Beparoni and Bees Bizza
Yes
No title available

roma★
Misplaced Lens Cap

祝日 / Permanent Vacation
Show & Tell

No title available

Janaina Medeiros

No title available

shark vs the universe
tumblr dot com
DEAR READER
dirt enthusiast
styofa doing anything
Peter Solarz
No title available
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
No title available
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
Not today Justin
will byers stan first human second
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Singapore
seen from Germany
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Singapore
seen from United States

seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from Poland

seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Portugal
seen from T1
@theemptyinkwell
Beparoni and Bees Bizza
Yes
#Knife #Knives #Cuchillo #Faca #Couteau #нож #ナイフ #刀#pisau #سكين
Modern Knife Types / Blade Shapes
For sources: http://sword-site.com/thread/1111/diagrams-modern-knife-types
Sword-Site - The World’s Largest Sword Museum
Important for those who thought a Honing Steel was a Steak Knife.
happy fun time.
Good shit
~Weapons Master Blu
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
Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life.
Important
wheres that /b/ anon again that ate an entire jar of pickles and shat out his gastric acids
Horror Musical Instrument
cut to me, playing my horror instrument at 4 am; my downstairs neighbors bang relentlessly at their ceiling with a broom stick, trying to stop me from summoning witches
this encounter seems very intimate and magical, like a moment in a dream
This is the best thing I’ve ever seen. The end of it omfg
“I’m just gonna put my paws in the water.”
wow canoes and cats don’t get much better than that tbh
the notes are broken 😂
Reblogging partly for awesome computer shortcuts, and partly because I wish to once again take part in a Post That Broke The Notes.
browsing the graffiti tag is depressing because its full of nothing but edgy white kids completely missing the point and just scribbling edgy shit onto walls and thinking “oooh im a vandal im misunderstood” and shit
When people go off about how English is the worst language, I just wanna point out a few things:
- Our future tense requires only one word (looking at you, Spanish)
- Words don’t change meanings depending on tone (Cantonese)
- We don’t live in some bizarre Beauty And The Beast world where we give inanimate objects genders (romance languages, German)
- Likewise, we don’t have have two different words for “they” because we don’t care whether “they” were male or female (Spanish, French)
- There’s no formal “you” because we don’t play mind games about whether or not we respect you (Spanish, German)
- We don’t alter the whole fucking language based on how much we respect you (Japanese)
- The letters and sounds might not be consistent, but at least we have letters, not just pictures (Mandarin)
- We don’t have a fucking stupid tense specifically for talking to two people because some idiot decided that a two-person tense was necessary (Arabic)
So yeah, I think we’re doing okay as a language
Oh and some of our plurals are irregular, but at least it’s not like every goddamn plural is an entirely new word so you have to learn every word twice
At least it’s not like that, right? Right, Arabic? WHAT A DUMB IDEA THAT WOULD BE, HUH, ARABIC?
We also didn’t decide to exclude vowels, Hebrew
Our articles may be dumb and our tenses are weird but at leAst we have them, so people coming in with no context know whats going on instead of trying to figure out if someone went or if someone is going to the park (russian)
My roommate and his girlfriend got in the shower together and they’re… Talking about politics?
I was expecting to hear “OH GOD, HARDER,” not “George Washington was entirely correct in his prediction of what distinct parties would do to politics as a whole.”
Nope nevermind, there it is, apparently political debate is just their form of foreplay
STOP REBLOGGING THIS HE HAS A TUMBLR
They fucking killed him
School
I died twice watching this
💀💀💀💀
I screamed but this real
Real life
I died at the desks 😂
“respectable woman”
LMFAAAOOOO
Why is this on shitty car mods? This is revolutionary
becomes extremely enlightened when my airbag deploys and pushes all of these into the exact center of my brain
home-made-frag-grenade
Best friends.