🔥 | Latest

Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.
Anaconda, Crime, and Fail: 7 Ways Police Will Break the
 Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to
 Get What they Want
 Cops routinely break the law. Here's how.
 By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015
libertarirynn:

gvldngrl:

wolfoverdose:

rikodeine:

seemeflow:

Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.
1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.
2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.
3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)
4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.
5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.
6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.
7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.
U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).
Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.
Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want

One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else


Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.


Important 


Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.

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

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...

All Lives Matter, America, and Asian: *meme comparing Ibgt civil rights movement to pre vious womens rights move- ment and illustrating that ey are both important an aren t whinin My only issue with it and why i think they refer to it as whining is because it's always for some groups and not all, all people should be equal not just minorities. That goes for the gay communities and for black and hispanic communities white. In the military we are all mixed and we all get along. They should make all communities diverse Like Reply November 22 at 3:14pm Hide Well its not about diversity. It's about everybody having hts Like Reply November 24 at 9:25pm Well it's not about diversity. It's about everybody having 24 at 9:25pm People would be more understanding if people of all walks of life were forced to live together peacefully, is what I meant I'm sure if people would lose their jobs for treating people wrongly or objectifying them. They wouldn't be so quick to do it. Like the military You can be thrown out for even saying something about someone Like Reply November 24 at 9:28pm Uh.. I feel like we're having two different conversations Reply And if it was about everyone having equal rights here would be no black lives matter movement, numbers are some how more important than lives. Studies show more whites are killed then blacks each year by the police. If it was about all lives and not one demographic and about every life taken wrongfully by enforcement I could stand behind it Like Reply November 24 at 9:30pm If anything going on right now in these communities was actually about equality, we would be saving Christians and not Muslims. We would be crying over the thousands of children that suffocated to death inside their own bodies on gasses their own goverment set on them. If any lives actually were seen as equal. People wouldnt be crying over donald trump and safe spaces and every other thing they can think of Like Reply November 24 at 9:33pm People care more about things that personally effect them and people like them than eachother. In my eyes thats a problem. Like Reply - November 24 at 9:35pm but... that's the thing. in general and in the picture and the purpose of this post, it IS about all rights. it's not like i only support gay rights. i support equality EVERYWHERE. if rights aren't addressed specifically, singled out, attention will NOT be drawn to them and equality (which means everyone) CANT happen. this isn't about exclusivity, it's about EVERYONE having the right to marry. its comparing one civil rights movement to another, NOT saying "our rights are important and screw everyone elses. "it's saying "our rights are ALSO important and WE WANT EQUALITY Like Reply-2 -November 26 at 4:16pm-Edited Like Reply 2 November 26 at 4:16pm- Edited also have no idea why you're talking about blacks and November 26 at 4:12pm to me your argument just comes across as peoples Like Reply individual rights not mattering because they aren't as important in your eyes as other things, and that's exactly the problem. bigotry does exist. it IS a problem. just implying that it doesn't matter doesnt change the fact that people of all shapes sizes colors orientation races whatever deal with it every single day. maybe not where you are, but somewhere. and that doesn't make it any less important Like Reply-1-November 26 at 4:20pm I didn't say it didn't matter but if it did wouldn't it be about all people not just the labels that we and society have given That's not bigotry I just see through the agendas into the fact that all lives matter equally none of these movements are about equality or their wouldn't be sides... And quite frankly its discrimination to the other people not the ones only going to it for people like them. Like- Reply-November 26 at 9:59pm I dont need to imply ignorance or belittling to call it what it is self absorbed and selfish. It should be all lives matter gay and straight lives matter. Babies in the womb matter and god matters Im a Christian I love all people, hate the sin not the sinner. That's what Christianity is not what you see on the damn social network. It's called repentant Also the reality is that saying any lives matter has to be seen as an inequality to all others. So the number of people dying by this or that are more important than all lives dying Thats just stupid 26 at 10:02pm Thee argument is about individuals lives in stead of the better of all lives. Any life taken is wrong, that's either your faith or your moral. Everyone's mad about Muslims yet they shove gay individuals off roofs in their country. It's always about whats wrong here not there ..If you want it to all be wrong it will be Like Reply November 26 at 10:06pm e shouldn't be classified as gay straight black white asian Christian or otherwise we are all just people Like Reply November 26 at 10:07pm You just called yourself a Christian multiple times, but oka y. BONUS You just called yourself a Christian multiple times, but okay Like Yesterday at 4:40pm I am a Christian so l am proud of that Yeste as like as we condem those who stand up for equality and what they believe in, we fail to progress in this nation. Unlike Reply 2 21 hrs Progressivism shouldn't even be in this country nor should marksmanship socialism or any other ism because America is only about thirty years old in retrospect to other countries. Sadly when everyone keeps fighting because they want their needs met thats not a compromise that's not caring about what you take from another group yet fail to care when you want them to care about yours Its fucking bullshit and stupid 17 hrs Edited memehumor: “I’m Not A Bigot” she says, in the midst of a bigoted rant (With Bonus)
All Lives Matter, America, and Asian: *meme comparing Ibgt
 civil rights movement to pre
 vious womens rights move-
 ment and illustrating that
 ey are both important an
 aren t whinin
 My only issue with it and why i think they refer to it as
 whining is because it's always for some groups and not all, all people should
 be equal not just minorities. That goes for the gay communities and for black
 and hispanic communities white. In the military we are all mixed and we all
 get along. They should make all communities diverse
 Like Reply November 22 at 3:14pm
 Hide
 Well its not about diversity. It's about everybody having
 hts
 Like Reply November 24 at 9:25pm
 Well it's not about diversity. It's about everybody having
 24 at 9:25pm
 People would be more understanding if people of
 all walks of life were forced to live together peacefully, is what I meant
 I'm sure if people would lose their jobs for treating people wrongly or
 objectifying them. They wouldn't be so quick to do it. Like the military
 You can be thrown out for even saying something about someone
 Like Reply November 24 at 9:28pm
 Uh.. I feel like we're having two different conversations
 Reply
 And if it was about everyone having equal rights
 here would be no black lives matter movement, numbers are some
 how more important than lives. Studies show more whites are killed
 then blacks each year by the police. If it was about all lives and not
 one demographic and about every life taken wrongfully by
 enforcement I could stand behind it
 Like Reply November 24 at 9:30pm
 If anything going on right now in these
 communities was actually about equality, we would be saving
 Christians and not Muslims. We would be crying over the thousands
 of children that suffocated to death inside their own bodies on gasses
 their own goverment set on them. If any lives actually were seen as
 equal. People wouldnt be crying over donald trump and safe spaces
 and every other thing they can think of
 Like Reply November 24 at 9:33pm
 People care more about things that personally
 effect them and people like them than eachother. In my eyes thats a
 problem.
 Like Reply - November 24 at 9:35pm
 but... that's the thing. in general and in the picture and
 the purpose of this post, it IS about all rights. it's not like i only support
 gay rights. i support equality EVERYWHERE. if rights aren't addressed
 specifically, singled out, attention will NOT be drawn to them and
 equality (which means everyone) CANT happen. this isn't about
 exclusivity, it's about EVERYONE having the right to marry. its
 comparing one civil rights movement to another, NOT saying "our
 rights are important and screw everyone elses. "it's saying "our rights
 are ALSO important and WE WANT EQUALITY
 Like Reply-2 -November 26 at 4:16pm-Edited
 Like
 Reply
 2 November 26 at 4:16pm-
 Edited
 also have no idea why you're talking about blacks and
 November 26 at 4:12pm
 to me your argument just comes across as peoples
 Like
 Reply
 individual rights not mattering because they aren't as important in your
 eyes as other things, and that's exactly the problem. bigotry does exist.
 it IS a problem. just implying that it doesn't matter doesnt change the
 fact that people of all shapes sizes colors orientation races whatever
 deal with it every single day. maybe not where you are, but
 somewhere. and that doesn't make it any less important
 Like Reply-1-November 26 at 4:20pm
 I didn't say it didn't matter but if it did wouldn't it be
 about all people not just the labels that we and society have given
 That's not bigotry I just see through the agendas into the fact that all
 lives matter equally none of these movements are about equality or
 their wouldn't be sides... And quite frankly its discrimination to the
 other people not the ones only going to it for people like them.
 Like- Reply-November 26 at 9:59pm
 I dont need to imply ignorance or belittling to call it
 what it is self absorbed and selfish. It should be all lives matter gay
 and straight lives matter. Babies in the womb matter and god matters
 Im a Christian I love all people, hate the sin not the sinner. That's what
 Christianity is not what you see on the damn social network. It's called
 repentant Also the reality is that saying any lives matter has to be
 seen as an inequality to all others. So the number of people dying by
 this or that are more important than all lives dying Thats just stupid
 26 at 10:02pm
 Thee argument is about individuals lives in stead
 of the better of all lives. Any life taken is wrong, that's either your faith
 or your moral. Everyone's mad about Muslims yet they shove gay
 individuals off roofs in their country. It's always about whats wrong
 here not there ..If you want it to all be wrong it will be
 Like Reply November 26 at 10:06pm
 e shouldn't be classified as gay straight black
 white asian Christian or otherwise we are all just people
 Like Reply November 26 at 10:07pm
 You just called yourself a Christian multiple times, but
 oka
 y.
 BONUS
 You just called yourself a Christian multiple times, but
 okay
 Like Yesterday at 4:40pm
 I am a Christian so l am proud of that
 Yeste
 as like as we condem those who stand up for equality
 and what they believe in, we fail to progress in this nation.
 Unlike Reply 2 21 hrs
 Progressivism shouldn't even be in this country nor should
 marksmanship socialism or any other ism because America is only about thirty
 years old in retrospect to other countries. Sadly when everyone keeps fighting
 because they want their needs met thats not a compromise that's not caring
 about what you take from another group yet fail to care when you want them to
 care about yours Its fucking bullshit and stupid
 17 hrs Edited
memehumor:

“I’m Not A Bigot” she says, in the midst of a bigoted rant (With Bonus)

memehumor: “I’m Not A Bigot” she says, in the midst of a bigoted rant (With Bonus)

All Lives Matter, America, and Asian: *meme comparing Ibgt civil rights movement to pre vious womens rights move- ment and illustrating that ey are both important an aren t whinin My only issue with it and why i think they refer to it as whining is because it's always for some groups and not all, all people should be equal not just minorities. That goes for the gay communities and for black and hispanic communities white. In the military we are all mixed and we all get along. They should make all communities diverse Like Reply November 22 at 3:14pm Hide Well its not about diversity. It's about everybody having hts Like Reply November 24 at 9:25pm Well it's not about diversity. It's about everybody having 24 at 9:25pm People would be more understanding if people of all walks of life were forced to live together peacefully, is what I meant I'm sure if people would lose their jobs for treating people wrongly or objectifying them. They wouldn't be so quick to do it. Like the military You can be thrown out for even saying something about someone Like Reply November 24 at 9:28pm Uh.. I feel like we're having two different conversations Reply And if it was about everyone having equal rights here would be no black lives matter movement, numbers are some how more important than lives. Studies show more whites are killed then blacks each year by the police. If it was about all lives and not one demographic and about every life taken wrongfully by enforcement I could stand behind it Like Reply November 24 at 9:30pm If anything going on right now in these communities was actually about equality, we would be saving Christians and not Muslims. We would be crying over the thousands of children that suffocated to death inside their own bodies on gasses their own goverment set on them. If any lives actually were seen as equal. People wouldnt be crying over donald trump and safe spaces and every other thing they can think of Like Reply November 24 at 9:33pm People care more about things that personally effect them and people like them than eachother. In my eyes thats a problem. Like Reply - November 24 at 9:35pm but... that's the thing. in general and in the picture and the purpose of this post, it IS about all rights. it's not like i only support gay rights. i support equality EVERYWHERE. if rights aren't addressed specifically, singled out, attention will NOT be drawn to them and equality (which means everyone) CANT happen. this isn't about exclusivity, it's about EVERYONE having the right to marry. its comparing one civil rights movement to another, NOT saying "our rights are important and screw everyone elses. "it's saying "our rights are ALSO important and WE WANT EQUALITY Like Reply-2 -November 26 at 4:16pm-Edited Like Reply 2 November 26 at 4:16pm- Edited also have no idea why you're talking about blacks and November 26 at 4:12pm to me your argument just comes across as peoples Like Reply individual rights not mattering because they aren't as important in your eyes as other things, and that's exactly the problem. bigotry does exist. it IS a problem. just implying that it doesn't matter doesnt change the fact that people of all shapes sizes colors orientation races whatever deal with it every single day. maybe not where you are, but somewhere. and that doesn't make it any less important Like Reply-1-November 26 at 4:20pm I didn't say it didn't matter but if it did wouldn't it be about all people not just the labels that we and society have given That's not bigotry I just see through the agendas into the fact that all lives matter equally none of these movements are about equality or their wouldn't be sides... And quite frankly its discrimination to the other people not the ones only going to it for people like them. Like- Reply-November 26 at 9:59pm I dont need to imply ignorance or belittling to call it what it is self absorbed and selfish. It should be all lives matter gay and straight lives matter. Babies in the womb matter and god matters Im a Christian I love all people, hate the sin not the sinner. That's what Christianity is not what you see on the damn social network. It's called repentant Also the reality is that saying any lives matter has to be seen as an inequality to all others. So the number of people dying by this or that are more important than all lives dying Thats just stupid 26 at 10:02pm Thee argument is about individuals lives in stead of the better of all lives. Any life taken is wrong, that's either your faith or your moral. Everyone's mad about Muslims yet they shove gay individuals off roofs in their country. It's always about whats wrong here not there ..If you want it to all be wrong it will be Like Reply November 26 at 10:06pm e shouldn't be classified as gay straight black white asian Christian or otherwise we are all just people Like Reply November 26 at 10:07pm You just called yourself a Christian multiple times, but oka y. BONUS You just called yourself a Christian multiple times, but okay Like Yesterday at 4:40pm I am a Christian so l am proud of that Yeste as like as we condem those who stand up for equality and what they believe in, we fail to progress in this nation. Unlike Reply 2 21 hrs Progressivism shouldn't even be in this country nor should marksmanship socialism or any other ism because America is only about thirty years old in retrospect to other countries. Sadly when everyone keeps fighting because they want their needs met thats not a compromise that's not caring about what you take from another group yet fail to care when you want them to care about yours Its fucking bullshit and stupid 17 hrs Edited <p><a href="http://memehumor.tumblr.com/post/153843131148/im-not-a-bigot-she-says-in-the-midst-of-a" class="tumblr_blog">memehumor</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>“I’m Not A Bigot” she says, in the midst of a bigoted rant (With Bonus)</p></blockquote>
All Lives Matter, America, and Asian: *meme comparing Ibgt
 civil rights movement to pre
 vious womens rights move-
 ment and illustrating that
 ey are both important an
 aren t whinin
 My only issue with it and why i think they refer to it as
 whining is because it's always for some groups and not all, all people should
 be equal not just minorities. That goes for the gay communities and for black
 and hispanic communities white. In the military we are all mixed and we all
 get along. They should make all communities diverse
 Like Reply November 22 at 3:14pm
 Hide
 Well its not about diversity. It's about everybody having
 hts
 Like Reply November 24 at 9:25pm
 Well it's not about diversity. It's about everybody having
 24 at 9:25pm
 People would be more understanding if people of
 all walks of life were forced to live together peacefully, is what I meant
 I'm sure if people would lose their jobs for treating people wrongly or
 objectifying them. They wouldn't be so quick to do it. Like the military
 You can be thrown out for even saying something about someone
 Like Reply November 24 at 9:28pm
 Uh.. I feel like we're having two different conversations
 Reply
 And if it was about everyone having equal rights
 here would be no black lives matter movement, numbers are some
 how more important than lives. Studies show more whites are killed
 then blacks each year by the police. If it was about all lives and not
 one demographic and about every life taken wrongfully by
 enforcement I could stand behind it
 Like Reply November 24 at 9:30pm
 If anything going on right now in these
 communities was actually about equality, we would be saving
 Christians and not Muslims. We would be crying over the thousands
 of children that suffocated to death inside their own bodies on gasses
 their own goverment set on them. If any lives actually were seen as
 equal. People wouldnt be crying over donald trump and safe spaces
 and every other thing they can think of
 Like Reply November 24 at 9:33pm
 People care more about things that personally
 effect them and people like them than eachother. In my eyes thats a
 problem.
 Like Reply - November 24 at 9:35pm
 but... that's the thing. in general and in the picture and
 the purpose of this post, it IS about all rights. it's not like i only support
 gay rights. i support equality EVERYWHERE. if rights aren't addressed
 specifically, singled out, attention will NOT be drawn to them and
 equality (which means everyone) CANT happen. this isn't about
 exclusivity, it's about EVERYONE having the right to marry. its
 comparing one civil rights movement to another, NOT saying "our
 rights are important and screw everyone elses. "it's saying "our rights
 are ALSO important and WE WANT EQUALITY
 Like Reply-2 -November 26 at 4:16pm-Edited
 Like
 Reply
 2 November 26 at 4:16pm-
 Edited
 also have no idea why you're talking about blacks and
 November 26 at 4:12pm
 to me your argument just comes across as peoples
 Like
 Reply
 individual rights not mattering because they aren't as important in your
 eyes as other things, and that's exactly the problem. bigotry does exist.
 it IS a problem. just implying that it doesn't matter doesnt change the
 fact that people of all shapes sizes colors orientation races whatever
 deal with it every single day. maybe not where you are, but
 somewhere. and that doesn't make it any less important
 Like Reply-1-November 26 at 4:20pm
 I didn't say it didn't matter but if it did wouldn't it be
 about all people not just the labels that we and society have given
 That's not bigotry I just see through the agendas into the fact that all
 lives matter equally none of these movements are about equality or
 their wouldn't be sides... And quite frankly its discrimination to the
 other people not the ones only going to it for people like them.
 Like- Reply-November 26 at 9:59pm
 I dont need to imply ignorance or belittling to call it
 what it is self absorbed and selfish. It should be all lives matter gay
 and straight lives matter. Babies in the womb matter and god matters
 Im a Christian I love all people, hate the sin not the sinner. That's what
 Christianity is not what you see on the damn social network. It's called
 repentant Also the reality is that saying any lives matter has to be
 seen as an inequality to all others. So the number of people dying by
 this or that are more important than all lives dying Thats just stupid
 26 at 10:02pm
 Thee argument is about individuals lives in stead
 of the better of all lives. Any life taken is wrong, that's either your faith
 or your moral. Everyone's mad about Muslims yet they shove gay
 individuals off roofs in their country. It's always about whats wrong
 here not there ..If you want it to all be wrong it will be
 Like Reply November 26 at 10:06pm
 e shouldn't be classified as gay straight black
 white asian Christian or otherwise we are all just people
 Like Reply November 26 at 10:07pm
 You just called yourself a Christian multiple times, but
 oka
 y.
 BONUS
 You just called yourself a Christian multiple times, but
 okay
 Like Yesterday at 4:40pm
 I am a Christian so l am proud of that
 Yeste
 as like as we condem those who stand up for equality
 and what they believe in, we fail to progress in this nation.
 Unlike Reply 2 21 hrs
 Progressivism shouldn't even be in this country nor should
 marksmanship socialism or any other ism because America is only about thirty
 years old in retrospect to other countries. Sadly when everyone keeps fighting
 because they want their needs met thats not a compromise that's not caring
 about what you take from another group yet fail to care when you want them to
 care about yours Its fucking bullshit and stupid
 17 hrs Edited
<p><a href="http://memehumor.tumblr.com/post/153843131148/im-not-a-bigot-she-says-in-the-midst-of-a" class="tumblr_blog">memehumor</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p>“I’m Not A Bigot” she says, in the midst of a bigoted rant (With Bonus)</p></blockquote>

memehumor: “I’m Not A Bigot” she says, in the midst of a bigoted rant (With Bonus)

Children, Internet, and Life: Antonin Scalia found dead Mrs. Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian This would be an excellent day for Justice Clarence Thomas to continue his tradition of just doing whatever Justice Scalia does. Just now Unlike6 Reply <p><a href="http://calvinistbrony.tumblr.com/post/139317324818/proudblackconservative-jewishpolitics" class="tumblr_blog">calvinistbrony</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://proudblackconservative.tumblr.com/post/139315942199">proudblackconservative</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://jewishpolitics.tumblr.com/post/139314571098">jewishpolitics</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://kyssthis16.tumblr.com/post/139266881035">kyssthis16</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://giwatafiya.tumblr.com/post/139262260597">giwatafiya</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://cultural-dzerzhinskyism.tumblr.com/post/139256319263">cultural-dzerzhinskyism</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>This is the best thing ever written</p> </blockquote> <p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="281" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/a0786469cee09c0fe479d99aa2b26071/tumblr_inline_o2iiedyBuU1t9h07z_540.jpg" data-orig-height="281" data-orig-width="500"/></figure></p> </blockquote> <p>😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂</p> </blockquote> <p>Cause that’s not obnoxious and a little racist or anything.</p> </blockquote> <p>Get it?! Because wishing someone dead for believing differently is absolutely hilarious! Lololololol slay! 😂😂😂😂😂😑👋🏾👋🏾👋🏾💯💯💯💯💯</p> </blockquote> <p>I wonder if any of these people loudly proclaiming their intellectual superiority to Justice Clarence Thomas on the internet would have a clue what the doctrine of incorporation is and how Thomas, not Scalia, is the one who correctly articulated that any individual rights from the bill or rights incorporated into the 14th ammendment could only be individual rights. Otherwise, powers of congress would also be incorporated into the 14th amendment.<br/><br/>Oh wait, that’d require A) reading something more substantial than memes on the internet, and B) not being such a bigot that you’ve convinced yourself that Clarence Thomas is the devil as an unquestionable doctrine of your progressive religious faith.<br/><br/>I CANNOT wait to write my children’s book on the life and scholarship of Clarence Thomas.<br/></p></blockquote> <p>&ldquo;Hurr durr Uncle Tom hurr muh internalized racism doh&rdquo;</p><p>Honestly these numb nuts don&rsquo;t know shit about Clarence Thomas.</p>
Children, Internet, and Life: Antonin Scalia found dead
 Mrs. Betty Bowers, America's Best
 Christian
 This would be an excellent day for Justice
 Clarence Thomas to continue his tradition of
 just doing whatever Justice Scalia does.
 Just now Unlike6 Reply
<p><a href="http://calvinistbrony.tumblr.com/post/139317324818/proudblackconservative-jewishpolitics" class="tumblr_blog">calvinistbrony</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://proudblackconservative.tumblr.com/post/139315942199">proudblackconservative</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://jewishpolitics.tumblr.com/post/139314571098">jewishpolitics</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://kyssthis16.tumblr.com/post/139266881035">kyssthis16</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://giwatafiya.tumblr.com/post/139262260597">giwatafiya</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://cultural-dzerzhinskyism.tumblr.com/post/139256319263">cultural-dzerzhinskyism</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This is the best thing ever written</p>
</blockquote>
<p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="281" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/a0786469cee09c0fe479d99aa2b26071/tumblr_inline_o2iiedyBuU1t9h07z_540.jpg" data-orig-height="281" data-orig-width="500"/></figure></p>
</blockquote>
<p>😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Cause that’s not obnoxious and a little racist or anything.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Get it?! Because wishing someone dead for believing differently is absolutely hilarious! Lololololol slay! 😂😂😂😂😂😑👋🏾👋🏾👋🏾💯💯💯💯💯</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I wonder if any of these people loudly proclaiming their intellectual superiority to Justice Clarence Thomas on the internet would have a clue what the doctrine of incorporation is and how Thomas, not Scalia, is the one who correctly articulated that any individual rights from the bill or rights incorporated into the 14th ammendment could only be individual rights. Otherwise, powers of congress would also be incorporated into the 14th amendment.<br/><br/>Oh wait, that’d require A) reading something more substantial than memes on the internet, and B) not being such a bigot that you’ve convinced yourself that Clarence Thomas is the devil as an unquestionable doctrine of your progressive religious faith.<br/><br/>I CANNOT wait to write my children’s book on the life and scholarship of Clarence Thomas.<br/></p></blockquote>

<p>&ldquo;Hurr durr Uncle Tom hurr muh internalized racism doh&rdquo;</p><p>Honestly these numb nuts don&rsquo;t know shit about Clarence Thomas.</p>

calvinistbrony: proudblackconservative: jewishpolitics: kyssthis16: giwatafiya: cultural-dzerzhinskyism: This is the best thing ever w...