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

August 07 2017

8142 5353 500
8160 f1b1 500




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.

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

They will do whatever they have to in order to meet their quota.

They have to fill those for-profit prisons.

Say nothing except “am I being detained?” If they say no, then leave. If they say “yes” then ask for a lawyer and then shut up.




the whole “i used to be a teen who hated authority only to grow up to become the authority that hates teens” is a bad bad thing that practically every other generation has fallen into and we all need to make an extremely conscious effort not to repeat the fucking pattern

Studies have shown that the shift starts to happen around age 30. If you’re close to that, make a conscious effort to be open to and accepting of younger people. I’m 31 and paying close attention to how I react to young people and new trends and shit and trying to keep myself from developing those thought patterns.

8204 2e16 500



I love my job ⚛❤

I wouldn’t be surprised if this was accurate…

8234 fe86 500


Project Camelot - The design of the OTC X-1.

Ralph Ring is a brilliant innovative technician who as a young man in the late 1950s worked closely with Otis T. Carr. With the aid of his small team, Carr, who was himself a protegé of the great inventor Nikola Tesla, built a number of flying disks which worked, prior to their experimentation being forcibly terminated by government agents.

They built a flying disk, powered by rotating electromagnets in conjunction with a number of small, ingenious capacitor-like devices called “Utrons”. A number of prototypes were built, ranging in size from experimental models a few feet across to a passenger-carrying craft which was fully 45 feet in diameter. The smaller disks flew successfully - one even disappeared completely and was permanently lost - and Ralph himself testifies to having co-piloted, with two others, the large craft a distance of some ten miles, traversing this distance instantaneously.

The Utron was the key to it all. Carr said it accumulated energy because of its shape, and focused it, and also responded to their conscious intentions. When they operated the machine, they didn’t work any controls, but went into a kind of meditative state and focused their intentions on the effect they wanted to achieve. Carr had tapped into some principle which is not understood, in which consciousness melds with engineering to create an effect. 



I’m too lazy and disinterested to even watch porn anymore.

“Yeah. Right. Penis goes in. ‘Oh my god baby you’re so big,’ sure he is. That’s a good position right there, where I can’t see anything, thanks. Yeah, yank on her boobs like they’re the first boobs ever. Gotta do that, of course. …How much longer is this? If I’d just closed my eyes and thought about Uhura I’d be done twice by now.”

8276 7d80 500


more on my instagram @matialonsor

8309 b444


So in honour of our first full day of summer here in the Northern Hemisphere, I wanted to take a moment and salute that foodstuff of summer fun…

The Hotdog.


14 Years After Decriminalizing Drugs, One Chart Shows Why Portugal’s Bold Risk Paid Off



The establishment paid zero attention when they did it and they will pay zero attention now that it it has become one of the most successful policies ever implemented. They want us to die in the streets so they can profit off of it.

“So how did it all happen? The answer doesn’t lie in decriminalization as much as what it liberates the state from. As Johann Hari notes in Chasing the Scream, a book on the international war on drugs that includes reporting from Portugal, “In the United States, 90% of the money spent on drug policy goes to policing and punishment, with 10% going to treatment and prevention. In Portugal, the ratio is the exact opposite.”“

Important thing to note.

8326 e13c 500






Left wing fought to keep slavery
Right wing abolished it. Drop the Mike.

Left/Right economics didn’t exist in America during the Civil War, and the Democrats of that era would have been classified as Right-wing easily and Republican used to be a Leftist term, especially in Europe.

There was this thing that happened in the early-mid 20th century where the two major parties basically swapped ideologies after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act and Nixon (and later Reagan) courted disillusioned “Dixiecrats” and general racists that now hated the Democrats.

It is foolish to impose modern party leanings on their historical counterparts.

Also, it’s drop the mic, as in microphone, please don’t drop people named Mike.

I hope John Brown murdered realitybiyes ancestors with his righteous sword

Weren’t the Republican Party during it’s formation was considered a radical party?

Eh, not sure. They were formed as a party opposed to the expansion of slavery outside the states it already existed in, but that was sort of a compromise position with the abolitionists who wanted no slavery in the entire country.

Lincoln was of the moderate compromise wing. But he worked with the so-called Radical Republicans who demanded immediate abolition nationwide. The war had a sort of radicalizing effect. By the end, all the slaves were freed, the former owners would not be paid compensation, the freedmen would not be repatriated back to Africa, and the government was attempting to institute full civil equality for freed black people. This was the reality in 1865 whereas in 1860 this was considered the most radical position possible, even most of the church-based abolitionist movement didn’t explicitly support such an outcome.

8361 486d 500


Sunset on summer solstice in Europe.

Keep reading






why is it not common knowledge that tolkien and c s lewis once went to a non-costume party dressed as polar bears

tolkien also used to chase his neighbours down the street in full viking warrior gear, and once convinced a class he taught that leprechauns are real


Both facts well documented.  From this bio, for instance:

8375 da4e 500







In the late 19th century, an inexperienced doctor performed his first surgery in a room full of people. Feeling the pressure, he felt the need to perform the amputation in the quickest time possible, and ended up amputating his patient’s arm in the space of around 25 seconds. In the process of this, he accidentally amputated his assistant’s fingers too. Both patient and assistant died of sepsis, and a spectator died from shock, making it the only operation ever with a 300% mortality rate.

how badly…can one person fuck up….

I mean in retrospect if you ever feel like a fuck up just know you will always be less of a fuck up than the guy that killed 3 people in one room where only one of them was the person he was operating on.

so, i google-searched for this image and there are some discrepancies in the original post. like he’s holding a leg in the painting and that’s what he wanted to amputate, not an arm and it took him 2.5 minutes. the doctor guy was named Robert Liston and he was not inexperienced, apparently speed-surgeries were his THING. According to wikipedia: “he is reputed to have been able to complete operations in a matter of seconds, at a time when speed was essential to reduce pain and improve the odds of survival of a patient”. Makes sense, but still:

He sprung across the blood-stained boards upon his swooning, sweating, strapped-down patient like a duelist, calling, ‘Time me gentlemen, time me!’ to students (…)

his 3 most famous surgeries are (still off Wikipedia)

  • “Argument with his house-surgeon. Was the red, pulsating tumour in a small boy’s neck a straightforward abscess of the skin, or a dangerous aneurism of the carotid artery? ‘Pooh!’ Liston exclaimed impatiently. ‘Whoever heard of an aneurism in one so young?’ Flashing a knife from his waistcoat pocket, he lanced it. Houseman’s note – ‘Out leaped arterial blood, and the boy fell.’ The patient died but the artery lives, in University College Hospital pathology museum, specimen No. 1256.”
  • “Amputated the leg in 212 minutes, but in his enthusiasm the patient’s testicles as well.”
  • “Amputated the leg in under 212 minutes (the patient died afterwards in the ward from hospital gangrene; they usually did in those pre-Listerian days). He amputated in addition the fingers of his young assistant (who died afterwards in the ward from hospital gangrene). He also slashed through the coat tails of a distinguished surgical spectator, who was so terrified that the knife had pierced his vitals he dropped dead from fright. That was the only operation in history with a 300 percent mortality.”

so…………………… matter how much you fuck up, you’ll probably never fuck up as badly as this guy.



8405 7cd0


Throwback to the time I was angry with what the president was doing

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!