Latest Posts by cumfilledpussy - Page 2

Reblog this and money will be entering your life this week

Looking for cum

Does any one want to fill my pussy with cum?

I need multiple loads inside me

#cumdump

Pass the blunt to your followers

I want someone to message me all the things they would do to me

😍😍😍

Choke her while sucking her clit.

I want cum inside me!! I need it today

I'm so wet

I need a big thick cock deep in my pussy and hopefully pumping me full of cum

Reblog this and money will be entering your life this week

Reblog if you want a man to shoot his cum into your unprotected pussy.

If you refuse to fuck if there is a condom or birth control involved while you are getting it, reblog this. If you love having that hot load of cum deep inside that pussy, no protection. No birth control and it makes you horny at the thought of taking a pregnancy risk, reblog this shit. If you don’t cum deep inside my bare unprotected pussy, then we ain’t fucking #teambareback

i will masturbate for hours until i come across something online i want to cum to.

I need a daddy

I need a daddy to tie me up and make me obey his orders.

If you [ b l a c k ] reblog this.

don’t care what shade just reblog.

I'm such a pleaser. It turns me on knowing I'm turning you on.

Reblog if...

You want your balls emptied inside a tight, wet pussy

Or

If you want your pussy filled to the brim with cum

💞 Choke her through her orgasm 💞

Choke me and tell me I'm pretty

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

43 years

Damn 60 years for me 🤷🏾‍♀️💀

Netflix and fuck me til I can't say anything but daddy. 🙃

Open Letter To Tumblr.

Dear Jeff,

Dear Tumblr @staff ,

I’ve read your new guidelines with great interest and care and I must say you’ve missed a huge opportunity to become a leader in Internet community safety.

Let me explain:

First of all, as an adult and a parent I wholeheartedly applaud your efforts in making Tumblr a place where minors can explore the Internet in a safe environment. You have my full support in banning any and all form of child pornography! So in all sincerity kudos to you for taking this step.

Having said that, as a parent, I know all too well how forbidding a certain toy/food/activity to my offspring will turn it into a forbidden fruit. Coming down on my kids like a maddening fury yelling they’re not allowed to do drugs for example is by no means a guarantee they won’t end up with a needle in their arm. Harsh, I know, yet a reality nonetheless.

The same applies to sexuality in all it shapes and forms. Taking all adult content away form Tumblr will only push all these curious youngsters to go and explore elsewhere and we all know the Internet showcases fucked up stuff!

Also, trust me when I say my young teenage offspring has quite the sexual imagination already.

Turning sex and/or nudity into a taboo is not helping my offspring. Talking to them however is, answering any and all questions they have is.

Secondly, I’m a proud member of the BDSM community here on Tumblr, have been for over 2 years.

In my time on here I’ve seen and discovered this community is very protective of itself; abusers and/or wannabes are called out, numerous child pornography blogs have been reported.

There’s a whole community online of people, both Dominants and submissives alike, with up to 40 years of experience that share their knowledge, that take new people under their wing, that openly demonstrate the difference between porn BDSM and real life relationships.

New, curious people - when of legal age - were all welcomed with open arms by all of us. An insane amount of questions have been answered, advice and guidance have been offered freely to anyone who genuinely wanted to explore the BDSM world.

Now, now you’re pushing all these new aspiring dominants/submissives into uncharted territory! Safe, Sane and Consensual has been thrown out of the window for the BDSM community.

What I wanted, hell what every single of my followers wanted, was to get rid of the porn bits! What we wanted was to get rid of the child pornography.

What we wanted was a safe environment for all of us.

What we’re left with is a whole lot of the opposite. Making Tumblr Safe Again has made the whole Internet an even more unsafer place.

What you could, and should have done, is reach out to the blogs with the largest follower base, made an open invitation to any and all smaller blogs who wanted to help you make Tumblr a safer place. Yes, we should have been vetted amidst this process. No, no one would have objected.

I’m beyond disappointed Tumblr. What started as an no doubt good and spot on idea has left a very bad taste in my mouth.

Sincerely,

Dirty

😂😂😂

I need a big black dick fucking my pussy while I’m eating some juicy pussy #cravings

Reblog if you’ve ever gotten a dick pic you didn’t want/ask for. I’m trying to prove something.