the supreme

🔥 | Latest

the supreme: Let us all unite under the supreme leader air dancers. by cupcakelowmemer MORE MEMES
the supreme: Let us all unite under the supreme leader air dancers. by cupcakelowmemer MORE MEMES

Let us all unite under the supreme leader air dancers. by cupcakelowmemer MORE MEMES

the supreme: Let us all unite under the supreme leader air dancers.
the supreme: Let us all unite under the supreme leader air dancers.

Let us all unite under the supreme leader air dancers.

the supreme: I am the supreme leader by IHateDeepStuff MORE MEMES
the supreme: I am the supreme leader by IHateDeepStuff MORE MEMES

I am the supreme leader by IHateDeepStuff MORE MEMES

the supreme: G-Wiz @gwheele 1 Follow The USPS only gives Tribal residents PO boxes. Only residents with street addresses can vote. The Supreme Court just cut off voting rights to Native Americans in ND. The Supreme Court just made it harder for the Democrats to win the Senate A new ruling will prevent many Native Anericans in the state from voting motherjones.com 3:38 PM-9 Oct 2018 10,286 Retweets 8,321 Likes Follow @lilnativeboy Native Americans were the LAST to get the right to vote & now we are the first to lose it G-WİZ @gwheelel The USPS only gives Tribal residents PO boxes. Only residents with street addresses can vote. The Supreme Court just cut off voting rights to Native Americans in ND. motherjones.com/politics/2018... 12:35 AM-11 Oct 2018 5,610 Retweets9.715 Likes armsnotsigns: vaporwavevocap: mr-downer: vaporwavevocap: mr-downer: vaporwavevocap: friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: libertarirynn: rook-the-catechumen: hzs-modblog: rook-the-catechumen: gahdamnpunk: This is messed up Eh, monarchies are more stable governments anyways. That is the wrong response, mister! I’m sorry I can’t hear you over the literal multi-millennia that monarchy has peacefully and happily served mankind. You can take your few hundred years of a democratic-republic system of elected officials that always begins with a mountain of bodies and always ends in plutocracy, societal decay, the rich being in charge anyways, and another mountain of bodies. Monarchists get thrown into the harbor…if they’re lucky “multi-millennia that monarchy has peacefully and happily served mankind”  Fucking when? Oh my this man is fuckin the cybersmith in disguise isn’t he? Aye you can’t fool me warlock I know your stench! That’s not to say I’m defending the authoritarian cancer of Republican Democracy, but fucking what Monarchy served mankind peacefully? Even if we pretend it was a fictional Biblical monarchy led by Yahweh himself, he is very specifically not peaceful and makes it very clear in “his” own book. Just so we’re clear you know I was talking about the loon above not you, right? I know, I’m just reacting to him more. Sorry for confusion. Holy fucking wow “I mean sure in Saudi Arabia you can be fucking stoned to death for saying the wrong words or wearing the wrong clothes but like it’s stable y’know?”
the supreme: G-Wiz @gwheele 1 Follow The USPS only gives Tribal residents PO boxes. Only residents with street addresses can vote. The Supreme Court just cut off voting rights to Native Americans in ND. The Supreme Court just made it harder for the Democrats to win the Senate A new ruling will prevent many Native Anericans in the state from voting motherjones.com 3:38 PM-9 Oct 2018 10,286 Retweets 8,321 Likes Follow @lilnativeboy Native Americans were the LAST to get the right to vote & now we are the first to lose it G-WİZ @gwheelel The USPS only gives Tribal residents PO boxes. Only residents with street addresses can vote. The Supreme Court just cut off voting rights to Native Americans in ND. motherjones.com/politics/2018... 12:35 AM-11 Oct 2018 5,610 Retweets9.715 Likes armsnotsigns: vaporwavevocap: mr-downer: vaporwavevocap: mr-downer: vaporwavevocap: friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: libertarirynn: rook-the-catechumen: hzs-modblog: rook-the-catechumen: gahdamnpunk: This is messed up Eh, monarchies are more stable governments anyways. That is the wrong response, mister! I’m sorry I can’t hear you over the literal multi-millennia that monarchy has peacefully and happily served mankind. You can take your few hundred years of a democratic-republic system of elected officials that always begins with a mountain of bodies and always ends in plutocracy, societal decay, the rich being in charge anyways, and another mountain of bodies. Monarchists get thrown into the harbor…if they’re lucky “multi-millennia that monarchy has peacefully and happily served mankind”  Fucking when? Oh my this man is fuckin the cybersmith in disguise isn’t he? Aye you can’t fool me warlock I know your stench! That’s not to say I’m defending the authoritarian cancer of Republican Democracy, but fucking what Monarchy served mankind peacefully? Even if we pretend it was a fictional Biblical monarchy led by Yahweh himself, he is very specifically not peaceful and makes it very clear in “his” own book. Just so we’re clear you know I was talking about the loon above not you, right? I know, I’m just reacting to him more. Sorry for confusion. Holy fucking wow “I mean sure in Saudi Arabia you can be fucking stoned to death for saying the wrong words or wearing the wrong clothes but like it’s stable y’know?”

armsnotsigns: vaporwavevocap: mr-downer: vaporwavevocap: mr-downer: vaporwavevocap: friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: libertariryn...

the supreme: DAPASTOR YOO uncleromeo: feet-man-ahhh-sucker-of-the-toes: emotionsclashagainstemotions: thatpettyblackgirl: Because we know they value the lives of dogs over blac… nevermind 😒 the ironic part is, racism is probably why the cop was so convinced the drugs were there. the dog was doing its job, which is not reacting to drugs that don’t exist. the cop, on other hand, saw a black man, and was sure he had drugs. Drug dogs have also been found to be ineffective in many cases, basing their reactions on the cop’s body language. “For the purpose of this post, though, I want to focus on what’s missing from Colb’s analysis and, should the Supreme Court decide to hear the case, will almost certainly also be missing from oral arguments, the court’s ruling and most discussion of the case: that narcotics-detecting dogs and their handlers aren’t very good at discerning the presence of illegal drugs. Multiple analyses of drug-dog alerts have consistently shown alarmingly high error rates — with some close to and exceeding 50 percent. In effect, some of these K-9 units are worse than a coin flip. For some units, the reason may be sinister — the police handler may have trained the dog to alert on command. I’ve asked dog trainers to look at videos of roadside searches in the past, and, on more than one occasion, they said they saw clear indications that a dog was being cued to alert. But it needn’t be so malicious. While dogs are indeed capable of sniffing out illicit drugs, we’ve bred into them another overriding trait: the desire to please. Even drug dogs with conscientious handlers will read their handlers’ unintentional body language and alert accordingly. A 2010 study found that packages designed to trick handlers into thinking there were drugs inside them were much more likely to trigger false alerts than packages designed to trick the dogs. (Police-dog handlers and trainers responded to that study by refusing to cooperate with further research.) Many drug dogs, then, are not alerting to the presence of drugs, but to their handlers’ suspicions about the presence of drugs. And searches based on little more than law enforcement’s suspicions are exactly what the Fourth Amendment is supposed to prevent. (Tracking dogs that pick suspects out of “scent lineups” have had similar problems, and have led to numerous wrongful convictions.)” ^^^!!!
the supreme: DAPASTOR YOO uncleromeo: feet-man-ahhh-sucker-of-the-toes: emotionsclashagainstemotions: thatpettyblackgirl: Because we know they value the lives of dogs over blac… nevermind 😒 the ironic part is, racism is probably why the cop was so convinced the drugs were there. the dog was doing its job, which is not reacting to drugs that don’t exist. the cop, on other hand, saw a black man, and was sure he had drugs. Drug dogs have also been found to be ineffective in many cases, basing their reactions on the cop’s body language. “For the purpose of this post, though, I want to focus on what’s missing from Colb’s analysis and, should the Supreme Court decide to hear the case, will almost certainly also be missing from oral arguments, the court’s ruling and most discussion of the case: that narcotics-detecting dogs and their handlers aren’t very good at discerning the presence of illegal drugs. Multiple analyses of drug-dog alerts have consistently shown alarmingly high error rates — with some close to and exceeding 50 percent. In effect, some of these K-9 units are worse than a coin flip. For some units, the reason may be sinister — the police handler may have trained the dog to alert on command. I’ve asked dog trainers to look at videos of roadside searches in the past, and, on more than one occasion, they said they saw clear indications that a dog was being cued to alert. But it needn’t be so malicious. While dogs are indeed capable of sniffing out illicit drugs, we’ve bred into them another overriding trait: the desire to please. Even drug dogs with conscientious handlers will read their handlers’ unintentional body language and alert accordingly. A 2010 study found that packages designed to trick handlers into thinking there were drugs inside them were much more likely to trigger false alerts than packages designed to trick the dogs. (Police-dog handlers and trainers responded to that study by refusing to cooperate with further research.) Many drug dogs, then, are not alerting to the presence of drugs, but to their handlers’ suspicions about the presence of drugs. And searches based on little more than law enforcement’s suspicions are exactly what the Fourth Amendment is supposed to prevent. (Tracking dogs that pick suspects out of “scent lineups” have had similar problems, and have led to numerous wrongful convictions.)” ^^^!!!

uncleromeo: feet-man-ahhh-sucker-of-the-toes: emotionsclashagainstemotions: thatpettyblackgirl: Because we know they value the live...

the supreme: ONEWS RELEASE MEDIA CONTACT: Jordan Stein Director of Communications jordan.stein@gunowners.org AMER 703-321-8585 January 22, 2019 For immediate release GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York City's Draconian Gun Laws Springfield, VA Today the United States Supreme Court qranted a Writ of Certiorari in P v. NY City, a case in which Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) have submitted an amicus brief. This case challenges New York City's near-prohibition on possessing or transportin handguns, and this is the first major Second Amendment challenge to be reviewed by the Supreme Court in almost a decade. GOA's executive director, Erich Pratt, stated, "Gun owners across the country especialy those behind enemy lines living in anti-qun states are rejoicing that the Supreme Court is taking up a Second Amendment case. For far too long, judges have ignored the Second Amendment, along with the Heller and McDonald decisions, instead employing a alancing' test that effectively leaves gun owners in anti-gun states with a second-class right to keep and bear arms In fact, GOA's brief specfically challenges the "balancing" approach taken by judges in the lower courts GOA's brief states, "Heller and McDonaldleave little doubt that courts are to assess qun Ewhere judges] usurp the role of the Framers of the Second Amendment. "GOA's hard-hitting brief before the Supreme Court cuts to the heart of this problem by arguing that judges have to follow the Constitution and the text of the Second Amendment rather than imposing their own preconceived views upon the text," Pratt concluded. GOA's brief can be viewed here Erich Pratt, or another GOA spokesman, is available for interviews. Gun Owners of America BREAKING: GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York City’s Draconian Gun Laws “GOA’s hard-hitting brief before the Supreme Court cuts to the heart of this problem by arguing that judges have to follow the Constitution - and the text of the Second Amendment - rather than imposing their own preconceived views upon the text,” - GOA's Erich Pratt SCOTUS 2A nyc secondamendment goasupporters gunowners gunownersofamerica
the supreme: ONEWS RELEASE MEDIA CONTACT: Jordan Stein Director of Communications jordan.stein@gunowners.org AMER 703-321-8585 January 22, 2019 For immediate release GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York City's Draconian Gun Laws Springfield, VA Today the United States Supreme Court qranted a Writ of Certiorari in P v. NY City, a case in which Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) have submitted an amicus brief. This case challenges New York City's near-prohibition on possessing or transportin handguns, and this is the first major Second Amendment challenge to be reviewed by the Supreme Court in almost a decade. GOA's executive director, Erich Pratt, stated, "Gun owners across the country especialy those behind enemy lines living in anti-qun states are rejoicing that the Supreme Court is taking up a Second Amendment case. For far too long, judges have ignored the Second Amendment, along with the Heller and McDonald decisions, instead employing a alancing' test that effectively leaves gun owners in anti-gun states with a second-class right to keep and bear arms In fact, GOA's brief specfically challenges the "balancing" approach taken by judges in the lower courts GOA's brief states, "Heller and McDonaldleave little doubt that courts are to assess qun Ewhere judges] usurp the role of the Framers of the Second Amendment. "GOA's hard-hitting brief before the Supreme Court cuts to the heart of this problem by arguing that judges have to follow the Constitution and the text of the Second Amendment rather than imposing their own preconceived views upon the text," Pratt concluded. GOA's brief can be viewed here Erich Pratt, or another GOA spokesman, is available for interviews. Gun Owners of America BREAKING: GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York City’s Draconian Gun Laws “GOA’s hard-hitting brief before the Supreme Court cuts to the heart of this problem by arguing that judges have to follow the Constitution - and the text of the Second Amendment - rather than imposing their own preconceived views upon the text,” - GOA's Erich Pratt SCOTUS 2A nyc secondamendment goasupporters gunowners gunownersofamerica

BREAKING: GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York City’s Draconian Gun Laws “GOA’s hard-hitting brief bef...

the supreme: 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.
the supreme: 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 force...

the supreme: There was no Bill Clinton is questioned by the Supreme Court *circa 1998*
the supreme: There was no Bill Clinton is questioned by the Supreme Court *circa 1998*

Bill Clinton is questioned by the Supreme Court *circa 1998*

the supreme: WATCH LIVE Senate confirms Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court NNIU.S. World Politics Business Opinion Health Entertainment| Style | Travel Sports Video Live TV | U.S. Edition + KAVANAUGH CONFIRMED HUFFPOSTI EDITION BREAKING NEWS SUPREME FARCE: KAV CONFIRMED set station npr shop sign in news arts&life music topics programs & podcasts BREAKING NEWS Hon. Bret M.Kavanaugh Win McNamee/Getty Images POLITICS Kavanaugh Confirmed To Supreme Court The federal appeals court judge was confirmed after a narrow Senate vote largely along party lines Saturday afternoon that ended a weeks-long battle over his controversial nomination. Demonstrators Gather At U.S. Capitol In Anticipation Of Kavanaugh's Confirmation BBC Sign in News SportWeather Shop Earth Travel NEWS Home Video World US&Canada UK Business Tech ScienceStories Ent US & Canada Brett Kavanaugh nomination: Victory for Trump in Supreme Court vote 6 minutes ago Share E a ESPAÑOL 中文(CHINESE) ENGLISH SUBSCRIBE NOW LOG IN The VewHork Times Saturday, October 6, 2018 Today's Paper World U.S Politics N.Y. Business Opinion Tech Science Health Sports Arts Books Style Food Travel Magazine Magazine Real Estate Video Got a confidential news tip? Do you have the next big story? Share it with our journalists. S.&P 500 Sign Up for 'Weeknight Recipes' Face down a busy week by cooking a big batch of chili 55 F 55 52 Dow Senate Confirms Kavanaugh 50-48, After Bitter Partisan Battle A deeply divided Senate voted on Saturday to confirm Judge Brett M Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, delivering a victory to President Trump and ending a rancorous Washington battle. Majority of votes needed YES NO Pres. Republicans 4901 Democrats 1 48 O Total 50 48 1 The final result was expected; all senators had announced their intentions by Friday, after the nomination cleared a crucial procedural hurdle. The Vote Count This is how each senator voted on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Just Now Bitter Tenor of Senate Reflects a Nation at Odds With Itself The battle over the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh has exposed a climate of partisan distrust rivaled by few other moments in the recent past. 2h ago 6m ago Click to Listen After a highly contentious nomination process, senators deliver the final vote on the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images scribbledsilence: A woman came forward and pointed out her assaulter because she believed that it was her civic duty. A woman came forward with her allegations after years of getting therapy for the trauma she had experienced as a child. A woman came forward despite how scared she was to face her assaulter in front of a nation. A woman came forward and made a testament in front of a committee as the whole world watch, despite the hate and death threats she was getting. A woman came forward and spoke up about her assault, about what her accuser had done in detail, and had thousands upon thousands of people standing by her. Supporting her. Believing her. And yet, many people still did not listen. many people still called her a liar. many people still threatened her. many people still supported her abuser. many people still believed the word of a man over the word of a woman. Of a victim. Next time you think men are the victims and women have everything to gain by speaking up about their assault, please explain to me when you have ever seen that to be the case. All I see is that a women spoke up about her sexual assault, and yet she was pushed aside and ignored as her abuser was granted a lifetime position in the highest court in the country. All I see is an abuser has been appointed to a position in which he would be able to further control women and their rights to their own bodies. All I see is another reason why women are so frightened to and believe that they shouldn’t speak up about their assault. Because it wouldn’t matter. Because nothing would happened. Because you failed her.
the supreme: WATCH LIVE Senate confirms Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court NNIU.S. World Politics Business Opinion Health Entertainment| Style | Travel Sports Video Live TV | U.S. Edition + KAVANAUGH CONFIRMED HUFFPOSTI EDITION BREAKING NEWS SUPREME FARCE: KAV CONFIRMED set station npr shop sign in news arts&life music topics programs & podcasts BREAKING NEWS Hon. Bret M.Kavanaugh Win McNamee/Getty Images POLITICS Kavanaugh Confirmed To Supreme Court The federal appeals court judge was confirmed after a narrow Senate vote largely along party lines Saturday afternoon that ended a weeks-long battle over his controversial nomination. Demonstrators Gather At U.S. Capitol In Anticipation Of Kavanaugh's Confirmation BBC Sign in News SportWeather Shop Earth Travel NEWS Home Video World US&Canada UK Business Tech ScienceStories Ent US & Canada Brett Kavanaugh nomination: Victory for Trump in Supreme Court vote 6 minutes ago Share E a ESPAÑOL 中文(CHINESE) ENGLISH SUBSCRIBE NOW LOG IN The VewHork Times Saturday, October 6, 2018 Today's Paper World U.S Politics N.Y. Business Opinion Tech Science Health Sports Arts Books Style Food Travel Magazine Magazine Real Estate Video Got a confidential news tip? Do you have the next big story? Share it with our journalists. S.&P 500 Sign Up for 'Weeknight Recipes' Face down a busy week by cooking a big batch of chili 55 F 55 52 Dow Senate Confirms Kavanaugh 50-48, After Bitter Partisan Battle A deeply divided Senate voted on Saturday to confirm Judge Brett M Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, delivering a victory to President Trump and ending a rancorous Washington battle. Majority of votes needed YES NO Pres. Republicans 4901 Democrats 1 48 O Total 50 48 1 The final result was expected; all senators had announced their intentions by Friday, after the nomination cleared a crucial procedural hurdle. The Vote Count This is how each senator voted on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Just Now Bitter Tenor of Senate Reflects a Nation at Odds With Itself The battle over the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh has exposed a climate of partisan distrust rivaled by few other moments in the recent past. 2h ago 6m ago Click to Listen After a highly contentious nomination process, senators deliver the final vote on the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images scribbledsilence: A woman came forward and pointed out her assaulter because she believed that it was her civic duty. A woman came forward with her allegations after years of getting therapy for the trauma she had experienced as a child. A woman came forward despite how scared she was to face her assaulter in front of a nation. A woman came forward and made a testament in front of a committee as the whole world watch, despite the hate and death threats she was getting. A woman came forward and spoke up about her assault, about what her accuser had done in detail, and had thousands upon thousands of people standing by her. Supporting her. Believing her. And yet, many people still did not listen. many people still called her a liar. many people still threatened her. many people still supported her abuser. many people still believed the word of a man over the word of a woman. Of a victim. Next time you think men are the victims and women have everything to gain by speaking up about their assault, please explain to me when you have ever seen that to be the case. All I see is that a women spoke up about her sexual assault, and yet she was pushed aside and ignored as her abuser was granted a lifetime position in the highest court in the country. All I see is an abuser has been appointed to a position in which he would be able to further control women and their rights to their own bodies. All I see is another reason why women are so frightened to and believe that they shouldn’t speak up about their assault. Because it wouldn’t matter. Because nothing would happened. Because you failed her.

scribbledsilence: A woman came forward and pointed out her assaulter because she believed that it was her civic duty. A woman came forwar...