That’ll land you in a world of hurt. The proper incantation is “Eenie Meenie, Chili Beanie.”
I’m a bit surprised that the police officers try to argue with these people that they are incorrect about the law. They should know that they are almost universally unreachable. I would think that the best way to handle it would be to simply say that this whether or not they are correct this is what is going to happen, and that if the citizen feels that the officer has behaved illegally they will have their opportunity to file a complaint or explain it to the judge. If you are right then I will suffer the consequences but for right now this is what is going to happen.
It would seem that this is enough of a problem that someone would have worked out the optimal way to handle these bozos, and giving each officer a short training in that technique would be time well spent.
You forget these clowns are not looking to litigate anything there. They are looking for a confrontation. And again, they may seem amusing, but they are dangerous.
Officer - “You where traveling?”
SovCit - “Yes”
O - “Where you in the back seat?”
SC - “No I was in the front”
O - “What seat where you in in the front?”
SC - “The drivers seat… Oooopps”
In that video, I’m surprised that the officer put up with that other asshole that was interrupting the officers duties and trying to obstruct the law. Shut up, or hand cuffs.
I assume he was just keeping the situation calm until backup arrived. He didn’t seem like the, " We ain’t got time for backup ", type
I’m really hoping we’re only seeing the crazy videos.
I’d like to think most police officers wouldn’t spend time confronting them. And just say “Okay, well you were ‘traveling’ ten miles over the speed limit. Here’s your ticket, and the info’s at the bottom if you want to take it to court. Have a nice day, ma’m.”
Don’t know my own strength.
So, really, when a SovCit brings this crap up, what’s the easiest way to tell them they CAN’T be a sovereign citizen? I thought it was because the Federalist papers (or something) were abolished two centuries ago.
… And, you think they’ll listen?
I’ve seen way too many of those videos and not once did any of them say “Well, that’s a good point, everything I’ve been fervently believing in might be wrong… thanks!”
“That’s what they want you to think, sheeple!”
The point I was making is that it is useless to engage them, so its better to cut to the chase to make it clear that whether or not they are correct in their beliefs they are going to have to comply.
Also they do seem to think that at a higher level they will be proved right. In both of the last two videos pointed the SC’s asked to speak to the officers supervisor, who they apparently thought would explain the officer that they were right, and that the officer in question would be fired for not granting their SC rights.
I was thinking that a tactic of stating clearly that the officer is a closed minded sheep about this so there is no point in trying to convince him, but allow them to placate themselves with the idea that if they cooperate now they will emerge victorious in the end, and you will be the one to suffer the consequences.
Entirely useless to engage. There is a lot of crossover with, and they have the same behavioral patterns as, a lot of Q people and magical healing people. If the whole of their personhood wasn’t committed to being right about this particular thing, they wouldn’t be yelling at you in a made up language.
But a lot of people (and more than the average when it comes to lawyers, judges and cops) have a lot invested in being right themselves. So they try to own them with facts and logic. But it’s like arguing with a pizzagate guy about what actually happened at some point in 2012. They’re ready to go further than you are.
I worked in a courthouse where we would get somebody tinged with sovereign citizen thinking once a month, and a full-blown scorched earth one maybe once every six months. Judges have procedure so drilled into their heads that it’s really almost impossible for them to just say “ok, the hell with it, this isn’t going anywhere.” If they’re going to make you drag them out kicking and screaming, they’re gonna make you do it, so you might as well do it, was always my opinion.
There should be hazard bonus pay for officers who have to deal with “Free Inhabitants”.
They want to be outside the law? So be it.
No bag limits and a year-round season.
Well, it’s good to know you still have the same brother-in-law you had back in August!
It’s OK, I’m laughing with you not at you. The number of times I come across old threads now where I am surprised to find I’d already posted is large and increasing.
Which so far is fun, because so far I’ve thought “Now THAT’S a good point.” Or chuckled, and then noticed it was me from a decade ago.
As soon as I start thinking “God, what an asshole!”, then I’ll worry.
Oh, man! I’m one of those old people who repeats his stories. I’ve turned into my grandfather!
Ditto. Sometimes I’m ready to post the exact same thing I did in the past, but usually I see my own post and refrain.
…but you’ve gotta be impressed by your consistency. Apart from extremely minor grammatical and punctuation changes, the quoted parts of your two posts are very close to being word-for-word. The only substantive change appears to be that your BIL is mellowing - he originally called them “assholes” but now they are only “guys”.
He used to be a sailor and swears a lot. It’s hard to keep track.
What the Hell, er, what do you mean by sailors swear a lot?