Has Been
Has Been

Has Been

And
And

And

suspension
suspension

suspension

suspense
suspense

suspense

sustain
sustain

sustain

courting
courting

courting

indoctrination
indoctrination

indoctrination

schooled
schooled

schooled

indoctrinate
indoctrinate

indoctrinate

suspenseful
suspenseful

suspenseful

🔥 | Latest

upheld: Andy Ternay added 2 new photos. 11 Feb at 19:57 Adventuresome morning today! Mary Ann and I went to First Watch in Richardson for a quick breakfast but it was not to be First, we were approached by a manager who let us know that customers were very distressed by my shirt and that children might see it. T expressed deep sympathies and let her know that explaining "grab 'em by the pussy" and golden showers to my daughter was equally unpleasant. A Latino woman checking me out tells me she loves my shirt and thanked her. Again as we were being seated she expressed that a particular group of customers was suffering due to my indescribable poor taste. replied that I did not see the problem As we are seated two African-American workers individually tell me how cool the shirt is. One of them states that the people did not tell their server - a person of color - their complaint. They requested the manager, a white person, to complain to. I personally did not witness this but that is what I was told Our drinks are served and our order is taken Then one of the cooks comes to the table and very apologetically explains the owners have been called and we are being asked to leave We ask to tip our server for occupying her table, get drinks to go and leave. One table of white people applauds. We are stopped in the parking lot by one of the African American servers who had stopped to comment on the shirt. If I understand correctly, he was quitting the job on the spot over us being asked to leave. He told us: "you should hear these people asking not to be seated near Muslims." So we get in the car and start to leave as the Richardson police pull up outside.I stop the car and ask the officer if she is there over a t-shirt. She affirms this to be true and asks my name which I respectfully decline to give; she starts in on the shirt - whereupon l cite Cohen v. California, 1971, in which the Supreme Court upheld the right to wear a T- shirt saying: FUCK THE DRAFT. She's like: just leave, okay? MAJOR TAKEAWAYS: 1. If your kids can't handle the word "Fuck" they are going to have a really tough time in this world 2. Compared to racism, bigotry, misogyny and collusion with a foreign power, "Fuck" gleams with cleanliness and purity. Treating Muslims and people of color, LGBTQ and women as "less than" is the real filth and harm to our country 3. Everywhere I go with this shirt, white males sneer and people of color smile and give me thumbs up. I think it is very worthwhile to let people of color know they are not alone - that some whites also see the evil of racism is resurgent - and we will fight with our brothers and sisters of color against it 4. Regarding the restaurant - I'm fine with being asked to leave and I don't urge a boycott. These things are never easy for businesses, and the workers were polite and professional Besides, we hope to be back soon 5. Challenge authoritarianism anywhere and everywhere.. otherwise, it wins. you THE RACIST LT-RIGAT FUCK RUMe ND FUCK YUU FOR VOTING FOR HIM
upheld: Andy Ternay added 2 new photos.
 11 Feb at 19:57
 Adventuresome morning today! Mary Ann and I
 went to First Watch in Richardson for a quick
 breakfast but it was not to be
 First, we were approached by a manager who
 let us know that customers were very
 distressed by my shirt and that children might
 see it. T expressed deep sympathies and let her
 know that explaining "grab 'em by the pussy"
 and golden showers to my daughter was
 equally unpleasant. A Latino woman checking
 me out tells me she loves my shirt and
 thanked her.
 Again as we were being seated she expressed
 that a particular group of customers was
 suffering due to my indescribable poor taste.
 replied that I did not see the problem
 As we are seated two African-American
 workers individually tell me how cool the shirt
 is. One of them states that the people did not
 tell their server - a person of color - their
 complaint. They requested the manager, a
 white person, to complain to. I personally did
 not witness this but that is what I was told
 Our drinks are served and our order is taken
 Then one of the cooks comes to the table and
 very apologetically explains the owners have
 been called and we are being asked to leave
 We ask to tip our server for occupying her table,
 get drinks to go and leave. One table of white
 people applauds.

 We are stopped in the parking lot by one of the
 African American servers who had stopped to
 comment on the shirt. If I understand correctly,
 he was quitting the job on the spot over us
 being asked to leave. He told us: "you should
 hear these people asking not to be seated near
 Muslims."
 So we get in the car and start to leave
 as the Richardson police pull up outside.I
 stop the car and ask the officer if she is there
 over a t-shirt. She affirms this to be true and
 asks my name which I respectfully decline to
 give; she starts in on the shirt - whereupon l
 cite Cohen v. California, 1971, in which the
 Supreme Court upheld the right to wear a T-
 shirt saying: FUCK THE DRAFT. She's like: just
 leave, okay?
 MAJOR TAKEAWAYS:
 1. If your kids can't handle the word "Fuck" they
 are going to have a really tough time in this
 world
 2. Compared to racism, bigotry, misogyny and
 collusion with a foreign power, "Fuck" gleams
 with cleanliness and purity. Treating Muslims
 and people of color, LGBTQ and women as
 "less than" is the real filth and harm to our
 country
 3. Everywhere I go with this shirt, white males
 sneer and people of color smile and give me
 thumbs up. I think it is very worthwhile to let
 people of color know they are not alone - that
 some whites also see the evil of racism is
 resurgent - and we will fight with our brothers
 and sisters of color against it

 4. Regarding the restaurant - I'm fine with being
 asked to leave and I don't urge a boycott.
 These things are never easy for businesses,
 and the workers were polite and professional
 Besides, we hope to be back soon
 5. Challenge authoritarianism anywhere and
 everywhere.. otherwise, it wins.
 you
 THE
 RACIST
 LT-RIGAT
 FUCK
 RUMe
 ND FUCK YUU
 FOR VOTING FOR HIM
upheld: Bakers Lose Appeal; Ordered To Pay 6- Figures For Refusing To Make Wedding Cake For Same-Sex Couple @balleralert SWeet Bakers Lose Appeal; Ordered To Pay 6-Figures For Refusing To Make Wedding Cake For Same-Sex Couple –blogged by @MsJennyb ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ On Thursday, a judge ruled against two Christian bakers who refused service for a same-sex couple. Now, according to NBC News, the owners of the now-closed Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery will have to fork over a $135,000 fine for their discrimination. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ The incident occurred back in 2013 when Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of the Oregon bakery, refused to make a wedding cake for Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer. At the time, the Kleins said their religious beliefs wouldn’t allow them to provide a service for the same-sex couple. However, according to NBC News, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said that their refusal violated a 2007 state law that protects the rights of the LGBTQ community. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Years later, the couple filed a suit against the bakers for their refusal of service, demanding money for their emotional distress. At the time, a judge ruled in favor of the couple, ordering the bakers to cough up the damages. However, the Kleins appealed in March of this year. But, on Thursday, nearly five years after the start of the case, the Oregon Court of Appeals denied the bakers’ claim and upheld the 6-figure fine against them. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ “It does not matter how you were born or who you love,” the couple said in a statement after the ruling. “All of us are equal under the law and should be treated equally. Oregon will not allow ‘a Straight Couples Only’ sign to be hung in bakeries or other stores."
upheld: Bakers Lose Appeal; Ordered To Pay 6-
 Figures For Refusing To Make Wedding
 Cake For Same-Sex Couple
 @balleralert
 SWeet
Bakers Lose Appeal; Ordered To Pay 6-Figures For Refusing To Make Wedding Cake For Same-Sex Couple –blogged by @MsJennyb ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ On Thursday, a judge ruled against two Christian bakers who refused service for a same-sex couple. Now, according to NBC News, the owners of the now-closed Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery will have to fork over a $135,000 fine for their discrimination. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ The incident occurred back in 2013 when Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of the Oregon bakery, refused to make a wedding cake for Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer. At the time, the Kleins said their religious beliefs wouldn’t allow them to provide a service for the same-sex couple. However, according to NBC News, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said that their refusal violated a 2007 state law that protects the rights of the LGBTQ community. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Years later, the couple filed a suit against the bakers for their refusal of service, demanding money for their emotional distress. At the time, a judge ruled in favor of the couple, ordering the bakers to cough up the damages. However, the Kleins appealed in March of this year. But, on Thursday, nearly five years after the start of the case, the Oregon Court of Appeals denied the bakers’ claim and upheld the 6-figure fine against them. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ “It does not matter how you were born or who you love,” the couple said in a statement after the ruling. “All of us are equal under the law and should be treated equally. Oregon will not allow ‘a Straight Couples Only’ sign to be hung in bakeries or other stores."

Bakers Lose Appeal; Ordered To Pay 6-Figures For Refusing To Make Wedding Cake For Same-Sex Couple –blogged by @MsJennyb ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀...

upheld: Me as a parent Today's WiFi password can be unlocked by texting a photo of a clean kitchen to mom. Said photograph MUST contain one box of crackers on the counter by the stove (to prevent re-using any previous photos). Thank you for playing. May the odds be ever in your favor. Love, Mom sonansu This is such an abuser-disguised-as-a-quirky-parent vibe it literally makes me sick 2 look at lol eclecticnerd33 I am going to talk about this for a minute, because yeah I think OP really nails something here. A lot of really crappy parenting is often upheld as a cute or funny thing, and a lot of people in the comments are shitting on OP because they cannot imagine how t could possibly be abusive. It's hard because you cannot see the rest of the context, but this could very well be an abuse tactic, and overall is just a crappy thing to do to a kid. Plus it probably doesn't work and has negative consequences for the overall relationship l am going to address several things off of the bat. I am not saying that having your kid clean the kitchen is abusive, what I am saying is establishing a pattern of taking away good things preemptively to enforce·good" behavior Is a bad parenting tactic that could toe the line to abuse. Especially the way it's worded as if it's a common tactic (need for a new photo), overall this is authoritarian, allows no room for autonomy, and doesn't even really get at why the kitchen should be and needs to cleaned today (what you actually want your ki to learn in the long run). There are better ways new photo), overall this is authoritarian, allows no room for autonomy, and doesn't even really get at why the kitchen should be and needs to be cleaned today (what you actually want your kid to learn in the long run). There are better ways to communicate the message of shared responsibility than through the creation of social isolation (and yes this is social isolation, wifi is used in how humans particularly young people communicate with their friends in real life and online nowadays) The major point I want to emphasize is that this type of action establishes a precedent and a set of emotions in a kid and none of those emotions are positive. It shows that important and vital things will be withheld, potentially without warning. It tells the kid they do not have a say in how their environment is structured, it tells them they do not have the right to set their own schedule, overall it breeds a sense of incompetence in themselves and resentment towards that authority that doesn't really consider their desire and needs I reflect a lot on parenting, and the best parenting doesnt demand a kid do something or else, it gives a kid the tools so they can get to that answer on their own, and when they do both of you will be better served. The kid will have more motivation to get it done, and there isnta building sense of resentment. Yeah this method is hard work, a are situations and kids it doesn't work for, but this post out of context does give me bad parery kid they do not have a say in how their environment Is structured, it tells them they do not have the right to set their own schedule, overall it breeds a sense of incompetence in themselves and resentment towards that authority that doesn't really consider their desire and needs I reflect a lot on parenting, and the best parenting doesnt demand a kid do something or else, it gives a kid the tools so they can get to that answer on their own, and when they do both of you will be better served. The kid will have more motivation to get it done, and there isn't a building sense of resentment. Yeah this method is hard work, and there are situations and kids it doesn't work for, but seeing this post out of context does give me bad parenting/ potential abuse vibes sonansu Hey! Thanks a ton. Since making this comment offhandedly, I have gotten over fifty Anon messages telling me I'm a spoiled brat, that my abuse is fake, and that should take my own life and stop being a burden on my abusive parents. People perceived my comment as "lol this is inherently abusive" rather than the "man this gives me the Willie's cause it's resonant to my own abuse. intended In that time, few people have stood up for me even tried to understand my side. Thank you fo having compassion for an abuse survivor instead of "lol this inherently abusive" rather than comment as is the "man this gives me the Willie's cause it's resonant to my own abuse. intended In that time, few people have stood up for me or even tried to understand my side. Thank you for having compassion for an abuse survivor instead of invalidating her. It legitimately means a lot to me. hearth-fucker Yeah this creeps me out on so many levels. It's different from the stereotypical picture of abuse but that doesn't make it any less abusive and it's important to look at this sort of controlling behavion and call it abuse toO horrorjapan f you think helping your mother who likely provides for you, cooks for you, is clearly out working to keep a roof over your head is 'abuse' grow the fuck up. I can't wait until the real world eats you entitled shits alive. Source: quotethatword #fucking this 181,908 notes No wifi =abuse?
upheld: Me as a parent
 Today's WiFi password can be
 unlocked by texting a photo
 of a clean kitchen to mom.
 Said photograph MUST contain
 one box of crackers on the
 counter by the stove (to prevent
 re-using any previous photos).
 Thank you for playing.
 May the odds be ever
 in your favor.
 Love, Mom

 sonansu
 This is such an abuser-disguised-as-a-quirky-parent
 vibe it literally makes me sick 2 look at lol
 eclecticnerd33
 I am going to talk about this for a minute, because
 yeah I think OP really nails something here. A lot of
 really crappy parenting is often upheld as a cute or
 funny thing, and a lot of people in the comments are
 shitting on OP because they cannot imagine how
 t could possibly be abusive. It's hard because you
 cannot see the rest of the context, but this could
 very well be an abuse tactic, and overall is just a
 crappy thing to do to a kid. Plus it probably doesn't
 work and has negative consequences for the overall
 relationship
 l am going to address several things off of the
 bat. I am not saying that having your kid clean the
 kitchen is abusive, what I am saying is establishing a
 pattern of taking away good things preemptively to
 enforce·good" behavior Is a bad parenting tactic
 that could toe the line to abuse. Especially the way
 it's worded as if it's a common tactic (need for a
 new photo), overall this is authoritarian, allows
 no room for autonomy, and doesn't even really
 get at why the kitchen should be and needs to
 cleaned today (what you actually want your ki
 to learn in the long run). There are better ways

 new photo), overall this is authoritarian, allows
 no room for autonomy, and doesn't even really
 get at why the kitchen should be and needs to be
 cleaned today (what you actually want your kid
 to learn in the long run). There are better ways to
 communicate the message of shared responsibility
 than through the creation of social isolation (and yes
 this is social isolation, wifi is used in how humans
 particularly young people communicate with their
 friends in real life and online nowadays)
 The major point I want to emphasize is that this
 type of action establishes a precedent and a set of
 emotions in a kid and none of those emotions are
 positive. It shows that important and vital things will
 be withheld, potentially without warning. It tells the
 kid they do not have a say in how their environment
 is structured, it tells them they do not have the right
 to set their own schedule, overall it breeds a sense
 of incompetence in themselves and resentment
 towards that authority that doesn't really consider
 their desire and needs
 I reflect a lot on parenting, and the best parenting
 doesnt demand a kid do something or else, it gives
 a kid the tools so they can get to that answer on
 their own, and when they do both of you will be
 better served. The kid will have more motivation
 to get it done, and there isnta building sense of
 resentment. Yeah this method is hard work, a
 are situations and kids it doesn't work for, but
 this post out of context does give me bad parery

 kid they do not have a say in how their environment
 Is structured, it tells them they do not have the right
 to set their own schedule, overall it breeds a sense
 of incompetence in themselves and resentment
 towards that authority that doesn't really consider
 their desire and needs
 I reflect a lot on parenting, and the best parenting
 doesnt demand a kid do something or else, it gives
 a kid the tools so they can get to that answer on
 their own, and when they do both of you will be
 better served. The kid will have more motivation
 to get it done, and there isn't a building sense of
 resentment. Yeah this method is hard work, and there
 are situations and kids it doesn't work for, but seeing
 this post out of context does give me bad parenting/
 potential abuse vibes
 sonansu
 Hey! Thanks a ton. Since making this comment
 offhandedly, I have gotten over fifty Anon messages
 telling me I'm a spoiled brat, that my abuse is fake,
 and that should take my own life and stop being a
 burden on my abusive parents. People perceived my
 comment as "lol this is inherently abusive" rather than
 the "man this gives me the Willie's cause it's resonant
 to my own abuse. intended
 In that time, few people have stood up for me
 even tried to understand my side. Thank you fo
 having compassion for an abuse survivor instead of

 "lol
 this
 inherently
 abusive"
 rather
 than
 comment as is
 the "man this gives me the Willie's cause it's resonant
 to my own abuse. intended
 In that time, few people have stood up for me or
 even tried to understand my side. Thank you for
 having compassion for an abuse survivor instead of
 invalidating her. It legitimately means a lot to me.
 hearth-fucker
 Yeah this creeps me out on so many levels. It's
 different from the stereotypical picture of abuse
 but that doesn't make it any less abusive and it's
 important to look at this sort of controlling behavion
 and call it abuse toO
 horrorjapan
 f you think helping your mother who likely provides
 for you, cooks for you, is clearly out working to keep a
 roof over your head is 'abuse' grow the fuck up. I can't
 wait until the real world eats you entitled shits alive.
 Source: quotethatword #fucking this
 181,908 notes
No wifi =abuse?

No wifi =abuse?

upheld: TEEN THOUGHT BEING WHITE WOULD SAVE HIM @Heart Of The Streetz Congratulations son you played yourself 👨🏾‍💻 17thsoulja BlackIG17th @seekingtheancestors2 Wypipo have low birth rates so this crime was against his entire race he not only killed another wyite person he killed a wyite male child . Thats why justice was done .👉🏾Schumaker was 16 in March 2013 when he battered the toddler over the course of a few hours, while home with his girlfriend’s infant son. He admitted that he slapped the boy for spitting food, banged his head on the floor while changing his diaper, and put a pillow over the child’s head and punched him repeatedly when the child was crying. He also claimed that at one point the boy had fallen down stairs. The assault occurred in Schumaker’s mother’s house, where Schumaker had lived since his discharge from a drug rehab program. His girlfriend, Ashlee Smith, then 19, and her children had been staying in the house, because her own family reportedly had thrown her out.An appellate court agreed this week to reduce the prison sentence of a Springville teenager who beat to death a 23-month-old boy. Dylan Schumaker, 19, was sentenced in January 2014 to the maximum punishment of 25 years to life after a jury found him guilty of killing Austin Smith, his girlfriend’s son. The appellate court modified the sentence to an indeterminate term of 18 years to life. That means Schumaker will be eligible for parole after he has served 18 years. Once he is released, he would remain under state supervision for the rest of his life. The judicial panel rejected other arguments Schumaker made and upheld the murder conviction.
upheld: TEEN THOUGHT BEING WHITE
 WOULD SAVE HIM
 @Heart Of The Streetz
Congratulations son you played yourself 👨🏾‍💻 17thsoulja BlackIG17th @seekingtheancestors2 Wypipo have low birth rates so this crime was against his entire race he not only killed another wyite person he killed a wyite male child . Thats why justice was done .👉🏾Schumaker was 16 in March 2013 when he battered the toddler over the course of a few hours, while home with his girlfriend’s infant son. He admitted that he slapped the boy for spitting food, banged his head on the floor while changing his diaper, and put a pillow over the child’s head and punched him repeatedly when the child was crying. He also claimed that at one point the boy had fallen down stairs. The assault occurred in Schumaker’s mother’s house, where Schumaker had lived since his discharge from a drug rehab program. His girlfriend, Ashlee Smith, then 19, and her children had been staying in the house, because her own family reportedly had thrown her out.An appellate court agreed this week to reduce the prison sentence of a Springville teenager who beat to death a 23-month-old boy. Dylan Schumaker, 19, was sentenced in January 2014 to the maximum punishment of 25 years to life after a jury found him guilty of killing Austin Smith, his girlfriend’s son. The appellate court modified the sentence to an indeterminate term of 18 years to life. That means Schumaker will be eligible for parole after he has served 18 years. Once he is released, he would remain under state supervision for the rest of his life. The judicial panel rejected other arguments Schumaker made and upheld the murder conviction.

Congratulations son you played yourself 👨🏾‍💻 17thsoulja BlackIG17th @seekingtheancestors2 Wypipo have low birth rates so this crime was a...

upheld: Google can you resist unlawful arrests ALL NEWS VIDEOS SHOPPING IMAGES ""Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529." Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest - Constitution... www.constitution.or uslaw defunlaw Leaving that right here... <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://stopmakingliberalslookbad.tumblr.com/post/149108438825">stopmakingliberalslookbad</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://legally-bitchtastic.tumblr.com/post/149097979581">legally-bitchtastic</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://woke-up-on-derse.tumblr.com/post/148414853842">woke-up-on-derse</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://futureblackpolitician.tumblr.com/post/148374575865">futureblackpolitician</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://yourmajestyyy.tumblr.com/post/148374558048">yourmajestyyy</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>Uh oh</p> </blockquote> <p>Watch the racists pretend like they can’t read all of a sudden</p> </blockquote> <p>Couldn’t believe it so I found a source, it’s real</p> <p><a href="http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm">http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm</a></p> <p>Man, I can’t imagine a black person getting away with this but it’s legal</p> </blockquote> <p>Guys, no. This is no longer valid law. This case was decided in 1900 and has since been superceded by subsequent laws in most states. It was officially overturned in 2001 by <i>Atwater v City of Lago Vista </i> which ruled that an officer can arrest you for a misdemeanor without a warrant. Do not follow this. </p> <p>The United States legal system is really complicated and the only reason why I was able to get the info on whether or not this case is bad law is that as a paralegal student I have a free login for Lexis Nexis through my school, which allows me to easily check if an appellate case has been overturned without having to bill anyone for it. So I’m gonna assume that the OP just didn’t know that this case was long overturned, but honestly, the way some people are I wouldn’t be surprised if someone was trying to goad people into getting hurt </p> </blockquote> <p>My God, Tumblr is legitimately going to get somebody killed one of these days!</p> </blockquote> <p>Holy shit no. A Google search does not make you a legal expert all of a sudden DO NOT go by the advice of the OP damn. If you feel you arrest was unlawful you can sue. That&rsquo;s the true American way. This is also not a pass to shoot officers preemptively.</p>
upheld: Google
 can you resist unlawful arrests
 ALL NEWS VIDEOS SHOPPING IMAGES
 ""Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the
 point of taking an arresting officer's life if
 necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.
 This premise was upheld by the Supreme
 Court of the United States in the case: John
 Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529."
 Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest -
 Constitution...
 www.constitution.or uslaw defunlaw
 Leaving that right here...
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://stopmakingliberalslookbad.tumblr.com/post/149108438825">stopmakingliberalslookbad</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://legally-bitchtastic.tumblr.com/post/149097979581">legally-bitchtastic</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://woke-up-on-derse.tumblr.com/post/148414853842">woke-up-on-derse</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://futureblackpolitician.tumblr.com/post/148374575865">futureblackpolitician</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://yourmajestyyy.tumblr.com/post/148374558048">yourmajestyyy</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Uh oh</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Watch the racists pretend like they can’t read all of a sudden</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Couldn’t believe it so I found a source, it’s real</p>
<p><a href="http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm">http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm</a></p>
<p>Man, I can’t imagine a black person getting away with this but it’s legal</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Guys, no. This is no longer valid law. This case was decided in 1900 and has since been superceded by subsequent laws in most states. It was officially overturned in 2001 by <i>Atwater v City of Lago Vista </i> which ruled that an officer can arrest you for a misdemeanor without a warrant. Do not follow this. </p>
<p>The United States legal system is really complicated and the only reason why I was able to get the info on whether or not this case is bad law is that as a paralegal student I have a free login for Lexis Nexis through my school, which allows me to easily check if an appellate case has been overturned without having to bill anyone for it. So I’m gonna assume that the OP just didn’t know that this case was long overturned, but honestly, the way some people are I wouldn’t be surprised if someone was trying to goad people into getting hurt </p>
</blockquote>
<p>My God, Tumblr is legitimately going to get somebody killed one of these days!</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Holy shit no. A Google search does not make you a legal expert all of a sudden DO NOT go by the advice of the OP damn. If you feel you arrest was unlawful you can sue. That&rsquo;s the true American way. This is also not a pass to shoot officers preemptively.</p>

<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://stopmakingliberalslookbad.tumblr.com/post/149108438825">stopmakingliberalslookbad</a>:</p><blockqu...

upheld: NFL 90 Odell Beckham Jr.'s 1-game suspension has been upheld. He is out this Sunday vs. Vikings.
upheld: NFL
 90
Odell Beckham Jr.'s 1-game suspension has been upheld. He is out this Sunday vs. Vikings.

Odell Beckham Jr.'s 1-game suspension has been upheld. He is out this Sunday vs. Vikings.

upheld: Pete Rose's lifetime ban reportedly upheld by the MLB commissioner.
upheld: Pete Rose's lifetime ban reportedly upheld by the MLB commissioner.

Pete Rose's lifetime ban reportedly upheld by the MLB commissioner.

upheld: Broncos' T.J. Ward on why his 1-game suspension was upheld: "My last name's not Brady." ShotsFired 😂🔥😂
upheld: Broncos' T.J. Ward on why his 1-game suspension was upheld: "My last name's not Brady." ShotsFired 😂🔥😂

Broncos' T.J. Ward on why his 1-game suspension was upheld: "My last name's not Brady." ShotsFired 😂🔥😂

upheld: Men have to pay alimonv not onlv to ex-wives but also to ex-girlfriends, the Swiss Parliament has decided So far, if the ex-girlfriend had a child, men were obliged to pay child support only. Now the parliament voted for marital status equality, which means ex-bovfriends will additionallv have to pay alimony to the ex-girlfriend until the youngest child is at least 16 years old In Switzerland men are forbidden to test for paternity without the mother's consent. IN ALTION The 18-year-old woman ("J.L.") had sex in her car in a parking lot with a 15-year-old boy* whom she knew socially. During the sex she withdrew her consent and asked him to stop. The boy stopped without having ejaculated, they eturned to the McDonald's restaurant they had been earlier that day and she gave him her telephone number Hours later she told a friend's mother what had happened, the boy was arrested and tried for rape for his failure to fat fuckino degen burge op the intercourse instantly erate Assistant state's attorney: "About how long did he continue to push his penis into your vagina?" J.L.: "About five or so seconds. Based on this delay of "five or so seconds" the boy was convicted of first-degree rape. Dr. Ann Burgess, a Professor of Nursing, testified on behalf of the State that the absence of torn clothes and the woman's behavior like her lack of physical resistance, failure to scream, sharing her telephone number, not calling 9, not immediately telling the first person about the rape "even if that person might be their best friend" and engaging in routine behavior such as "going to a supermarket and shopping" shortly after a rape is consistent with what she called "rape trauma syndrome" (her own theory which she developed with sociologist Lynda Holmström.) The court case highlighted not only the widening definition of rape and how lack of rape evidence can be used to construe "rape trauma" but also how irrelevant the testimony of a male defendant has become threw the condom [envelope] on the floor[. and A: I tried to put it in. Q: When she was sitting there, was she dressed A: She didn't have nothing on but her shirt : How did she appear? A: She appeared normal Q: Was she crying? A: No, she wasn't Q: When you got in the car, what, if anything, did you say or do? A: I asked her if she was going to let me have sex with her Q: What, if anything, did she say? A: She said yes, as long as I stop when she says to. And then I said, "I'm not going to rape you Q: Did you feel that was permission? she picked it up and told me to throw it out the window Q: She gave it back to you? A: Yeah Q: Where was it? On the floor? A: Yeah.[..] Q: What did you do with it when she gave it back to you? A: I threw it out the window Q: Was the window open, or did you have to down?[..] Had you previously closed it or opened her? it A: No. I didnt touch the window the whole night. Q: When she sat up, what did that mean to Q: When you were putting on your condom, you? Q: Do you know where it was touching or what happened to it? A: No. After I tried to put it in once, it wouldn't go in, and I tried a couple more times and it wouldn't go in. I didn't feel nothing there Q: What happened? What did she say or do? A: And then she sat up. She was like, "It's not going to go in," and that's when, after she sat up and said "It's not going to go in,"[..] Q: Who said, "It's not going to go in?" You or A: She did rmi A: That meant stop Q: Why did you say "I don't want to rape you" where was she, what position was she in? A: Just to, because she said, "Stop when I say to,A:She was, first she was sitting in the car when we Q: Did she say "Stop"? just to tell her that. It's kind of like to confirm was talking, and then she was still sitting when A: No, she didnt. She just sat up the permi Q: So, after she said "Stop when I say stop," what rying to go in there, she was like laying down did you do, if anything? put on the condom. But then after, when I was Q: And you took that to mean stop? A: Yeah. he backse Q: When sat up, did you tryt e ca Q: What did you d do Co cket and I What did pped it open, I pu con your pe A: No, I did The boy was sentenced to 15 years in prison, with all but 5 years suspended, and 5 years probation upon release IN ACTION In California, minor boys raped by adult women must pay child support to the criminals who raped them Even when having been drugged before the sex. State law entitles the child to support from both parents, even though the boy is considered the victim of statutory rape," the district attorney's office says. Kansas courts have likewise held that "the issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity and for support of a minor child born of such activity." In Nebraska 15-year-old Jeremy Steen who was raped by the 34-year-old Linda Kazinsky was ordered by a court to pay $475 a month in child support as well as a whopping $23,000 in back child support payments. IN ACTION <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://this-is-tall-privilege.tumblr.com/post/107462409768/spaztastic91-i-have-posted-these-before-but-i">this-is-tall-privilege</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://spaztastic91.tumblr.com/post/107338049848/i-have-posted-these-before-but-i-figured-i-will">spaztastic91</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>I have posted these before but I figured I will post them all together and if you have anymore of these I would like to see them.</p> </blockquote> <p>Sources:<br/>-Ban on Paternity Testing</p> <p><a href="http://www.ibdna.com/regions/UK/EN/?page=paternity-testing-ban-upheld-in-france">http://www.ibdna.com/regions/UK/EN/?page=paternity-testing-ban-upheld-in-france</a></p> <p>-Man proven to be victim of Paternity fraud not to be reimbursed</p> <p><a href="http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&amp;dat=20030201&amp;id=UvohAAAAIBAJ&amp;sjid=SaMFAAAAIBAJ&amp;pg=5841,18493">http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&amp;dat=20030201&amp;id=UvohAAAAIBAJ&amp;sjid=SaMFAAAAIBAJ&amp;pg=5841,18493</a></p> <p>-Case where 15 year old boy is deemed guilty of rape in the 1st degree for delaying to pull out by 5 seconds</p> <p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maouloud_Baby_v._State_of_Maryland">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maouloud_Baby_v._State_of_Maryland</a></p> <p>-Underage male rape victim being legally bound to pay for child support</p> <p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer</a></p> </blockquote>
upheld: Men have to pay alimonv not onlv to
 ex-wives but also to ex-girlfriends, the
 Swiss Parliament has decided
 So far, if the ex-girlfriend had a child, men
 were obliged to pay child support only.
 Now the parliament voted for
 marital status equality, which means
 ex-bovfriends will additionallv have to pay
 alimony to the ex-girlfriend until the
 youngest child is at least 16 years old
 In Switzerland men are forbidden to test
 for paternity without the mother's consent.
 IN ALTION

 The 18-year-old woman ("J.L.") had sex in her car in a parking lot with a 15-year-old boy* whom she knew socially.
 During the sex she withdrew her consent and asked him to stop. The boy stopped without having ejaculated, they
 eturned to the McDonald's restaurant they had been earlier that day and she gave him her telephone number
 Hours later she told a friend's mother what had happened, the boy was arrested and tried for rape for his failure to
 fat fuckino
 degen
 burge
 op the intercourse instantly
 erate
 Assistant state's attorney: "About how long did he continue to push his penis into your vagina?"
 J.L.: "About five or so seconds.
 Based on this delay of "five or so seconds" the boy was convicted of first-degree rape.
 Dr. Ann Burgess, a Professor of Nursing, testified on behalf of the State that the absence of torn clothes and the
 woman's behavior like her lack of physical resistance, failure to scream, sharing her telephone number, not calling
 9, not immediately telling the first person about the rape "even if that person might be their best friend" and
 engaging in routine behavior such as "going to a supermarket and shopping" shortly after a rape
 is consistent with what she called "rape trauma syndrome" (her own theory which she developed with sociologist
 Lynda Holmström.)
 The court case highlighted not only the widening definition of rape and how lack of rape evidence can be used to
 construe "rape trauma" but also how irrelevant the testimony of a male defendant has become
 threw the condom [envelope] on the floor[. and A: I tried to put it in.
 Q: When she was sitting there, was she dressed
 A: She didn't have nothing on but her shirt
 : How did she appear?
 A: She appeared normal
 Q: Was she crying?
 A: No, she wasn't
 Q: When you got in the car, what, if anything,
 did you say or do?
 A: I asked her if she was going to let me have sex
 with her
 Q: What, if anything, did she say?
 A: She said yes, as long as I stop when she says
 to. And then I said, "I'm not going to rape you
 Q: Did you feel that was permission?
 she picked it up and told me to throw it out the
 window
 Q: She gave it back to you?
 A: Yeah
 Q: Where was it? On the floor?
 A: Yeah.[..]
 Q: What did you do with it when she gave it back
 to you?
 A: I threw it out the window
 Q: Was the window open, or did you have to
 down?[..] Had you previously closed it or opened her?
 it
 A: No. I didnt touch the window the whole night. Q: When she sat up, what did that mean to
 Q: When you were putting on your condom, you?
 Q: Do you know where it was touching or what
 happened to it?
 A: No. After I tried to put it in once, it wouldn't
 go in, and I tried a couple more times and it
 wouldn't go in. I didn't feel nothing there
 Q: What happened? What did she say or do?
 A: And then she sat up. She was like, "It's not
 going to go in," and that's when, after she sat
 up and said "It's not going to go in,"[..]
 Q: Who said, "It's not going to go in?" You or
 A: She did
 rmi
 A: That meant stop
 Q: Why did you say "I don't want to rape you" where was she, what position was she in?
 A: Just to, because she said, "Stop when I say to,A:She was, first she was sitting in the car when we Q: Did she say "Stop"?
 just to tell her that. It's kind of like to confirm was talking, and then she was still sitting when A: No, she didnt. She just sat up
 the permi
 Q: So, after she said "Stop when I say stop," what rying to go in there, she was like laying down
 did you do, if anything?
 put on the condom. But then after, when I was
 Q: And you took that to mean stop?
 A: Yeah.
 he backse
 Q: When
 sat up, did you tryt
 e ca
 Q: What did you d
 do
 Co
 cket and I
 What did
 pped it open, I pu
 con
 your pe
 A: No, I did
 The boy was sentenced to 15 years in prison, with all but 5 years suspended, and 5 years probation upon release
 IN ACTION

 In California, minor boys raped by adult women must
 pay child support to the criminals who raped them
 Even when having been drugged before the sex.
 State law entitles the child to support from both
 parents, even though the boy is considered the victim
 of statutory rape," the district attorney's office says.
 Kansas courts have likewise held that "the issue of
 consent to sexual activity under the criminal statutes
 is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity
 and for support of a minor child born of such
 activity."
 In Nebraska 15-year-old Jeremy Steen who was raped
 by the 34-year-old Linda Kazinsky was ordered by a
 court to pay $475 a month in child support as well as a
 whopping $23,000 in back child support payments.
 IN ACTION
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://this-is-tall-privilege.tumblr.com/post/107462409768/spaztastic91-i-have-posted-these-before-but-i">this-is-tall-privilege</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://spaztastic91.tumblr.com/post/107338049848/i-have-posted-these-before-but-i-figured-i-will">spaztastic91</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I have posted these before but I figured I will post them all together and if you have anymore of these I would like to see them.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Sources:<br/>-Ban on Paternity Testing</p>
<p><a href="http://www.ibdna.com/regions/UK/EN/?page=paternity-testing-ban-upheld-in-france">http://www.ibdna.com/regions/UK/EN/?page=paternity-testing-ban-upheld-in-france</a></p>
<p>-Man proven to be victim of Paternity fraud not to be reimbursed</p>
<p><a href="http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&amp;dat=20030201&amp;id=UvohAAAAIBAJ&amp;sjid=SaMFAAAAIBAJ&amp;pg=5841,18493">http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&amp;dat=20030201&amp;id=UvohAAAAIBAJ&amp;sjid=SaMFAAAAIBAJ&amp;pg=5841,18493</a></p>
<p>-Case where 15 year old boy is deemed guilty of rape in the 1st degree for delaying to pull out by 5 seconds</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maouloud_Baby_v._State_of_Maryland">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maouloud_Baby_v._State_of_Maryland</a></p>
<p>-Underage male rape victim being legally bound to pay for child support</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://this-is-tall-privilege.tumblr.com/post/107462409768/spaztastic91-i-have-posted-these-before-but-i"...

upheld: Who really shut down the government? Even when it comes to something as basic, and apparently as simpl ing that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to and straightforward, as the question of who shut down the federal govern ment, there are diametrically oppo- site answers, depending on whether ou talk to Democrats or to Repub- omas nge government policy by grant- Se ing or withholding money, that is simply a bald-faced lie. You can check the history of other examples of "legislation by appropriation" as it used to be called licans There is really nothing complicat to do or not do, regardless of what Whether legislation by appropria ed about the facts. The Republican the other branches do, when exercis- tion is a good idea or a bad idea is a controlled House of Representatives ing the powers specifically granted matter of opinion. But whether it is to that branch by the Constitution. voted all the money required to keep both legal and not unprecedented is a The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader all government activities going- except for ObamaCare matter of fact. Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the na tional debt, creating a danger of You can check the Congressional Record As for the House of Representa Harry Reid says that he wantsa tives' right to grant or withhold mon "clean"bill from the House of Repre default. Tax money keeps coming ey, the Constitution of the United sentatives. But what is unclean about not giving Reid everything he wants? into the Treasury during the shut- down, and it vastly exceeds the in- terest that has to be paid on the na tional debt. States says spending bills must orig- If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsi debt. ility. inate in the House of Representa tives, which means that Congress- men there have a right to decide Even if the debt ceiling is not whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity they lifted, that only means that govern ment is not allowed to run up new ObamaCare is indeed "the law of Unless the Republicans get their u cannot blame other people for side of the story out the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality the lies will not giving you everything you want.win. More important, the whole And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government country will lose But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University Stanford, Calif When Barack Obama keeps claim
upheld: Who really shut down the government?
 Even when it comes to something
 as basic, and apparently as simpl
 ing that it is some new outrage for
 those who control the money to try to
 and straightforward, as the question
 of who shut down the federal govern
 ment, there are diametrically oppo-
 site answers, depending on whether
 ou talk to Democrats or to Repub-
 omas nge government policy by grant-
 Se
 ing or withholding money, that is
 simply a bald-faced lie. You can
 check the history of other examples
 of "legislation by appropriation" as it
 used to be called
 licans
 There is really nothing complicat
 to do or not do, regardless of what
 Whether legislation by appropria
 ed about the facts. The Republican the other branches do, when exercis- tion is a good idea or a bad idea is a
 controlled House of Representatives ing the powers specifically granted matter of opinion. But whether it is
 to that branch by the Constitution.
 voted all the money required to keep
 both legal and not unprecedented is a
 The Senate chose not to vote to
 authorize that money to be spent,
 because it did not include money for
 ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader
 all government activities going-
 except for ObamaCare
 matter of fact.
 Perhaps the biggest of the big lies
 is that the government will not be
 able to pay what it owes on the na
 tional debt, creating a danger of
 You can check the Congressional
 Record
 As for the House of Representa Harry Reid says that he wantsa
 tives' right to grant or withhold mon "clean"bill from the House of Repre default. Tax money keeps coming
 ey, the Constitution of the United
 sentatives. But what is unclean about
 not giving Reid everything he wants?
 into the Treasury during the shut-
 down, and it vastly exceeds the in-
 terest that has to be paid on the na
 tional debt.
 States says spending bills must orig-
 If Senator Reid and President
 Obama refuse to accept the money
 required to run the government,
 because it leaves out the money
 want to run ObamaCare, that is their
 right. But that is also their responsi debt.
 ility.
 inate in the House of Representa
 tives, which means that Congress-
 men there have a right to decide
 Even if the debt ceiling is not
 whether or not they want to spend
 money on a particular government
 activity
 they
 lifted, that only means that govern
 ment is not allowed to run up new
 ObamaCare is indeed "the law of
 Unless the Republicans get their
 u cannot blame other people for side of the story out
 the land," as its supporters keep
 saying, and the Supreme Court has
 upheld its Constitutionality
 the lies will
 not giving you everything you want.win. More important, the whole
 And it is a fraud to blame them when
 you refuse to use the money they did
 vote, even when it is ample to pay for
 everything else in the government
 country will lose
 But the whole point of having a
 division of powers within the federal
 government is that each branch can
 decide independently what it wants
 Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at
 the Hoover Institution, Stanford University
 Stanford, Calif
 When Barack Obama keeps claim