I only made it to 40 seconds.
I’ve stop watching them for the most part because they are always the same. The one’s I will watch are the ones with great commentary. But the SovCit script doesn’t change and the one thing I really want to see is them get challenged to back up their statements.
Right to Travel: Almost everyone gets this wrong. I’ve seen exactly one cop explain it correctly to a driver. It’s about crossing state lines and nothing to do with driving/traveling/vehicles v cars or land vessels.
6th Amendment says there are two jurisdictions: common law and admiralty law. Well here’s a copy of the Constitution, read the 6th Amendment out loud to me.
You can only have your lights on for an emergency OR A crime requires a victim (the state can’t be a victim therefore no crime). Show me where exactly where it says that.
It’s not law, it’s code. Explain to me like I’m a 5 year old what the difference is.
&c.
I’m not a fan of heavy-handed policing in general, and especially not now in 2025.
The comments on the most recent cited vid had a lot of complaining that the female cop did not just take charge & stomp that guy. My view (as far as I got, which is not far) was that nothing dangerous was happening, she still wasn’t real sure why she was even there, or who the cast of characters were, and so far he’d done nothing actionable except mouth off to the cop that he didn’t need to talk to her. Which is legally pretty much true, if impolitely delivered.
But I gotta say in other more obvious cases it’d save a lot of BS and police time if the moment a self-identified SovCit starts in with the “I don’t need a license, I don’t have to submit to your authority, etc.”, the cop just said “We’re done talking; quite wasting my time.”, pulled out a taser, & zapped the guy / gal. Then cuff & load their still-quivering ass into the back of the cop car for the inevitable ride downtown.
These encounters can’t be allowed to become wins for the SovCits, so it’s always going to result in an arrest. Get that dangerous part over earl. Let the judge sort 'em out at relative liesure.
Tasers aren’t exactly Star Trek phasers set on stun that magically leave people incapacitated with no lingering ill effects. Using one is considered assault, justifiable only when a lawful arrest is being made and no lesser force will do. “Screw this shit” isn’t a justifiable use of that degree of force. If patience will render a police encounter non-violent while upholding the law, it’s incumbent upon the police to be patient.
You are of course right. That’s how things should work. Inadequate police patience often leads to unneeded violence.
The real challenge with the sovcit, unless the cop intends to simply let them go with no citation or consequences, is that the conversation is not going to lead to any other conclusion.
MAGA obviously. The SovCit will claim that it doesn’t matter if America lets them do something because they have an exemption of some kind.
I can understand why people find watching this sort of stuff annoying, but highlighting these idiots is kinda the purpose of this thread. I despise these fucking morons as much as anyone, but I find myself more amused than angered by this sort of idiocy; the stupidity is at the level of the Three Stooges or anything that Trump says. My reaction is somewhat like that of the officer at the left of the still intro, who is trying to be professional but seems almost ready to burst into laughter at this fucking moron.
To each their own, of course, but my amusement arises from the old adage that “fact is stranger than fiction”. If someone had written a movie script with that Crazy Uncle scene, they would probably have been made to rewrite it because it just wasn’t believable. But there it is. Real life.
And it’s not always mental illness per se. A lot of it is cultural conditioning.
It’s explained in the SovCit Dictionary. It only costs 20 Gold Bullions.
I watched it for a few minutes, than started skipping ahead to see what would happen. At one point the lunatic started screaming that “he was on his own property” and was free to do and say whatever he wanted, including going back into the house. Except that his niece had said that he had been freeloading for two years, and she wanted him removed because she was scared of him. Sounds like grounds for arrest to me.
Yep. Pretty brash for someone who can’t afford his own house.
The most inexplicably strange part of the SovCit movement isn’t necessarily the belief that our current system of government and law is ultimately based on unconstitutional and extralegal violations of common-law rights. It’s the belief that somehow the authorities will have no choice but to bow to these rights if their unlawful authority is challenged. I mean good grief look at how much respect African-Americans received for their constitutional rights in the pre-Civil Rights era. If the SovCits were technically in the right it would only demonstrate that an illegal regime that deserved to be overthrown by armed rebellion was currently firmly in control of the country.
Squatters rights and tenants rights are a thing. Legally it’s probably not as simple as “she can pitch him out any time for any reason no-notice.”
Of course him getting violent, her getting a restraining order, etc., would override those property rights.
My understanding is that it depends on the state. Some have strong protections for tenants while others favor landlords.
Agreed. It’s definitely a matter of state law. AFAIK no place is 100% landlord, 0% tenant.
Any result with these encounters, is a win for the sovcit. Don’t you know that’s exactly why they actively seek out an encounter, why they pull over to the side of the road even though they say they’re not subject to the cop’s jurisdiction? It’s also why so many of these videos with the great commentary added were origially posted by the sovcits themselves.
As I said, any result with these encounters is a win for these “surplus people” (as they’d be called in Korea)/living brain donors. They love it when the police are forced to use violence against them. It shows how heavy-handed the cops are. It’s also why the surplus pe…er, sovcits continue to run their mouths through the entire encounter, instead of just sitting there waiting for backup cops or on the way to the jail. They need to have a narration from start to end for their video online.
The vast majority of them know exactly what’s going to happen and are good with that. They’ve begun their path down this rabbit warren because their license is suspended for various reasons, none of which will allow re-issue with a simple payment. The ones who are dangerous are the ones who jumped into this nonsense not as a beginning point, but as part and parce of their anti-government belief system.
And those last ones are the ones who kill people. They know they’re going to be in some kind of encounter with the police and are good with that because they’re hoping to kill police officers. If the killers die, then they’re martyrs for the others in ethis category. If they don’t, then they’re martyrs suffering through unfair treatment.
This is why I believe any sovcit encounter should be treated as (I don’t recall the proper term) a full felony stop. The ones who are full-on into it (the real antigovernmet philosphers) will certainly need to be treated with such tactics. The others will soon get the idea that the viewer/like/subscriber count on YouTube or whatever site is not worth it.
Or probably they won’t.
You’re certainly right it’s a form of arguing with the pig. Which amounts to a no-win situation for the cops.
With the current criminal regime in power now is not the era to argue for using the police & courts to deal aggressively with this threat.
But it will need suppression before we get back to being a sane ordinary country. I won’t live to see that, but your grandkids might.
Exactly! How many times when people do use the magic words of, “I do not consent to a search.” and “You cannot be in my house without a warrant. Leave.” and the cops do the search or stick their foot in the door then arrest you for assault on an officer when you try to shut the door.
Tenant rights I get. Squatter right should not be a thing but judges don’t care because the squatter is not stealing their house.
I disagree. Let these SovCits sign the paperwork declaring they are not a citizen and have ICE meet them in the hallway.
Only, where would they be deported to?
Squatter’s rights gets into the old, old territory of property (land) rights going back to English common law. If I’m not mistaken, the original principle was that the state had an interest in seeing land put to use; they would therefore look more favorably on a squatter who nonetheless tended the property than an owner who had abandoned the land. There was also the principle of prompt legal action: after so-many years a sort of statute of limitations would kick in and it could be presumed that the landowner had tacitly given their permission for the occupants to remain there.
North Korea
South Sudan
Ukraine
Watching those bodycam videos, I’ve noticed plenty of them delivering a quick Am I Being Detained, and getting helpfully told Yes — and then just repeating the Am I Being Detained.
I believe they’ve heard that (when you’re not actually being detained but may well think you are), you can simply ask the police if you’re being detained — and (if told ‘no’), you’re then well within your rights to leave. And I believe they never really, uh, got the parenthetical parts to what I was just saying: they were told it’s a phrase you intone right before the cops will let you walk away scot-free, and, gosh, if this rookie cop doesn’t realize it, well, Let Me Talk To Your Supervisor I Want To Talk To A Supervisor…