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

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.

It's not a federal court, if that matters (it doesn't).

ps I should note that courthouse marshalls are lazy as fuck and generally just walk the hallways and check IDs at the door. I dont think I'd trust them with a taser.

pps I still enjoyed watching this asshole get tased

ps I should note that courthouse marshalls are lazy as fuck and generally just walk the hallways and check IDs at the door. I dont think I'd trust them with a taser.

This is my standard line of thinking about cops in general. Not that I don't think that this guy deserved a zap, but I don't agree with this officer's use of the taser.

so we're down to the officer feeling "threatened," then. honestly, waterface, i don't have it in me right now to recapitulate why that line of argument strikes me as unconvincing; see my comment above about the past year and a half's public conversation about police violence. i'm sure at some juncture in my life i'd be with you, rooting for the officer using excessive force against the dumbass - not out of a love of force but out of a contempt for dumbasses - but i'm not at that point now and it just strikes me as sad and awful and demoralizing. sorry if i've derailed an otherwise satisfying thread, y'all.

This is my standard line of thinking about cops in general. Not that I don't think that this guy deserved a zap, but I don't agree with this officer's use of the taser.

― how's life, Tuesday, January 26, 2016 11:52 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

my impression of marshalls is they all used to be cops who gave a fuck, now theyre 50+ and could care less about anything else other than drinking coffee and bullshitting with their homies at the metal detectors

no one thinks tasing should be the first action when it comes to physically detaining someone

everyone thinks the sovereign dude needed to get physically detained

Taser was a bit much, especially since this guy had likely passed through a metal detector to even get that far.

But still, this is your white privilege caught on tape. "I have the right to barge into this courtroom, R. BEENE OR WHATEVER YOUR NAME IS." It's why "you tased me bro" was funny that one time. Other men - or children - are getting shot dead in the streets, and i'm going to lose a wink of sleep over this history fetishist getting his ass zapped for two seconds?

I am an American Common Law Superior

I assassin down the avenue....

the worst part of tasers is that they take something that is funny -- ppl getting mildly zapped with electricity and reacting -- and turn it into a bad weapon

zapped myself trying to wire a light fixture a couple months ago and it was hilarious

My college roommate still jokes on FB about the time I electrocuted myself in the basement. It's always funnier to the folks not getting zapped, I'll give you that.

There's a sticker on that car, in the video, that says "shortest traffic stop ever!", and one of the related videos is "NOT the shortest traffic stop ever", which is what it seems like, he's outraged that this bullshit isn't an immediately-effective get away free card for driving around with no plates and no insurance.

His girlfriend is in the car with him, and is placatory all the way, while he's bitching about the fact that the constitution GUARANTEES his free movement once he's made clear that he's a driver not a motorist or whatever bullshit magical distinction. And the cop calls in his sergeant, and they sit and chat between themselves for a while then let him go, which he is still seething about.

And it's not hard to find his blog post about it, where he says that he was very careful to refuse the requests to leave his property (I. E. his car), and describes one of the outcomes avoided as kidnapping (I. E. arrest), and you wonder whether the cops were actually discussing whether he might be more trouble than he's worth, and whether they're aware that a few sovereign citizens in similar situations have just taken it upon themselves to start shooting up the police.

I think that's kind of my takeaway from this thread, that a difference between (at least one branch of) crazy white dudes (and they're almost all white dudes in the way that movements in the key of Lets Take It Right Back tend to be) and crazy non-white dudes is that the non-white dudes will generally have some idea of what threat escalation is, how it works.

I'm being way too jocular here, these kind of people drive like this, but that last sentence is the IRL version of the Eddie Murphy joke about Poltergeist/Amityville movies. White people want to stay and fight the ghosts (heh). Black people, "I love this neighborhood, schools are great, big yard for the kids–" ***GET OUT*** "–too bad we have to leave!"

welp

http://katu.com/news/local/leader-of-oregon-occupation-ammon-bundy-three-others-arrested

(not sure if this was discussed more on another thread, figured the bulk of the discussion had been here)

yep, thanks

One person, who was the subject of a federal probable cause arrest died. It's unclear who fired first.

if a weapon was brandished, the officers may well have fired first. they are touchy about things like that.

http://katu.com/news/local/leader-of-oregon-occupation-ammon-bundy-three-others-arrested

HARNEY COUNTY, Ore. — One person is dead and seven others, including Oregon occupation leader Ammon Bundy, were detained following a violent confrontation with the FBI and state police Tuesday night.

It all began with a traffic stop while Bundy and some of his followers were en route to a community meeting at a John Day senior center, about 70 miles north of Burns.

Shots were fired after FBI agents, Oregon State troopers and other law enforcement agencies made the stop on US Highway 395.

Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Brian Cavalier, Shawna Cox and Ryan W. Payne were arrested during the stop. Joseph Donald O'Shaughnessy and online talk-show radio host Peter Santilli were arrested in Burns.

All of them are facing federal felony charges of conspiracy to impede officers of the United States from discharging their official duties, through the use of force, intimidation or threats.

LaVoy Finicum, an outspoken member of the armed group who would often speak at news conferences in place of Bundy, was shot and killed during the confrontation. Ryan Bundy suffered a non-life threatening injury in the shooting.

CNN is reporting it's unclear who fired first.

Federal law enforcement officers converged on the wildlife refuge after the arrests and were expected to remain at the site throughout the night. It was unclear how many members of the armed group, if any, were at the refuge when the law enforcement officers arrived.

The arrests come on the heels of the 24th day of the refuge occupation.

Bundy and about three dozen other individuals occupied the wildlife refuge earlier this month after two local ranchers, the Hammonds, were sent to prison for setting fires on federal land.

The Hammonds served no more than a year until an appeals court judge ruled that the terms fell short of minimum sentences requiring them to serve about four more years.

Ammon Bundy, the self-proclaimed leader of Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, occupied the refuge to protest federal land restrictions. He had said he prayed about the matter and "clearly understood that the Lord was not pleased with what was happening to the Hammonds."

throw these bastards in gitmo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyAVjIndWOE

As for the courtroom guy with the "not for hire" "conveyance," didn't that look like a decommissioned police car? It had the pointable spotlight in front of the driver and generally looked police-issue. I think a lot of these guys would be cops if they could, despite their anti-authoritarian stance.

It's got cop tires, cop suspension, cop shocks.

look, don't get me wrong about the courthouse guy, i don't justify the taser thing, but it reminds me of another motto that i live by which is: avoid all pain that is 100% avoidable. if you fuck with a bear in its den bad things can happen. which is why you should stay away from all police stations, courthouses, drug houses, and militia compounds unless you have a really good reason for being in one. and if you want to change your stupid country or whatever do it from home with a fiery letter-writing campaign.

yup.

i'm sure at some juncture in my life i'd be with you, rooting for the officer using excessive force against the dumbass -

i haven't rooted for anyone here. just saying, i'm not surprised at the outcome.

Roughly speaking, how many people here do you reckon are surprised at the outcome?

Over the courtroom guy or the Oregon militia dudes?

I'm never pleased when someone gets killed, especially by federal agents or state officers, but hearing that the lone fatality last night was the guy who sat underneath a blue tarp with a rifle and addressed reporters, well. My heart's in a different place this morning than it was after the Tamir Rice verdict.

Roughly speaking, how many people here do you reckon are surprised at the outcome?

Wuz Talking to Dr C., who seems to think I was rooting for excessive force

I'm never pleased when someone gets killed, especially by federal agents or state officers, but hearing that the lone fatality last night was the guy who sat underneath a blue tarp with a rifle and addressed reporters, well. My heart's in a different place this morning than it was after the Tamir Rice verdict.

Yup.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/27/lavoy-finicum-ore-occupier-who-said-hed-rather-die-than-go-to-jail-did-just-that/

With his shaved head and soft voice, Robert “LaVoy” Finicum resembled a monk — albeit a monk wearing a Stetson and packing a Colt .45 pistol on his hip.

And like a monk, Finicum waxed poetic when asked earlier this month if he was prepared to die rather than go to jail for illegally occupying a federal wildlife refuge in rural Oregon.

“Absolutely,” he told NBC’s Tony Dokoupil on Jan. 5. “I have been raised in the country all my life. I love dearly to feel the wind on my face, to see the sun rise, to see the moon in the night. I have no intention of spending any of my days in a concrete box.”

Given the number of bullshit police shootings that happen on a regular basis, it's been an embarrassment that these jackasses have been able to occupy a federal anything with brandished weapons, making threats and otherwise just being assholes. I don't know why this took so long, ending as it did or not.

With his shaved head and cowboy hat, Robert “LaVoy” Finicum resembled Max Hardcore.

so the problem isn't that the police didn't kill anyone, it's that they didn't kill anyone quickly enough