Wild chase ends in violent crash in Tempe.Suspect says he has right to kill cops.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

Now I am all for sovereignty and free travel unmolested. But the second you get a drivers license and get behind the wheel you basically give up your 4th amendment right. If you want free travel you gotta walk these days as much as that sucks and even then LEO's can make up whatever they want to search you.

What do you guys think? On a Jury of 12 he might get one.

Anyone can to anything they are physically able to do. That's a person's natural right.

Each citizen decides on what rights he or she is willing to give up, and which rights and when is all dependent on context.

We might "imagine" that other people have to do this, or have to do that, because of our own "perspective" on how society works. But, who teaches us this perspective? Do we learn it in high school? Are there any classes on it? Does any high school have a course on "How to be a good citizen?".

So, what it comes down to, is each person's personal experience growing up.

Now the vast majority of citizens, encountering the LEO on the highway for the first time, flashing their lights, would just pull over, mostly curious about what the cop wants.

But, if a person has encountered these LEOs several times before, that person's attitude is likely to change. He is likely to feel "picked on", even if it's just "coincidental" that so many LEOs have selected him to pull over. The mind of the citizen is then likely to start dwelling on his "natural rights", and he'll do a lot of thinking on the subject. He may even research the topic in the library or internet, and start to form conclusions that is consistent with his desire to "fight back", since he doesn't see this LEO contact happening to the other citizens round about him, everyone else seems to have freedom to travel.

So, these things don't happen because some random LEO pulls over some random citizen. They only happen when a "pattern" has been established, that leads the citizen to feel unfairly treated.

So, while we "observers" can all sit in our high chairs, and judge the guy for his seemingly "crazy" actions, all it means is that we have never experienced the feeling of being "picked on" ourselves, or "targeted" by Law enforcement. So, we have no emotional understanding, just intellectual views.

Yet, it's our emotions that determine what our intellect will think about.

The guy exercised his "natural rights", and the LEO's got an education.

The guy obviously "doesn't care", because he is "beyond caring". He was frustrated beyond his breaking point.

From time to time, some people will be picked on, and they will react in similar ways.

That's the natural law.

We will see this more and more in the future, because we're keeping "records" in computer "databases", and the LEOs have access to those records from the computers in their cars, and can easily "look up" a driver's license plate to find out if he has any "prior records", then being "human", those "LEOs" will naturally "pick on" the very citizens who have "already had contact" with Law enforcement, just to see if the citizen is doing anything wrong. The cops get merit for finding and arresting wrong doers, and so they have an incentive to "pick on" people who have previously been accused or actually done things wrong, since that is the "low hanging fruit".

So, now we can understand why the events followed the path they did, and we can either change the system, or continue to marvel at how this type of thing continues to occur in our modern times, with all our ability to analyse and study patterns of human behavior.

Well Said.

A lot of these people commenting here seem to instantly associate sovergn citizens with crazy people.

I wonder if they think all conspiracy theorists wear tin foil hats?

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: PraetorianAZ

Pull over when the cops flip on their lights.
Why is that concept so hard for some to grasp?

Some people like myself like our freedom and our privacy. And we feel it is our right to travel down the road unmolested by LEO's or anybody. Some people are willing to go through great lengths to protect their sovereignty.

You don't actually have the right to drive, but you do have the privilege. When you apply for a drivers licence, you agree to certain terms governed by each state.

And I acknoledged that in the OP. But its obvious this guy doesn't care about the government or the state.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: PraetorianAZ

His argument considers zero consideration.

Driving is a privilege, not a right, and when you accept the burden of driving a vehicle, you also accept the laws that govern the use of that vehicle, which include the authority of law enforcement to conduct traffic stops, laws against speeding, laws against using your vehicle as a battering ram and damaging other people's property, laws against driving recklessly to the point of ending the chase like what happened here, and laws against fleeing police (both in a vehicle and on-foot).

Now, I'm not saying that the LEOs should have necessarily continued this chase in the manner that they did on populated roads, but no, this guy deserves zero consideration for his argument, as the laws are plane as day. If he wants to play roulette with his and other people's lives, that's his dicked up decision, but this guy will deserve every single minute of prison that he receives from this incident.

This has nothing to do with free travel--not all modes of travel come with unfettered freedoms.

From the linked story:

DPS says Taebel has an extensive criminal history including violent felonies and misdemeanors stretching across several states. He has a California driver's license and has served prison time in New York. DPS also said he has 'anti-government' views.

According to court documents, Taebel stated he will not obey laws imposed to his freedom and also stated he had the legal authority to take an officer's life to preserve his freedom.

Nope...f**k this sovereign-citizen, (probable) tax-denier jackass. And I personally feel that he should have to do a lifetime of community service, but focused on the whims of the 47-year-old woman whose life he could have easily taken that day. I hope that she sh*ts in a bucket every day and makes him empty it...by hand.

Or mouth.

ETA: This should not be in the PC forum.

Well I hope you never serve on a jury carrying bias like that. Not everything in this world is black and white.

He put the lives of others in jeopardy in his wild escape. You can't threaten somebody else's life and not also threaten their freedoms. The right course of action is to let the LEO do their thing and fight them in court and on social media. He lost his cool and now hte consequences are in full. Freedom ain't free.

I don't think you can pin this on LEO. You can suggest they targeted him because of his record, but prove it first. Prove they profiled him this way. Otherwise it's an accusation.

I think a reasonable explanation is his long record weighed on him for many years. The cops were doing a normal stop and he blew up. He never found an answer to hte problems piling up in his life.

I knew someone like this. Repeated runins with police and court. Bad childhood. Bad parents. And just like this guy he fled from police. In his case, I think he was driving without registration or a license. They had to force him to stop. Long story short, it's not an isolated incident.

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

Now I am all for sovereignty and free travel unmolested. But the second you get a drivers license and get behind the wheel you basically give up your 4th amendment right. If you want free travel you gotta walk these days as much as that sucks and even then LEO's can make up whatever they want to search you.

What do you guys think? On a Jury of 12 he might get one.

Anyone can to anything they are physically able to do. That's a person's natural right.

Each citizen decides on what rights he or she is willing to give up, and which rights and when is all dependent on context.

We might "imagine" that other people have to do this, or have to do that, because of our own "perspective" on how society works. But, who teaches us this perspective? Do we learn it in high school? Are there any classes on it? Does any high school have a course on "How to be a good citizen?".

So, what it comes down to, is each person's personal experience growing up.

Now the vast majority of citizens, encountering the LEO on the highway for the first time, flashing their lights, would just pull over, mostly curious about what the cop wants.

But, if a person has encountered these LEOs several times before, that person's attitude is likely to change. He is likely to feel "picked on", even if it's just "coincidental" that so many LEOs have selected him to pull over. The mind of the citizen is then likely to start dwelling on his "natural rights", and he'll do a lot of thinking on the subject. He may even research the topic in the library or internet, and start to form conclusions that is consistent with his desire to "fight back", since he doesn't see this LEO contact happening to the other citizens round about him, everyone else seems to have freedom to travel.

So, these things don't happen because some random LEO pulls over some random citizen. They only happen when a "pattern" has been established, that leads the citizen to feel unfairly treated.

So, while we "observers" can all sit in our high chairs, and judge the guy for his seemingly "crazy" actions, all it means is that we have never experienced the feeling of being "picked on" ourselves, or "targeted" by Law enforcement. So, we have no emotional understanding, just intellectual views.

Yet, it's our emotions that determine what our intellect will think about.

The guy exercised his "natural rights", and the LEO's got an education.

The guy obviously "doesn't care", because he is "beyond caring". He was frustrated beyond his breaking point.

From time to time, some people will be picked on, and they will react in similar ways.

That's the natural law.

We will see this more and more in the future, because we're keeping "records" in computer "databases", and the LEOs have access to those records from the computers in their cars, and can easily "look up" a driver's license plate to find out if he has any "prior records", then being "human", those "LEOs" will naturally "pick on" the very citizens who have "already had contact" with Law enforcement, just to see if the citizen is doing anything wrong. The cops get merit for finding and arresting wrong doers, and so they have an incentive to "pick on" people who have previously been accused or actually done things wrong, since that is the "low hanging fruit".

So, now we can understand why the events followed the path they did, and we can either change the system, or continue to marvel at how this type of thing continues to occur in our modern times, with all our ability to analyse and study patterns of human behavior.

Well Said.

A lot of these people commenting here seem to instantly associate sovergn citizens with crazy people.

I wonder if they think all conspiracy theorists wear tin foil hats?

Crazy? No.

Delusional? Yes.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Shamrock6

What argument? You can tell before he even starts he’s a sovereign citizen. There’s no “argument” to be had.

Is, 'sovereign Citizen' an American metaphor for a Nut case??

Nah, it’s our version of the UK Freeman on the Land notion.

Works about as well in practice here as the Freeman idea does there.

originally posted by: jonnywhite


I don't think you can pin this on LEO.
.

The LEOs always have the option to call off the chase.

They do this in responsible states, to avoid the loss of life and property that often occurs when the police action takes place "in the heat of the moment".

Unless there's some pressing need to get the guy now, it's better to pull back, give time for "cooling off", and pick the guy up later. Nobody can hide in this modern society. And there's rarely a situation that calls for such "immediate" action.

The LEOs "created the conditions", and should be held responsible for the results.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

Delusional? Yes.

We're all delusional.

It's just that when we "share the same delusions", we consider ourselves normal.

There's tremendous pressure in society to adopt and conform to the delusions of the majority.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: jonnywhite


I don't think you can pin this on LEO.
.

The LEOs always have the option to call off the chase.

They do this in responsible states, to avoid the loss of life and property that often occurs when the police action takes place "in the heat of the moment".

Unless there's some pressing need to get the guy now, it's better to pull back, give time for "cooling off", and pick the guy up later. Nobody can hide in this modern society. And there's rarely a situation that calls for such "immediate" action.

The LEOs "created the conditions", and should be held responsible for the results.

You argued they profiled--or picked on--him because his history. They looked him up and spent special time watching him, quite possibly pulling him over for this reason alone. Prove it! Below:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

We will see this more and more in the future, because we're keeping "records" in computer "databases", and the LEOs have access to those records from the computers in their cars, and can easily "look up" a driver's license plate to find out if he has any "prior records", then being "human", those "LEOs" will naturally "pick on" the very citizens who have "already had contact" with Law enforcement, just to see if the citizen is doing anything wrong. The cops get merit for finding and arresting wrong doers, and so they have an incentive to "pick on" people who have previously been accused or actually done things wrong, since that is the "low hanging fruit".

I agree choosing not to chase is an option. I've leanred of this before. This could be a reasonable complaint.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: jonnywhite


I don't think you can pin this on LEO.
.

The LEOs always have the option to call off the chase.

They do this in responsible states, to avoid the loss of life and property that often occurs when the police action takes place "in the heat of the moment".

Unless there's some pressing need to get the guy now, it's better to pull back, give time for "cooling off", and pick the guy up later. Nobody can hide in this modern society. And there's rarely a situation that calls for such "immediate" action.

The LEOs "created the conditions", and should be held responsible for the results.

And in this situation, he even called 911 to get them to back off. They could have easily used this info plus the car registration info to find him at a later time and make the arrest or speak with him.

LEO's ti him made him feel like his life was in danger and he fled.

a reply to: SR1TX

So tell me, how often did "Mr. Terminator" shoot him? I mean there were a lot of 'em around...they must have felt threatened.

So, how many times was this "innocent" shot??

Anyone can to anything they are physically able to do. That's a person's natural right.

Being physically about to kill some just because or destroy their home doesn't work in our society with agreed upon laws.

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

It's pretty simple with LEOs. The street is not the place to assert yourself. If a LEO tells you to kiss his ass, you crawl over there and pucker up. You have to survive to have your day in court. Challenging LEOs in the street is stupid, there are a lot more of them. Be polite and say yes sir/ma'am.

This guy doesn't look ethnically challenged but Chris Rock's silly video "How not to get your ass kicked by the police!" still seems to apply.

originally posted by: roadgravel

Anyone can to anything they are physically able to do. That's a person's natural right.

Being physically about to kill some just because or destroy their home doesn't work in our society with agreed upon laws.

Some people are just born here. They didn't agree to anything. Only those that migrate to the land have to agree, before we let them come here.

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
I watched the live stream of this guy speaking from court about his rights to kill police and free travel. I'll post links below.

"It all began in the west Valley on State Route 85," said DPS Trooper Kameron Lee. "One of our sergeants attempted a traffic stop on a red Jeep SUV, northbound on SR 85 at MP 138, which is north of the prison and south of MC 85." The SUV failed to yield to troopers and took off, and officials began a pursuit.

Troopers attempted to throw down stop sticks on ST 85, but the SUV managed to swerve around them and kept going. Helicopters and DPS troopers followed the suspect as he continued to drive at high speeds along Interstate 10, eventually transitioning onto the 202.

"As that vehicle approached one of the stoplights it was held up in traffic. At that point, two of our unmarked vehicles tried to box in the SUV to get it to stop and take the suspect into custody. But the suspect veered to the right and rammed one of our patrol cars and then continued southbound at a high rate of speed," said Lee.

Taebel then picked up even more speed, racing south on Rural and dangerously weaving in and out of traffic and even sideswiping another vehicle. "As it approached Spence Avenue, it sideswiped a white SUV," said Lee. The chase came to a violent end when the suspect slammed into another car on Rural just south of Apache, spinning out in a cloud of flying metal and billowing smoke. "He continued into the intersection where it struck a black SUV, almost head-on, causing a major collision," said Lee.

Apparently this guy has a rap sheet longer than my honey do list and he feels that because the stop was unlawful he has the right to resist and or kill to keep his liberty.

Link to article

To make things even weirder they allowed the guy to make a press statement from jail!!! WTF!!!!! I have been arrested and I never got to make a press release.

Press Interview from Jail

Now I am all for sovereignty and free travel unmolested. But the second you get a drivers license and get behind the wheel you basically give up your 4th amendment right. If you want free travel you gotta walk these days as much as that sucks and even then LEO's can make up whatever they want to search you.

What do you guys think? On a Jury of 12 he might get one.

There is a reason people under 35 rarely get called for Jury duty. I showed this to my father and without even listening to any argument he said the guy was guilty.

If I am on his Jury I will at least give him the consideration his argument deserves.

Sorry Charlie, I don't give up my 4th amendment rights when I get behind the wheel...

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

I'm sorry but it is impossible to give up your right the government cannot infringe on your rights no matter what that is the whole basis of them being unalienable rights.

Jaden

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

His argument deserves consideration. 1 second of it, then tossed in the garbage.

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

That's not a bias, that's a fact.

Don't talk to me about biases and juries--I fully understand the process, and I also know (because it was directly my job for four years, and indirectly for many more through now) what judge's instructions to a jury entail.

There are specific elements to every charge brought against an individual, and it is a part of the courtroom process prior to deliberation that the judge (and often times before that, the prosecutor during their closing argument) explains in very minute detail the specifics of every element of each charge that must be met in order to find a defendant guilty.

I would bet you that every single law that he claimed to have violated will be able to be proven in a court of law, down to every specific element (unless the prosecutor gets overzealous and stupid, which does happen, and overcharges the individual). There is no bias in my comment that would affect my ability to comprehend the elements of the laws that were violated and weigh his actions against those elements.

When it comes to the law, it actually is very black-and-white; sentencing is where the grey area can come it.

Please don't pretend to lecture me on how the law and a courtroom and jury selection work. I've sat through more vior-dire sessions than I can count in the execution of my (old) job--I fully comprehend why people get excused from juries, and having a preconceived idea as to guilt or applicable punishment is not always one.