The phenomenon of sovereign citizens persistently trying to win court cases with their principles, despite a lack of success, is indeed puzzling. On YouTube alone, there are around 5,000 videos showing sovereign citizens facing defeat in the courtroom. These individuals often make claims that have yet to prove successful and frequently end up incarcerated.
Why do people continue to adopt this seemingly futile approach? It’s akin to watching 5,000 parachutists attempt a failed jump from the Eiffel Tower, only for newcomers to keep trying despite knowing, or perhaps ignoring, the inevitable outcome. Despite the growing pile of mangled bodies at the base of the tower, every day people decide to climb up and try for themselves.
The dedication of these individuals is noteworthy; they invest a great deal of time mastering the intricacies of their “sovereign” defense. Yet, it seems that they dedicate little time to researching previous legal outcomes or understanding why their arguments haven’t held up in court historically.
What drives this persistence? Is it a deep-seated belief system that overrides rational analysis, or is there another factor at play that encourages them to keep going despite overwhelming evidence of failure?
It’s funny because the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS work for cops.
Speeding? You mean traveling in a conveyance.
Assault and battery? You mean protecting and serving.
Deprivation of rights, kidnapping, and false imprisonment? You see, your honor, I didn’t know about any of that stuff so it shouldn’t apply to me.
In conclusion, the only “sovereign citizens” in this country are the bitches in blue.
Police have special powers according to the law, so no, the same arguments don’t work.
They REALLY don’t. They have very situational allowances that have become defacto “special powers” thanks to a combination of decades of copaganda and huckster “warrior programs” that teach wannabe bullies that they are the most important of gods special snowflakes whose only responsibility is saving their own ass.
Check out the guy that got stabbed in the face repeatedly on an NY subway while cops watched from 10 feet away, behind a safety door meant to protect the train conductor. Took them to court because their motto was literally “protect and serve” and got a real live judge to say out loud that it wasn’t literal and cops have no duty to actually protect or serve anyone, legally.
They REALLY do. What you call “situational allowances” are what we’re talking about. You can’t turn on some flashing lights and speed through red lights to get to a crime legally. They can.
Police have special powers that the rest of us don’t have. If they didn’t then police wouldn’t even exist.
The problem I’m talking about is when they speed through red lights because they think they have these “special powers” when they law is EXCRUCIATINGLY explicit on exactly when and why cops can sometimes disregard certain legal requirements. That does not mean they can do what they want when they want. That’s exactly the kind of people OP is talking about, and that’s cops. To a fuckin T. Nobody else goes to court, cries ignorance as an excuse, and expects to get away with it.
My real problem is that it works for them. Qualified immunity is a disgrace to law, as is the absolute immunity enjoyed by judges and magistrates. You want to fix law, fix that first.
deleted by creator
Man you must have tried hard not to understand his point that you missed it this badly.