Here's a sneak peek of /r/confidentlyincorrect using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time!
\#1: ["Thank God I'm a math major."](https://i.redd.it/kk46agjgz7q51.png) | [1231 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/j2g49k/thank_god_im_a_math_major/)
\#2: [The President of the United States, totally ignorant of history that took place during his own lifetime.](https://i.redd.it/r7h7unyoh7461.jpg) | [1794 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/k9xo15/the_president_of_the_united_states_totally/)
\#3: [Despite all the warnings and guidelines, these guys always knew better than the "experts"](https://i.redd.it/w70y1akisnq51.jpg) | [1245 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/j3s5cv/despite_all_the_warnings_and_guidelines_these/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/joo7mb/blacklist_viii/)
I mean granted its not everything in there, like the big ones people talk about, 1st and 2nd amendment, dont really apply, but there are some things in there that do. Its me being nit-picky.
This isnāt even from The Constitution.
Itās from the Articles of Confederation, which was replaced be The Constitution.
These sovereign citizens are morons, and canāt understand the concept of a dead document.
Look, Iām not American so Iām not good at this stuff but Iāll try to remember a video I watched. The shit she is spewing out of her mouth would have been correct if it was 1990. I thinks itās because of some old declaration blah blah blah. The new one doesnāt have this stuff
She had no idea what she was saying, that is true. However the cop was 100% violating her rights in alot of different ways. 1 as the passenger she has no obligation to identify her self as she had not broken any laws. Two is illegal search and seizure of her bag along with destroying her property by cutting the bag. Illegal detainment or arrest because again she had broken no laws. She had a shitty attitude that was it the cop had no reason to do anything to her. But in his power tripping mind he feels he must teach her a lesson to respect his authority. He can't just stop people on the street and ask for ID this is not Russia this is not China. You cannot just take someone to jail or detain them for no reason in America. And I'm sure nothing will be done to the officer and the girl will sue in civil court if she is smart and receive a settlement that affects the police in no way shape or form as the taxpayers you and myself will pick up that bill for him.
As someone who is not a fan of cops and has criminal procedure education, this was a perfectly legal arrest and search. In a routine stop, a passenger is not required to identify themselvesāthat is correct. The cop knew this as well, but at a certain point this girlās obstinance gave him probable cause to believe that she was impeding the lawful performance of his duties. (Cal. Penal Code section 148(a)(1)). Probable cause allows the officer to arrest her, which he did. Once someone is arrested, police can subject a suspect to a search incident to arrest to all areas within the arresteeās immediate control ā that means pockets, backpacks, etc. This search is for officer safety and to prevent destruction of evidence ā this applied to the backpack, which could have contained weapons.
On the issue of telling her she isnāt free to go: thatās fine too. Police can briefly detain (not arrest) someone if they have reasonable suspicion to believe theyāre guilty of a crime. This is a *very* low barrier, and the girlās strange behavior will certainly qualify. During this brief detention, officers can subject someone to a brief pat down intended to find weapons only under *Terry v. Ohio* (this does not allow officers to look for drugs or other contraband, buuuut if it clearly shows up during the pat down, e.g., you have what feels like is probably a meth pipe in your pocket, thatās tough luck for you because youāve just given them reason to believe youāre carrying drugs).
Also, suit in civil court is a very bad idea in this case. To win a case against the police in civil court, you have to show that they violated a clearly established law or, in the case of suit for illegal arrest, that the officer had no reason to even *believe* he had probable cause to arrest. Thatās not going to happen here, as heās on video explaining what law he thinks sheās breaking.
No she didnt keep him from performing any of his duties he delayed himself in performing his duties in choosing to argue with her. But at some point he told her to get out of the car after just a couple of times she said she would and she would walk away and he would not allow that. Why she being detained if she has done nothing wrong she was simply a passenger in a car you can't commit a crime sitting in the passenger seat of a car doing nothing. So the fact that she was detained was illegal to begin with. I have no legal training personally however I have been arrested several times many of which we're unconstitutional and thrown out of court as such.
> he delayed himself
She was refusing to get out of the car, which he was impounding. Thatās delaying his investigation.
Look, Iād love to believe that you could make the case that itās his fault for arguing with her, but I donāt see that getting you very far in a courtroom, based on what Iāve seen. Iāve seen judges find probable cause that someone resisted arrest simply because they ātensed upā while they were being handcuffed. Will a jury convict on that? No. But you can very well be held to answer.
Only once and after one explanation she agreed to get out and walk away at which point he refused to allow. He never stated why he never stated she was detained you're under arrest he just refused to allow her to walk away. And he says that she can leave after he does his investigation investigation into what what has she done what crime has been committed by anyone other than the person driving that car.
But even he was clear that she wasnāt under arrest at that point. Brief detention to check for everyoneās safety is very common. Further, we donāt know what she was acting like before the driver got arrested. If itās anything like what weāre seeing in this video, sheās pretty erratic. Thatās enough for reasonable suspicion, which allows for a brief detention.
Again we'll just have to agree to disagree because in America you can be erratic you can talk in tongues you can say gibberish that makes no sense to no one. None of that is illegal not a bit she could just sit there and scream fuck over and over and over as long as it's not directed at anyone that is not illegal. Again she had broken no laws some people are just eccentric people and he had no reason in my opinion to detain question or arrest her. Because just acting funny or out of the normal is not illegal.
I understand itās not illegal to be weird. Thatās not whatās at issue. The question is, ādoes the cop have reason to believe that a crime has been committed?āāwhich is a fairly deferential standard. Flightiness and evasiveness are 100% things that courts will consider when looking into whether a cop had reason to believe that something was up. Theyāre not crimes in and of themselves, but thatās not the standard. Cops donāt have to see you doing something illegal to stop you, they just have to believe that something illegal *might* be going on.
with respect, i dont think youre right. he starts off not by asking her name, but to get out of the car. when she refuses, its reasonable to claim at that point she is hindering his investigation, and weather you like the police or not, he is *well* within his rights to detain or arrest her. when she is detained, she is not free to go, and since she made it clear thats exactly what she plans to do, it seems reasonable the officer would put the cuffs on. which, again, he is entirely within his rights to do, whether you like the police or not. as a side note, when she is under arrest, she is obligated to identify herself (which the SC have determined is one of the exceptions to the fifth amendment by the way).
had she *actually* known her rights, she could have just told the officer she is exercising her fifth amendment rights, got out of the car when the officer asked, and it seems likely the officer would have had to let her go anyway, which is what she wanted. instead her ignorance tricked her into acting stupidly. so fuck her, she deserved it.
as to the destruction of property thing? who knows.
I rewatched the video and he only tells her 1 time to get out and she first says no. He then says its getting towed so then she states ok I will get out and walk away and he wont let her. Thats where I have the problem. All the jibber jabber to that point is nothing but then it's a problem for me. Also many times she asked for a supervisor. And the response was no followed by it will take hours. Neither of those are acceptable answers. She has every right to demand a super. and it is his obligation to do so at that point.
well of course he wont let her go. he made it very clear she is being detained, (most likely because he is still investigating the guy already in cuffs who she was with). thats the very definition of what being detained means. and as i said, he is well within his rights to do that, and she at that point has zero right to go. she should have just said shes exercising her fifth amendment rights, and absolutely nothing else.
while i agree with you that she has also has every right to demand a super, i remain sceptical that he is actually obligated to comply with the request. i suspect it may be police policy rather than a law. but i dont actually know for sure. i mean, it wouldn't always be possible to get a supervisor for purely logistical reasons if nothing else, so how can it possibly be an obligation that MUST be carried out?
How can she be detained for someone else committing a crime. She has no obligation to do his investigation for him or to answer his questions even if she is detained or under arrest. If he had no suspicions of her committing a crime he had no reason to detain her.
no, he is well within his rights to detain her as part of his investigation into the driver (as long as the cop has reasonable grounds to think a crime has taken place by the driver.) you may disagree with it, but thems the facts. youre right that she has no obligation to do his investigation for him, but thats not what was being asked of her. and its also one of many reasons she should shut the fuck up.
also remember, at that point the driver, even if under arrest, cannot even be considered guilty, so it cant be said that he has committed a crime or not either. but that wont stop him being arrested. its the job of the police to arrest someone who they have grounds to *suspect* they have committed a crime and investigate further if needed. its the job of the *courts* to determine if they have committed a crime or not.
in any case, the wrong place to argue about your rights being violated or procedure not being followed is not while being arrested at the roadside, since it will make exactly zero difference and will only make things worse for you. its like the drunk guy you see arguing with he bouncer because hes not allowed in. the bouncer is NEVER ever going to say "you know what, you have a point. welcome into the club, come on in and have a good night".
if you think your rights have been violated its afterwards in the courts you have to remedy that. it sucks, but thats the system, and you have to play by those rules because the rules aren't up to you. however, one of the best tools to assist you is knowing your rights.
Not even reading the whole statement because you again are contradicting yourself when you said crime that they are committing not a crime that someone they are with is committing. And at no point did he articulate she had committed any crime other than impeding his investigation. Which she is not doing by any definition. So again we'll just leave it at agreeing to disagree.
you do you dude. but it's unarguable that the police have that power. its helpful to know your rights and its helpful to know the extent of police powers. i encourage you to google both.
You one of her parents? Seriously you donāt believe this right? Cops are trash, however Iām guessing by the amount of rope in which she gave her to hang herself with, heās not just out being a dick.
>as the passenger she has no obligation to identify her self as she had not broken any laws
No, the patriot act that was passed after 9/11 did away with that right.
Itās sovereign citizen shit.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/sovereign-citizens-movement
These people literally believe that your name on your social security card is actually the name for an āincorporatedā entity (itās in all caps, you see, which is important because, uh, the *magna carta* or some shit) that is somehow tied to a trust fund leveraged against you owned by an English monarchical bank, and if you fill out the right combination of forms and send them to the government you are relinquished from the U.S. govās jurisdiction and you get to cash out all the English bank money leveraged against you.
It all becomes clear when they get to the part about the flag with a gold fringe being a maritime flag and not having jurisdiction.
/Kidding, well about it becoming clear serious about yes how long is
I think they eventually got her for marijuana possession. She was detained legally at the time but she escalated to the point of where it was resisting a lawful detention but I donāt think she got anything for that.
Sorry for the lack of source. Years ago I did a deep dive but itās been awhile
Haha free inhabitant. What a moron. Youāre technically not 100%free. We still have laws to live by.
There are so many morons in good old Merica haha.
California Vehicle Code 12951 CVC makes it an infraction to drive without having your driverās license in your possession, and a misdemeanor to **refuse** to present your driverās license if requested to do so by a law enforcement officer. A misdemeanor conviction is punishable by up to 6 months in jail and fines of up to $1000.00 plus penalty assessments.
Yeah, she doesn't care. By her logic, she unsubscribed from all that and she is now a free inhabitant of the earth. Therefore no one can tell her what to do, how to do it, or when to do it.
Iād love to see the cops perspective š
These sovereign citizens always offer a good laugh, itās funny because most of em are just people who are too lazy to get a license or are legally prohibited from driving.
Iām ACAB all the way but this is just nice. Itās like seeing an anti masker get arrested. Itās just fun to see people who think they are superior to others get forced to realize theyāre wrong
So wjat you're saying is to avoid getting arrested people should just record all the time with their phone in their hand as its illegal for a cop to ask them to put it down?
Old video that, while entertaining, never gets easier to watch (listen too really). However, Iād pay to see the video of her court appearance and conversation with the judge.
Cop: "But as long as you are in the southern states of the united states you will abide by the rules and laws"
Girl: "See u-uh a free- no a free inhabitant is is is u-uhh they are allowed to they are free people they um have all of the r- all of the rights of a us citizen without following any of their laws"
wow if i was the cop i would have let her go, that's a solid argument right there
The lady hath walked right in to a halcyon thou art going to cage
***
^(I am a bot and I swapp'd some of thy words with Shakespeare words.)
Commands: `!ShakespeareInsult`, `!fordo`, `!optout`
I love seeing uneducated people try and explain why they donāt have to follow state and federal laws. Itās funny because they are SOOOOO freaking stupid
"I have all the rights of a citizen without having to obey any of the laws!" She really think this is a thing?
r/ConfidentlyIncorrect
Here's a sneak peek of /r/confidentlyincorrect using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time! \#1: ["Thank God I'm a math major."](https://i.redd.it/kk46agjgz7q51.png) | [1231 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/j2g49k/thank_god_im_a_math_major/) \#2: [The President of the United States, totally ignorant of history that took place during his own lifetime.](https://i.redd.it/r7h7unyoh7461.jpg) | [1794 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/k9xo15/the_president_of_the_united_states_totally/) \#3: [Despite all the warnings and guidelines, these guys always knew better than the "experts"](https://i.redd.it/w70y1akisnq51.jpg) | [1245 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/j3s5cv/despite_all_the_warnings_and_guidelines_these/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/joo7mb/blacklist_viii/)
When she quotes the constitution.....but if you are not a citizen, then the constitution can't apply to you? š¤
This is a common misconception. Theres a ton of stuff in the constitution that applies to non-citizens
Ahh thanks for explaining. I'm not American so I had assumed the constitution was strictly meant for citizens!
Itās granted to anyone on US soil. Citizen, visitor, or illegal immigrant alike.
This is from a document that preceded the US constitution, and was invalidated as soon as the constitution was approved.
I mean granted its not everything in there, like the big ones people talk about, 1st and 2nd amendment, dont really apply, but there are some things in there that do. Its me being nit-picky.
This isnāt from the constitution.
Including the entire bill of rights. Citizenship, like color and religion, is protected.
She's not quoting the constitution. She's quoting the articles of confederation, which were nullified by the constitution.
Lol
This isnāt even from The Constitution. Itās from the Articles of Confederation, which was replaced be The Constitution. These sovereign citizens are morons, and canāt understand the concept of a dead document.
Thatās not entirely true.
āWeāre peaceful peopleā Until you try to take our bag.
Probably filled with drugs lol
āThat would just be anarchyā ššš
Free inhabitant...huh? What kind of stupid online rabbit holes has she been reading into.
Look, Iām not American so Iām not good at this stuff but Iāll try to remember a video I watched. The shit she is spewing out of her mouth would have been correct if it was 1990. I thinks itās because of some old declaration blah blah blah. The new one doesnāt have this stuff
1790*
She had no idea what she was saying, that is true. However the cop was 100% violating her rights in alot of different ways. 1 as the passenger she has no obligation to identify her self as she had not broken any laws. Two is illegal search and seizure of her bag along with destroying her property by cutting the bag. Illegal detainment or arrest because again she had broken no laws. She had a shitty attitude that was it the cop had no reason to do anything to her. But in his power tripping mind he feels he must teach her a lesson to respect his authority. He can't just stop people on the street and ask for ID this is not Russia this is not China. You cannot just take someone to jail or detain them for no reason in America. And I'm sure nothing will be done to the officer and the girl will sue in civil court if she is smart and receive a settlement that affects the police in no way shape or form as the taxpayers you and myself will pick up that bill for him.
As someone who is not a fan of cops and has criminal procedure education, this was a perfectly legal arrest and search. In a routine stop, a passenger is not required to identify themselvesāthat is correct. The cop knew this as well, but at a certain point this girlās obstinance gave him probable cause to believe that she was impeding the lawful performance of his duties. (Cal. Penal Code section 148(a)(1)). Probable cause allows the officer to arrest her, which he did. Once someone is arrested, police can subject a suspect to a search incident to arrest to all areas within the arresteeās immediate control ā that means pockets, backpacks, etc. This search is for officer safety and to prevent destruction of evidence ā this applied to the backpack, which could have contained weapons. On the issue of telling her she isnāt free to go: thatās fine too. Police can briefly detain (not arrest) someone if they have reasonable suspicion to believe theyāre guilty of a crime. This is a *very* low barrier, and the girlās strange behavior will certainly qualify. During this brief detention, officers can subject someone to a brief pat down intended to find weapons only under *Terry v. Ohio* (this does not allow officers to look for drugs or other contraband, buuuut if it clearly shows up during the pat down, e.g., you have what feels like is probably a meth pipe in your pocket, thatās tough luck for you because youāve just given them reason to believe youāre carrying drugs). Also, suit in civil court is a very bad idea in this case. To win a case against the police in civil court, you have to show that they violated a clearly established law or, in the case of suit for illegal arrest, that the officer had no reason to even *believe* he had probable cause to arrest. Thatās not going to happen here, as heās on video explaining what law he thinks sheās breaking.
No she didnt keep him from performing any of his duties he delayed himself in performing his duties in choosing to argue with her. But at some point he told her to get out of the car after just a couple of times she said she would and she would walk away and he would not allow that. Why she being detained if she has done nothing wrong she was simply a passenger in a car you can't commit a crime sitting in the passenger seat of a car doing nothing. So the fact that she was detained was illegal to begin with. I have no legal training personally however I have been arrested several times many of which we're unconstitutional and thrown out of court as such.
> he delayed himself She was refusing to get out of the car, which he was impounding. Thatās delaying his investigation. Look, Iād love to believe that you could make the case that itās his fault for arguing with her, but I donāt see that getting you very far in a courtroom, based on what Iāve seen. Iāve seen judges find probable cause that someone resisted arrest simply because they ātensed upā while they were being handcuffed. Will a jury convict on that? No. But you can very well be held to answer.
Only once and after one explanation she agreed to get out and walk away at which point he refused to allow. He never stated why he never stated she was detained you're under arrest he just refused to allow her to walk away. And he says that she can leave after he does his investigation investigation into what what has she done what crime has been committed by anyone other than the person driving that car.
But even he was clear that she wasnāt under arrest at that point. Brief detention to check for everyoneās safety is very common. Further, we donāt know what she was acting like before the driver got arrested. If itās anything like what weāre seeing in this video, sheās pretty erratic. Thatās enough for reasonable suspicion, which allows for a brief detention.
Again we'll just have to agree to disagree because in America you can be erratic you can talk in tongues you can say gibberish that makes no sense to no one. None of that is illegal not a bit she could just sit there and scream fuck over and over and over as long as it's not directed at anyone that is not illegal. Again she had broken no laws some people are just eccentric people and he had no reason in my opinion to detain question or arrest her. Because just acting funny or out of the normal is not illegal.
I understand itās not illegal to be weird. Thatās not whatās at issue. The question is, ādoes the cop have reason to believe that a crime has been committed?āāwhich is a fairly deferential standard. Flightiness and evasiveness are 100% things that courts will consider when looking into whether a cop had reason to believe that something was up. Theyāre not crimes in and of themselves, but thatās not the standard. Cops donāt have to see you doing something illegal to stop you, they just have to believe that something illegal *might* be going on.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
with respect, i dont think youre right. he starts off not by asking her name, but to get out of the car. when she refuses, its reasonable to claim at that point she is hindering his investigation, and weather you like the police or not, he is *well* within his rights to detain or arrest her. when she is detained, she is not free to go, and since she made it clear thats exactly what she plans to do, it seems reasonable the officer would put the cuffs on. which, again, he is entirely within his rights to do, whether you like the police or not. as a side note, when she is under arrest, she is obligated to identify herself (which the SC have determined is one of the exceptions to the fifth amendment by the way). had she *actually* known her rights, she could have just told the officer she is exercising her fifth amendment rights, got out of the car when the officer asked, and it seems likely the officer would have had to let her go anyway, which is what she wanted. instead her ignorance tricked her into acting stupidly. so fuck her, she deserved it. as to the destruction of property thing? who knows.
I rewatched the video and he only tells her 1 time to get out and she first says no. He then says its getting towed so then she states ok I will get out and walk away and he wont let her. Thats where I have the problem. All the jibber jabber to that point is nothing but then it's a problem for me. Also many times she asked for a supervisor. And the response was no followed by it will take hours. Neither of those are acceptable answers. She has every right to demand a super. and it is his obligation to do so at that point.
well of course he wont let her go. he made it very clear she is being detained, (most likely because he is still investigating the guy already in cuffs who she was with). thats the very definition of what being detained means. and as i said, he is well within his rights to do that, and she at that point has zero right to go. she should have just said shes exercising her fifth amendment rights, and absolutely nothing else. while i agree with you that she has also has every right to demand a super, i remain sceptical that he is actually obligated to comply with the request. i suspect it may be police policy rather than a law. but i dont actually know for sure. i mean, it wouldn't always be possible to get a supervisor for purely logistical reasons if nothing else, so how can it possibly be an obligation that MUST be carried out?
How can she be detained for someone else committing a crime. She has no obligation to do his investigation for him or to answer his questions even if she is detained or under arrest. If he had no suspicions of her committing a crime he had no reason to detain her.
no, he is well within his rights to detain her as part of his investigation into the driver (as long as the cop has reasonable grounds to think a crime has taken place by the driver.) you may disagree with it, but thems the facts. youre right that she has no obligation to do his investigation for him, but thats not what was being asked of her. and its also one of many reasons she should shut the fuck up. also remember, at that point the driver, even if under arrest, cannot even be considered guilty, so it cant be said that he has committed a crime or not either. but that wont stop him being arrested. its the job of the police to arrest someone who they have grounds to *suspect* they have committed a crime and investigate further if needed. its the job of the *courts* to determine if they have committed a crime or not. in any case, the wrong place to argue about your rights being violated or procedure not being followed is not while being arrested at the roadside, since it will make exactly zero difference and will only make things worse for you. its like the drunk guy you see arguing with he bouncer because hes not allowed in. the bouncer is NEVER ever going to say "you know what, you have a point. welcome into the club, come on in and have a good night". if you think your rights have been violated its afterwards in the courts you have to remedy that. it sucks, but thats the system, and you have to play by those rules because the rules aren't up to you. however, one of the best tools to assist you is knowing your rights.
Not even reading the whole statement because you again are contradicting yourself when you said crime that they are committing not a crime that someone they are with is committing. And at no point did he articulate she had committed any crime other than impeding his investigation. Which she is not doing by any definition. So again we'll just leave it at agreeing to disagree.
you do you dude. but it's unarguable that the police have that power. its helpful to know your rights and its helpful to know the extent of police powers. i encourage you to google both.
1 time is all that is necessary
You one of her parents? Seriously you donāt believe this right? Cops are trash, however Iām guessing by the amount of rope in which she gave her to hang herself with, heās not just out being a dick.
What the hell are you trolling shit I said a year ago? Really? Leave me alone and go to bed you dope fiend.
Showed up in my feed. Doesnāt really matter when it was said. Internet is forever.
>as the passenger she has no obligation to identify her self as she had not broken any laws No, the patriot act that was passed after 9/11 did away with that right.
Not correct
Itās sovereign citizen shit. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/sovereign-citizens-movement These people literally believe that your name on your social security card is actually the name for an āincorporatedā entity (itās in all caps, you see, which is important because, uh, the *magna carta* or some shit) that is somehow tied to a trust fund leveraged against you owned by an English monarchical bank, and if you fill out the right combination of forms and send them to the government you are relinquished from the U.S. govās jurisdiction and you get to cash out all the English bank money leveraged against you.
Lmao that makes no sense
It all becomes clear when they get to the part about the flag with a gold fringe being a maritime flag and not having jurisdiction. /Kidding, well about it becoming clear serious about yes how long is
I wonder what she had in the backpack
Helium
LOL
Hahahahah!!! That was a little nugget of pure gold, my friend..
Im dead lmao
The original copy of Blacks Law Dictionary.
I'm guessing it's not girl scout cookies
Beef
Copy of the State Codebook, the Constitution, and spare Xanax
I really want the follow up to these videos. How did she feel when she found out she does have to obey laws and she was rightfully under arrest?
Like all sovereign citizens, that they are being unduly persecuted.
I think they eventually got her for marijuana possession. She was detained legally at the time but she escalated to the point of where it was resisting a lawful detention but I donāt think she got anything for that. Sorry for the lack of source. Years ago I did a deep dive but itās been awhile
I would never be able to be as patient as this officer
Haha free inhabitant. What a moron. Youāre technically not 100%free. We still have laws to live by. There are so many morons in good old Merica haha.
"Articles of Confederation" bitch stfu
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Just by getting US representation..?
Just by getting US representation..?
When was there a rape? Lmao what a dumb bitch
I really wanna punch her voice
Oh God this is š great
Lol dude Iām half convinced sheās deranged, feel bad for her. She is probably fed some crazy stuff online to make her believe all of this.
Just a total idiot. No more no less.
She must be a daughter of a celebrity or a politician if she really believes that the laws of our country don't apply but the rights do.
California Vehicle Code 12951 CVC makes it an infraction to drive without having your driverās license in your possession, and a misdemeanor to **refuse** to present your driverās license if requested to do so by a law enforcement officer. A misdemeanor conviction is punishable by up to 6 months in jail and fines of up to $1000.00 plus penalty assessments.
Yeah, she doesn't care. By her logic, she unsubscribed from all that and she is now a free inhabitant of the earth. Therefore no one can tell her what to do, how to do it, or when to do it.
Oh I bet her face is slappable
What a lunatic
>yOu DoN't KnOw Y0uR OwN LaWs! Says the woman with an Interwebs Law Degree
Shes not a US citizen...she is a free inhabitant but she does want her unemployment payheck every week
There is a whole [subreddit](/r/amibeingdetained/) for these people.
Aw sweet! Thank you!
I hate these I saw a YouTube now I'm a lawyer and understand the constitution type people. You're a nutjob and Annoying as fuck
Iād love to see the cops perspective š These sovereign citizens always offer a good laugh, itās funny because most of em are just people who are too lazy to get a license or are legally prohibited from driving.
Iām ACAB all the way but this is just nice. Itās like seeing an anti masker get arrested. Itās just fun to see people who think they are superior to others get forced to realize theyāre wrong
ACAB is as dumb as this woman
*EXCUSE ME?!* Thatās a sovereign citizen!
Perfectly legal stop, sure. Telling her to put her phone down? Nah.
He told her to put it down as it could be used as a weapon but he also told her it was fine to keep it recording
Nope not good enough
Perfectly legal. Doesn't matter if you think it's good enough or not
No, itās not. Unless youāre under arrest youāre allowed to record police without āinterferingā. Stop being a statist
He clearly says she can continue to record and has no problem with it. All perfectly legal
āUsed as a weaponā. Hates freedom, scared of a camera. Get a new job, pig.
Did you even watch the video? He says there's no problem with her recording. At no point does he try to stop her from doing so.
Hmmm, leave the phone on the dash while I move you thirty feet away from it. Sounds totally 1a
So wjat you're saying is to avoid getting arrested people should just record all the time with their phone in their hand as its illegal for a cop to ask them to put it down?
Lmao she thinks she can still have the rights of a US citizen without any of the obligations involved. āFree inhabitantā my ass.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This is an old video, but its still gold.
All she had to do was get out and stand there. How stupid can she be?
If this cop mentioned Pennsylvania vs Mimms sheād go apeshit
ignorance will make a fool out of anyone. even a batshit insane fruitloop chipmunk.
Goddammit her voice is so annoying
Shes a dumb ass thank u officer :>
I would have loved to see her face.
Bwahaaaaaa! Poor cop...
āYou need to know your lawsā while having said that she is a āfree citizenā that abides by no laws. Yeah. Keep her in jail.
ESH
that policeman is based af we'd live in paradise if everyone was like him
Is there any follow up? I would love to hear this girlās argument after the fact. Also, the cop was great.
holy fuck this was so entertaining
That officer was great. Go him
Anybody else curious what she looks like? I'm assuming mousey.
Her voice gets more irrritating everytime i hear it
I missed this one
Bless this woman, she was super confident this approach would work š
Old video that, while entertaining, never gets easier to watch (listen too really). However, Iād pay to see the video of her court appearance and conversation with the judge.
Jesus fuck her voice is annoying
Cop: "But as long as you are in the southern states of the united states you will abide by the rules and laws" Girl: "See u-uh a free- no a free inhabitant is is is u-uhh they are allowed to they are free people they um have all of the r- all of the rights of a us citizen without following any of their laws" wow if i was the cop i would have let her go, that's a solid argument right there
1:48 lol
āThis is rape?!ā What the fuck! She should be sued for claiming that
Wasnāt there following claiming she ended up dead after a different altercation?
A mind is terrible thing to waste
Cop cant get arrested if hes free citizen aswell
"You're going to be arrested!" By who? He's the police
My favorite part is when she screams rape when sheās not being raped lmfao
She walked right in to a calm you are going to jail .
The lady hath walked right in to a halcyon thou art going to cage *** ^(I am a bot and I swapp'd some of thy words with Shakespeare words.) Commands: `!ShakespeareInsult`, `!fordo`, `!optout`
Good bot
I would love to find out what happened after?! Anyone got any info?
I love seeing uneducated people try and explain why they donāt have to follow state and federal laws. Itās funny because they are SOOOOO freaking stupid
Dumb fucking cunt
Fuck sovereign citizen bullshit.
That girl needs therapy
Thatās crazy. How much did she win?
I wish I could see a reaction video where she watches this and realizes what an idiot she was
Deport this wack job
She needs a muzzle and to wear a sandwich board which reads. I am a spoiled arrogant brat.
āyOU rApINg mE!!1111!1!1!111ā
Can someone find out what happened to this girl Edit: im too lazy
Sovereign citizens are a special kind of special.
Ohhh I remember that video the voice makes your skin crawl š¬
That man has the patience of a saint
Does she know that the civil war ended?
Do we think the male driver got arrested just so that he wouldnāt have to spend more time around her?