"I'm a sovereign human being, I stand under common law only" - Thread of Freemen

That was perfect ty

At the point when a cop or enforcement officer raises his taser and takes aim at you – and you don't have a taser of your own – that's when you need to beat a hasty retreat.

― pplains, Tuesday, January 26, 2016 1:21 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ehhhh i dunnnnnno. i mean obviously this is a really different context but maybe i am really sensitive to this on account of the last year and a half's public conversation about law enforcement and the use of force and so on. i mean right up until then i was really feeling the guy blocking the door, and his cool-as-fuck answers to this loon's dumbass lines. just would have really liked a "sir, i am giving you fair warning that if you make another attempt to enter this courtroom i will use this taser." it sorta looked as if only a couple seconds passed between him taking out the taser and using it, like it's totally possible someone (especially an amped-up loon clearly spieling out some scenario in his head and maybe not that plugged into reality around him) would not recognize what it was or realize it was RIGHT about to be used.

That's all fair, seriously, but he will def recognise the next one so yknow growth through experience

i think that, given the fact that it's a court setting where it's not unlikely that someone could come in looking for revenge against a lawyer / judge / plaintiff, those guys take more or less zero shit and that's honestly one of the few settings where is seems appropriate.

it prob was not the first time they had encountered that loon tho

I don't completely disagree with you DC, but take my post from the POV of just plain common sense - based upon anyone aiming a taser at you.

But that said, I do not feel in the slightest that the bailiff needed to announce some sort of Robocop warning to the man trying to forcibly gain access into a federal courtroom.

Doc Casino is otm obviously but it's important to remember that to yr Freeman the Tasing is like a kiss, it's his consummation, his raison d'etre

he also says to the guard that your laws don't apply to me

the taser applies to him

The laws of physics, though...

(xp)

the whole sub-genre of *watch me make a fool of/school this cop* youtube videos is going to have some heeeeelarious results at times. i'm not a big cop fan but i did LOL at this video in the same way i would LOL at *little kid gets knocked over by cat* on youtube.

Dunno how he squares "I am an unperson and your country's laws don't apply to me" with his rights to freedom of speech and movement.

iirc he would regard those as being natural rights of some kind as opposed to the made up maritime dc conspiracy

sooooo, he can walk anywhere does that mean i can walk into his house?

and then tase him in his house?

you know what my motto is? stay away from fucking courthouses!

― scott seward, Tuesday, January 26, 2016 9:15 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

a fucking men

(that was meant to be read as AMEN with the word "fucking" in between A and Men)

good work everybody itt

i DO get a kick out of the whole *I can do whatever I want I'm not a citizen!* thing. i gotta try that.

I think it's some narrow, psycho reading of the Constitution and how it treats the several states, (i.e. believing we're in some kind of Articles of Confederation deal where states are forming a union, not a single country with administrative subdivisions) crossed with some paranoid-critical interpretation of the admittedly vague provisos about citizenship. So he believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but insists that you can't be a citizen of the United States, unless born in federal territory.

As for the taser and the warning... I hear what y'all are all saying. Just seems like so many of the same justifications rhyme with ones we might hear in a different setting. Like, idk, if some over-enthusiastic college kid at a protest got up in some cop's face ranting their own equally confused and cobbled-together understanding of the law and their rights, and the cop just shot or tased them without warning, would we be cool with that? Or is it specifically that this specific guy is one who all of us here would find completely insufferable? Not sure I totally agree that trying to enter a courtroom by force is different enough to require a different standard, especially since he was being barred from entry because of the camera, not because of any suspicion that he'd engage in violence once inside or something.

i'd argue that he was being barred following an attempt to forcibly enter a court.
it's certainly no explicit guarantee of safety if you DON'T do it but the fastest way to get in a terrible position is to lay hands on anybody working in a federal building that is open to the public. those guys are under high stress with long periods of boredom, wearing uncomfortable clothes and they're armed.

but yeah i hear you

"Or is it specifically that this specific guy is one who all of us here would find completely insufferable?"

this is kinda it for me...

I'm totally with you on this, Dr Casino. Much as I felt schadenfreude w/ a guilty lol, I'm kind of disturbed by how easily everyone finds justifying this.

Er, either "how easy" there, or "how easily everyone is justifying it".

Yeah. Let's not forget that tasers can kill people.

Yeah I'm partly "lol @ this clown" but at the same time I know there are people justifying all sorts of abuses of power by tired or pressurised or provoked law enforcers.

Doesn't precisely fit this thread, but did you guys see how rapper B.O.B. came out as a flat earther holocaust denier this weekend?

Noooo, any links?

but its not like he was a peaceful protester on the street. he was hostile and trying to get into the prosecutor's office in a courthouse after being told numerous times to fuck off and giving insane answers to questions.

Yeah, I'm sorry that I still don't think potentially lethal violence against his person is the answer there.

Like, idk, if some over-enthusiastic college kid at a protest got up in some cop's face ranting their own equally confused and cobbled-together understanding of the law and their rights, and the cop just shot or tased them without warning, would we be cool with that?

Step 1: Don't get in a cop's face

also like i said, i seriously doubt that was the first time that asshat was in that courthouse causing trouble

I am an American Common Law Superior Court Judge in Alaska where operation of the Seventh Amendment Courts started up again in conjunction with the Common Law Grand Juries more than a year ago and I also serve as a Federal Postal District Court Judge for the Western Region. As you can clearly see by reading the Seventh Amendment all matters pertaining to living people and their property must be addressed to Common Law Courts.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a41543/is-oregon-standoff-over

I'm generally averse to state displays of violence/power but idk yeah maybe in this case it's just that I'm unsympathetic to this jackass, he was def breaking the law (for reasons I don't agree with), deliberately provoked the response etc.

re: BOB, check his twitter.
he is also against the cloning facilities run by the government.

http://nypost.com/2015/08/21/guard-shot-outside-federal-immigration-court-in-soho/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Las_Vegas_courthouse_shooting
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2015/10/09/man-charged-shooting-near-federal-courthouse-downtown-indianapolis/73668476/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack

Just throw him down and cuff him. Tasing sucks.

^^^just a cursory two minute run around the internet regarding wackjobs and guns (and airplanes) attacking federal buildings

agreed tasing sucks, doesn't mean you get to act like that toward federal employees

FBI considers these people domestic terrorists

https://leb.fbi.gov/2011/september/sovereign-citizens-a-growing-domestic-threat-to-law-enforcement

yeah i'm feeling this less and less tbh, esp. waterface's line of argument. i'm with emil.y. getting in a cop's face, or being an annoying jackass possibly more than once in your life, does not equal a justification to use potentially lethal violence.

and in this case specifically, again, it's not clear that he "deliberately provoked" being tased. that would possibly be the case if he had in fact been warned about it. that's the whole thing. there's what, a half-second, one second between the officer raising the taser and saying "step back" and then using the taser. during that time, our protagonist just gets a few more syllables through his rant, standing still. if he's even noticed the taser at that point, there's no indication of it, but it's absolutely not enough time for anyone to 'step back.' or if his rant had turned to "i will now step back now as you request, but note for the record..." there would not be time for the officer to process that. i'm not convinced, by the way, that "step back" is a terribly clear way of communicating the concept "if you do not step back i will use this taser on you," versus all the other things the officer has previously said which also constituted asking the guy to go away but did not have the threat of violence attached to them. or that holding up a random technological object constitutes communicating that it is in fact a weapon, and not some weird in-house brand of walkie-talkie, say.

so once the officer reachers for the taser, this guy is going to get tased. that's part of the same fucked up police culture/mentality that leads to people getting shot by police when reaching for their wallets and everything else. that's not to elide the role of racism in the cases we're usually discussing in reference to these themes - - -- just saying that the whole ready-to-react-with-a-weapon-that-could-kill-or-maim-someone mentality needs to be critiqued, not cheered on because the victim of the weapon happens to be an unbearable jackass.

http://www.ncsc.org/sitecore/content/microsites/future-trends-2012/home/better-courts/1-1-courthouse-security-incidents.aspx

A breakdown of the CJES research data show that 199 incidents (shootings, bombings, and arson attacks) have occurred in state courts from 1970 through 2009: 20 during 1970-79; 37 during 1980-89; 64 during 1990-99; and 78 during 2000-09. In addition, CJES has documented 11 state courthouse incidents for 2010 and 13 for 2011. Clearly, incidents involving shootings, bombings, and arson are on the rise.

Additionally, CJES began in 2009 to track and record violent incidents in courthouses other than shootings, bombings, and arson attacks. These include knifings and other assaults, bomb plots, and incidents of violence that stop just short of a shooting, bombing, or arson incident. With its 2012 publication “Disorder in the Court—Incidents of Courthouse Violence,” CJES has documented 209 such “other” incidents involving state courts from 2005-11: 10 in 2005; 10 in 2006; 16 in 2007; 24 in 2008; 32 in 2009; 50 in 2010; and 67 in 2011. Again, these types of violent incidents are on the rise.

I'll just leave this here.

okay... ?

really not sure what that's supposed to add here. is the idea that if incidents of attacks are on the rise, law enforcement firing off their weapons effectively without warning at unarmed people standing still and ranting at them is okay? does that rule apply specifically to law enforcement working at courthouses, or would it obtain for other officers of the law so long as they were in places that have, statistically, seen increased incidents of attacks of some kind? there have been a lot of arsons in detroit, so i guess it'd be okay if the cops there shot on sight anybody walking up to them and yelling "the end is nigh! repent! i am the son of the serpent! don't drink flouridated water! i do not have a last name!"

also, if i understand the intended implications correctly: if incidents of people conducting attacks at courthouses were declining, then the officer's actions would suddenly be a problem?

i mean this is not somebody kicking and shoving the officers and waving around a bomb, where there's clearly an imminent danger to life and limb. this is some loon ranting about their crackpot constitution theory. every bookstore in the city probably sees five of these every month, none of whom kill anybody or blow up anything no matter how much they may annoy the employees. so i think the officer could afford the risk of giving them an actual real warning before you electrocute them. ceding everything on the vague possibility that the guy could have hypothetically posed a much more serious threat than he apparently did is police-state thinking imho, and certainly contains the seeds for justifications of all police violence.

the dude asked the guy to take the camera off a number of times.
the man would have been allowed to go in without the camera.

i think the tazing is an overreach, but not surprising.
pretty obvious to me the courthouse guy felt threatened, so he acted accordingly.

this is a surprise, why?

just because you're inured to injustice doesn't make it more just

never said it was just

just saying, think about the atmosphere, think how federal employees feel.

should the dude have waited another 5-10 seconds before shooting? probably.