Guy Catches Thief In His Home So Punishes Him With Brutal FACE TATTOO [VIDEO]

VIA| If you have any tattoos, you’ll know that the first one is always the most important. For many of us, we rushed our first tattoo and got a really rubbish one just because we wanted one. I myself have Lynyrd Skynyrd lyrics on my arm and the tattoo was carried out by a man in an attic shop in Stoke. Yeah, it’s not great.

However, this 17-year-old boy didn’t get a choice when it came to his first tattoo, and sadly it wasn’t exactly put in a place he could hide it.

After catching the young boy stealing a bike from a man with one leg, a tattooist decided to mark him for life by tattooing his forehead.

Tattoo artist, Maycon Wesley, tattooed ‘Eu sou ladrão e vacilão’ on the child which translates from Portuguese to ‘I am a thief and a loser’, reports the Mail.
As you can see from the video, which was apparently recorded on Friday, they sit the young man in a white plastic chair before tattooing the words into his forehead. The man filming laughs and says: “It’s going to hurt.”

According to the BBC, they also cut the boy’s long curly hair back so that the tattoo was even more visible.

The words aren’t exactly done well, and they’re massive.


Credit: Reddit / YoSoyUnPayaso

After the tattoo is finished, the tattooist asks the child whether or not he likes it. Ouch. Bit mean.

Speaking to Folha de S.Paulo newspaper, the teen said: “I asked them to make the tattoo on my arm but they said they would do it on my forehead and started laughing.

“I begged them to break my arms and legs instead.”

The boy denies trying to steal the bike, instead insisting that he had fallen over it while he was ‘very drunk’.

The tattooist and his friend, Ronildo Moreira de Araujo (whose voice you hear in the video), were both arrested on suspicion of torture on Saturday.

Credit: LiveLeak

The boy’s family saw the video on Friday and contacted police as he had not returned home. Luckily, he was found on Sunday.

A crowdfunding effort has been set up for him to be able to afford laser tattoo removal. This has since attracted some criticism.

HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP “Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance. Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.” Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump. Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon. “Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.” Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday. The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.” But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why? At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime. “The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained: For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code. However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct. A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.” However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him. . Obama’s Iran nuke deal Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server Obama IRS targets conservatives Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters Obamacare & Obama’s false promises Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order Benghazi-gate Operation Fast & Furious 5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl Extortion 17 ‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act Illegally conducting war against Libya NSA: Spying on Americans Muslim Brotherhood ties Miriam Carey Birth certificate Executive orders Solyndra and the lost $535 million Egypt Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’