Police encounter. Freeman gets off driving without a license.

reply to post by whatukno

I believe this is the ultimate goal of the Freemen, to start doing this to cops across the nation. Asserting their "Natural Right" to blow away authority figures for trying to keep the peace.

Care to share your "logic" behind this "thought"?


[edit on 2-7-2010 by harvib]

reply to post by harvib


Yes, these Freemen, have a contempt for ANY authority figure, from what I gather in this thread, Freemen are under the delusion that law does not apply to them unless it falls under their own narrow view of "natural rights".

Any authority figure that wants to uphold the law therefore is attacking those "natural rights" and so, Freemen feel that it's their obligation and right to defend themselves with lethal force.

That is the ideology of the Freemen in practice. So, while the young man in the OP video sought not to get into a gunfight with the local constabulary, many Freemen would have no trouble blowing away a cop to "protect" their own "natural rights".



[edit on 7/2/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno


Ya know. After 19 pages you have still failed to grasp the basic concepts that make the "freemen" lawful citizens of their respective states as well as of the common law despite numerous responses and links to information. You have clearly failed to understand what was being presented to you. I don't know if I can recall one post you have made that has attempted to dispute the information. You have simply responded with baseless rhetoric.

Yes, these Freemen, have a contempt for ANY authority figure

Clearly the society recognizes the authority of common law.

Freemen are under the delusion that law does not apply to them unless it falls under their own narrow view of "natural rights".

Again they contend that they fall under the jurisdiction of common law. If you would like to convince us they are delusional please provided evidence supported by jurisdictional law. Are you disputing the existence of common law?

Any authority figure that wants to uphold the law therefore is attacking those "natural rights"

Once again, this society contends that they fall under the jurisdiction of common law. They clearly recognize the necessity to uphold the common law. Therefore they are most certainly not against "authority figures".

many Freemen would have no trouble blowing away a cop to "protect" their own "natural rights".

Murder is a crime under common law. Once again (sigh)... This society contends that they fall under the jurisdiction of common law and therefore would recognize that they do not have any legal basis to claim murder as a "right".





[edit on 2-7-2010 by harvib]

reply to post by harvib

This society contends that they fall under the jurisdiction of common law and therefore would recognize that they do not have any legal basis to claim murder as a "right".

They would see that they have the right to self defense now wouldn't they?

They also see that they fall under the jurisdiction of common law and not state law, therefore a law enforcement officer is a clear and present danger to these people's self imposed common law rights and so they feel that they have the legal authority under common law to protect themselves from this attack on their own common law rights and so they feel justified by blowing away any and all law enforcement officers that happen upon them while they are armed.

They wouldn't see it as murder, they would see it as self defense.

[edit on 7/2/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno

They would see that they have the right to self defense now wouldn't they?

All have a right to self defense. Even you. However self defense must have several qualifying conditions. Self defense can in no way be used to justify "blowing someone away" because they are an "authority figure" as you claim.

They also see that they fall under the jurisdiction of common law and not state law

They also see that they fall under the jurisdiction of common law and not state law, therefore a law enforcement officer is a clear and present danger to these people's self imposed common law rights and so they feel that they have the legal authority under common law to protect themselves from this attack on their own common law rights and so they feel justified by blowing away any and all law enforcement officers that happen upon them while they are armed.

Ok, let's talk about this statement. A lot of assumptions are being made. In a court of law, a person must show that they are without fault or provocation. They must show that their was impending danger and no hope of retreat.

I think that the "freemen society" would agree that, in general, that "law enforcement officers" point and aim their firearm upon provocation. Therefore a self defense claim has no chance of holding water unless the defendant could show otherwise.

For them to claim that they had the "right" to "blow away" anyone who comes upon them for simply being armed does not constitute self defense and would contradict everything this society seems to proclaim.

reply to post by harvib


www.huffingtonpost.com...

I think that the "freemen society" would agree that, in general, that "law enforcement officers" point and aim their firearm upon provocation. Therefore a self defense claim has no chance of holding water unless the defendant could show otherwise.

For them to claim that they had the "right" to "blow away" anyone who comes upon them for simply being armed does not constitute self defense and would contradict everything this society seems to proclaim.

The evidence of the story above seems to refute that claim.

[edit on 7/2/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno

The evidence of the story above seems to refute that claim.

What evidence and in what way does it refute any claims?

The evidence of the story above seems to refute that claim.

An anecdote based on faulty logic proves nothing.
Can you show a case in fact, to substantiate the theory that "freeman" can justify murder?

Where are we getting this crazy idea that "freemen" can justify blowing a peace officer away? Its my understanding that the use of excessive force in nature is never justified, let alone in law. If at any time it can be justified, I believe it would indicative of a bigger problem. A personal, social or environmental dis-ease of sorts, Or a symptom of such dis-ease.
Even if "common law" fails us, we still have "natural law" whoes content is set by nature, and refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. Law cannot be known without some reference to natural law. Natural law, like common law can also function as a standard to criticize decisions about statutes and other such limitations to free men in nature.

"When the laws of men fail, the laws of nature must prevail"

I suggest you read the following from this Canadian "freeman" affidavit.

Whereas it is my understanding equality before the law is paramount and mandatory. "Equality"
Whereas it is my understanding a society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate,
determine and act for a common goal "Common Goal"
Whereas it is my understanding a by-law is defined as a rule of a corporation "By-Law"
Whereas a Freeman-on-the-Land has lawfully revoked consent and does exist free of statutory restrictions, obligations, and limitations "Lawfully"
Whereas it is my understanding that acting peacefully within community standards does not breach
the peace "Common law"
Whereas it is my understanding peace officers have a duty to distinguish between statutes and law "Distinguish Between"

I,___________________ a Freeman-on-
the-Land do hereby state clearly specifically and unequivocally my intent to peacefully and lawfully exist free of all
statutory obligations restrictions and maintain all rights at law to trade, exchange or barter "Intent to Peacefully and Lawfully"

Again, Where are we getting this "blow cops away" nonsense from?

Its just silly...

reply to post by harvib


reply to post by MojosGhost

Jerry Kane, who had a long history with police, used the Internet to question federal and local governments' authority over him and held debt-elimination seminars around the country. He recently complained about being busted at a "Nazi checkpoint" near Carrizozo, N.M., where court records show he spent three days in jail before posting a $1,500 bond on charges of driving without a license and concealing his identity.

Source: www.huffingtonpost.com...

Try reading the article, these guys believed in this garbage too, now they are dead along with two police officers.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by harvib

 

reply to post by MojosGhost

 

Jerry Kane, who had a long history with police, used the Internet to question federal and local governments' authority over him and held debt-elimination seminars around the country. He recently complained about being busted at a "Nazi checkpoint" near Carrizozo, N.M., where court records show he spent three days in jail before posting a $1,500 bond on charges of driving without a license and concealing his identity.

Source: www.huffingtonpost.com...

Try reading the article, these guys believed in this garbage too, now they are dead along with two police officers.

One can only laugh to realize there are groups of morons out there who truly believe that the population is being enslaved by semantics.

reply to post by whatukno


Unarmed Marine Killed by Cop

Pinole Police Shooting Victim Pulled Cell Phone Instead of Gun

Sean Bell Shooting Incident

Champaign Police Fatally Shoot Unarmed 15 Year Old African American

Law enforcement officers in Harris County have shot 65 unarmed people since 1999, killing 17. These incidents represent more than a third of all local police shootings, but experts call them the most preventable.

www.chron.com...

In the latest example of overzealous policing gone fatally awry, a member of a Lima, Ohio, police SWAT team shot and killed a young mother and wounded the child she was holding in her arms during a raid aimed at the woman's boyfriend, who was alleged to be selling drugs from the residence. Tarika Wilson, 26, was killed last Friday in an upstairs bedroom, shot twice by Lima police Sgt. Joseph Chevalia. Her one-year-old son, Sincere, was also shot, as were two pit bulls at the house. The child lost his left index finger, but his injuries are not life-threatening. One of the pit bulls was killed.

stopthedrugwar.org...

Unarmed Tourist Shot Dead by Police

Police Shoot Unarmed Man 81 Times

Today is Oscar Grant’s funeral. He is the latest in a long string of unarmed black men to be killed by police. The night he died, Oscar, 22, was out celebrating New Year’s Eve. At around 2 a.m., he and friends were pulled off of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) train- Northern California’s subway system- by police officers. He was unarmed and cooperative, even telling friends to calmly oblige the police. That did nothing to save Oscar Grant. Within minutes, without cause, a police officer would shoot him in the back, execution-style.

blog.amnestyusa.org...

Alberta Spruill, 57 and African American, died of a heart attack May 16th after Special Operations police, acting on a bad tip that the apartment contained munitions, tossed a stun grenade into her Harlem apartment as she dressed for work, handcuffing her even after finding no guns in the place. The medical examiner's office has ruled the death a homicide, but blame has yet to be assigned. Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly have apologized for the incident and acknowledged the obvious, that something was terribly wrong with this raid. Bloomberg's response has been noted to be in stark contrast to that of his predecessor in police misconduct cases. Rudy Giuliani almost always sided with the police, exacerbating racial tensions.

www.gothamgazette.com...

Police Fatally Shoot Unarmed Man in Korea Town (Los Angeles)

HOMER, La.—On the last afternoon of his life, Bernard Monroe was hosting a cookout for family and friends in front of his dilapidated home on Adams Street in this small northern Louisiana town.

Throat cancer had robbed the 73-year-old retired electric utility worker of his voice years ago, but family members said Monroe was clearly enjoying the commotion of a dozen of his grandchildren and great-grandchildren cavorting around him in the dusty, grassless yard.

Then the Homer police showed up, two white officers whose arrival caused the participants at the black family gathering to quickly fall silent. Within moments, Monroe lay dead, shot by one of the officers as his family looked on.

www.chicagotribune.com...

Scores of black residents expressed anger in Cincinnati Monday evening after a Hamilton County grand jury indicted a police officer on two misdemeanor counts for the April 7 killing of an unarmed African American teenager. The shooting sparked several days of protests and rioting in the city of 331,000. Police Officer Stephen Roach was charged with negligent homicide—punishable by six months in jail—and obstruction of official business—which carries a 90-day jail sentence—for the fatal shooting of Timothy Thomas, a 19-year-old father of an infant son.

www.wsws.org...

Unarmed Man Killed by Culver City Police

ACLU Steps In After Unarmed, Autistic Man is Shot and Killed by Police

Killed by Police While Unarmed

Admitting a cover-up of shocking breadth, a former New Orleans police supervisor pleaded guilty to a federal obstruction charge on Wednesday, confessing that he participated in a conspiracy to justify the shooting of six unarmed people after Hurricane Katrina that was hatched not long after police stopped firing their weapons.

www.nola.com...

New York Police Kill Another Unarmed Black Man Two Blocks From Diallo Shooting Scene

Few Details a Month After Police Kill Unarmed Man

A Record of Murder by Police and Border Control; 1999-1996

Many policemen are fine, upstanding public servants who do a commendable job of aiding and protecting Americans in need. However, in some locales, police pose a grave threat to public safety. Consider the Prince George’s County, Maryland, police department. In the last decade, police in that department killed or maimed more unarmed people than the Unabomber and the Aryan Nation combined. It has a worse human rights record than the Federal Bureau of Investigation. And yet — whenever those cops appear in the streets or in court — they are supposedly entitled to a presumption that they are serving the public.

The Washington Post, in a series last July, highlighted some of the department’s accomplishments: “Since 1990, Prince George’s police have shot 122 persons, killing 47. Almost half of those shot were unarmed; many had committed no crime.” Prince George’s police kill citizens more often than do the police of any other major department in the country.

www.fff.org...

Once Again-Cops Murder Unarmed Victim

Seven Year Old Girl Killed by Detroit Police While Sleeping in Her Home

Cops Kill Unarmed Black Man While Shopping at Hamilto Park Mall

A Chino, Calif., police officer shot an Air Force MP on Sunday night after a short police chase in which the airman was a passenger in the car, while he was appearing to cooperate with instructions the police officer gave.

www.homelandstupidity.us...

This is what your political ideology hath wrought, Wukky, and the list goes on and on. This is what you advocate.

This is what your political ideology hath wrought, Wukky, and the list goes on and on. This is what you advocate.

So the solution is for the citizenry to shoot first? I guess according to the Freemen, any traffic stop is good enough cause to open fire on the officer right? After all, they are threatening their "natural rights" to travel freely.

Face it, these freemen are just anarchists using double-talk to justify their agenda. That's all it is, just people trying to pull a scam.

[edit on 7/3/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno

So the solution is for the citizenry to shoot first? I guess according to the Freemen, any traffic stop is good enough cause to open fire on the officer right? After all, they are threatening their "natural rights" to travel freely.

The young man in the video of the O.P. didn't shoot a single person. You have opportunistically used the incident in question to underscore your own political ideology, and now are back pedaling.

Face it, these freemen are just anarchists using double-talk to justify their agenda. That's all it is, just people trying to pull a scam.

Why don't you face it Wukky, the multitudes of links I provided demonstrate handily who the anarchists using double-talk to justify their agenda are. That is all it is when police kill unarmed victims and then plead not guilty pointing to whatever they can to pull of their scam.

So much in agreement are you with this scam of police killing unarmed victims that you couldn't even be bothered to refute my assertion you advocate it, and instead hoped to deflect the issue going right back to your prejudice of freemen.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

The young man in the video of the O.P. didn't shoot a single person. You have opportunistically used the incident in question to underscore your own political ideology, and now are back pedaling.

He just wasn't armed that day is all.

Why don't you face it Wukky, the multitudes of links I provided demonstrate handily who the anarchists using double-talk to justify their agenda are. That is all it is when police kill unarmed victims and then plead not guilty pointing to whatever they can to pull of their scam.

I won't defend cops shooting unarmed civilians, that is just as wrong. Police need to be held to a higher standard than they are. The thin blue line needs to disappear and dirty cops need to be shoved out of the force.

But I am not the one deflecting here now am I? I am sticking to the topic, which is this anarchist group calling themselves the Freemen and taking on themselves to adhere only to their own ideology and screw the rest of society.

reply to post by whatukno

He just wasn't armed that day is all.

Everybody who has read your posts in this thread gets that this is your belief, and most people in this thread get what a threat you are to liberty because of this belief. You continually argue and condemn people, not for what they have done, (the whack jobs in the gun battle with police notwithstanding), but rather for what you believe they will do in the future, and you use this belief to justify the destruction of liberty.

I won't defend cops shooting unarmed civilians, that is just as wrong. Police need to be held to a higher standard than they are. The thin blue line needs to disappear and dirty cops need to be shoved out of the force.

Of course, you only say this now after you have been called out on your dogma, and it has been pointed out that you would rather first deflect an issue away from police abuse and point to anomalous incidents where whack jobs act violently. The thin blue line you claim needs to disappear has no chance in hell of being properly addressed as long as people of your political ideology are in office. Your belated rhetoric is useless, particularly since the wide gap between murderous cops and freemen is what it is. You are far more concerned with demonizing freemen than you are with dealing with the very real and recognizable problem of murderous cops.

But I am not the one deflecting here now am I? I am sticking to the topic, which is this anarchist group calling themselves the Freemen and taking on themselves to adhere only to their own ideology and screw the rest of society.

You have nothing but deflect in this thread, and the incident of which you have seized upon has nothing to do with the O.P., and since you have no intentions of shutting up about this anomalous incident, then it has become necessary to place a little perspective on that anomaly. The murderous cops of whom litter the towns and cities of The United States of America claim to represent the "rule of law", and all too often shoot and kill unarmed Americans while hiding behind this "rule of law".

The freemen in the U.S. are not anywhere near the threat to the rule of law that the police state you advocate is.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

The murderous cops of whom litter the towns and cities of The United States of America claim to represent the "rule of law", and all too often shoot and kill unarmed Americans while hiding behind this "rule of law".

I see, so your of the opinion that leos are on a murderous rampage across the nation and that every single stop they make ends in a fatal shooting? WOW This is an epidemic! I must be the sole lucky person to have had an encounter with one of these gun toting murderers in uniform and survived!



Cmon, we both know that the freeman group is an anti government group. I won't agree with the SPLC indication that they are a hate group because that simply is not true. They just don't like the government, have advocated the removal of their members from that system and they feel that it's their Natural Right to not adhere to any law that doesn't conform with their own myopic version of Natural Law.

reply to post by whatukno

I see, so your of the opinion that leos are on a murderous rampage across the nation and that every single stop they make ends in a fatal shooting? WOW This is an epidemic! I must be the sole lucky person to have had an encounter with one of these gun toting murderers in uniform and survived!

When you compare their rampages to the isolated incidents of a very few freemen, you bet you have an epidemic, and of course, the above statement only underscores how empty your rhetoric was about the "thin blue line"

Cmon, we both know that the freeman group is an anti government group. I won't agree with the SPLC indication that they are a hate group because that simply is not true. They just don't like the government, have advocated the removal of their members from that system and they feel that it's their Natural Right to not adhere to any law that doesn't conform with their own myopic version of Natural Law.

You use the term "anti-government" too loosely, and anyone who advocates limited government in your book becomes "anti-government."

I will, however, take your disagreement with the SPLC as sincere, and while I believe your rhetoric regarding the thin blue line is, at the very least, a tad disingenuous, I think you are more than sincere regarding the SPLC, and I for one am glad to read that.

Your constant rhetoric about the freeman movement being anti-law is just that, rhetoric. I think many of the people in the freeman movement take great pains to distinguish law from legislation, and expect legislation to conform to law.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

When you compare their rampages to the isolated incidents of a very few freemen, you bet you have an epidemic, and of course, the above statement only underscores how empty your rhetoric was about the "thin blue line"

I think that you have spent too much time on ATS and have forgotten the fact that there are a lot of police officers in this country. A LOT. and that most traffic stops or encounters with a cop do not end in the suspect being shot or tazed.

I will agree that there are bad cops out there, it happens, and those bad cops need to be taken out of the force, and probably jailed. I just don't agree with the majority of posters on ATS that all cops are bad and will taze you or shoot you at a whim.

You use the term "anti-government" too loosely, and anyone who advocates limited government in your book becomes "anti-government."

limited government and anti government are two different things, when you take a group that decides to adhere to their own rules and ignore the rules of the state they live in, they are anti government.

I will, however, take your disagreement with the SPLC as sincere, and while I believe your rhetoric regarding the thin blue line is, at the very least, a tad disingenuous, I think you are more than sincere regarding the SPLC, and I for one am glad to read that.

It is sincere, the SPLC is just a hate group with lots of funding good PR and an agenda. They take people that are just using their constitutionally protected right of freedom of speech and they demonize them as a hate group. You can be anti government and not be a hate group.

Your constant rhetoric about the freeman movement being anti-law is just that, rhetoric. I think many of the people in the freeman movement take great pains to distinguish law from legislation, and expect legislation to conform to law.

By their own admission and practices they are anti law, and once legislation is passed and signed by the governor it becomes law.

I understand the desire to cast off the chains of bondage. To say to oneself and world, “This is not my government, for it now does not even resemble the creation of my forefathers.” The utter corruption and prostitution of our government in this age is as deep and deplorable as in any other time of history. The police only lord over the lowly and weak. Their jurisdiction is kept away from the financial frauds and political hacks. They do not hold those in power to the same laws as the slaves are held to. They investigate nothing that would change the landscape of political power. The sons and daughters of the rich get away with murder and the drunkard politicians drive over children and go free. They spend millions of our dollars on renovations for private businesses under the guise of public interest. The ball park belongs to all the city they would so claim, but demand to have your team of the people play in it and see what would happen. They eagerly spend our dollars on new business parks for private corporations under the lie that they would add to the economy and bring in new jobs. But get them to help fund in the same proportion your new business venture, job for job, and income for income, and see just how corrupt and pathetic your elected officials really are as they laugh at you in hysterics and force you out the door. The news plays only to the same tune of the rich masters and never highlights their crimes. Instead, only the slaves, bickering in the streets, are worthy of attention and the other slaves, huddles in their homes, never awake to the fact and wonder why.

Yes, it is clear that I understand the desire to leave this government and its people behind. But is there truly any merit in that action? Are we not still under the yoke of all this corruption and evil until the day we choose to rise together against it? Will not others suffer all the more now that we, the strong, have chosen to abandon them? Let us all be Freemen some would say and then there would be none to govern! But what would happen? Without the strong to stand against evil then the laws would become even more tyrannical. Fractured and divided by being free how could we ever unite again under any other force or threat that could face us all? Are there not other larger and more destructive evils yet to face outside of our own government? Seeing us divided and free, would not another Hitler or Napoleon seize upon the throne of our own vacant house?

No my friends, I, nor you, should leave our government unless there is no alternative left but to abandon it. But now is not that time. That time will come soon enough when the book of revelation is fulfilled. But now, we have a duty to save our government and fight evil from within it. Our duty is not to abandon it like a sinking ship, but instead, it is to struggle to the death if need be to stop the leak and grab the helm that would leave us crashing into the rocks.

And even more important is the truth that our duty lay not in force of arms upon this goal but in force of law. It is the news that we must regain in order the tell us all the truth. It is the seat of our electors that we must gain in order to change the laws that are steering us into the abyss. It is the banks and insurance companies that we must reign in and control. I will not in good faith and conscience abandon what my fathers have built and died for just yet. I will not abandon my right that has been paid to vote and claim my rightful place as a citizen of what was the greatest country on the face of the earth. For now is not that time.

Now is the time to unite under a banner and march to the seats of government. It is not the time to go alone and wander away and leave to those who are weaker the charge of dealing with greatest evils in the world upon there own. For I will not wash my hands of the affair as Pontius Pilate did and let those who are evil take my fellow Christians to the cross of tyranny without a lawful fight.

[edit on 3-7-2010 by Hot_Wings]

reply to post by whatukno

I think that you have spent too much time on ATS and have forgotten the fact that there are a lot of police officers in this country. A LOT. and that most traffic stops or encounters with a cop do not end in the suspect being shot or tazed.

Again, when you compare the amount of people who were unarmed and shot and killed by a police officer, to the very limited few people associated with the freeman movement who were in a shootout with police, the disparity between the two is so great as to make your sycophantic defense of police shooting unarmed victims far more dangerous than any freeman movement.

I will agree that there are bad cops out there, it happens, and those bad cops need to be taken out of the force, and probably jailed. I just don't agree with the majority of posters on ATS that all cops are bad and will taze you or shoot you at a whim.

You also absolutely refuse to agree that there are good people in the freeman movement. Indeed, in spite of the fact that the video featured in the O.P. took great pains to distinguish between peace officers and thuggish enforcers, and where that young man made every effort to ensure the viewers he had no problem with LEO's who operated inside of the law, you willfully ignored this and branded him a killer who wasn't caught on video killing any cops simply because he didn't have a gun with him at that moment.

I am not arguing that all cops are bad, and there are plenty of posts where you can find me defending a cop who acted civilly. However, those who do kill unarmed victims, all to often do so upon whim.

limited government and anti government are two different things, when you take a group that decides to adhere to their own rules and ignore the rules of the state they live in, they are anti government.

I agree that limited government and anti-government are two different things. That was my point. However, you are not arguing for limited government and when you work as hard as you have attempting to frame the freeman movement as lawless, when the evidence is overwhelming that government agencies all to often operate as lawless agencies, when you advocate the drug war while demonizing freemen movements, when you disingenuously attempt to characterize all freemen as murderous thugs and that get huffy when I point to the murderous cops that exist, you are not at all coming off as one who believes in limited government.

It is sincere, the SPLC is just a hate group with lots of funding good PR and an agenda. They take people that are just using their constitutionally protected right of freedom of speech and they demonize them as a hate group. You can be anti government and not be a hate group.

I know you are sincere, and you and I argue too much on issues we disagree with, and you have even spoken to that claiming that you rarely feel compelled to speak to that which you agree with, but you know what Wuk, I have a thread regarding the SPLC, and your input in that thread would be more than greatly appreciated. You and I don't always have to be on opposing sides, you know?

I appreciate you making the distinction that you can be anti-government and not a hate group.

By their own admission and practices they are anti law, and once legislation is passed and signed by the governor it becomes law.

Wuk, if this statement were true legislation wouldn't be subject to judicial review.