🔥 | Latest

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

gvldngrl:

wolfoverdose:

rikodeine:

seemeflow:

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

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


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


Important 


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

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

Bad, Cheating, and College: Why Cheating Isn't Actually That Bad Ima count to 3 and that shit better be deleted <p><a href="https://officialfist.tumblr.com/post/173751914316/hyperazraphael-keyhollow-yellowjuice" class="tumblr_blog">officialfist</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://hyperazraphael.tumblr.com/post/173750532987/keyhollow-yellowjuice-tijopi11-why-are" class="tumblr_blog">hyperazraphael</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://keyhollow.tumblr.com/post/169078259010/yellowjuice-tijopi11-why-are-people-having-so" class="tumblr_blog">keyhollow</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="http://yellowjuice.tumblr.com/post/168679199617/tijopi11-why-are-people-having-so-much-issue-with" class="tumblr_blog">yellowjuice</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://tijopi11.tumblr.com/post/168672032017/why-are-people-having-so-much-issue-with-the" class="tumblr_blog">tijopi11</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>Why are people having so much issue with the article, I agreed with it? The title isn’t the most eloquent thing ever but the article wasn’t encouraging cheating, where you go behind your partners back, but instead looking at the issue of cheating as a not black-and-white thing where there’s one horribly evil person who just wanted to have fun/get laid with one traumatized-for-life victim. Instead, like most- nah, let me say with ANYTHING in real life beyond fiction, the article sees the grays in cheating and why the person cheated in the first place. Not to say that cheating isn’t a horrible thing to do, but I feel like people need to understand that there are reasons people do the things they do. People who cheat are human beings. They could feel horrible about it, they could be trapped in a marriage or relationship that they don’t feel they can escape, they can feel insecure and unloved. Again, not to say it’s something you should ever do, but dehumanizing someone over a mistake is just as bad in my opinion. There’s nowhere where they can talk about their experiences, and it’s likely we know a lot of people who have cheated in our lives even if they haven’t (or were too scared) to tell us about it. </p></blockquote> <p>“dehumanizing someone over a <b>mistake</b>”<br/></p> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280" style=""><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/b46b82f946515987635b2e89242b3766/tumblr_inline_p15vbwp0N81syqsd4_540.jpg" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280"/></figure><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/a90f07cba2ec91c06050aab2e8db4b93/tumblr_inline_p15vcgALY11syqsd4_540.jpg" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280"/></figure><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/8bf1b39fc5036c8cdbd976cfb89b6c89/tumblr_inline_p15vctsANK1syqsd4_540.jpg" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280"/></figure><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/bedd610984be09395d3e890baba4a152/tumblr_inline_p15vd52e6u1syqsd4_540.jpg" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280"/></figure><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/b6ae8e67e4ef581db534a9d75c17945a/tumblr_inline_p15ved8Rom1syqsd4_540.jpg" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280"/></figure><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/209ea0ffa5930a051f9a888121ad1979/tumblr_inline_p15vf4N2O91syqsd4_540.jpg" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280"/></figure><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/dec0f5c82aec02545f9e81bb0c155565/tumblr_inline_p15vfl9QBz1syqsd4_540.jpg" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280"/></figure></blockquote> <p>If you cheat, you’re trash. No if and or buts. I’m looking at all y'all, I’m lookin in the mirror, I’m lookin down the street, everydamn body. If you cheat, you’re trash.</p> </blockquote><p>Ahh yes, tumblr’s traditional “One strike you’re out” policy. I love the rationale of this and other similar things that says, “If you do a bad thing you are a bad person. Forever. There is never anything else you can do to not be a bad person.” It has such an interestingly Christian vibe to it. </p><p>First of all that image set is a lie. There are different scenarios that come together that can lead to this mistake. Also it is defining “mistake” the same way as “accident”. Of course cheating isn’t generally an accident. But, immediately it lumps in people that are not in full faculty of their senses. “You got too many drinks with him”. I’m going to put a big “No” stamp on that because if the shit you do when inebriated can’t be considered proper consent in the first place then you did not intentionally cheat (*unless it was premeditated while sober obviously). </p><p>Now let me tell you up front. I cheated once in college. Yes I know I’m trash for life with no chance for redemption but hear me out anyway. I loved my boyfriend, probably a lot more than I should have. But one night I was woken up by someone knocking on my door. It was my apartmentmate. My incredibly hot, straight, wrestler apartmentmate. He was horny and he wanted to just get off even if it was with a dude. It was like a cheesy impossible porn plot come to life. We had sex. Never once, through the entire thing, and I swear this upon everything I hold dear, never ONCE did I think “I have a boyfriend. This is wrong.” I was so caught up in the shock and fantasy of the situation it wasn’t until he left that I realized what I’d done. I was horrified. I cried and cried and as soon as the sun was up I called my boyfriend and asked him to come over. When he got there I immediately broke down sobbing and begged for him to forgive me. He did, and we moved on. And you know what? I NEVER did it again in any relationship. Did I mean to cheat on him? No. Did I? Yes. Was what I did wrong? Absolutely! Do I regret what I did? Endlessly. Does that make me horrible trash for the rest of my life? I really don’t think so. </p><p>People do things wrong. People do make conscious choices that they later realize were wrong. People ask for forgiveness. If someone does it multiple times, it’s not a mistake anymore. If someone conceals their mistake, it’s not a mistake anymore. But if someone genuinely acknowledges they did something wrong and asks for forgiveness and NEVER allows it to happen again, I think that forgiveness should be granted. And you know what? I’ve been cheated on twice since then by different guys in my life. It hurt, horribly. Both times it was an ongoing and intentional thing. But if either of them apologized to me and asked me to forgive them and showed they would sincerely never do it again I would give them a chance anyway. </p><p>Tumblr, I love your desire for justice and truth both socially and personally. But when you break everything into black and white and refuse to grant any room for forgiveness you are teaching yourselves to cut people out of your lives that could be legitimately good people that made a bad choice and deserve forgiveness. Of course there are people that don’t deserve it, who wouldn’t sincerely try to earn it, but if you say everyone who makes 1 bad choice, or 1 series of mistakes, is trash forever then I think that makes you the bad person when you are incapable of granting kindness and forgiveness to another person. </p></blockquote> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="494" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/cbd162d73523bc7796d2d8ce24e14a9f/tumblr_inline_p8ho52Yc0A1t42r6u_500.jpg" data-orig-height="494" data-orig-width="500"/></figure></blockquote> <p>Lmao did she really think anyone wanted to read her porno fantasy story justifying cheating?</p>
Bad, Cheating, and College: Why Cheating Isn't Actually That Bad

 Ima count to 3
 and that shit better
 be deleted
<p><a href="https://officialfist.tumblr.com/post/173751914316/hyperazraphael-keyhollow-yellowjuice" class="tumblr_blog">officialfist</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="https://hyperazraphael.tumblr.com/post/173750532987/keyhollow-yellowjuice-tijopi11-why-are" class="tumblr_blog">hyperazraphael</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="http://keyhollow.tumblr.com/post/169078259010/yellowjuice-tijopi11-why-are-people-having-so" class="tumblr_blog">keyhollow</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a href="http://yellowjuice.tumblr.com/post/168679199617/tijopi11-why-are-people-having-so-much-issue-with" class="tumblr_blog">yellowjuice</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://tijopi11.tumblr.com/post/168672032017/why-are-people-having-so-much-issue-with-the" class="tumblr_blog">tijopi11</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Why are people having so much issue with the article, I agreed with it? The title isn’t the most eloquent thing ever but the article wasn’t encouraging cheating, where you go behind your partners back, but instead looking at the issue of cheating as a not black-and-white thing where there’s one horribly evil person who just wanted to have fun/get laid with one traumatized-for-life victim. Instead, like most- nah, let me say with ANYTHING in real life beyond fiction, the article sees the grays in cheating and why the person cheated in the first place. Not to say that cheating isn’t a horrible thing to do, but I feel like people need to understand that there are reasons people do the things they do. People who cheat are human beings. They could feel horrible about it, they could be trapped in a marriage or relationship that they don’t feel they can escape, they can feel insecure and unloved. Again, not to say it’s something you should ever do, but dehumanizing someone over a mistake is just as bad in my opinion. There’s nowhere where they can talk about their experiences, and it’s likely we know a lot of people who have cheated in our lives even if they haven’t (or were too scared) to tell us about it. </p></blockquote>
<p>“dehumanizing someone over a <b>mistake</b>”<br/></p>
<figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280" style=""><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/b46b82f946515987635b2e89242b3766/tumblr_inline_p15vbwp0N81syqsd4_540.jpg" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280"/></figure><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/a90f07cba2ec91c06050aab2e8db4b93/tumblr_inline_p15vcgALY11syqsd4_540.jpg" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280"/></figure><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/8bf1b39fc5036c8cdbd976cfb89b6c89/tumblr_inline_p15vctsANK1syqsd4_540.jpg" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280"/></figure><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/bedd610984be09395d3e890baba4a152/tumblr_inline_p15vd52e6u1syqsd4_540.jpg" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280"/></figure><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/b6ae8e67e4ef581db534a9d75c17945a/tumblr_inline_p15ved8Rom1syqsd4_540.jpg" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280"/></figure><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/209ea0ffa5930a051f9a888121ad1979/tumblr_inline_p15vf4N2O91syqsd4_540.jpg" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280"/></figure><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/dec0f5c82aec02545f9e81bb0c155565/tumblr_inline_p15vfl9QBz1syqsd4_540.jpg" data-orig-height="1453" data-orig-width="1280"/></figure></blockquote>

<p>If you cheat, you’re trash. No if and or buts. I’m looking at all y'all, I’m lookin in the mirror, I’m lookin down the street, everydamn body. If you cheat, you’re trash.</p>
</blockquote><p>Ahh yes, tumblr’s traditional “One strike you’re out” policy. I love the rationale of this and other similar things that says, “If you do a bad thing you are a bad person. Forever. There is never anything else you can do to not be a bad person.” It has such an interestingly Christian vibe to it. </p><p>First of all that image set is a lie. There are different scenarios that come together that can lead to this mistake. Also it is defining “mistake” the same way as “accident”. Of course cheating isn’t generally an accident. But, immediately it lumps in people that are not in full faculty of their senses. “You got too many drinks with him”. I’m going to put a big “No” stamp on that because if the shit you do when inebriated can’t be considered proper consent in the first place then you did not intentionally cheat (*unless it was premeditated while sober obviously). </p><p>Now let me tell you up front. I cheated once in college. Yes I know I’m trash for life with no chance for redemption but hear me out anyway. I loved my boyfriend, probably a lot more than I should have. But one night I was woken up by someone knocking on my door. It was my apartmentmate. My incredibly hot, straight, wrestler apartmentmate. He was horny and he wanted to just get off even if it was with a dude. It was like a cheesy impossible porn plot come to life. We had sex. Never once, through the entire thing, and I swear this upon everything I hold dear, never ONCE did I think “I have a boyfriend. This is wrong.” I was so caught up in the shock and fantasy of the situation it wasn’t until he left that I realized what I’d done. I was horrified. I cried and cried and as soon as the sun was up I called my boyfriend and asked him to come over. When he got there I immediately broke down sobbing and begged for him to forgive me. He did, and we moved on. And you know what? I NEVER did it again in any relationship. Did I mean to cheat on him? No. Did I? Yes. Was what I did wrong? Absolutely! Do I regret what I did? Endlessly. Does that make me horrible trash for the rest of my life? I really don’t think so. </p><p>People do things wrong. People do make conscious choices that they later realize were wrong. People ask for forgiveness. If someone does it multiple times, it’s not a mistake anymore. If someone conceals their mistake, it’s not a mistake anymore. But if someone genuinely acknowledges they did something wrong and asks for forgiveness and NEVER allows it to happen again, I think that forgiveness should be granted. And you know what? I’ve been cheated on twice since then by different guys in my life. It hurt, horribly. Both times it was an ongoing and intentional thing. But if either of them apologized to me and asked me to forgive them and showed they would sincerely never do it again I would give them a chance anyway. </p><p>Tumblr, I love your desire for justice and truth both socially and personally. But when you break everything into black and white and refuse to grant any room for forgiveness you are teaching yourselves to cut people out of your lives that could be legitimately good people that made a bad choice and deserve forgiveness. Of course there are people that don’t deserve it, who wouldn’t sincerely try to earn it, but if you say everyone who makes 1 bad choice, or 1 series of mistakes, is trash forever then I think that makes you the bad person when you are incapable of granting kindness and forgiveness to another person. </p></blockquote>

<figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="494" data-orig-width="500"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/cbd162d73523bc7796d2d8ce24e14a9f/tumblr_inline_p8ho52Yc0A1t42r6u_500.jpg" data-orig-height="494" data-orig-width="500"/></figure></blockquote>

<p>Lmao did she really think anyone wanted to read her porno fantasy story justifying cheating?</p>

officialfist: hyperazraphael: keyhollow: yellowjuice: tijopi11: Why are people having so much issue with the article, I agreed with it? 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...

Memes, Obama, and Barack Obama: Barack Obama Calls Republicans' Attempt to Repeal Affordable Care Act, "Aggravating @balleralert Barack Obama Calls Republicans' Attempt to Repeal Affordable Care Act, "Aggravating"-blogged by @thereal__bee ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ When it comes to the current state of the country, many of us try to remain optimistic. But recently, even former president BarackObama had to admit how fed up he is with some of these issues. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ On Wednesday, Obama spoke during a ceremony held by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation about the Republicans’ recent attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ “When I see people trying to undo that hard-earned progress for the 50th or 60th time, with bills that would raise costs or reduce coverage, or roll back protections for older Americans or people with pre-existing conditions … for whom coverage would, once again, be almost unobtainable, it is aggravating,” Obama said. “And all of this being done without any demonstrable economic or actuarial or plain common-sense rationale, it frustrates me.” ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ “And it’s certainly frustrating to have to mobilize every couple of months to keep our leaders from inflicting real human suffering on our constituents, but typically that’s how progress is won and how progress is maintained,” he continued. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ The GOP Congress is not backing down when it comes to this issue though. They are currently trying to pass a bill proposed by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.). The proposal is intended to repeal and replace the ACA with a new health care system that would be detrimental to millions, especially those with serious medical illnesses. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ What do you think about Obama's statement?
Memes, Obama, and Barack Obama: Barack Obama Calls Republicans'
 Attempt to Repeal Affordable Care
 Act, "Aggravating
 @balleralert
Barack Obama Calls Republicans' Attempt to Repeal Affordable Care Act, "Aggravating"-blogged by @thereal__bee ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ When it comes to the current state of the country, many of us try to remain optimistic. But recently, even former president BarackObama had to admit how fed up he is with some of these issues. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ On Wednesday, Obama spoke during a ceremony held by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation about the Republicans’ recent attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ “When I see people trying to undo that hard-earned progress for the 50th or 60th time, with bills that would raise costs or reduce coverage, or roll back protections for older Americans or people with pre-existing conditions … for whom coverage would, once again, be almost unobtainable, it is aggravating,” Obama said. “And all of this being done without any demonstrable economic or actuarial or plain common-sense rationale, it frustrates me.” ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ “And it’s certainly frustrating to have to mobilize every couple of months to keep our leaders from inflicting real human suffering on our constituents, but typically that’s how progress is won and how progress is maintained,” he continued. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ The GOP Congress is not backing down when it comes to this issue though. They are currently trying to pass a bill proposed by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.). The proposal is intended to repeal and replace the ACA with a new health care system that would be detrimental to millions, especially those with serious medical illnesses. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ What do you think about Obama's statement?

Barack Obama Calls Republicans' Attempt to Repeal Affordable Care Act, "Aggravating"-blogged by @thereal__bee ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ When it comes to ...

America, Cars, and Children: SHAME On TRUMP MATE AND Whoever Invited himl OUSAFORTRUMP SHAME ON YOU FOR BREAKING INTO OUR COUNTRYILLEGALLY ‘Make America Mexico Again’: Why Americans are fed up with IllegalAliens There is something a bit unsettling about watching violent, foul-mouthed protesters waving the Mexican flag on American soil. Over the weekend, Hispanic children lined the streets in Fort Wayne, Indiana – hurling filthy insults at Donald Trump supporters. “F*** you,” the youngsters shouted as they flipped off passerby. “F*** you.” Video captured images of the angry protesters wearing sombreros and holding signs that read, “Brown Pride.” What kind of a parent would allow their child to behave that way in public? A similar protest turned violent last week in Southern California – as a horde of illegals and their supporters violently attacked Trump supporters, police and even a horse. Yes, a horse. Cole Bartiromo, identified by local media as a Trump supporter, needed a half-dozen stiches after the mob bashed open his head. “Suddenly, out of nowhere I felt this thud in the front of my head,” Bartiromo told CBLA.com. “I started panicking – getting scared, thinking, ‘When are they going to stop? Are they going to kill me? I mean, these aren’t rational people.’” The California mob spilled into the streets – blocking roadways and smashing Police cars. They intended to shut down a Trump rally. They intended to silence Mr. Trump and his supporters. They were angry about the BorderWall he plans to build – to secure our border from the invading **horde** of illegals. They were angry about Mr. Trump speaking the truth – about how illegals are killing Americans – on American soil. One of the most disturbing images in recent days came from California – a small child – holding a sign. It read, “Make America Mexico Again.” Read more: @FoxNews.com
America, Cars, and Children: SHAME On
 TRUMP
 MATE
 AND Whoever
 Invited himl
 OUSAFORTRUMP
 SHAME ON YOU
 FOR BREAKING INTO OUR COUNTRYILLEGALLY
‘Make America Mexico Again’: Why Americans are fed up with IllegalAliens There is something a bit unsettling about watching violent, foul-mouthed protesters waving the Mexican flag on American soil. Over the weekend, Hispanic children lined the streets in Fort Wayne, Indiana – hurling filthy insults at Donald Trump supporters. “F*** you,” the youngsters shouted as they flipped off passerby. “F*** you.” Video captured images of the angry protesters wearing sombreros and holding signs that read, “Brown Pride.” What kind of a parent would allow their child to behave that way in public? A similar protest turned violent last week in Southern California – as a horde of illegals and their supporters violently attacked Trump supporters, police and even a horse. Yes, a horse. Cole Bartiromo, identified by local media as a Trump supporter, needed a half-dozen stiches after the mob bashed open his head. “Suddenly, out of nowhere I felt this thud in the front of my head,” Bartiromo told CBLA.com. “I started panicking – getting scared, thinking, ‘When are they going to stop? Are they going to kill me? I mean, these aren’t rational people.’” The California mob spilled into the streets – blocking roadways and smashing Police cars. They intended to shut down a Trump rally. They intended to silence Mr. Trump and his supporters. They were angry about the BorderWall he plans to build – to secure our border from the invading **horde** of illegals. They were angry about Mr. Trump speaking the truth – about how illegals are killing Americans – on American soil. One of the most disturbing images in recent days came from California – a small child – holding a sign. It read, “Make America Mexico Again.” Read more: @FoxNews.com

‘Make America Mexico Again’: Why Americans are fed up with IllegalAliens There is something a bit unsettling about watching violent, foul-mo...

Memes, 🤖, and Commons: HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED. WHY THEY CALL ALCOHOL SPIRITS THE WORD "ALCOHOL IS SAID TO COME FROM THE ARABIC TERM AL-KHUL WHICH MEANS "BODY-EATING SPIRIT". IN ALCHEMY ALCOHOL IS USED TO EXTRACT THE SOUL ESSENCE OF AN ENTITY HENCE ITS USE IN EXTRACTING AKSTR8 87 ESSENCES FOR ESSENTIAL 0ILS. BY CONSUMING ALCOHOL, IT IN EFFECT LOWERS YOUR BODY'S NATURAL VIBRATIONAL FREQUENCY WHICH ALLOWS THE BODY TO BE MORE SUSCEPTIBLE LOW VIBRATIONAL ENTITIES FB/IG: CONNECTING CONSCIOUSNESS HAVE YOU EVER FELT DIFFERENT MORE SEXUAL, MORE VIOLENT, LESS RATIONAL AND LESS LOGICAL AFTER DRINKING ALCOHOL? ARE YOU AWARE WE ALREADY WHO ARE SCHOOLED CONCERING THE DARK POWERS OF ALCOHOL? IT IS THIS CULT THAT POPULARIZES ALCOHOL THROUGH THE MEDIA AND GOVERNMENT IT CONTROLS TO SERVE A VERY ANCIENT AND DARK AGENDA. Repost @connecting_consciousness Al-khul (also, is the origin of the term"ghoul") 🥃 By consuming alcohol, it in effect extracts the very essence of the soul, allowing the body to be more susceptible to neighboring entities most of which are of low frequencies.👺 (why do you think we call certain alcoholic beverages "SPIRITS"). 🥃 That is why people who consume excessive amounts of alcohol often black out, not remembering what happened.🤤💭This happens when the good soul (we were sent here with) leaves because the living conditions are too polluted and too traumatic to tolerate.🥂💀 🥃 The good soul jettisons the body,🚀staying connected on a tether, and a dark entity takes the body for a joy ride around the block🏢, often in a hedonistic and self serving illogical rampage. Our bodies are cars🚘 for spirits. If one leaves, another can take the car for a rip. 🥃 Essentially when someone goes dark after drinking alcohol or polluting themselves in many other ways, their body often becomes possessed by another entity.🎭 (western minded thinkers may have hard time with this one, but cultures and civilizations all over the world that haven't drank fluoride nor been indoctrinated-brainwashed regard this as common knowledge)📜 🥃 The solutions to our rocky society are only to be found within our non polluted collective humanity🌀, not within modern 'science' and the death cult it represents, Our dark and immoral farmers masquerade as altruistic governments, who then literally serve us up to dark spiritual entities that feed off our energies when we consume alcohol and a host of other toxic substances they rain down from the top of the ruling pyramid.⛰ 🥃 We're slaves living on an elaborate control grid.....based on indoctrination🗣, propaganda📺, chemical sedation⚗️🚰, toxic medication💊 and we're even used as food energy for dark spirits who live outside the frequency of visible sight.👀 🥃 If you don't drink alcohol for long enough, dark entities will be in fear of you and that's the way it was always meant to be. Join the moral rebirth of humanity, unslave, reject the poison and lets get to work doing what we know has to be done.💯
Memes, 🤖, and Commons: HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED.
 WHY THEY CALL ALCOHOL
 SPIRITS
 THE WORD "ALCOHOL IS SAID TO COME FROM
 THE ARABIC TERM
 AL-KHUL
 WHICH MEANS
 "BODY-EATING SPIRIT". IN ALCHEMY ALCOHOL
 IS USED TO EXTRACT THE SOUL ESSENCE OF
 AN ENTITY HENCE ITS USE IN EXTRACTING
 AKSTR8
 87
 ESSENCES FOR ESSENTIAL 0ILS. BY
 CONSUMING ALCOHOL, IT IN EFFECT LOWERS
 YOUR BODY'S NATURAL VIBRATIONAL
 FREQUENCY WHICH ALLOWS THE BODY TO BE
 MORE SUSCEPTIBLE LOW VIBRATIONAL
 ENTITIES
 FB/IG: CONNECTING CONSCIOUSNESS
 HAVE YOU EVER FELT DIFFERENT MORE
 SEXUAL, MORE VIOLENT, LESS RATIONAL
 AND LESS LOGICAL AFTER DRINKING
 ALCOHOL? ARE YOU AWARE WE ALREADY
 WHO ARE SCHOOLED CONCERING THE DARK
 POWERS OF ALCOHOL? IT IS THIS CULT THAT
 POPULARIZES ALCOHOL THROUGH THE
 MEDIA AND GOVERNMENT IT CONTROLS TO
 SERVE A VERY ANCIENT AND DARK AGENDA.
Repost @connecting_consciousness Al-khul (also, is the origin of the term"ghoul") 🥃 By consuming alcohol, it in effect extracts the very essence of the soul, allowing the body to be more susceptible to neighboring entities most of which are of low frequencies.👺 (why do you think we call certain alcoholic beverages "SPIRITS"). 🥃 That is why people who consume excessive amounts of alcohol often black out, not remembering what happened.🤤💭This happens when the good soul (we were sent here with) leaves because the living conditions are too polluted and too traumatic to tolerate.🥂💀 🥃 The good soul jettisons the body,🚀staying connected on a tether, and a dark entity takes the body for a joy ride around the block🏢, often in a hedonistic and self serving illogical rampage. Our bodies are cars🚘 for spirits. If one leaves, another can take the car for a rip. 🥃 Essentially when someone goes dark after drinking alcohol or polluting themselves in many other ways, their body often becomes possessed by another entity.🎭 (western minded thinkers may have hard time with this one, but cultures and civilizations all over the world that haven't drank fluoride nor been indoctrinated-brainwashed regard this as common knowledge)📜 🥃 The solutions to our rocky society are only to be found within our non polluted collective humanity🌀, not within modern 'science' and the death cult it represents, Our dark and immoral farmers masquerade as altruistic governments, who then literally serve us up to dark spiritual entities that feed off our energies when we consume alcohol and a host of other toxic substances they rain down from the top of the ruling pyramid.⛰ 🥃 We're slaves living on an elaborate control grid.....based on indoctrination🗣, propaganda📺, chemical sedation⚗️🚰, toxic medication💊 and we're even used as food energy for dark spirits who live outside the frequency of visible sight.👀 🥃 If you don't drink alcohol for long enough, dark entities will be in fear of you and that's the way it was always meant to be. Join the moral rebirth of humanity, unslave, reject the poison and lets get to work doing what we know has to be done.💯

Repost @connecting_consciousness Al-khul (also, is the origin of the term"ghoul") 🥃 By consuming alcohol, it in effect extracts the very ess...