Taylor Enterline Was Arrested Sunday Night After Peacefully Protesting In Lancaster. She Was Working

“Taylor Enterline was arrested Sunday night after peacefully protesting in Lancaster. She was working as a medic, running around helping those that were hurt and or tear gassed. She was then charged with guns by police along with another person from her activist group. She is being held under false charges that all witnesses protest against, She was denied her family lawyer and charged with a $1,000,000 bail that is a direct violation to her 8th amendment rights. If we can raise $35,000 then we can get her out. Please share, donate, do whatever you can to get her message out !!!”

https://gf.me/u/yy2x67

gofundme.com

Bail & Legal Fees Fund for Taylor Enterline, organized by Hailee Paige

Taylor Enterline was arrested Sunday night after peacefully protesting in La… Hailee Paige needs your support for Bail & Legal Fees Fund fo

if you're homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, racist, antisemitic, sexist or likes to bully other

👏 UNFOLLOW 👏MY 👏 BLOG 👏 NOW!

the USPS is now REMOVING MAIL SORTING MACHINES. the shit is hitting the fan. i need to reiterate that signing petitions or texting a number that sends an email isn’t going to cut it. dont send complaints to louis dejoy’s office or any bullshit like that. don’t waste your time. people who live in the US need to CALL their Senators and House reps. you need to post about this constantly. you need to make a big deal about this with friends and family. get them do it too.

if you want to save the USPS i am BEGGING you call your representatives directly to DEMAND they co-sponsor and vote for:

1. the Delivering for America Act (call HOUSE reps). This attempts to reverse the bullshit Trump is doing.

CNN

House Oversight chair introduces new bill to reverse organizational changes at USPS

A new bill aimed at reversing organizational and structural changes undertaken at the United States Postal Service by the new postmaster gen

2. USPS Fairness Act (call SENATORS). This is a MAJOR repeal of the bullshit the Bush admin and the Republicans did in 2006 that fucked over the USPS in the first place.

congress.gov

All Info - S.2965 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): USPS Fairness Act

All Info for S.2965 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): USPS Fairness Act

3. HEROES Act (call SENATORS). This is the coronavirus omnibus that includes IMMEDIATE USPS relief. Make it clear you want the USPS portion to be included.

I don’t study genocides war crimes and human rights for fun. I study it bc my people have been at the foot from the very first genocide of the 20th century and previous attempts to exterminate my entire race. The fact that no one is speaking up when another genocide is at the brink of occurring to the ethnic Armenians living in Artsakh (Nagorno Karabakh) is mind blowing. I have to say I’m not surprised by the lack of effort - Americans, especially, are the most self interested humans I’ve met. This isn’t about narrative, this is about rapid belligerent individualism. We can philosophize all day about it but at the end - people don’t give a shit about anyone but themselves. There is rarely any altruism left in this world. As Monte said, no ones gonna fight for us, we will have to fight on our own to survive. The alternative is not an option.

@sarinezeitlian on IG for the photos

Just casually thinking about 2016 where the day before the election, my professor for the Race sociology class I was taking made mention of the fact that he was nervous, but hopeful. He wished us all a happy election day, told us to go vote, and he’d see us on Wednesday for our quiz and a recap of marginalization and voter suppression.

Then on Wednesday, we walked into that 9:30am class and found him sitting on the table up front with puffy red eyes, wrinkled T-shirt, shoes untied, and no quiz on the board. He just sat there and watched us come in and we all sat in silence and he spent the whole class leaking tears and talking it out with us.

He was a white man, a self-professed privilege magnet: male, heterosexual, Christian, college educated, middle class, etc and so forth, and he was in absolute shambles. He told us that he stayed up all night watching everything he built his career around get ground into the dirt in one evening. He spent all night and all morning fielding terrified phone calls from the undocumented kids he helped get into the university he worked at, who were wondering when they were going to get deported now, from his Black and Latino coworkers just sobbing in utter rage and agony and fear, from his students of color and his LGBT friends and students. And, he said, all he could do was listen, because we, as the majorities, had failed them. We let the worst happen.

Several folks in the class tried to be optimistic and say that it wouldn’t be that bad, but the professor, who up to this point had always been a ray of sunshine and hope, shut every one of them down because, he said, it absolutely would be that bad.

One girl in the corner started sobbing and told us that just a week before her uncle in Arizona, who had a green card, got deported illegally, and they were fighting to get him home, but now she was wondering when it was going to happen to her. She was too scared to go home and visit her parents for Thanksgiving because she was afraid of going through security at an Arizona airport and getting snatched and shipped out of the country illegally just because she was latina.

And our professor passed her a tissue out of his own pocket, looked at all of us and said, “Remember this in 2020. Don’t you dare let it happen again.”

So I’m sending his plea on to all of you. Don’t let it happen again. Don’t let it happen again. Please, don’t let it happen again.

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