🔥 | Latest

Amber Rose, Best Friend, and Bones: tumblr nly-johnny-dep # Believe!im 3. The op-ed's clear implication that Mr. Depp is a domestic abuser is categorically and demonstrably false. Mr. Depp never abused Ms. Heard. Her allegations against him were false when they were made in 2016. They were part of an elaborate hoax to generate positive publicity for Ms. Heard and advance her career. Ms. Heard's false allegations against Mr. Depp have benconclusivlrfed by two pndng polie offices, a litany of neutral third-party witnesses, and 87 newly obtained surveillance camera videos. With a prior arrest for violent domestic abuse and having confessed under oath to a series of violent attacks on Mr. Depp, Ms. Heard is not a victim of domestic abuse; she is a perpetrator. Ms. Heard violently abused Mr. Depp, just as she was caught and arrested for violently abusing her former domestic artner. In one particularly gruesome episode that occurred only one month into their marriage, Ms. Heard shattered the bones in the tip of Mr. Depp's right middle finger, almost completely cutting it off. Ms. Heard threw a glass vodka bottle at Mr. Depp-one of many projectiles that she launched at him in this and other instances. The bottle shattered as it came into contact with Mr. Depp's hand, and the broken glass and impact severed and shattered Mr. Depp's finger. Mr. Depp's finger had to be surgically reattached. Ms. Heard then disseminated false accounts of this incident, casting Mr. Depp as the perpetrator of his own injury odinoco: only-johnny-depp: “The thing that hurt me is being presented as something that you’re really as far away from as you could possibly get, you know?” – Johnny Depp for the British GQ, October/2018 I’m sorry for the long post, but I had to say something….On the last 24 hours, Johnny has been in the news again, but now showing more proofs that SHE, Amber, is the who committed acts of domestic violence towards him. For me (and I think ALL of his fans) was – and still is – disgusting to read all the things that Johnny suffered… It’s beyond shocking!    For the damage to his career, Johnny is suing Amber in $50 million for her “false allegations” against him: “an elaborate hoax to generate positive publicity” for her to “advance her career”, which made her a darling of the #MeToo movement, made her the first actress named a “Human Rights Champion of the United Nations Human Rights Office”, also was appointed “ambassador on women’s rights” at the American Civil Liberties Union, hired by L'Oreal Paris as its “global spokesperson and some people also believes that all of it opened the doors to her starring in “Aquaman”. While she was enjoying the attention, Johnny was, and still suffers consequences in his career, such as boycotts that some “haters” still makes. The whole new evidences are a rollercoaster of shocking things: The “eonline” revealed that he was dropped from his role on “Pirates of the Caribbean” days after she published her piece in the Washington Post in 2018.  The numbers of proofs against Amber, rose so much that from the at least 29 evidences, some months ago, now has at least 87 newly evidences. This numbers are just from surveillance camera videos. An employee of the building reviewed building surveillance videos three days after the alleged incident where Amber claimed that Johnny attacked her, and “testified under oath that she saw Whitney Heard pretend to punch her sister in the face. Then Ms. Heard, Ms. Pennington (Heard’s best friend), and Whitney Heard all laughed.” I think the biggest new lie that broke my heart was the “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales ” incident: If you can’t remember, back to 2015, everybody was caught up by surprise when Johnny had to head back to USA from Australia to make a surgery in his finger, caused (at that time) for “unknown reasons.” Some time before, Amber claiming that he “he was the perpetrator of his own injury” because he punched a wall and throw a glass during a quarrel. Now was revealed that SHE WAS THE ONE WHO F*CKING THREW A BOTTLE OF VODKA AT HIM!!! Due to the impact, the bottle shattered when he made contact with his hand, cutting his finger almost to the bone, which had to be surgically reattached, and delaying the filming of POTC in a month. At that time, she claimed that   Was revealed that Johnny has proofs that Amber was “spending some questionable time” with Tesla founder Elon Musk during their short marriage. While Johnny was working, he also claims Musk was given access to his home to spend the night with Heard on the same night she “presented her battered face to the public.”  Amber keep giving the excuse of “confidentiality restrictions”, due to a divorce agreement in August 2016 “which prevent her from assisting the defendants with evidence to support their case”, but, the British judge, Mr. Justice Nicklin, announced: “I am not satisfied on the current evidence that Ms. Heard’s concerns about the restrictions that the divorce agreement imposes on her are well-founded.” Mr Justice Nicklin said that Johnny had stated clearly in his evidence to the court that he expects Heard give evidence in the proceedings, and “he will not attempt to prevent that” and added “The fact that Ms Heard presently thinks that there is some impediment to her giving evidence for the defendants is nothing to do with Mr Depp. Even if she were right, there would appear to be a number of ways of resolving the issue that have not yet been explored adequately or at all.”Now tell me: How can Amber claims to be a victim if EVERYTHING goes against her and she didn’t even is defending herself? Her lawyer, Eric M. George, called Johnny’s lawsuit “frivolous” and accused him of being “hell-bent on achieving self-destruction,” and said: “This frivolous action is just the latest of Johnny Depp’s repeated efforts to silence Amber Heard. She will not be silenced.” But guess what! He didn’t even saw the papers! He only saw parts of the lawsuit release by media! (what a joke!) Until now she said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, but CONFESSED UNDER OATH to a series of violent attacks TOWARDS Johnny!!!Guys, I’m so sorry for a long post, but I’m still astonished after all of it. Again,  It’s not hard to understand what’s going on. It’s not hard to understand who is the abuser and the one trying to destroy a life. It’s not hard to choose the right side. Johnny only wants to stop all these false and defamatory publications and live his life. He just want to prove the truth, and has no fear of her “evidences”.Another proof we cannot forget of how Johnny is innocent, are his most recent movies. If Johnny had done what Amber says, do you believe that all the actors and directors who had work with Johnny since 2016, would still collaborate with him? Friendship is broken when a lie is told, so do you believe that his friends would still being his friends if it was true? That the Hollywood Vampires and his personal crew would still on his side? Don’t you ever thought how many times Johnny had to prove them that he is innocent, and how hard is he working to show the truth to the world? It’s sad that even after all of it, people still don’t believe him.If you read until here, I highly thank you, and I’d like you all to share your thoughts on your social media too. Show your support to Johnny!Please, for more information read these articles: E NEWS: Johnny Depp Files $50 Million Lawsuit Against Amber Heard BRITISH: https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/johnny-depp-interview-2018 PRESS GAZETTE: Sun fails in bid to halt Johnny Depp libel action over ‘wife-beater’ claim BLAST: Johnny Depp Claims Amber Heard Started Improper ‘Relationship’ With Elon Musk 1-Month After Marriage BLAST: Johnny Depp Files $50 Million Defamation Lawsuit Against Amber Heard, Calls Her Abuse Claims an ‘Elaborate Hoax’ ET Canada:  Johnny Depp Files $50 Million Defamation Lawsuit Against Amber Heard, Actress’ Attorney Responds We Are Always With You Johnny! Oh look, the person who made a bunch of claims with little to no proof has been ousted as a liar What a FUCKING SHOCK, AIN’T THAT RIGHT?
Amber Rose, Best Friend, and Bones: tumblr
 nly-johnny-dep
 # Believe!im

 3. The op-ed's clear implication that Mr. Depp is a domestic abuser is categorically
 and demonstrably false. Mr. Depp never abused Ms. Heard. Her allegations against him were
 false when they were made in 2016. They were part of an elaborate hoax to generate positive
 publicity for Ms. Heard and advance her career. Ms. Heard's false allegations against Mr. Depp
 have benconclusivlrfed by two pndng polie offices, a litany of neutral
 third-party witnesses, and 87 newly obtained surveillance camera videos. With a prior arrest for
 violent domestic abuse and having confessed under oath to a series of violent attacks on Mr.
 Depp, Ms. Heard is not a victim of domestic abuse; she is a perpetrator. Ms. Heard violently
 abused Mr. Depp, just as she was caught and arrested for violently abusing her former domestic
 artner.

 In one particularly gruesome episode that occurred only one month into their
 marriage, Ms. Heard shattered the bones in the tip of Mr. Depp's right middle finger, almost
 completely cutting it off. Ms. Heard threw a glass vodka bottle at Mr. Depp-one of many
 projectiles that she launched at him in this and other instances. The bottle shattered as it came
 into contact with Mr. Depp's hand, and the broken glass and impact severed and shattered Mr.
 Depp's finger. Mr. Depp's finger had to be surgically reattached. Ms. Heard then disseminated
 false accounts of this incident, casting Mr. Depp as the perpetrator of his own injury
odinoco:

only-johnny-depp:

“The thing
that hurt me is being presented as something that you’re really as far away
from as you could possibly get, you know?” – Johnny Depp for the British GQ, October/2018
I’m sorry for the long post, but I had to say something….On the last 24 hours, Johnny has been in the news
again, but now showing more proofs that SHE, Amber, is the who committed acts
of domestic violence towards him. For me (and I think ALL of his fans) was –
and still is – disgusting to read all the things that Johnny suffered… It’s beyond
shocking!   
For the damage
to his career, Johnny is suing Amber in $50 million for her “false allegations”
against him: “an elaborate hoax to generate positive publicity” for her to
“advance her career”, which made her a darling of the #MeToo movement, made
her the first actress named a “Human Rights Champion of the United Nations
Human Rights Office”, also was appointed “ambassador on women’s rights” at the
American Civil Liberties Union, hired by L'Oreal Paris as its “global
spokesperson and some people also believes that all of it opened the doors to her starring in “Aquaman”. While she was enjoying the attention, Johnny was, and still suffers consequences
in his career, such as boycotts that some “haters” still makes. The whole new evidences are a rollercoaster of shocking things:

 

The “eonline”
revealed that he was dropped from his role on “Pirates of the Caribbean” days
after she published her piece in the Washington Post in 2018.  

The
numbers of proofs against Amber, rose so much that from the at least 29
evidences, some months ago, now has at least 87 newly evidences. This numbers are just from surveillance camera videos.  

An employee of the building reviewed building surveillance videos three days after
the alleged incident where Amber claimed that Johnny attacked her, and “testified under oath that she saw Whitney Heard pretend to punch her sister in
the face. Then Ms. Heard, Ms. Pennington (Heard’s best friend), and Whitney
Heard all laughed.” 

I think
the biggest new lie that broke my heart was the “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales

”
incident: If you can’t remember, back to 2015, everybody was caught up by surprise
when Johnny had to head back to USA from Australia to make a surgery in his
finger, caused (at that time) for “unknown reasons.” Some time before, Amber


claiming that he 

“he was the perpetrator of his own injury” because he punched a wall and throw a glass during a quarrel. Now was revealed that SHE WAS THE ONE WHO F*CKING THREW A BOTTLE OF VODKA AT
HIM!!! Due to the
impact, the bottle shattered when he made contact with his hand, cutting his
finger almost to the bone, which had to be surgically reattached, and delaying the filming of POTC in a month. At that time, she claimed that  


 

Was revealed that Johnny has proofs that Amber was “spending some questionable time” with Tesla
founder Elon Musk during their short marriage. While Johnny
was working, he also claims Musk was given access to his home to spend the night with Heard on the same night she “presented her battered face to the public.” 
 Amber keep
giving the excuse of “confidentiality restrictions”, due to a divorce agreement
in August 2016 “which prevent her from assisting the defendants with evidence
to support their case”, but, the British judge, Mr. Justice Nicklin, announced:
“I am not satisfied on the current evidence that Ms. Heard’s concerns about the
restrictions that the divorce agreement imposes on her are well-founded.” Mr Justice
Nicklin said that Johnny had stated
clearly in his evidence to the court that he expects Heard give evidence in the
proceedings, and “he will not attempt to prevent that” and added “The fact that
Ms Heard presently thinks that there is some impediment to her giving evidence
for the defendants is nothing to do with Mr Depp. Even if she were right, there
would appear to be a number of ways of resolving the issue that have not yet
been explored adequately or at all.”Now tell
me: How can Amber claims to be a victim if EVERYTHING goes against her and she
didn’t even is defending herself? Her lawyer, Eric M. George, called Johnny’s lawsuit
“frivolous” and accused him of being “hell-bent on achieving self-destruction,”
and said: “This frivolous action is just the latest of Johnny Depp’s repeated efforts
to silence Amber Heard. She will not be silenced.” But guess what! He didn’t
even saw the papers! He only saw parts of the lawsuit release by media! (what a
joke!) Until now she said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, but CONFESSED UNDER OATH to a
series of violent attacks TOWARDS Johnny!!!Guys, I’m so sorry for a long post, but I’m still astonished after all of it. Again, 

It’s not hard to understand what’s going on. It’s not hard to understand who is the abuser and the one trying to destroy a life. It’s not hard to choose the right side.


Johnny only wants to stop all these false and defamatory publications and live his life.
He just want to prove the truth, and has no
fear of her “evidences”.Another proof we cannot forget of how Johnny is innocent, are his most recent movies. If Johnny had done what Amber says, do you believe that all the actors and directors who had work with Johnny since 2016, would still collaborate with him? Friendship is broken when a lie is told, so do you believe that his friends would still being his friends if it was true? That the Hollywood Vampires and his personal crew would still on his side? Don’t you ever thought how many times Johnny had to prove them that he is innocent, and how hard is he working to show the truth to the world?
It’s sad that even after all of it,
people still don’t believe him.If you read until here, I highly thank you, and I’d like you all to share your thoughts on your social media too. Show your support to Johnny!Please, for more information read these articles: E NEWS: 

Johnny Depp Files $50 Million Lawsuit Against Amber Heard



 

BRITISH: https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/johnny-depp-interview-2018

 

PRESS
GAZETTE: 

Sun fails in bid to halt Johnny Depp libel action over ‘wife-beater’ claim




 

BLAST: 

Johnny Depp Claims Amber Heard Started Improper ‘Relationship’ With Elon Musk 1-Month After Marriage




 

BLAST: 

Johnny Depp Files $50 Million Defamation Lawsuit Against Amber Heard, Calls Her Abuse Claims an ‘Elaborate Hoax’




 

ET Canada: 

Johnny Depp Files $50 Million Defamation Lawsuit Against Amber Heard, Actress’ Attorney Responds

We Are Always With You Johnny!


Oh look, the person who made a bunch of claims with little to no proof has been ousted as a liar
What a FUCKING SHOCK, AIN’T THAT RIGHT?

odinoco: only-johnny-depp: “The thing that hurt me is being presented as something that you’re really as far away from as you could possib...

Alive, Ass, and Friends: whotheeffisbucky: fantastic-fantasy-fanfics: whotheeffisbucky: angryschnauzer: comicbookfilms: Justice League (2017) dir. Zack Snyder Only a male director would put an upskirt shot into a movie and hope no one mentions it. @angryschnauzer RIGHT? RIGHT?!  The huge difference between the way she’s shot in the Patty Jenkins film compared to this is ridiculous. It’s framed in such a way that we could be viewing her actual vagina, but the shadowing leaves a little more to the imagination. The male gaze is alive and kicking, my friends.  I could write an entire essay about this, but this is one of the most clear cut examples I can think of.  You can’t see up her skirt? And it’s to make her look taller? More intimidating? If it was an up-skirt shot you’d see her bare ass cheeks or an implication of her vag. You can’t. Not to mention, JOSS WHEDON re-shot a lot of the scenes in Justice league (and made them worse), AND was in charge of overseeing editing while Zach was mourning his daughter. So if you’re going to blame someone, don’t blame Zach for this, blame Joss Whedon. Zach’s cut if Justice League ACTUALLY respected Diana If it was an up-skirt shot you’d see her bare ass cheeks or an implication of her vag. You can’t. Not to mention, JOSS WHEDON re-shot a lot of the scenes in Justice league (and made them worse), AND was in charge of overseeing editing while Zach was mourning his daughter. @fantastic-fantasy-fanfics That’s not the point I was making. Neither director has been mentioned at all in this post. There are alternative ways to make an individual look taller. The Dutch Shot has many uses. Example:The camera is tilted and keeps both actors in frame, whilst achieving the desired effect. What I’m arguing is wrong is the choice of angle that deliberately places Wonder Woman in a position to be looked at in a sexual manner. Moreover, an upskirt shot does not have to include any bare flesh at all. If anything, it’s designed to imply, rather than simply show. It’s not an issue with Zach Snyder, there was never any mention of him. But the issue still stands: the shot was clearly done to appease the male gaze and is needlessly oversexualised. It’s a standing problem in popular film and looks very obvious here when you compare it to how Patty Jenkins shot the Wonder Woman film.
Alive, Ass, and Friends: whotheeffisbucky:

fantastic-fantasy-fanfics:
whotheeffisbucky:

angryschnauzer:

comicbookfilms:
Justice League (2017) dir. Zack Snyder

Only a male director would put an upskirt shot into a movie and hope no one mentions it. 

@angryschnauzer RIGHT? RIGHT?! 
The huge difference between the way she’s shot in the Patty Jenkins film compared to this is ridiculous. It’s framed in such a way that we could be viewing her actual vagina, but the shadowing leaves a little more to the imagination. The male gaze is alive and kicking, my friends. 
I could write an entire essay about this, but this is one of the most clear cut examples I can think of. 

You can’t see up her skirt?  And it’s to make her look taller?  More intimidating? If it was an up-skirt shot you’d see her bare ass cheeks or an implication of her vag.  You can’t.  Not to mention, JOSS WHEDON re-shot a lot of the scenes in Justice league (and made them worse), AND was in charge of overseeing editing while Zach was mourning his daughter.  So if you’re going to blame someone, don’t blame Zach for this, blame Joss Whedon.  Zach’s cut if Justice League ACTUALLY respected Diana 
If it was an up-skirt shot you’d see her bare ass cheeks or an implication of her vag.  You can’t.
Not to mention, JOSS WHEDON re-shot a lot of the scenes in Justice league (and made them worse), AND was in charge of overseeing editing while Zach was mourning his daughter.

@fantastic-fantasy-fanfics That’s not the point I was making. Neither director has been mentioned at all in this post. There are alternative ways to make an individual look taller. The Dutch Shot has many uses. Example:The camera is tilted and keeps both actors in frame, whilst achieving the desired effect. What I’m arguing is wrong is the choice of angle that deliberately places Wonder Woman in a position to be looked at in a sexual manner. Moreover, an upskirt shot does not have to include any bare flesh at all. If anything, it’s designed to imply, rather than simply show. It’s not an issue with Zach Snyder, there was never any mention of him. But the issue still stands: the shot was clearly done to appease the male gaze and is needlessly oversexualised. It’s a standing problem in popular film and looks very obvious here when you compare it to how Patty Jenkins shot the Wonder Woman film.

whotheeffisbucky: fantastic-fantasy-fanfics: whotheeffisbucky: angryschnauzer: comicbookfilms: Justice League (2017) dir. Zack Snyder On...

Animals, Apparently, and Ass: tumblintuck Follow 1r PETA you guys remember when PETA stole people pets off their porches and you guys remember how it came out that PETA kills about 90% of the animals it takes in, including healthy and adoptable puppies and kittens, stating We could become a no-kill shelter immediately. It means we wouldn't do as much work"? you guys remember when PETA advocated killing all pit bulls for the crime of being pit bulls? you guys remember when PETA handed out these comics to children when there you guys remember when they made a porn site and then filled it with videos of animal abuse, and (also in that link) claimed cats should be vegetarian? you guys remember when PETA lied about sheep shearing, got caught, and defended the lie as true even after they admitted the sheep in their picture wasn't even real? you guys remember when they tried to excuse their horrifying ways by claiming that the person who exposed them was manipulating the facts by taking them and putting them in the wrong context? Because I remember. I remember everything And I'm gonna make sure everyone else test Why would they kill pit bulls they're sweeties Because PETA does not care about animals. they do not care that these dogs live and breathe and feel and want love like every other dog. they do not care about the history of human/dog bonding and co-evolution, they do not care that dogs and human beings have relied on each other for millennia, they do not care that its cruel and morally repugnant to put down an animal just because you can, they do not care about animals. PETA cares about money and publicity, its a corporation run by a psychopath who is afraid of pitts as it states in the ink: she was apparently bit by one, and now she hates them. PETA doesn't give a rats ass about animals. They just want to kill and make money off of idiots who fall of their spiel. testi Some celebs support them i-n-m-h ah c'mon, dear-tumb1r, I think you're being a bit harsh. I mean, okay, PETA'S done some questionable things, but it's not like they've also -spread false information about milk causing autism based on outdated -used holocaust imagery to compare the meat industry to concentration camps -used a young man's brutal death as a way to say "yeah that's awful but it happens to animals every day and nobody cares about that" (tw: no pictures but the way the guy died is described and it is really horrible) -dressed up in KKK robes and protested outside of the Westminister Dog Show to protest breeding/pure bred dogs (tw: racism) -offered to pay the water bill for literally the poorest neighborhood in Detroit if and only if they all went vegan for a month (tw: self-righteous shitheads) -and they definitely didn't have two of their workers accept perfectly healthy animals from an animal hospital, with the implication that they would give them good homes, clarify that these animals were all healthy and well-tempered, and then euthanized them all in the back of a kill-van before dumping their dead bodies behind a grocery store (tw PICTURES OF DEAD ANIMALS, animal death) -and they totally didn't get off pretty much scot-free for it because PETA has oads of money and lawyers to defend themselves, which coincidentally might be why the Cerate family hasn't seen justice for their kidnapped and murdered dog, Maya. (tw: animal death) Nah. PETA's not that bad. /the heaviest of all my fucking sarcasm, I am salty as a fucking winter road, lord do l fucking hate PETA) Did you think i was fucking joking, PETA? I will make sure everyone fucking remembers what you've done. 1r Bringing it back, because it's charity season and people need to know NOT to give charity to these fuckers. Source 12,250 notesD Friendly reminder about PETA
Animals, Apparently, and Ass: tumblintuck Follow
 1r
 PETA
 you guys remember when PETA stole
 people pets off their porches and
 you guys remember how it came out that
 PETA kills about 90% of the animals it
 takes in, including healthy and adoptable
 puppies and kittens, stating We could
 become a no-kill shelter immediately. It
 means we wouldn't do as much work"?
 you guys remember when PETA
 advocated killing all pit bulls for the crime
 of being pit bulls?
 you guys remember when PETA handed
 out these comics to children when there
 you guys remember when they made a
 porn site and then filled it with videos of
 animal abuse, and (also in that link)
 claimed cats should be vegetarian?
 you guys remember when PETA lied
 about sheep shearing, got caught, and
 defended the lie as true even after they
 admitted the sheep in their picture
 wasn't even real?
 you guys remember when they tried to
 excuse their horrifying ways by claiming
 that the person who exposed them was
 manipulating the facts by taking them
 and putting them in the wrong context?
 Because I remember. I remember
 everything
 And I'm gonna make sure everyone else
 test
 Why would they kill pit bulls they're
 sweeties
 Because PETA does not care about
 animals. they do not care that these dogs
 live and breathe and feel and want love
 like every other dog. they do not care
 about the history of human/dog bonding
 and co-evolution, they do not care that
 dogs and human beings have relied on
 each other for millennia, they do not care
 that its cruel and morally repugnant to
 put down an animal just because you
 can, they do not care about animals.
 PETA cares about money and publicity,
 its a corporation run by a psychopath
 who is afraid of pitts as it states in the
 ink: she was apparently bit by one, and
 now she hates them.
 PETA doesn't give a rats ass about
 animals. They just want to kill and make
 money off of idiots who fall of their spiel.
 testi
 Some celebs support them
 i-n-m-h
 ah c'mon, dear-tumb1r, I think you're
 being a bit harsh. I mean, okay, PETA'S
 done some questionable things, but it's
 not like they've also
 -spread false information about milk
 causing autism based on outdated
 -used holocaust imagery to compare the
 meat industry to concentration camps
 -used a young man's brutal death as a
 way to say "yeah that's awful but it
 happens to animals every day and
 nobody cares about that" (tw: no
 pictures but the way the guy died is
 described and it is really horrible)
 -dressed up in KKK robes and protested
 outside of the Westminister Dog Show to
 protest breeding/pure bred dogs (tw:
 racism)
 -offered to pay the water bill for literally
 the poorest neighborhood in Detroit if
 and only if they all went vegan for a
 month (tw: self-righteous shitheads)
 -and they definitely didn't have two of
 their workers accept perfectly healthy
 animals from an animal hospital, with the
 implication that they would give them
 good homes, clarify that these animals
 were all healthy and well-tempered, and
 then euthanized them all in the back of a
 kill-van before dumping their dead
 bodies behind a grocery store (tw
 PICTURES OF DEAD ANIMALS, animal
 death)
 -and they totally didn't get off pretty
 much scot-free for it because PETA has
 oads of money and lawyers to defend
 themselves, which coincidentally might
 be why the Cerate family hasn't seen
 justice for their kidnapped and murdered
 dog, Maya. (tw: animal death)
 Nah. PETA's not that bad.
 /the heaviest of all my fucking sarcasm, I
 am salty as a fucking winter road, lord do
 l fucking hate PETA)
 Did you think i was fucking joking, PETA?
 I will make sure everyone fucking
 remembers what you've done.
 1r
 Bringing it back, because it's charity
 season and people need to know NOT to
 give charity to these fuckers.
 Source
 12,250 notesD
Friendly reminder about PETA

Friendly reminder about PETA

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

Just a reminder this holiday season, spread the word.

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...

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

 Brotha EB
 @BlakeDontCrack
 Following
 George Bush literally created ICE
 CNN@CNN
 Former President George W Bush said he is "disturbed" by the
 immigration debate taking place in the United States because it
 undermines the goodness of America." cnn.it/2uhH6uB
 9:35 PM-12 Jul 2018
 391 Retweets 903 Likes
c-bassmeow:

fightinginthenameofnothing:

whyyoustabbedme:
whyyoustabbedme:
Dropping bombs on major cities full of civilians because you thought they had “weapons of mass destruction” (and they didn’t) undermined our goodness too.
Bottom line about Bush and immigration is that post 9/11 immigration policies rarely if ever caught any potential terrorists but it did spike the number of deportations with the creation of ICE. 
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/260/


Deporting people who are not legally residing in your country isn’t a bad thing. I don’t know much about ICE as an organization, but the premise of a government department keeping people out of their country who are not there legally is just fulfilling what a government should do, which is protecting its citizenry. Maybe ICE how it is now needs reform, but if more people who are here illegally are getting caught, I can’t be upset at that in and of itself.

Do you even know what you’re talking about? Why even comment if You don’t even know what ICE is about and what ICE has done? Not only that but this view that “following the law blindly” is good which is basically the implication of what you said is fatuous and illogical. Moreover you’re ASSUMING kicking out immigrants is equivalent to protecting “its citizenry”. So do you really think separating powerless children from their poor, war torn refugee fleeing parents is protecting the Citizenry? On what grounds? On what empirical evidence? Do these kids know krav  Maga and are secret little terrorists that are going to end us all? WhAt exactly  are you trying to say? Immigrants actually commit less crimes than citizens so with that logic we should deport citizens to protect citizens. there comes a time when you have to challenge the law if it’s immoral. Seperatimg children from their families is immoral and authoritarian. Causing conflict in Central America and then turning the people fleeing from the warfare you’ve either created or contributed to is immoral. Sometimes the law and the system is stupid. The government is not protecting us by kicking mostly innocent people out of the country. 

Also you’re a libertarian and you’re literally endorsing very anti libertarian views which is the irony with libertarians nowadays in the Age of trump despite being a leftist I’m more libertarian than you are. Y’all hate big government only when convenient. LMAO

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

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

 Brotha EB
 @BlakeDontCrack
 Following
 George Bush literally created ICE
 CNN@CNN
 Former President George W Bush said he is "disturbed" by the
 immigration debate taking place in the United States because it
 undermines the goodness of America." cnn.it/2uhH6uB
 9:35 PM-12 Jul 2018
 391 Retweets 903 Likes
fightinginthenameofnothing:

whyyoustabbedme:
whyyoustabbedme:
Dropping bombs on major cities full of civilians because you thought they had “weapons of mass destruction” (and they didn’t) undermined our goodness too.
Bottom line about Bush and immigration is that post 9/11 immigration policies rarely if ever caught any potential terrorists but it did spike the number of deportations with the creation of ICE. 
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/260/


Deporting people who are not legally residing in your country isn’t a bad thing. I don’t know much about ICE as an organization, but the premise of a government department keeping people out of their country who are not there legally is just fulfilling what a government should do, which is protecting its citizenry. Maybe ICE how it is now needs reform, but if more people who are here illegally are getting caught, I can’t be upset at that in and of itself.

Do you even know what you’re talking about? Why even comment if You don’t even know what ICE is about and what ICE has done? Not only that but this view that “following the law blindly” is good which is basically the implication of what you said is fatuous and illogical. Moreover you’re ASSUMING kicking out immigrants is equivalent to protecting “its citizenry”. So do you really think separating powerless children from their poor, war torn refugee fleeing parents is protecting the Citizenry? On what grounds? On what empirical evidence? Do these kids know krav  Maga and are secret little terrorists that are going to end us all? WhAt exactly  are you trying to say? Immigrants actually commit less crimes than citizens so with that logic we should deport citizens to protect citizens. there comes a time when you have to challenge the law if it’s immoral. Seperatimg children from their families is immoral and authoritarian. Causing conflict in Central America and then turning the people fleeing from the warfare you’ve either created or contributed to is immoral. Sometimes the law and the system is stupid. The government is not protecting us by kicking mostly innocent people out of the country.

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

A Dream, Crazy, and Fucking: mister-smalls Petition to sit down all the people who make coma theories about Adventure Time and tell them "listen, this fucking show is about the last human living in a post-apocalyptic world where deadly magic has been reawakened following a global thermonuclear war that wiped out the rest of the human species, how much fucking darker do you want it to be" Even though I thought my first Creative Writing professor was kind of a douche he made a good point about this. One of our first assignments was to write in this eerie, otherworldly style (we were mimicking a specific author whose name escapes me), so we had to write about eerie otherworldly things happening. Its no exaggeration to say that more than half the class had a "big reveal" where we find out that the story's strange events and themes are all in the mind of some person in an insane asylum, or someone having a drug trip. My professor said something like, "you just successfully wrote a world that feels separate from our own, but got frightened last minute and shoe- horned in normalcy. You showed that you were afraid to commit to something different and interesting." Though I'm typically a contrarian and a piece of garbage, I am inclined to agree with my professor. I feel like people who write coma theories and the like are afraid to accept that the world of the story is separate from our own. They like everything wrapped up in this crazy little realism box where nothing out of the ordinary happens in fiction. mister-smalls you win the Best Addition to a Post prize Thank you :) This pretty well hits the nail on the head as to why I generally hate coma/dream theories and people who think they're so fucking deep for coming up with it. In my book its LAZY, plain and simple judiops I think the only times I can think of where lt was all a dream really works are in pieces like Over the Garden Wall, Ink, Coraline, and Mirrormask. In all of those the characters wake up again in their normal world, but there's a very strong implication that the dream world is as real, if not more so, than the real world, and the things they did in the dream world had a very direct impact on the waking world-not in an "Tm gonna be a better person" sense, but literally who lives and who dies at the end of the story Notably, in most of those, its stated flat-out within the first couple of minutes that the character in question is dreaming. It's not a big reveal, it's a fundamental detail of the setting If you're gonna do a dreamworld, actually commit to doing a dreamworld. Whatever it is you do, ACTUALLY COMMIT TO IT. Take Notes, Aspiring Authors
A Dream, Crazy, and Fucking: mister-smalls
 Petition to sit down all the people who make coma theories about Adventure
 Time and tell them "listen, this fucking show is about the last human living in a
 post-apocalyptic world where deadly magic has been reawakened following a
 global thermonuclear war that wiped out the rest of the human species, how
 much fucking darker do you want it to be"
 Even though I thought my first Creative Writing professor was kind of a douche
 he made a good point about this. One of our first assignments was to write in
 this eerie, otherworldly style (we were mimicking a specific author whose name
 escapes me), so we had to write about eerie otherworldly things happening. Its
 no exaggeration to say that more than half the class had a "big reveal"
 where we find out that the story's strange events and themes are all in the
 mind of some person in an insane asylum, or someone having a drug trip.
 My professor said something like, "you just successfully wrote a world that
 feels separate from our own, but got frightened last minute and shoe-
 horned in normalcy. You showed that you were afraid to commit to
 something different and interesting." Though I'm typically a contrarian and a
 piece of garbage, I am inclined to agree with my professor. I feel like people who
 write coma theories and the like are afraid to accept that the world of the story is
 separate from our own. They like everything wrapped up in this crazy little
 realism box where nothing out of the ordinary happens in fiction.
 mister-smalls
 you win the Best Addition to a Post prize
 Thank you :)
 This pretty well hits the nail on the head as to why I generally hate coma/dream
 theories and people who think they're so fucking deep for coming up with it. In
 my book its LAZY, plain and simple
 judiops
 I think the only times I can think of where lt was all a dream really works are in
 pieces like Over the Garden Wall, Ink, Coraline, and Mirrormask. In all of those
 the characters wake up again in their normal world, but there's a very strong
 implication that the dream world is as real, if not more so, than the real world,
 and the things they did in the dream world had a very direct impact on the
 waking world-not in an "Tm gonna be a better person" sense, but literally who
 lives and who dies at the end of the story
 Notably, in most of those, its stated flat-out within the first couple of minutes that
 the character in question is dreaming. It's not a big reveal, it's a fundamental
 detail of the setting
 If you're gonna do a dreamworld, actually commit to doing a dreamworld.
 Whatever it is you do, ACTUALLY COMMIT TO IT.
Take Notes, Aspiring Authors

Take Notes, Aspiring Authors

Climbing, College, and Fire: In Case of Fire Do lot Use Elevator Use Stairs thesilencedmasses: adminover20: radglawr: haedia: thewolfofnibu: stahscre4m: there are guys in my dorm who decided to play cards in the elevator see what intrigues me about college isn’t the intellectual pursuit or the bonding or whatever, its the fact that people have the freedom to do random shit like this Okay, everybody, I have a story about random shit in college. When I was in college, there was a particular class I took where, no matter what time you walked into class, if you made it into the room before the professor, you wouldn’t be counted late. I mean, that’s a pretty cool policy, given how some professors are really obnoxious about attendance.  Well, one time, a fellow student of mine was running late to class. As she reached the edge of the building, she saw her professor making it to the front steps (super long rectangular building here). He looks up from walking and he sees her. He then points to his watch, gives her a well-meaning “Look who’s late” face, and walks on inside. What he didn’t know, though, was that this particular student was like freakishly good at bouldering and related climbing skills, so she was just like “Fuck it” and SCALED THE BUILDING! She tapped on the window of the 4th floor classroom (the floors had like 20ft ceilings, so, she was quite a ways up there), nearly making one student piss himself. They opened the window, she rolled through, onto the floor, and slid into her seat about five seconds before the professor opened the door to the classroom.  He did a double take, started to say “How the hell d—” when a security guard ran in, red-faced and panting, pointed at her and bellowed “STOP DOING THAT!” omfg the amount of fucks college kids don’t give astounds me IVE ONLY SEEN THIS POST IN SCREENSHOTS I LOVE THE IMPLICATION THAT THIS STUDENT HAS A REPUTATION FOR SCALING THE BUILDINGS
Climbing, College, and Fire: In Case of Fire
 Do lot Use
 Elevator
 Use Stairs
thesilencedmasses:

adminover20:

radglawr:

haedia:

thewolfofnibu:

stahscre4m:

there are guys in my dorm who decided to play cards in the elevator

see what intrigues me about college isn’t the intellectual pursuit or the bonding or whatever, its the fact that people have the freedom to do random shit like this

Okay, everybody, I have a story about random shit in college. When I was in college, there was a particular class I took where, no matter what time you walked into class, if you made it into the room before the professor, you wouldn’t be counted late. I mean, that’s a pretty cool policy, given how some professors are really obnoxious about attendance. 
Well, one time, a fellow student of mine was running late to class. As she reached the edge of the building, she saw her professor making it to the front steps (super long rectangular building here). He looks up from walking and he sees her. He then points to his watch, gives her a well-meaning “Look who’s late” face, and walks on inside.
What he didn’t know, though, was that this particular student was like freakishly good at bouldering and related climbing skills, so she was just like “Fuck it” and SCALED THE BUILDING!
She tapped on the window of the 4th floor classroom (the floors had like 20ft ceilings, so, she was quite a ways up there), nearly making one student piss himself. They opened the window, she rolled through, onto the floor, and slid into her seat about five seconds before the professor opened the door to the classroom. 
He did a double take, started to say “How the hell d—” when a security guard ran in, red-faced and panting, pointed at her and bellowed “STOP DOING THAT!”

omfg the amount of fucks college kids don’t give astounds me


IVE ONLY SEEN THIS POST IN SCREENSHOTS


I LOVE THE IMPLICATION THAT THIS STUDENT HAS A REPUTATION FOR SCALING THE BUILDINGS

thesilencedmasses: adminover20: radglawr: haedia: thewolfofnibu: stahscre4m: there are guys in my dorm who decided to play cards in th...

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...

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...

Apparently, Bones, and Christmas: ladyjanelly E yanethyrael tumblr Follow STILL ON PATROL I learned something new and horrifying today which is... that.. no submarine is ever considered "lost".there is apparently a tradition in the U.S. Navy that no submarine is ever lost. Those that go to sea and do not return are considered to be "still on patrol. There is a monument about this along a canal near here its... the worst thing I have ever seen. it says "STILL ON PATROL' in huge letters and then goes on to specify exactly how many WWIl submarine ghosts are STILL OUT THERE, ON PATROL (it is almost 2000 wwil submarine ghosts, ftr). Here is the text from it U.S. Navy Submarines paid heavily for their success in WWll. A total of 374 officers and 3131 men are still on board these 52 U.S. submarines still on patrol. THANKS A LOT, US、NAVY, FOR HAVING THIS TOTALLY NORMAL AND NOT AT ALL HORRIFYING TRADITION, AND TELLING ALL OF US ABOUT IT THANKS. THANK YOU anyway now my mother and I cannot stop saying STILL ON PATROL to each other in ominous tones of voice tharook There's definitely something ominous about that-the implication that, one day they will return from patrol thehoneybeewitch Actually, it's rather sweet. I don't know if this is common across the board, but my dad's friend is a radio op for subs launched off the east coast, and he always is excited for Christmas, because they go through the list of SoP subs and hail them, wishing them a merry Christmas and telling them they're remembered Imagine a country whose seamen never die, and whose submarines can't be destroyed...because no ones sure if they exist or not. No but imagine. It's Christmas. A black, rotting corridor in a forgotten submarine The sound of dripping water echoes coldly through the hull. You can't see very far down the corridor but then, a man appears, he's running, in a panic, but his footsteps make no noise. The spectral seaman dashes around the corner and slips through a rusty wall. He finds himself at the back of a crowd of his They part to let him through. He feels the weight of their hollow gaze as he reaches the coms station. Even after all these years a sickly green light glistens in the dark. The captain's skeleton lays a sharp hand on his shoulder and nods at him encouragingly, the light sliding over the bones of his skull. The ghost of the seaman steadies himself and slips his fingers into the dials of the radio, possessing it. It wails and screeches. A bombardment of static. And then silence. The deathly crew mates look at each other with worry with sadness, could this be the year where there is no voice in the dark? No memory of home? The phantasm of the sailor pushes his hand deeper into the workings of the radio, the signal static but warm and kind, echoes from the darkness, "Merry Christmas boys, we're all thinking of you here at home, have a good one A sepulchral tear wafts it's way down the seaman's face. The bony captain embraces him. The crew grin through rotten jaws, laughing silently in their joy They haven't forgotten us. They haven't forgotten. lears, and then a strong voice, distant with the I am completely on board with this. It's not horritying, it's heartwarming Personal story time: whenever I go to Field Museum's Egypt exhibit,I stop by the plaque at the entrance to the underground rooms. It has an English translation of a prayer to feed the dead, and a list of all the names they know of the mummies on display there.I always recite the prayer and read aloud the list of names. They wanted to live forever, to always have their souls fed and their names spoken. How would they feel about being behind glass, among strangers? Every little thing you can do to give respect for the dead is warranted I love the idea of lost subs still being on patrol. Though if you really want something ominous, let me say that the superstitious part of me wonders: why are they still on patrol? If they haven't been found, do they not consider their mission completed? What is it out there that they are protecting us from? There's been something in the water since we first learned to float on it. Not marine life, although there's more of that than we'll ever knoW. Not rocks and currents and sand bars and icebergs either, although they've all taken more than their share of human life But something deeper. Something Other. Something not natural. Sailors have always been superstitious. Not one of them described it right. You don't hear about it so much now that we don't lose ships anymore, really not like we did at the height of the sea trade when barely an inch of ocean floor didn't bear some wreck or other. And better ships and GPS and weather satellites have all played their part in that But we have protection now that we didn't before. They don't intertere with war and battle, even on behalf of what used to be their country, or with rocks and weather and human stupidity. Those are concerns for the living But the Other Things, the Things that shouldn't be there They can't get to us now without a tight. It's a fight They haven't won in a very long time As long as we remember them, as long as we call out to them-not very often just once a year will do- they will keep protecting us from the Things that go bump in the deep More than tifty submarines, Still On Patrol I love everything about this, but it's the last bit that made me say "okay now I'I reblog it. Source:pipistrellus 51,990 notes Best of tumblr: On sailors lost, but not forgotten
Apparently, Bones, and Christmas: ladyjanelly
 E yanethyrael
 tumblr
 Follow
 STILL ON PATROL
 I learned something new and horrifying today which is... that.. no submarine is
 ever considered "lost".there is apparently a tradition in the U.S. Navy that no
 submarine is ever lost. Those that go to sea and do not return are considered to
 be "still on patrol.
 There is a monument about this along a canal near here its... the worst thing I
 have ever seen. it says "STILL ON PATROL' in huge letters and then goes on to
 specify exactly how many WWIl submarine ghosts are STILL OUT THERE, ON
 PATROL (it is almost 2000 wwil submarine ghosts, ftr). Here is the text from it
 U.S. Navy Submarines paid heavily for their success in WWll. A total of 374
 officers and 3131 men are still on board these 52 U.S. submarines still on
 patrol.
 THANKS A LOT, US、NAVY, FOR HAVING THIS TOTALLY NORMAL AND NOT
 AT ALL HORRIFYING TRADITION, AND TELLING ALL OF US ABOUT IT
 THANKS. THANK YOU
 anyway now my mother and I cannot stop saying STILL ON PATROL to each
 other in ominous tones of voice
 tharook
 There's definitely something ominous about that-the implication that, one day
 they will return from patrol
 thehoneybeewitch
 Actually, it's rather sweet. I don't know if this is common across the board, but
 my dad's friend is a radio op for subs launched off the east coast, and he always
 is excited for Christmas, because they go through the list of SoP subs and hail
 them, wishing them a merry Christmas and telling them they're remembered
 Imagine a country whose seamen never die, and whose submarines can't be
 destroyed...because no ones sure if they exist or not.
 No but imagine. It's Christmas. A black, rotting corridor in a forgotten submarine
 The sound of dripping water echoes coldly through the hull. You can't see very
 far down the corridor but then, a man appears, he's running, in a panic, but his
 footsteps make no noise. The spectral seaman dashes around the corner and
 slips through a rusty wall. He finds himself at the back of a crowd of his
 They part
 to let him through. He feels the weight of
 their hollow gaze as he reaches the coms station. Even after all these years a
 sickly green light glistens in the dark. The captain's skeleton lays a sharp hand
 on his shoulder and nods at him encouragingly, the light sliding over the bones
 of his skull. The ghost of the seaman steadies himself and slips his fingers into
 the dials of the radio, possessing it. It wails and screeches. A bombardment of
 static. And then silence. The deathly crew mates look at each other with worry
 with sadness, could this be the year where there is no voice in the dark? No
 memory of home? The phantasm of the sailor pushes his hand deeper into the
 workings of the radio, the signal
 static but warm and kind, echoes from the darkness, "Merry Christmas boys,
 we're all thinking of you here at home, have a good one
 A sepulchral tear wafts it's way down the seaman's face. The bony captain
 embraces him. The crew grin through rotten jaws, laughing silently in their joy
 They haven't forgotten us. They haven't forgotten.
 lears, and then a strong voice, distant with the
 I am completely on board with this. It's not horritying, it's heartwarming
 Personal story time: whenever I go to Field Museum's Egypt exhibit,I stop by
 the plaque at the entrance to the underground rooms. It has an English
 translation of a prayer to feed the dead, and a list of all the names they know of
 the mummies on display there.I always recite the prayer and read aloud the list
 of names. They wanted to live forever, to always have their souls fed and their
 names spoken. How would they feel about being behind glass, among
 strangers? Every little thing you can do to give respect for the dead is warranted
 I love the idea of lost subs still being on patrol. Though if you really want
 something ominous, let me say that the superstitious part of me wonders: why
 are they still on patrol? If they haven't been found, do they not consider their
 mission completed? What is it out there that they are protecting us from?
 There's been something in the water since we first learned to float on it. Not
 marine life, although there's more of that than we'll ever knoW. Not rocks and
 currents and sand bars and icebergs either, although they've all taken more than
 their share of human life
 But something deeper. Something Other. Something not natural.
 Sailors have always been superstitious.
 Not one of them described it right.
 You don't hear about it so much now that we don't lose ships anymore, really
 not like we did at the height of the sea trade when barely an inch of ocean floor
 didn't bear some wreck or other. And better ships and GPS and weather
 satellites have all played their part in that
 But we have protection now that we didn't before. They don't intertere with war
 and battle, even on behalf of what used to be their country, or with rocks and
 weather and human stupidity. Those are concerns for the living
 But the Other Things, the Things that shouldn't be there They can't get to us
 now without a tight. It's a fight They haven't won in a very long time
 As long as we remember them, as long as we call out to them-not very often
 just once a year will do- they will keep protecting us from the Things that go
 bump in the deep
 More than tifty submarines, Still On Patrol
 I love everything about this, but it's the last bit that made me say "okay now I'I
 reblog it.
 Source:pipistrellus
 51,990 notes
Best of tumblr: On sailors lost, but not forgotten

Best of tumblr: On sailors lost, but not forgotten