へとへとだけど、まだ仕事がある…(´Д`)…実は、まだ初められていない…それなのにぐずぐずしている…(´Д`)…i am being too lazy

へとへとだけど、まだ仕事がある…(´Д`)…実は、まだ初められていない…それなのにぐずぐずしている…(´Д`)…i am being too lazy

いとこちゃんから手紙とプレゼントをもらった (ノ´ヮ´)ノ✧ワンピースのつりさげガム、いや、ゴムゴムのガムだ!童心に帰ってむしゃむしゃパクパク食べた~( ・ε・)my cousin♡sent me one piece gum! gomu gomu no gum!

いとこちゃんから手紙とプレゼントをもらった (ノ´ヮ´)ノ✧ワンピースのつりさげガム、いや、ゴムゴムのガムだ!童心に帰ってむしゃむしゃパクパク食べた~( ・ε・)my cousin♡sent me one piece gum! gomu gomu no gum!

I heard about Citrus Man, the superhero that the Florida citrus growers paid Marvel to create (to boost their sales after they were hurt badly by some sort of orange disease), on NPR and I am loving it.

I get the feeling he’s getting a lot of hate/scorn because he’s a sponsored superhero but idk maybe it’s just because I come from the Power Rangers/Transformers/Tokusatsu/100%-created-by-toy-companies-to-sell-toys generation of kids so I’m totally fine with the tongue-in-cheek superhero, so I’m totally digging this.

Also he’s basically a gijinka of an orange ok? I love that lmao.

postracialcomments:

breanna1227:

postracialcomments:


A Texas man is under arrest after gunning down a SWAT team member as the officer quietly tried to climb in through the apartment’s window during predawn hours.
Police State USAreports  that a resident fatally shot Detective Charles “Chuck” Dinwiddie as the officer climbed in through a ground level window as part of a “no knock” raid. The officers were there due to suspicion that residents were in possession of controlled substances.
Upon hearing a noise, resident Marvin Louis Guy, 50, opened fire on the unidentified officers, shooting three others as well, although only one fatally.
Guy is currently being held on capital murder charges in connection with Dinwiddie’s death, even though it’s unclear how Guy was supposed to know that the men crawling in through the window were police officers since they hadn’t identified themselves.
The evidence sheet lists a laptop, a safe, a pistol, and a glass pipe, but no drugs were found. Given the evidence, why did police deem it necessary to seek a “no knock” warrant and why did a judge sign off on it?
Very little is known about Mr. Guy, but Dinwiddie left behind two children, all because his SWAT team went creeping into a home where the residents didn’t even have any drugs. Is that the best use of law enforcement tax dollars?
Guy’s bond has been set at $3 million dollars.

Source
Thank you lieutenantnorals!

Where’s stand your ground now?????

Texas people!!
Isn’t there a law where it is legal to shoot to kill on your property if there’s a physical threat? Esp if they broke in your home?

It is legal, but this is a cop we’re talking about - they’re above the law so what does it matter? We’ll twist the wording in laws to protect some dudes’ right to shoot people, but this guy? They’ll definitely “interpret” it differently.

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: 
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

And Section 9.41 it’s referring to is:

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE’S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property. (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and: (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


We’ve interpreted those laws in all directions though, so Texas’ stance on whether a guy’s “reasonable belief” that his judgment was a reasonable judgement seems to be based entirely on how much we like the person (and the person who was shot).
Remember, last year Texas ruled that it was 100% OK and LEGAL to murder a woman you paid for sex if she doesn’t give it all to you, because she’s robbing you of your property. So… yeah.

postracialcomments:

breanna1227:

postracialcomments:

A Texas man is under arrest after gunning down a SWAT team member as the officer quietly tried to climb in through the apartment’s window during predawn hours.

Police State USAreports  that a resident fatally shot Detective Charles “Chuck” Dinwiddie as the officer climbed in through a ground level window as part of a “no knock” raid. The officers were there due to suspicion that residents were in possession of controlled substances.

Upon hearing a noise, resident Marvin Louis Guy, 50, opened fire on the unidentified officers, shooting three others as well, although only one fatally.

Guy is currently being held on capital murder charges in connection with Dinwiddie’s death, even though it’s unclear how Guy was supposed to know that the men crawling in through the window were police officers since they hadn’t identified themselves.

The evidence sheet lists a laptop, a safe, a pistol, and a glass pipe, but no drugs were found. Given the evidence, why did police deem it necessary to seek a “no knock” warrant and why did a judge sign off on it?

Very little is known about Mr. Guy, but Dinwiddie left behind two children, all because his SWAT team went creeping into a home where the residents didn’t even have any drugs. Is that the best use of law enforcement tax dollars?

Guy’s bond has been set at $3 million dollars.

Source

Thank you lieutenantnorals!

Where’s stand your ground now?????

Texas people!!

Isn’t there a law where it is legal to shoot to kill on your property if there’s a physical threat? Esp if they broke in your home?

It is legal, but this is a cop we’re talking about - they’re above the law so what does it matter? We’ll twist the wording in laws to protect some dudes’ right to shoot people, but this guy? They’ll definitely “interpret” it differently.

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

And Section 9.41 it’s referring to is:

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE’S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property. (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and: (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

We’ve interpreted those laws in all directions though, so Texas’ stance on whether a guy’s “reasonable belief” that his judgment was a reasonable judgement seems to be based entirely on how much we like the person (and the person who was shot).

Remember, last year Texas ruled that it was 100% OK and LEGAL to murder a woman you paid for sex if she doesn’t give it all to you, because she’s robbing you of your property. So… yeah.