Tall Friend
Tall Friend

Tall Friend

johns
johns

johns

emasculated
emasculated

emasculated

conscious
conscious

conscious

hel
hel

hel

yours
yours

yours

ons
ons

ons

exemplify
exemplify

exemplify

personable
personable

personable

ill
ill

ill

🔥 | Latest

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.
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.

libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced t...

Bad, Bored, and Children: St. Louis day care accused of running a toddler 'Fight Club' 😮😮😳 A day care center in St. Louis encouraged toddlers to viciously brawl with each other in a "fight club," according to a lawsuit from the mother of one of the children and video of the incident that was released Wednesday. Nicole Merseal said her then-4-year-old son, and another child were instructed by teachers Mikayla Guliford and Tena Dailey, to punch and hit each other at the Adventure Learning Center in December, 2016, according to the suit filed earlier this year. Merseal, of St. Charles, Missouri, accused the day care in court documents of permitting another child "to intimidate and harm" her son while directing a "fight club." The video shows Merseal’s youngest son and another boy wearing Incredible Hulk toy fists and punching each other while a teacher looks on. One of Merseal's sons recorded the episode on his iPad and sent it to her. She then called the police and had them visit the day care and interview the director and staff. Her children were also questioned by investigators. In documents released by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, Jennifer Scott, the director of the center, said that when she confronted Guliford about the incident, she said the children "were bored" and that "we ran out of things to do." Scott fired Guliford and Dailey and contacted the Child Abuse and Neglect Hotline, according to the health department. Guliford admitted to having the children fight, according to state documents. She said she took the children to the lower floor of the building because of a broken heating system on the other floors. "I meant for the fighting with the Hulk Hands to be a stress release exercise," she said. "It did not last more than three or four minutes." Guliford said no children were hurt in the incident but "it was still a bad judgment call on my part." But the St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute the teachers.
Bad, Bored, and Children: St. Louis day care accused of running a toddler 'Fight Club' 😮😮😳 A day care center in St. Louis encouraged toddlers to viciously brawl with each other in a "fight club," according to a lawsuit from the mother of one of the children and video of the incident that was released Wednesday. Nicole Merseal said her then-4-year-old son, and another child were instructed by teachers Mikayla Guliford and Tena Dailey, to punch and hit each other at the Adventure Learning Center in December, 2016, according to the suit filed earlier this year. Merseal, of St. Charles, Missouri, accused the day care in court documents of permitting another child "to intimidate and harm" her son while directing a "fight club." The video shows Merseal’s youngest son and another boy wearing Incredible Hulk toy fists and punching each other while a teacher looks on. One of Merseal's sons recorded the episode on his iPad and sent it to her. She then called the police and had them visit the day care and interview the director and staff. Her children were also questioned by investigators. In documents released by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, Jennifer Scott, the director of the center, said that when she confronted Guliford about the incident, she said the children "were bored" and that "we ran out of things to do." Scott fired Guliford and Dailey and contacted the Child Abuse and Neglect Hotline, according to the health department. Guliford admitted to having the children fight, according to state documents. She said she took the children to the lower floor of the building because of a broken heating system on the other floors. "I meant for the fighting with the Hulk Hands to be a stress release exercise," she said. "It did not last more than three or four minutes." Guliford said no children were hurt in the incident but "it was still a bad judgment call on my part." But the St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute the teachers.

St. Louis day care accused of running a toddler 'Fight Club' 😮😮😳 A day care center in St. Louis encouraged toddlers to viciously brawl with ...

Anime, Bored, and Boxing: I hadn't seen any English reports on this but its too good not to So right now there are pretty crazy right-wing nationalist sexists in Japan. They're dressing up in WWIl military outfits, they're standing outside of Korean schools (in Japan) shouting that Koreans should be killed, and just generally being horrible human beings. For reasons unknown, the Japanese police haven't done anything to stop them, and when people get physical with the right-wingers and a fight breaks out, it's not the right-wing people who get punished. Enter: the Yakuza Yakuza, for those who don't know, is the name for the world of Japanese gangs, commonly known for being covered in tattoos. A few retired yakuza members (most of whom are notoriously and vocally conservative) got tired of this extreme right wing BS. They believe that picking on people who are weaker than you, like the children at the Korean schools or refugees, is embarrassing, and not something to be proud of. They want these right wingers to man up (the group is almost entirely men) These old retired yakuzas start showing up at the right wing protests and intimidate the hell out of these guys. When they feel like it, they'll use physical force too. The police don't mess with the yakuza so these right wing protesters become human punching bags. All their talk of killing Koreans or their superiority to just about everyone flies out the window when these gangsters roll up. It started with only one or two yakuza who were bored and fed up, but more and more started to come. They started training in boxing and street fighting, and wouldn't you know it... the number of right wing protesters got less and less. Then, people of other walks of life joined in too. With the yakuza throwing the police off professors could join by writing about the issues profusely. Suddenly a ton of otakus joined too, using their art and community to protest. They'd show up in droves and stand behind the muscle (yakuza) and make a ton of noise. They literally staged an "otakus against racists" rally TAKU AGAINST Slowly, the protests have seen the right wing attendance drop more and more and I am living for these "manly men" being trashed by retired gangsters and fans of Love Live. In conclusion First, I'd like the extreme right wing to gtfo Second, l'd like a manga, then an anime, about these yakuza who befriended professors and otakus to fight neo-nazis. K? cool. 50,371 notes お兄ちゃん This is such a good movement
Anime, Bored, and Boxing: I hadn't seen any English reports
 on this but its too good not to
 So right now there are pretty crazy right-wing
 nationalist sexists in Japan. They're dressing
 up in WWIl military outfits, they're standing
 outside of Korean schools (in Japan)
 shouting that Koreans should be killed, and
 just generally being horrible human beings.
 For reasons unknown, the Japanese police
 haven't done anything to stop them, and when
 people get physical with the right-wingers
 and a fight breaks out, it's not the right-wing
 people who get punished.
 Enter: the Yakuza
 Yakuza, for those who don't know, is the name
 for the world of Japanese gangs, commonly
 known for being covered in tattoos. A few
 retired yakuza members (most of whom are
 notoriously and vocally conservative) got tired
 of this extreme right wing BS. They believe
 that picking on people who are weaker than
 you, like the children at the Korean schools or
 refugees, is embarrassing, and not something
 to be proud of. They want these right wingers
 to man up (the group is almost entirely men)
 These old retired yakuzas start showing up at
 the right wing protests and intimidate the hell
 out of these guys. When they feel like it, they'll
 use physical force too. The police don't mess
 with the yakuza so these right wing protesters
 become human punching bags. All their talk
 of killing Koreans or their superiority to just
 about everyone flies out the window when
 these gangsters roll up.
 It started with only one or two yakuza who
 were bored and fed up, but more and more
 started to come. They started training in
 boxing and street fighting, and wouldn't you
 know it... the number of right wing protesters
 got less and less.
 Then, people of other walks of life joined in
 too. With the yakuza throwing the police off
 professors could join by writing about the
 issues profusely. Suddenly a ton of otakus
 joined too, using their art and community to
 protest. They'd show up in droves and stand
 behind the muscle (yakuza) and make a ton of
 noise. They literally staged an "otakus against
 racists" rally
 TAKU
 AGAINST
 Slowly, the protests have seen the right wing
 attendance drop more and more and I am
 living for these "manly men" being trashed by
 retired gangsters and fans of Love Live.
 In conclusion
 First, I'd like the extreme right wing to gtfo
 Second, l'd like a manga, then an anime, about
 these yakuza who befriended professors and
 otakus to fight neo-nazis. K? cool.
 50,371 notes
 お兄ちゃん
This is such a good movement

This is such a good movement

Bad, Children, and Creepy: Black Aziz aNANsi @Freeyourmindkid 1. When the rise of Nazism happened, Nazis were not all 6 foot tall super soldiers who carried quns They were the nice old lady next door, the house mother who plays with her kids, the store clerk who would give you free stuff, etc. Black Aziz aNANsi @Freeyourmindkid 2. During the civil rights movement of the 60's, it wasn't always creepy looking middle age white men who were going around and trying to intimidate and cause violence to black people. There were many everyday men women and children involved, some of who could be your parents. TO SCHOOL " WİTH NEGRO AGKins oChTo SCHOOL WTH NEGROES egroe Black Aziz aNANsi@Freeyo... 17h Replying to @Freeyourmindkid 3. And I'm just going to tell y'all, in the day and age that we are living in, it's not just a few bad apples who are responsible for the violence and hatred that we are seeing from the Trump crowd. It's literally everyone, because Trumps whole ideaology is base on othering ロ391 Black Aziz aNANsi@Freeyo... 17h 4. People and keeping them in a position or powerlessness through control and violence. I'm going to tell y'all right now, some of you may think that you have a friend whose only shitty quality is that they support Trump, but Im going to tell you right now, many Jewish people t1 238 1.1K 4 Black Aziz aNANsi@Freeyo... 17h 5. Had friends who turned them over to the German government because they cared more about othering Jewish folks than their friends. Many black folks who thought that they had a white friend or too would go out to protest back in the day only to see the snarling faces of thei 4 t 246 1K Black Aziz aNANsi@Freeyo... 17h 6. "Friends" in an angry white mob as it descends upon and beats black protesters. And I am guarantee you, that many of your "friends" would not hesitate to have you or somebody that you care about sent back to your county or origin, fired because they assume that you got your 4 ta 243 1K Black Aziz aNANsi@Freeyo... 17h 7. Job through affirmative action or have your reproductive rights taken away because they feel like they feel like what a woman wants to do with her body should be determined by bunch of old white men. I'm telling y'all right now, we are living in the same world that has breeded tl 221 979 Black Aziz aNANsi@Freeyo... 17h 8. Many of an ethnic cleansing and genocide. mean hell, we are already going through ethnic cleansing if you want to count Trump's immigration reforms and mass deportation. But what I'm telling y'all is to stay woke. You can't compromise with these people a nd there is no 243 O 11K Black Aziz aNANsi @Freeyourmindkid 9. Middle ground that can be reached when an ideaologv is base on hegemony and hate. There can be no compromise with evil, the only thing we can do is try to defeat this ideaology & make sure future generations view this ideaology the same way which segregation & Nazism is viewed Buila the BUILD QUM WAL I9 s OK N CE a NAZI.CAN YO SLAM SUCK'S
Bad, Children, and Creepy: Black Aziz aNANsi
 @Freeyourmindkid
 1. When the rise of Nazism
 happened, Nazis were not all 6 foot
 tall super soldiers who carried quns
 They were the nice old lady next
 door, the house mother who plays
 with her kids, the store clerk who
 would give you free stuff, etc.

 Black Aziz aNANsi
 @Freeyourmindkid
 2. During the civil rights movement
 of the 60's, it wasn't always creepy
 looking middle age white men who
 were going around and trying to
 intimidate and cause violence to
 black people. There were many
 everyday men women and children
 involved, some of who could be your
 parents.
 TO SCHOOL
 " WİTH NEGRO
 AGKins
 oChTo SCHOOL
 WTH NEGROES
 egroe

 Black Aziz aNANsi@Freeyo... 17h
 Replying to @Freeyourmindkid
 3. And I'm just going to tell y'all, in the day and
 age that we are living in, it's not just a few bad
 apples who are responsible for the violence and
 hatred that we are seeing from the Trump
 crowd. It's literally everyone, because Trumps
 whole ideaology is base on othering
 ロ391
 Black Aziz aNANsi@Freeyo... 17h
 4. People and keeping them in a position or
 powerlessness through control and violence. I'm
 going to tell y'all right now, some of you may
 think that you have a friend whose only shitty
 quality is that they support Trump, but Im going
 to tell you right now, many Jewish people
 t1 238
 1.1K
 4
 Black Aziz aNANsi@Freeyo... 17h
 5. Had friends who turned them over to the
 German government because they cared more
 about othering Jewish folks than their friends.
 Many black folks who thought that they had a
 white friend or too would go out to protest back
 in the day only to see the snarling faces of thei
 4
 t 246
 1K

 Black Aziz aNANsi@Freeyo... 17h
 6. "Friends" in an angry white mob as it descends
 upon and beats black protesters. And I am
 guarantee you, that many of your "friends"
 would not hesitate to have you or somebody
 that you care about sent back to your county or
 origin, fired because they assume that you got
 your
 4
 ta 243
 1K
 Black Aziz aNANsi@Freeyo... 17h
 7. Job through affirmative action or have your
 reproductive rights taken away because they feel
 like they feel like what a woman wants to do
 with her body should be determined by bunch of
 old white men. I'm telling y'all right now, we are
 living in the same world that has breeded
 tl 221 979
 Black Aziz aNANsi@Freeyo... 17h
 8. Many of an ethnic cleansing and genocide.
 mean hell, we are already going through ethnic
 cleansing if you want to count Trump's
 immigration reforms and mass deportation. But
 what I'm telling y'all is to stay woke. You can't
 compromise with these people a
 nd there is no
 243 O 11K

 Black Aziz aNANsi
 @Freeyourmindkid
 9. Middle ground that can be
 reached when an ideaologv is base
 on hegemony and hate. There can be
 no compromise with evil, the only
 thing we can do is try to defeat this
 ideaology & make sure future
 generations view this ideaology the
 same way which segregation &
 Nazism is viewed
 Buila the
 BUILD QUM
 WAL
 I9
 s OK
 N CE
 a NAZI.CAN YO
 SLAM
 SUCK'S
Anaconda, Ass, and Donkey: Yesterday at 8:17 AM Ok. Storytime: this is kinda long but PLEASE READ. It's about my experience last night with these fucking border patrol agents. Last night, I rode the greyhound bus from Bakersfield to Las Vegas to visit family. When we got to the California/Nevada state line, as always, there's a checkpoint. (This checkpoint USED to be one where they made sure you weren't carrying fruits into California, bc of an invasive fruit fly species) Anyway... The bus driver makes an announcement: "We are being boarded by Border Patrol. Please be prepared to show your documentation upon request". WAIT. WHAT THE FUCK? So you know I'm ready to act an ASS. I stand up and say LOUDLY I stand up and say LOUDLY: THIS IS A VIOLATION OF YOUR 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO SHOW THEM *SHIT*! This is illegal. We are not within 100 miles of an international border so that have NO authority to ask you for ANYTHING. TELL THEM TO FUCK OFF! And, Since my Spanish sucks, I Google translated how to say that in Spanish and repeated myself: Esto es una violación de los derechos de su cuarta enmienda. ¡No tienes que mostrarles nada! Esto es ilegal No cumples, y no tengas miedo. Están equivocados, y no dejaremos pasar esto The lady next to me did not speak English. She looked terrified. I reassured her that I had her back. The agents get on. Proceed to announce that they are about to start asking for "documentation" from people. I Stand up and yell "I'm not showing you shit! 'm not drivina this his so vou have NO The agents get on. Proceed to announce that they are about to start asking for "documentation" from people. I Stand up and yell "I'm not showing you shit! I'm not driving this bus, so you have NO RIGHT to ask me for anything! And the rest of you guys don't have to show them anything, either! This is harassment and racial profiling! Don't show them a gotdamn thing! We are not within 100 miles of a border so they have NO LEGAL RIGHT or jurisdiction here! GOOGLE IT!" The agents start to look exasperated, because they can see I'm wiling to act a WHOLE DONKEY. One of them said "Fine. We can see that you're a citizen because of your filthy mouth". And then they just said "go ahead" to the bus driver and got off. Point is: These border patrol officers act like they do because they EXPECT people to be afraid of them and just comply. The lady next to me spoke NO ENGLISH, but she was a very kind woman. She looked TERRIFIED when Point is: These border patrol officers act like they do because they EXPECT people to be afraid of them and just comply. The lady next to me spoke NO ENGLISH, but she was a very kind woman. She looked TERRIFIED when they boarded. I felt it was my duty to defend her. We DO NOT LIVE in Nazi Germany. No one should be asked to present "papers" for interstate travel. I defended her, and I defended myself. We DO NOT HAVE to just take this shit LYING down. What those officers did is WRONG and completely illegal. All it took was ONE LOUD ass Black woman to let them know WE ARE NOT WITH THE SHITS. FUCK Y'ALL. And they backed off. Use your voice. Take a risk. Act an ASS. Because if you let them intimidate the poor Spanish speaking woman next to you, who do you think they're coming for next? Obnoxious Lady Uses Google Translate to Give a Speech and Border Patrol lets her go Because of her "Foul Mouth"
Anaconda, Ass, and Donkey: Yesterday at 8:17 AM
 Ok. Storytime: this is kinda long but PLEASE
 READ. It's about my experience last night with
 these fucking border patrol agents.
 Last night, I rode the greyhound bus from
 Bakersfield to Las Vegas to visit family.
 When we got to the California/Nevada state
 line, as always, there's a checkpoint.
 (This checkpoint USED to be one where they
 made sure you weren't carrying fruits into
 California, bc of an invasive fruit fly species)
 Anyway...
 The bus driver makes an announcement: "We
 are being boarded by Border Patrol. Please be
 prepared to show your documentation upon
 request".
 WAIT. WHAT THE FUCK?
 So you know I'm ready to act an ASS.
 I stand up and say LOUDLY

 I stand up and say LOUDLY:
 THIS IS A VIOLATION OF YOUR 4TH
 AMENDMENT RIGHTS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO
 SHOW THEM *SHIT*! This is illegal. We are
 not within 100 miles of an international border
 so that have NO authority to ask you for
 ANYTHING. TELL THEM TO FUCK OFF!
 And, Since my Spanish sucks, I Google
 translated how to say that in Spanish and
 repeated myself:
 Esto es una violación de los derechos de su
 cuarta enmienda. ¡No tienes que mostrarles
 nada! Esto es ilegal No cumples, y no tengas
 miedo. Están equivocados, y no dejaremos
 pasar esto
 The lady next to me did not speak English.
 She looked terrified. I reassured her that I had
 her back.
 The agents get on. Proceed to announce that
 they are about to start asking for
 "documentation" from people.
 I Stand up and yell "I'm not showing you shit!
 'm not drivina this his so vou have NO

 The agents get on. Proceed to announce that
 they are about to start asking for
 "documentation" from people.
 I Stand up and yell "I'm not showing you shit!
 I'm not driving this bus, so you have NO
 RIGHT to ask me for anything! And the rest
 of you guys don't have to show them
 anything, either! This is harassment and
 racial profiling! Don't show them a gotdamn
 thing! We are not within 100 miles of a border
 so they have NO LEGAL RIGHT or jurisdiction
 here! GOOGLE IT!"
 The agents start to look exasperated,
 because they can see I'm wiling to act a
 WHOLE DONKEY. One of them said "Fine. We
 can see that you're a citizen because of your
 filthy mouth". And then they just said "go
 ahead" to the bus driver and got off.
 Point is: These border patrol officers act like
 they do because they EXPECT people to be
 afraid of them and just comply. The lady next
 to me spoke NO ENGLISH, but she was a very
 kind woman. She looked TERRIFIED when

 Point is: These border patrol officers act like
 they do because they EXPECT people to be
 afraid of them and just comply. The lady next
 to me spoke NO ENGLISH, but she was a very
 kind woman. She looked TERRIFIED when
 they boarded. I felt it was my duty to defend
 her. We DO NOT LIVE in Nazi Germany. No
 one should be asked to present "papers" for
 interstate travel. I defended her, and I
 defended myself. We DO NOT HAVE to just
 take this shit LYING down. What those
 officers did is WRONG and completely illegal.
 All it took was ONE LOUD ass Black woman to
 let them know WE ARE NOT WITH THE
 SHITS. FUCK Y'ALL. And they backed off.
 Use your voice. Take a risk. Act an ASS.
 Because if you let them intimidate the poor
 Spanish speaking woman next to you, who do
 you think they're coming for next?

Obnoxious Lady Uses Google Translate to Give a Speech and Border Patrol lets her go Because of her "Foul Mouth"

Obnoxious Lady Uses Google Translate to Give a Speech and Border Patrol lets her go Because of her "Foul Mouth"

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!
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!

peteschult: libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legall...

Life, Memes, and True: WE DON'T GROW WHENTHINGS ARE EASY WE GROW WHEN WE FACE CHALLENGES. Have you ever noticed how often the challenges we face also contains a blessing in disguise? If not, perhaps you haven’t been looking closely enough! Granted, life’s challenges usually seem like inconveniences when they interrupt our schedules, or get in the way of something we want to do. Isn’t that part of the reason we call them challenges? Everything changes when we learn to see life’s challenges in a whole new light. What if we could learn to see them as highly beneficial experiences, adventures in learning, or even as a blessing in disguise?🤔 - HERE are a few questions you can ask yourself when facing challenges: ✔️What can I learn from this? Too often we view a challenges to be annoying, when in fact it may hold a great opportunity to learn and grow! If we start by asking ourselves, “what can I learn from this experience?” it immediately puts a more positive spin on the situation. It allows us to discover something worth appreciating about our experience. It makes it possible to recognize true value that might have gone unnoticed, and to see opportunity and possibility instead of inconvenience and annoyance. ✔️How can this strengthen me? One major reason why a challenge might intimidate us is because we don’t feel capable of handling it. We may have a limited perception of our own abilities, so we automatically believe that the challenge is bigger than we are. If we learn to see each challenge as an opportunity to become stronger and more capable, everything changes. ✔️How can I use this to my advantage? More often than not, we tend to view a challenge as a disadvantage, but is that necessarily true? When something gets in our way, what do we do? Don’t we start searching for a different strategy to accomplish our goal? The challenge may prove to be a blessing if it helps us discover a better way to do something. Thanks to the challenge, we may be able to replace a flawed strategy with one that works much better. 👉Your attitude and perception are something that you create. They are not dictated by your circumstances. You always have a choice! 😉 - challenges success trouble millionairementor
Life, Memes, and True: WE DON'T GROW WHENTHINGS ARE
 EASY WE GROW WHEN WE FACE
 CHALLENGES.
Have you ever noticed how often the challenges we face also contains a blessing in disguise? If not, perhaps you haven’t been looking closely enough! Granted, life’s challenges usually seem like inconveniences when they interrupt our schedules, or get in the way of something we want to do. Isn’t that part of the reason we call them challenges? Everything changes when we learn to see life’s challenges in a whole new light. What if we could learn to see them as highly beneficial experiences, adventures in learning, or even as a blessing in disguise?🤔 - HERE are a few questions you can ask yourself when facing challenges: ✔️What can I learn from this? Too often we view a challenges to be annoying, when in fact it may hold a great opportunity to learn and grow! If we start by asking ourselves, “what can I learn from this experience?” it immediately puts a more positive spin on the situation. It allows us to discover something worth appreciating about our experience. It makes it possible to recognize true value that might have gone unnoticed, and to see opportunity and possibility instead of inconvenience and annoyance. ✔️How can this strengthen me? One major reason why a challenge might intimidate us is because we don’t feel capable of handling it. We may have a limited perception of our own abilities, so we automatically believe that the challenge is bigger than we are. If we learn to see each challenge as an opportunity to become stronger and more capable, everything changes. ✔️How can I use this to my advantage? More often than not, we tend to view a challenge as a disadvantage, but is that necessarily true? When something gets in our way, what do we do? Don’t we start searching for a different strategy to accomplish our goal? The challenge may prove to be a blessing if it helps us discover a better way to do something. Thanks to the challenge, we may be able to replace a flawed strategy with one that works much better. 👉Your attitude and perception are something that you create. They are not dictated by your circumstances. You always have a choice! 😉 - challenges success trouble millionairementor

Have you ever noticed how often the challenges we face also contains a blessing in disguise? If not, perhaps you haven’t been looking closel...

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>
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>

gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against...

Advice, cnn.com, and Cute: Oprah Announced She Is Not Running For 2020 Presidency @balleralert CNN 7 PM ET 50 VANJONESSHO ON Oprah Announced She Is Not Running For 2020 Presidency - blogged by @worldwidekeege (swipe) ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Oprah didn’t get as far as she is in life by being childish and going tit for tat with everyone that tried to intimidate her, and it won’t start with Trump, even with the power he has as our country’s president. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Saturday, Trump went to a campaign rally and attempted to defame Oprah’s throne by claiming he knew her “weaknesses” and would enjoy running against her because of that. He implied that he would use those weaknesses against her to make the experience “painful”. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ In turn, Oprah went on CNN’s highly popular, “The Van Jones Show” on Sunday and announced that she will not be running for president in 2020, but for anyone that plans to, she has some dear advice for them. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ The bold and powerful philanthropist said… “I will say to whoever is going to run for office, do not give your energy to the other side… Do not spend all your time talking about your opponents. Do not give your energy to that which you really don't believe in. Do not spend an ounce of your time on that." ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Winfrey went on to add that all of the speculation for her to run “humbly” and “deeply” moved her, but we won’t be able to see her as our first female president. When asked by the CNN host, Van Jones, what she would say if she were able to talk to Trump for just 10 minutes, the iconic role model kept it cute and quaint. Simply stating: “I would Only speak if I felt that I could be heard.” ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Very well said, Oprah. That’s why we love you! The time is coming soon to see who will be running for our country’s 2020 presidency. Who do you think will step up to the plate now?
Advice, cnn.com, and Cute: Oprah Announced She Is Not
 Running For 2020 Presidency
 @balleralert
 CNN
 7 PM ET 50
 VANJONESSHO ON
Oprah Announced She Is Not Running For 2020 Presidency - blogged by @worldwidekeege (swipe) ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Oprah didn’t get as far as she is in life by being childish and going tit for tat with everyone that tried to intimidate her, and it won’t start with Trump, even with the power he has as our country’s president. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Saturday, Trump went to a campaign rally and attempted to defame Oprah’s throne by claiming he knew her “weaknesses” and would enjoy running against her because of that. He implied that he would use those weaknesses against her to make the experience “painful”. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ In turn, Oprah went on CNN’s highly popular, “The Van Jones Show” on Sunday and announced that she will not be running for president in 2020, but for anyone that plans to, she has some dear advice for them. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ The bold and powerful philanthropist said… “I will say to whoever is going to run for office, do not give your energy to the other side… Do not spend all your time talking about your opponents. Do not give your energy to that which you really don't believe in. Do not spend an ounce of your time on that." ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Winfrey went on to add that all of the speculation for her to run “humbly” and “deeply” moved her, but we won’t be able to see her as our first female president. When asked by the CNN host, Van Jones, what she would say if she were able to talk to Trump for just 10 minutes, the iconic role model kept it cute and quaint. Simply stating: “I would Only speak if I felt that I could be heard.” ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Very well said, Oprah. That’s why we love you! The time is coming soon to see who will be running for our country’s 2020 presidency. Who do you think will step up to the plate now?

Oprah Announced She Is Not Running For 2020 Presidency - blogged by @worldwidekeege (swipe) ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Oprah didn’t get as far as s...