr.com/post/176486816978/kasaron-1r3l4nd13-kasaron" class="tumblr_blog">1r3l4nd13</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://kasaron.tumblr.com/post/176486495640/1r3l4nd13-kasaron-liberalsarecool-another" class="tumblr_blog">kasaron</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://1r3l4nd13.tumblr.com/post/176486223328/kasaron-liberalsarecool-another-trump-policy" class="tumblr_blog">1r3l4nd13</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://kasaron.tumblr.com/post/176486019980/liberalsarecool-another-trump-policy-creating" class="tumblr_blog">kasaron</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://liberalsarecool.com/post/176483209782/another-trump-policy-creating-the-worst-outcome" class="tumblr_blog">liberalsarecool</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>Another <b>Trump</b> policy creating the worst outcome. #3DPrintedGuns</p> <p>Trump saying ‘it doesn’t make much sense’ should be his campaign slogan.</p> <p>The abdication to the NRA is GOP law.</p> </blockquote> <p>The tools to build 3D printed guns have existed since at least the Obama Administration.</p> <p style=""><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberator_(gun)">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberator_(gun)</a><br/></p> <p style="">The gun was designed in 2013. </p> <p>The issue was not the existence of the gun itself, but the fact that if the Liberator (and other 3D printed gun files) were “weapons of war” that would possibly violate ITAR.</p> <p>That adjudication resulted in the government (and ITAR specifically) being sued by Cody Wilson. The government settled out of court and openly admitted their wrongdoing as part of the settlement. </p> <p>I will repeat; the 3D printing and manufacture of firearms was <i>never</i> illegal in the US, only the international distribution of the files themselves. Even the distribution of the files within US borders and possession of the files themselves are all and were all legal. </p> </blockquote> <p>I have no issues with people owning guns legally but I don’t think I’m ok with them being able to print a gun. </p> </blockquote> <p style="">Would you be willing to explain why?</p> </blockquote> <p>See, my reasons only make sense to me and the environment I grew up in but I don’t see a reason for an individual to be able to make a gun whenever they want. I know most probably won’t do anything illegal with the gun but I also think the gun might not be safe to use…I have never used a 3D gun or know much about them so they could be perfectly safe to use. </p> </blockquote> <p>Generally, polymer is a less than stellar material to make a gun out of; that’s why the Liberator is basically a single-shot low-power gun. It’s a proof of concept to show it Can Be Done and thereby challenge the idea of controlling ownership of firearms as a whole.</p> <p>Since it has been adjudicated that code (and files) are themselves a form of speech; sharing that “speech” in an open forum is, by default, legal and protected.</p> <p>The issue is, people (for a variety of reasons) already DO make untracable firearms, from 80% lowers, from raw stock, from scrap metal, etc. They’re rarely if ever used in criminal activities, mostly because criminals can just buy an illegal (but legitimately manufactured) firearm either which were illegally purchased themselves, stolen, or gotten thanks to programs like ATFs Fast and Furious and other gunwalking schemes.</p> </blockquote> <p>as for fears about criminals building untraceable guns, they can almost certainly do it better for cheaper with scrap metal &amp; metal working shop tools. 3d printers arent cheap &amp; polymer guns dont last, as <a class="tumblelog" href="https://tmblr.co/miMjDZnDWnZqZODmSVuibaw">@kasaron</a> has already noted. assuming that they dont just buy black market factory made guns, which are much better quality for much less effort.</p> <p>&amp; some people have this ridiculously idea that a polymer gun is totally undetectable by security scanners &amp; can be taken ANYWHERE. yeah, they arent, &amp; they still require metal bullets.</p> </blockquote> <p>Anyone who’s worried about 3d printed guns has <b>NEVER </b>actually had or used a 3d printer. I’ve got 5 of them, ranging from $300 chinese DIY kits to $4500 “prosumer” fully assembled devices, and not a single one can make a gun that I’d be willing to fire with any form of reliability or safety. The tolerances and durability just aren’t there. </p> <p>The best I could make would be that Liberator up there and the chances that it might just explode in my hand on the first shot aren’t low. </p> <p>The people who’ve made the fully functional AR lowers aren’t doing it using a 3D printer you can just buy off the shelf, they’d using industrial grade SLA resin printers that <b>START</b> in the 5 figures and if you want the metal additive printers you’re not walking away without spending 6 figures. At that price point they can just buy metal working equipment and make real metal guns by the dozen in the time it would take to print a single gun. </p> <p>Now: I can’t speak for the future, 3d printers might change, but the direction they’re moving in now does not lend to making guns in the least bit; and stifling the entire branch of technology out of idiotic fear of a possibility is the last thing we need to do.</p> <p>Also: THERE’S ALREADY OVER 300 MILLION GUNS IN THE US AND IT WOULD BE WAY EASIER AND CHEAPER TO JUST BUY/STEAL ONE OF THOSE THAN PRINT ONE. </p> </blockquote> <p>This is what I’m saying. The school I work at has a 3-D printer and by no means would it be capable of making a gun you would want to use. Not only would trying to prevent the program from being downloaded be an enormous waste of time, most criminals wouldn’t even be bothered with it when there are much easier ways to get a gun.</p>

amalgamasreal: friendly-neighborhood-ehrhardt: kasaron: 1r3l4nd13: kasaron: 1r3l4nd13: kasaron: liberalsarecool: Another Trump pol...

Beautiful, Children, and Lawyer: shitroughdrafts: April 8, 2015 Dear Mr. Kerin, It was brought to my attention by your neighbor, John Flink, that you have two garden gnomes on your front lawn that that were not approved by the HOA before installation. Please adhere to the guidelines (see Appropriate Lawn Decor on page 3) and remove them within five business days, or you will be fined. Ellis Hills is a beautiful neighborhood, and we keep it that way by sticking to these rules! Thanks! Linda Hoyt, HOA President    April 9, 2015  Dear Mr. Kerin, Mr. Flink emailed me this afternoon and informed me that there are now five gnomes on your front lawn. He also said that they are all facing his house.  I don’t know three extra gnomes showed up (unless they’re breeding LOL), or why they are now facing his house. But please be advised that you are now in violation of our Allowed Quantities of Lawn Decor rule (see page 7). You have four days until you are fined. Please address this issue ASAP. Thanks! Linda Hoyt, HOA President   April 10, 2015 Dear Mr. Kerin, I drove by your house this morning on the way to drop my children off at school and saw your lawn. There are now over a dozen garden gnomes in your yard, all facing Mr. Flink’s house. A few of these have been placed in sexually suggestive positions. I do not think garden gnomes come in these positions, which means that someone (I’m not saying you) placed them as such. Regardless, they violate the board’s rule on Appropriate Lawn Décor Positions on page 9. Mr. Kerin, you have three days left to comply with the board’s rules, or you will be fined. Are you getting these emails? Thanks! Linda Hoyt, HOA President   April 11, 2015 Dear Mr. Kerin, I was emailed a picture of your lawn this morning by your neighbor John Flink, and was surprised to find that there are now close to thirty gnomes in your lawn. Not only are they all staring directly at his house, they are now also sexually explicit. After a quick Yahoo search, I could not find any store that sold such “X rated” gnomes. This gives me the impression that you made them yourself. Mr. Kerin, I don’t know where you’re getting the time or the money to create these monstrosities, but they will not be tolerated. We have children in this neighborhood. Please be advised that you have two days left before incurring fines. FYI you are now also in violation of our Sexually Explicit Lawn Décor rule on page 17. Until today, I was not aware this rule even existed. Thanks! Linda Hoyt, HOA President April 12, 2015 Dear Mr. Kerin, I was woken up by a phone call from John Flink at 6AM this morning. He was threatening to call the police. We have never had the police called in this neighborhood. Not even once. I calmed him down and went over to see what the problem was. Mr. Kerin, the only time I’ve ever seen an orgy was in the movie Caligula but the scene your gnomes depict on your front lawn makes Caligula look PG. The gnomes are in positions I haven’t ever even imagined, and even if I could have imagined them, I wouldn’t have done so with gnomes!  There are over one hundred of them. I could barely see any grass through the limbs and appendages of the disgusting little men. One gnome in particular is wearing a shirt that says “John Flink” on it and it is wearing a horse mask. Two other gnomes are treating him like a horse. This is in direct violation of an HOA rule that the HOA just decided to make. Please see Sexually Explicit Depictions of Neighbors as Lawn Decor in the new edition of the HOA guidelines attached as a PDF. You have until tomorrow, Mr. Kerin. Also, John Flink has called a lawyer. Thanks! Linda Hoyt, HOA President April 13, 2015 Dear Mr. Kerin, I don’t know how you did it, but thank you for removing all of the gnomes. I’m glad we could avoid getting the authorities involved! Since you managed to do it before five business days, there will be no fine, just a warning. As a reminder, please do not place any decorations in your yard without direct approval from the board. Thanks! Linda Hoyt, HOA President   April 14, 2015 Dear Mr. Kerin, It was just brought to my attention that there is a bright pink decorative flamingo in the middle of your front lawn. I have also been informed that this lawn flamingo is wearing a thong. If you do not remove this flamingo within five business days, expect a follow up from Kelly Lawson, as she is taking over as HOA President. As of today I have resigned. Thanks! Linda Hoyt
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!