Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

August 11 2017

03:52
5345 1cbf

babyanimalgifs:

oh my god that face.

03:44
5348 530f

lebritanyarmor:

afrodesiacworldwide:

Crop Over Festival

one day yo

03:36

super-bi-feminism:

Friendly reminder that bisexual, pansexual, asexual, and aromantic people do not experience “straight passing privilege”.

Identity erasure is not a privilege, it is oppression.

03:28
03:20

yawpkatsi:

when bucko do the flex flex and the robot arm do the whir whir reblog if u agree

03:11
5351 d2df

cosmic-noir:

welovenappyhair:

Tag source please

I wanna try faux locs so badly!

03:03

xalackofcolor:

chynaroze:

saphire-dance:

keepingupwiththekhaleesi:

baapi-makwa:

To fry bread or not to fry bread, that is the question.

I feel like the answer should always be frybread

Fry bread is always the answer. It doesn’t even matter what the question is.

Why is this even a question?

I feel so bad for the people who haven’t experienced frybread in their lives

02:55
5353 b0f3

rackhamrogue:

Once upon a time there was a fucking queen. She had it all: the glory, the power. Worshippers eager to give and grateful to receive. Why? Because she had the gift of the gift. The blessing of blessings, hers to bestow. And her place of worship? Oh, that was the place to be.

02:47
5354 8e8a
02:39
5355 3c95
02:31
5359 9c8f

kssitbetter:

It’s a form of violence, in the way that we look at women and how we expect them to look and be - for what sake? Not health, not survival, no enjoyment of life but just so you could look pretty. I’m constantly telling girls all the time, ‘Everything’s airbrushed, everything’s retouched. None of us look like that.

02:23
5361 9300
02:15
5362 a630

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 you
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.

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

02:07
5363 90d4
01:58
5364 b79a
01:50
5365 42d7

catgotyoururl:

I know this is from the onion but I honestly don’t even doubt it

01:42
5367 249e

signalrun:

midnightruin:

diananock:

thebeautyofperception:

Aw, yeah, that’s the good shit.

I love abandoned ruins so much

the world taken back by nature is my aesthetic

01:34

cowbopboybe:

lord-kitschener:

“You don’t bring some women up by tearing other women down.“

Funny how this argument seems to only get trotted out for feminine girls with winged eyeliner and never tomboys or butch girls

or like black girls

01:26
5368 41a9

thinfatfit:

Danielle Brooks

01:18

parks-and-rex:

When your mutual adds a dumb ass comment to a post and you gotta reblog from the source

image
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl