rosalarian:

dragonheartedrabbit:

Going on right now in Ferguson: Police are raiding a church that has been stocked with medical supplies, food, and tear gas recovery kits for community members engaging in protests. This cannot be allowed to continue.

Stand up, speak out. 

Last tweet sums it up perfectly. Police are doing the raiding and looting. And as someone who donated my small part of supplies, I am even more furious than I would have been anyway, which was already pretty damn high.

But don’t let this stop you from donating more supplies. They need it now more than ever.

sitcorn:

hey remember that law i forget exactly how it goes but its something along the lines of ‘if you murder someone you go to jail’ whatever happened to that? is that still a thing

(via thejsimmons)

iwriteaboutfeminism:

Police escalate the violence. Unrest in Ferguson, Part 2

[part 1]

(via terriblearguments)

Tear gas

torisoulphoenix:

avoidgettingread:

Do not wear contact lenses if you are in a situation where you may be tear-gassed.  When I went through basic training, we were warned that there was a possibility the tear gas they were using could melt contact lenses.

BOOOOOOOOOOOST!!!!!!!!!!

(via gtfothinspo)

"

We were grabbing a bite of lunch at a small cafe, in a mall, right across from a booth that sold jewelry and where ears could be pierced for a fee. A mother approaches with a little girl of six or seven years old. The little girl is clearly stating that she doesn’t want her ears pierced, that’s she’s afraid of how much it will hurt, that she doesn’t like earrings much in the first place. Her protests, her clear ‘no’ is simply not heard. The mother and two other women, who work the booth, begin chatting and trying to engage the little girl in picking out a pair of earrings. She has to wear a particular kind when the piercing is first done but she could pick out a fun pair for later.

"I don’t want my ears pierced."

"I don’t want any earrings."

The three adults glance at each other conspiratorially and now the pressure really begins. She will look so nice, all the other girls she knows wear earrings, the pain isn’t bad.

She, the child, sees what’s coming and starts crying. As the adults up the volume so does she, she’s crying and emitting a low wail at the same time. “I DON’T WANT MY EARS PIERCED.”

Her mother leans down and speaks to her, quietly but strongly, the only words we could hear were ‘… embarrassing me.’

We heard, then, two small screams, when the ears were pierced.

Little children learn early and often that ‘no doesn’t mean no.’

Little children learn early that no one will stand with them, even the two old men looking horrified at the events from the cafeteria.

Little girls learn early and often that their will is not their own.

No means no, yeah, right.

Most often, for kids and others without power, ”no means force.”

"

from "No Means Force" at Dave Hingsburger’s blog.

This is important. It doesn’t just apply to little girls and other children, though it often begins there.

For the marginalized, our “no’s” are discounted as frivolous protests, rebelliousness, or anger issues, or we don’t know what we’re talking about, or we don’t understand what’s happening.

When “no means force” we become afraid to say no.

(via k-pagination)

(via gtfothinspo)

gnny:

are you ever looking at weird stuff on the internet and ur paranoid its going to end up on facebook somehow because facebook is connected to like everything

(via thejsimmons)

"Last year, in total, British police officers actually fired their weapons three times. The number of people fatally shot was zero. In 2012 the figure was just one. Even after adjusting for the smaller size of Britain’s population, British citizens are around 100 times less likely to be shot by a police officer than Americans. Between 2010 and 2014 the police force of one small American city, Albuquerque in New Mexico, shot and killed 23 civilians; seven times more than the number of Brits killed by all of England and Wales’s 43 forces during the same period.

The explanation for this gap is simple. In Britain, guns are rare. Only specialist firearms officers carry them; and criminals rarely have access to them. The last time a British police officer was killed by a firearm on duty was in 2012, in a brutal case in Manchester. The annual number of murders by shooting is typically less than 50. Police shootings are enormously controversial. The shooting of Mark Duggan, a known gangster, which in 2011 started riots across London, led to a fiercely debated inquest. Last month, a police officer was charged with murder over a shooting in 2005. The reputation of the Metropolitan Police’s armed officers is still barely recovering from the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent Brazilian, in the wake of the 7/7 terrorist bombings in London.

In America, by contrast, it is hardly surprising that cops resort to their weapons more frequently. In 2013, 30 cops were shot and killed—just a fraction of the 9,000 or so murders using guns that happen each year. Add to that a hyper-militarised police culture and a deep history of racial strife and you have the reason why so many civilians are shot by police officers. Unless America can either reduce its colossal gun ownership rates or fix its deep social problems, shootings of civilians by police—justified or not—seem sure to continue."

Armed police: Trigger happy | The Economist (via kenyatta)

(via fishingboatproceeds)

indieannajones:

Seriously, what the police are doing is not “bad”, it’s illegal.

There is a reason why people are raging mad at this situation, and it’s because it’s a blatant violation of basic human rights.

If you don’t understand that, then you are part of the problem.

(via fall1996)

b8l:

flockaflamed:

people literally cannot get out antonio french is telling him to knock on doors if he has to

police/military have placed a physical road blockade, a media blackout, and a nofly zone, over the neighborhood where mike brown was murdered were the only eye witnesses live, at the heart of the protests, under the guise of stopping a “gun battle btwn cops and gangs”. there is nothing come out of canfield right now that i can find, which is absolutely terrifying.

(via fall1996)

"The term “tear gas” is a misnomer. For one thing, “tear gas” seems to imply something innocuous— you would think it’s just a chemical that makes you tear up. In fact, tear gas is a dangerous, potentially lethal chemical agent which is outlawed under the Chemical Weapons Convention for use during wartime. As the Omega Research Foundation argues: “Less-lethal weapons are presented as more acceptable alternatives to guns. But these weapons augment rather than replace the more lethal weapons. Euphemistic labels are used to create the impression that these weapons represent soft and gentle forms of control. CS is never referred to by the authorities as vomit gas, in spite of its capacity to cause violent retching.” NGO Physicians for Human Rights believes that “ ‘tear gas’ is a misnomer for a group of poisonous gases which, far from being innocuous, have serious acute and longer-term adverse effects on the health of significant numbers of those exposed.”"

What is tear gas? Facing Tear Gas (via gowns)

(Source: roundedcomms, via silversarcasm)