Cops try to pull over speeding driver - she calls 9-1-1 and demands $300,000 in exchange for pulling over – http://www.wistv.com/story/20310937/sc-woman-arrested-after-chase-through-brunswick-county
Existing thread here on the woman who demanded $300,000 to stop for the police.
Thanks for bumping this. I got curious about what had happened to Robert Peterson, of the OP, so I had a look. Turns out that he was back in court in November. From the Coeur dAlene Press:
My, that seems familiar. You didn’t happen to notice auto-complete being surprisingly on the ball or anything, did you?
:smack: Sorry about that. I’ll put it down to a morning full of distractions and not enough coffee yet. I’m working on that…
in any event, thanks for the update.
I also agree that this guy is a total douche, but wonder about the need for the taser. I wouldn’t have had a single problem if the first bailiff hadn’t have tackled and cuffed him after not turning the camera off in the courtroom. They clearing of the courtroom was overkill and it inconvenienced everyone there and delayed justice.
The security let it go on too long and then overreacted with the taser. Those damn things can kill. Handcuffing does not.
“I’m not a person.” 
The problem is that tackling a guy can be more dangerous for the guard and the douche than tasering.
If you’re on drugs and have a heart condition.
What about tackling?
Yes it inconvenienced everyone there and delayed justice for the other cases, but they were attempting to control the scene peacefully. He did not comply with instructions to turn off the camera and was argumentative. What could they do? Disrupt the proceedings that were underway while trying to arrest the guy? No, they followed sensible procedure to stop proceedings and clear others from the scene before attempting arrest that might or might not (probably not in this case, but they couldn’t know that) get violent. Except he followed one of the instructions before they finally got to arrest - he took the camera out of the room. Ergo, the violation was ended, and he wasn’t in the courtroom. That left an ambiguous situation where they might could have charged him with filming in the courtroom and failure to comply and a couple other misdemeanors, but they didn’t see the point. But that put them on guard for round 2.
I kinda agree, in that they did not attempt a peaceful arrest without the taser first. I would have expected them to state clearly, “You are assaulting a police officer, I am placing you under arrest.” Or something similar. Note that in general I wouldn’t expect a cop to wait while being assaulted for a clear statement before proceeding, but in this case the “assault” consisted of trying to push past the officer to go down the hallway and enter the courtroom. He was instructed not to pass and was not complying and attempting to push past the officer. Ergo, a clear instruction would have been a prudent approach prior to whipping out the taser.
As previously discussed, physical scuffles to accomplish handcuffing can be injurious to both the cops and the accused. Resisting arrest gets people hurt, and if they fall to the floor someone can bump a head, or get landed on hard and crack ribs, or fall the wrong way and twist a knee or an ankle. Etc.
Tasering nominally is safe - it physically interferes with muscle activity but does not permanently damage the recipient. Yes, there is some non-zero risk for some people with medical conditions or who are high on certain drugs (stimulants). That is why it should be evaluated and not the default approach to arrest. But it is still far safer overall for everyone than engaging in a scuffle.
However, I should point out that if they attempted an arrest by verbal instruction, it does not seem likely this protestor would have complied. He seems the type to argue that he was not assaulting anyone, that they have no grounds, that as a sovereign citizen he declines to grant them power over his body, etc. He would likely have kept filming and not complied with instructions to place his hands on the wall, etc. At which point, they would have been left with trying to physically force his compliance - with the subsequent risks of violent resistance - or proceeding with the tasering, perhaps with another intermediary step of warning him that failure to comply would lead to said tasering.
I think that that kind of tiered approach would have been more appropriate in these circumstances, as the protestor was not using violence at any point. But I am not a law enforcement officer, and do not know their specific regulations on tasering, or apprehension guidelines. While seeming to switch from zero to 20 pretty quickly rather than a measured ramped response, overall their response level was still pretty mild, and justifiable.
I guess I’m just squirmed out by tasers. I would much rather be tackled (as opposed to shocked and then fall to the ground). It couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy, but I think in the end, he should have had one last, “You battered an officer, sir, please place your hands behind your back. You are under arrest.”
Douche: But you can’t arrest me because I am not a person! You have no right because we don’t have joinder and I’m recording you…
Cop: ZAP!
Then I would be fine. It was obvious the douche didn’t have a weapon, so he at least should have been allowed the opportunity to submit to an arrest.
Not to double post, but I had two other questions about douche’s philosophy:
-
When he asked the courthouse screener if he would accept “commercial liability” for scanning his stuff, was he asking if he would pay if the items were somehow damaged by the x-ray, or did he feel he was entitled to some form of damages just for searching his stuff?
-
What is this that he’s not a U.S. citizen because he wasn’t born in Washington, D.C. or the federal territories, but he admits that he was born in Idaho? Is it because Idaho wasn’t a state when the 14th amendment was ratified that clearly states that everyone born in the United States is a citizen of the state in which he is born and of the United States? Or is there some other craziness afoot?
-
These types seem to think that the basis for complying with these instructions is a commercial transaction rather than compliance with legitimate legal instructions. Therefore, they can assert that they will comply if they are paid some outrageous fee, or some such. Thus the “commercial liability” is an attempt at legal sounding words to get the officer to agree that by virtue of performing the scan, he is agreeing to pay the “search me” fee. It’s trying to find the magic words that establish a contract, by whatever corruption of legal understanding they are operating under.
-
Some of the other links explain all this. Actually, the best is that Mead vs Mead case from Canada. It really is a fairly exhaustive look at the movement, the ideas, the attempts and methods regarding any legal proceeding, just happens to have started from a divorce case.
The notion is that one can be a natural citizen of a state without being a citizen of the United States. Because the Constitution when defining a citizen has some subclause that says that “the word CITIZEN includes people from DC and federal territories” (or some such wording) that thereby it does not include people born in actual states.
At least that is one of the variations on the “sovereign citizen” premise.
To think that the woman married this fellow. Yikes!
In fairness, Mr. Meads (or is that “Dennis-Larry: Meads,” or “Dennis-Larry of the family Meads”?) may have been a normal citizen at the time he married Ms. Meads. He may have subsequently fallen under the sway of one or more OPCA gurus.
That was a surprising belly-laugh! Thanks!
"Excuse me, most rational young man, would you allow me to handcuff you?
Ah, that brilliant! By which I mean dumb. So they feel that since the law has the word “includes” in it that the word means “includes ONLY the following to the EXCLUSION of all others.” If the law were to be read that way, it would be in violation of the 14th amendment, not to mention incredibly stupid:
[QUOTE=14th amendment]
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
[/QUOTE]
But as I post it, I see the next argument: They are not “subject to the jurisdiction” because they haven’t consented. (And they aren’t persons!) :rolleyes:
What is the ultimate goal of these people? Does this guy think that he can take his bicycle riding citation all the way to the Supreme Court who will say that he really isn’t a person? Or does it massage his ego to think that he’s the only smart person in that building and that the rest of the people, employees, prosecutors, judges and bailiffs are all sheep being led to the slaughter, but HE alone knows the truth???!???
We’ve debated on this board, but at some point you have two choices: 1) You submit to the ultimate authority or 2) You advocate open revolution.
I vehemently disagree with Roe v. Wade, but since the Supreme Court has ruled, it IS a woman’s constitutional right to have an abortion. Others disagree that keeping firearms is a personal right under the 2nd amendment, but after Heller, it IS a personal right.
Not acknowledging such is tantamount to denying the legitimacy of the US government, which I would think no sane person would do because: 1) It ain’t all that bad, and it is arguably the best in the world, and 2) Because of 1, I don’t want to risk my life and freedom for the uncertainty that the alternative is likely worse.
Oh yeah, I’ve met a couple of these ‘sovereign citizen’ types who claimed that their name in all capital letter on ID cards and legal documents was a strawman and not the real individual, the gold fringe on a courtroom American Flag indicate admiralty law outside of the Constitution, and federal taxes are unconstitutional because the 16th amendment wasn’t ratified properly (Straight Dope column here), among other oddities, etc. They are also conspiracy theorists, of course. One of them mailed personal letters in business envelops with all lower case writing, state spelled out (no 2 letter abbreviation), square brackets around name or zip code, and a 1 cent stamp (the original 1700s era price of sending one letter perhaps). Surprisingly, many of those letters reached their destination and some were returned. I guess the US Postal Service is somewhat sloppy about checking stamps.
A friend of a friend got a third strike and life in prison, and seriously believed he could declare himself a sovereign citizen and go free. He thought it was done by a complicated legal procedure, not just saying it, and he was researching how to do it.
When it’s some asshole trying to get out of a speeding ticket, it makes me laugh, but when it’s someone clinging to hope like that, it just makes me sad (his crimes weren’t violent and didn’t warrant life in prison IMO).
Here’s one especially demented website that sparked a discussion of “sovereign citizens” on another forum. And interestingly (and amusingly) given how as people have been pointing out these “sovereign citizens” have a “magic word” approach to the law, I ran across this blog by one of them that accuses the government of doing just that. It also mentions the “berth certificate” concept, that claims that a birth certificate is in fact a “berth certificate”; part of their maritime law obsession.