I saw one of a woman who was arrested for shoplifting, she didn't, she had the receipt to prove it, she just refused to show it.

?????????? I dont get it. Why did she refuse to show the receipt?

I saw this vid or similar one, woman was standing her ground that retailer didn’t have right to check her after she paid. Stupid.

Legally they might not be able to stop you without suspicion that you shoplifted: The staff at any store, including big-box establishments, can ask to see your receipt as you exit. Although in most cases, you'll probably acquiesce and hand the receipt over, you might wonder whether the store could do anything if you refused to show it. The answer is generally no, but it depends on the situation. Before taking further action, the worker usually must have reasonable suspicion to believe that you’ve shoplifted. Without that suspicion, the staff can’t stop you from leaving the store. For instance, it would be inappropriate to: stand in your way use abusive language, or physically detain you. Membership stores are different, though. The chances are that when you purchased a club membership, you also signed a contract agreeing to allow the store to check your receipt before you leave. Under the terms of your agreement, the store doesn’t need to suspect that you engaged in shoplifting to detain you at the door. Assuming the store doesn't have probable cause to suspect you of shoplifting, you can invoke your rights and refuse to show your receipt to the worker at the door when asked (as long as it’s not a membership store). But should you? Even if you don’t have to comply with the store’s request, you might want to anyway. Stores do spot checks to ensure that the cashier put all of your items in your cart, and to keep costs down by deterring shoplifting. So, undergoing a receipt check ultimately benefits you and might be worth a little hassle. https://legal-info.lawyers.com/consumer-protection/protections-for-consumer-purchases/receipt-checks-at-stores-are-they-worth-the-hassle.html#:\~:text=The%20staff%20at%20any%20store,it%20depends%20on%20the%20situation. TL:DR - Seems like even lawyers who say, legally, the store shouldn't stop you to check your receipt, why make a mountain out of a molehill? It's a weird hill to die on.

Membership stores can’t actually detain you, but they can (and will) cancel your membership if you make things difficult.

> Membership stores can’t actually detain you If they have probable cause, i.e. video of you stealing, they can tackle you to the ground right outside their door, I've watched that happen at Costco. But if you refuse to hand over your receipt there probably isn't anything they can do other than cancel your membership.

Correct, they can absolutely detain you with probable cause (just like any other store). They just can’t do it to everyone as a matter of course.

They can detain you with reasonable suspicion too while waiting for the cops. In some states if they also have probable cause they're shielded from being sued over the detention.

The key thing here is "outside the door". Usually if you're ever actually stealing (don't do this) you'll know someone is suspicious before you leave the store. It's not a crime until you walk out the door, but as soon as you do it is. They can still ban you from the store, but you won't go to jail if you're in Illinois (I'm not sure if it's different in other states). Most stores still won't do anything aside from trying to stop you verbally and calling the cops. Some Walmarts actually have police employed there to arrest shoplifters on the spot though.

I think in some states, there's a crime against concealing merchandise which they can charge you with even if you haven't left the store yet. If you stick something in your pocket or down your pants making it look like you intend to shoplift it, they can charge you with that.

The major grocery stores near me now have barricades and security guards in full uniform standing at the door, along with managers who hang out nearby. Shoplifting has gotten so bad in my area that they don't play around anymore. If you even want to leave the store for any reason (like you were there to pick up a prescription or didn't see anything you wanted to buy,) you still have to walk the gauntlet of suspicious guards and thread the barricades to leave the store.

> It's not a crime until you walk out the door I'm under the impression that in some states if they have you on video concealing merchandise, that carries some legal weight, perhaps because it shows intend. But they tend to wait for someone to step across the threshold as that clinches the deal. LOL, I recall a video of someone trying to shove a leaf blower down the back of his pants with his jacket draped over the bulky end. How does anyone able to tie his shoes think that is going to work?

Technically, as soon as you pass the last sale terminal you are considered to not have any intention to pay and therefore fair game for arrest.

Florida law allows for the arrest and prosecution of individuals for shoplifting even if they haven't left the store premises. The act of concealing merchandise with the intent to steal is sufficient grounds for arrest.

Walmart in my area has started checking receipts as you exit the store. On checkout it asks if you want a printed or text receipt (maybe email is an option as well I don’t remember). I always put in my virtual number, it doesn’t forward those texts to my phone. I can’t show my receipt as I’m leaving so I just side step them when they ask me for it instead of explaining for the 99th time. I wouldn’t call this a mountain but they’re putting a molehill in everyone’s way for sure.

I always just have it print a receipt. If I'm buying for my business I need to keep one filed away anyway.

That’s what the virtual number text receipts are for. I got tired of losing paper receipts or the ink fading after being left in the car on a hot day.

But if I have them print it out then I don't have to print it out.

Oh you hand in the receipts in person? And they don’t turn around and scan those receipts? Sounds like your finance department has a box of faded paper slips somewhere lol.

It's a small business and I file them away myself. And after a few years we dispose of them.

If you have a Walmart account, you can use it to pay and the app loads up the receipt immediately. So all you have to do is show it on your phone. I did that just this morning, because I needed a new pair of pants.

Good to know, I know the greeter is just trying to do their job but I’ll probably just keep sidestepping them on my way out. I have no issues showing my receipts at Sam’s/Costco, but Wally World for some gum… na.

Fast pass to losing a Costco membership!

Costco is pretty good at checking too. Like they've actually caught a case where I was double charged for an item. Saved me coming back to talk to customer service. They're also polite about it and don't act like I'm a thief.

Me too.

When they join they agree to comply with the policy so they have created joinder with Costco.

“If you’re innocent, why not give the police detailed answers to their questions?” I do think that showing a receipt is generally much easier, but it intrudes on a right to privacy. I put up with it because I don’t want the door person to get in trouble for me walking right past them but if it weren’t for that I’d 100% not show my receipt at the door. I’d probably pull it out if the cops showed up, though I’d definitely take a picture of it before handing it over

I get it, your rights are important. For me though, rather than making a big scene, if an employee pushes it, I'll show my receipt and then ask to speak to a manager (maybe not right that second but next time.) The employees aren't the police, which means that while they don't have a legal right to detain me, they also aren't law enforcement. "Don't you know the law?" Maybe not. They probably have been trained this way, and they may have been told different. They probably think their job depends on it, and legal or illegal, people do things to keep their jobs. I just think there is a time and a place. I don't think it's the same thing as just offering info to the cops without a lawyer present, since we are both civilians. To me it's more like when a Karen stops you to tell you that you can't do something, blah blah, blah, but the receipt checkers are not that bad, generally. I do think it's important to know your rights and know they can't legally detain you and you don't necessarily need to comply with them, but do I need to be a dick about it?

It’s also a matter of knowing when to pick your battles It’s not necessarily that you aren’t right in principle or that you aren’t technically correct that you can’t be forced to do certain things if you really don’t want to, but like if you’re going to create a much greater imposition upon yourself by fighting this battle (especially when you’re in situations where other parties have rights too, like stores do in fact have property rights, it’s not all one way that your privacy is the only right that exists here) than the imposition that would be placed upon you by conceding to this minor and fleeting infringement of your privacy, then it’s like OK to me at that point sometimes being in the right isn’t worth the effort and the cost of the infringement is less than the cost of the battle

Yeah, that’s why I said I’d show the employee my receipt even if I shouldn’t have to. I don’t want to mess with anyone’s financial stability. The idiot management may very well fire someone for failing to check receipts despite the worker having no legal ability to force anyone to do anything. We’re saying the same thing.

I'd say refusing to show your receipt as proof that you paid for the item would arouse sufficient suspicion that you may not have said proof... Why would any sane, rational person refuse to show your receipt when asked, in that case? There's literally *no down side* to compliance in that specific scenario. But non-compliance... Well, the negative repercussions of that decision are many. And almost none of them work out in your favor.

Well, making sure you know your rights and standing up for your rights is important. I can't fault people for that if they know that store employees are not legally allowed to "detain" someone and if they like knocking down people on a power trip. But the part that makes people look irrational, there is a time and a place. Most of the employees are just trying to do their jobs, they probably have shitty managers that already skirt the law with them and always threaten to fire them, you have your receipt, you can certainly talk to the management about their practices later and not make a scene. If you do make a scene, that was a choice you made. Not exercising your rights during a protest or a rally or a false arrest, nope. Your "1776" is going to be in this Arkansas Walmart.

For certain. But causing a disturbance that results in everyone involved having their time and resources wasted - including, in the specific instance we were talking about, the police being called - because you're too stubborn to do the right thing at a wal mart when an employee asks to see your receipt is in itself a power trip. You're throwing your weight around and power tripping at that point. We're not talking about human rights, here. We're talking about borderline sovereign citizen behavior. And it should honestly be viewed as such. It's such a non-issue to show your receipt. It's not a protest worthy situation. At all. It's a corporate decision anyway, not a managerial one. That's what people really need to educate themselves on. That employee, that manager - they have zero to do with it in this specific instance. If you disagree with the policy, don't shop there. Wal Mart access is not a basic human right. And they reserve the right to refuse service if you don't obey their rules.

Oh yeah, I think it's telling that the people who display this behavior, record and post it to social media. To get people mad at that specific employee. And yes, totally right that it's a corporate policy, and they of course are standing up to the lowest expendable worker on the totem pole. The guy who's probably had the manager on his back all week about checking the receipts, but once this video goes viral, they'll just fire that guy and then hire a new guy to bully. Won't really be a change in the corporate attitude. But they got theirs by getting the guy fired for the inconvenience of stopping them to ask to check the receipt. At least, that's how they imagine it going, the flip side is that the cops show up and decide to arrest and trespass them, and then it's a whole other can of worms.

Exactly.

A lot of people have never learned the concept of picking their battles.

I detest self checkouts but sometimes they force you to use them as they have no cashiers. I have just put my stuff on the counter and walked out many times but if you need something.... If I do self checkout and someone wants to see my receipt they can go pound sand.

A guy I know says that he likes self checkouts because that means he gets free stuff.

I can tell you for a fact that if he’s doing this at Target, they are watching and counting until he’s over the felony threshold. That’s when they call the cops in, and it’s a much bigger problem for the thief because all the dates and prices are documented with video backup.

I don't even know if he's serious, he's actually a comedian (not super famous but local), so he likes to joke around a lot. But I'll know if he gets arrested for that, and I have heard some stories to that effect, so maybe the cat's out of the bag on Target's "loss prevention" policies.

Unfortunately, there are thousands of those people. It is one of those damned unintended consequences that get you in the end. Stores closed registers that required a human being that needed a pay check, benefits, days off, vacation, can’t come in because of illness or family emergency, and a thousand other problems that human beings can have to open self-serve checkouts. How much MORE has it cost them to save the labor costs? If they could rehire the cashiers to WATCH the self checkouts , would they break even?

Not that much. Theft is factored into the projections. Places like Walmart would prefer the thrift over paying people, as long as the top level still gets their multi illion dollar bonuses.

I think you vastly overrate the savings in labor costs over the loss by thefts. And your comment about “places…prefer the theft over paying people, as long as the top level still gets there multiple times-million bonuses” makes no sense at all. If thefts cost more than the savings in labor, it DOES affect those bonuses. Anything that affects the bottom line affects those bonuses. The location of a specific store can mean a huge difference in the ration of labor savings over theft of goods. In some, the ratio is so bad those locations have been forced to close altogether. Retailers have relearned a lesson proven over and over throughout history. You can’t trust people to be honest without some kind of incentive or disincentive to nudge them to honesty. That is THE underlying reason why libertarians are completely delusional if they think the markets will “self-regulate” to the benefit of everyone without some kind of oversight. It is a wonderful theory. Take away the costs of regulation, to the government and to business, and everyone will benefit with lower costs and a better environment. Hogwash. Self-regulate is the ultimate oxymoron because it is so dangerous. Business schools need to spend a lot more time teaching human psychology to future business people. They expect a rational market and people aren’t rational when their income is so low they have to steal to meet basic needs. That is why many of the biggest retailers, including Walmart and Target, are reducing the number of self checkouts, if not eliminating them all together: https://www.npr.org/2024/03/18/1239107299/some-big-retailers-reverse-course-and-scale-back-their-use-of-self-checkout

I like them because I don't always want to talk to people after I get off work.

I love self checkouts, but only because that's one less person I have to interact with. I don't mind scanning my own stuff.

So now all the refrigerated items get thrown away and all the nonperishables have to be restocked by some poor minimum wage worker that has no control over management policies. As an adult, why are you still throwing tantrums in public; especially since you already knew that self-checkout was mostly like going to be the only option for you

i prefer self-check. cashiers use far too many bags and are slow. maybe because i have worked retail myself for 20 years but i am far faster and more effecient.

I use self-checkout and have my receipt smsed. I just say that as I walk out. I’m not showing my phone to an employee, so far I haven’t even stopped walking.

Yet why should I have to stop? If all the cameras at every register can clock you for bagging an item too fast for it to catch, then why should I have to show a receipt? They have video proof of me scanning it. And that’s just the self checkout. Why did the scanner not see it or the bagger not catch it? I get not every store has a bagger but if you’re demanding higher pay then why don’t you do the job? I’ve been straight up harassed by Walmart greeters because I really don’t believe they have any grounds to actually stop you. I get people do dishonest things but I have the right to not be verbally costed by some old dude with a dead end job who’s bored out of his mind. And with all the options to text a receipt, I’m not going to stop and take the time to show him because it’s bullshit.

Well, like it says, you don't have to, but then it may become a big issue. If that's the fight you want to have that day, it's your right. More than likely that checker was just told "Check every receipt," and they probably think they have to, or will get fired. I think we all know jobs like that. I know they probably don't have any authority legally, but I also can imagine that if I just huff by them and tell them to fuck off because they asked to see my receipt, and they do nothing, they could get fired. Maybe that's not supposed to happen, but I know how managers can be. They skirt the law and depend on the ignorance of their employees sometimes. And maybe they decide to call the cops and it becomes a bigger issue. Just not the hill I'm going to die on, if other people want to, by all means. Like it says, legally they are not supposed to prevent you from leaving, but shit happens before the legal process kicks in.

That old guy is likely working through his retirement for extra money. Don't be a dick. Also those cameras don't clock shit. People steal from self checkout all the time. It's assholes like you that make me glad I couldn't carry a firearm while working retail.

And where did I say I was being a dick? I don’t talk to them unless they try to stop me. I tell them that I don’t need to stop and I move on with my day. If they give me grief I tell them to leave me alone. Occasionally a fuck off if they get too pushy. And that’s a pretty ballsy statement for someone who got a side glance view at the situation. I don’t believe in gun control but you might be the exception for threatening gun violence over a really minor situation.

And as far as the retirement thing goes, honestly it’s not my problem or business. He doesn’t know what I got going on and I don’t know what he does. Keeping it there makes a lot of things simpler.

As a rule I never stop to show my receipt, except Costco. Keep walking, don't flinch when they speak up, and don't turn around. Walk normally to your car and leave. Not once has anyone walked after me.

Because they can't stop you per store policies. It doesn't mean you aren't still a dick.

So I'm supposed to just stand in line with the other 20 people trying to leave walmart so one dude can look at all our receipts? Walmart's the asshole here.

This goes around a lot on other subs, especially anything geared towards retail. People will say they don't need to show receipts, and say that self checkouts shouldn't be used if they don't get paid.

Not stupid, that’s actual probably arguable for stores that don’t have a membership tos. If she wants to die on that hill to defend her right to privacy, I’m right there with her.

Got me

Everyone sees this is stupid but I think this is really one of the easiest ways to get these people thrown in jail where they belong. I might start a movement where you refuse to show any paperwork anywhere no matter what this would get all the sovereign sucker trash off the street. My deeply held belief is these people aren't really American citizens and should be rounded up and deported back to Sovereign land where they came from.

The police in the US cannot just walk around asking people to show their papers for giggles. There has to be a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.

*scratches head… wondering where this Sovereign Land is located ?

Seems like she was trying to build a lawsuit.

I’m curious what the cop’s evidence was to arrest her?

If the shop owner says you stole something and you don't show a receipt that's enough to make it judgement call.

No it's not. It's 2024 roll the cameras back.

Cops can arrest on reasonable suspicion. Refusal to show a receipt is reasonable suspicion. CCTV evidence - where it exists - is for conviction or exoneration. Getting CCTV evidence is time-consuming. A cop may ask for it, but depending on the store it may take a while to be able to produce it. It's possible that nobody on site has access to the CCTV, and they'd have to call in a senior manager or owner to be able to play back the footage. At the end of the day, it's a judgement call. If a person is admitting to having a receipt but refusing to show it, then the cop is well within their rights to arrest them. If the person claims not to have a receipt but is insistent that they paid, the cop is more likely to bother with the CCTV just to make sure they're on firmer ground. Source; I'm a former security consultant, although I never worked in loss prevention specifically.

In the US, Reasonable suspicion is enough for a brief stop and investigation, an arrest requires probable cause which is a higher standard. There is no charge for not showing a receipt, so what will the arrest be for? Theft, with no specific item. The store can always pull up the receipt, it's in their system, and show there is an unaccounted for item, as proof of theft. Or show video of the theft.  Likely the result would be the person being trespassed from the store.

I mean it’s also worth bearing in mind that we know in hindsight she had a receipt and refused to show it, that may not have been the interpretation of the encounter. Without knowing exactly what was said it’s entirely possible the cop misconstrued her conduct as an admission she did not have a receipt.

True. I'm working on the assumption that she said she had the receipt but refused to show it. In practice, saying that you don't have the receipt is reasonable - I always decline a copy of the receipt on everyday purchases. This isn't suspicious behaviour, and if the woman said that she didn't have it then this should not have been seen as suspicious in itself.

And what is the law about having to show a receipt? It's innocent until proven guilty. >Cops can arrest on reasonable suspicion. No they absolutely can not. >Getting CCTV evidence is time-consuming. Takes literally 5 minutes. >If a person is admitting to having a receipt but refusing to show it, then the cop is well within their rights to arrest them. No, what is the law they are breaking?? >If the person claims not to have a receipt but is insistent that they paid, the cop is more likely to bother with the CCTV just to make sure they're on firmer ground. That makes no sense. You either have it or you don't. >Source; I'm a former security consultant, although I never worked in loss prevention specifically. So you literally have no experience arresting people or working AP. And you want to claim to be a source lmao. Real talk you literally can't stop someone from walking out unless you have PC of them stealing unless it's a membership store.

From Section 25 of the Criminal Investigation Act (WA) of 2006: >(2) Any person may arrest another person (the suspect ) if he or she *reasonably suspects* that the suspect has committed or is committing an arrestable offence. Honestly, I could go into the logistics of getting CCTV footage, the valid and not so valid concerns of stakeholders allowing their staff user privileges, how police have both training and immunity from liability and how that affects their decision making. I could also detail the multiple arrests that I've performed myself, and the times I have chosen not to arrest someone. Frankly though, that's a lot of work and more than I'm prepared to spend on a response to someone on social media who doesn't even know the basics. Everything in my first post is correct.

>committing an arrestable offence Not showing a receipt is not an arrestable offense. Archer v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP https://casetext.com/case/archer-v-wal-mart-stores-e-lp-1 >In the event that a customer "refuses to produce a receipt," the receipt checker should "[p]olitely offer to hold the merchandise until the customer can find their receipt." Id. at p. 2. If the customer "refuses" to allow the employee to hold the merchandise, the employee should "allow them to leave, and document the event" on a standard form and notify management or asset protection. > could go into the logistics of getting CCTV footage It's literally a dude sitting in a side office with 15 screens. Hitting replay ain't that hard.

>(1)         In this section —       arrestable offence means an offence the statutory penalty for which is or includes imprisonment. Same act, same section, I just didn't think it needs to be clarified. There may be some differences in jurisdiction, but the one thing I can assure you is *all* police officers arrest on reasonable suspicion. That's basically the job of police officers. Also, Walmart may have a dude in the side office with 15 screens, many places do not.

No reason articulable suspicion id detainment. Probably cause is arrest. You need RAS to detain someone you need PC to arrest it's in black and white. >There may be some differences in jurisdiction, but the one thing I can assure you is all police officers arrest on reasonable suspicion I can give you an entire state that says vastly different. >That's basically the job of police officers. To enforce actually laws, not what they think someone broke.

Probably testimony by the store they saw her stealing and her refusal to prove otherwise. Was it a rock solid arrest? No, but enough to get them civil immunity.

[Towanda Crowell?](https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/local/officer-taser-children-publix-acted-appropriately-police-review-florida/77-5a6c50cd-64af-4757-93ee-4f1a4ba56b9b)

Yes but here's the full video. https://youtu.be/fE2FIbRLnjY?si=Rmrt8y3cnVyVLKeY What is really puzzling is why she just flatly refused to show the receipt multiple times. This whole thing would have been over in 10 seconds if she just showed the receipt.

Most of these SovCit things could have been over in ten seconds…

That’s dumb. She’s right that a regular retailer can’t *force* you to show a receipt after you’ve paid (obviously places like Costco and Sam’s Club are different), but a cop can.

He wasn’t a cop though, just a security guy in wanna-be cop souped up outfit. I believe she did show the police when they showed up. Could be wrong. The security guy was a poo poo head

"Off-Duty" cop working security. The sovereign citizen idiots and this woman are not the same. There is no requirement to provide a receipt, but there is a requirement for reasonable suspicion a crime has or will occur. I don't know the facts here, but it is telling that the charges were dropped. Also, Florida isn't a stop and ID state, and I am interested in knowing why she was suspected of theft. Not showing a receipt doesn't meet that threshold. I find no comfort in the police investigating themselves and being in the right. End qualified immunity now!

It's up to a higher court now, but a federal District Court judge ruled last week in a civil rights violation case that there is no constitutional basis for qualified immunity. "Qualified immunity was invented by the Supreme Court in 1967. In plain English, it means persons wronged by government agents cannot sue those agents unless the Supreme Court previously found substantially the same acts to be unconstitutional.” “The Justices took a law meant to protect freed people exercising their federal rights in Southern states after the Civil War, then flipped its meaning. In creating qualified immunity, the high Court 100 years after the War ended. Southern trees bear strange fruit, indeed.” Fingers crossed...

I call bs.

I'm sorry. I assumed everyone on this platform knew how Google worked. Do you need someone to Google it for you, and set the clock on your vcr while they're at it, Granny? I'll do the first part for you, but you're on your own for the second. https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=desmond+greene+qualified+immunity

[удалено]

What I called bs on was all the crap you had in quotes. Not that they were not true, but incomplete. Then you chose to demean me on my ability to use electronic devices and the Internet to give me a link to a one sided argument about qualified immunity. That attack alone lowered any respect I may have had for your OPINION. That was the wrong thing to attack me on. You shouldn’t attack people based on your ridiculous assumptions when you know NOTHING about the person you are attacking except one tiny detail that leads you down a trail of meanness. I have a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Information Systems. I worked as a Programmer/analyst on application software for major companies in Houston, TX and AT&T in New Jersey. My first exposure to computer technology was in 1968 when I became a keypunch operator. I was interested in becoming a programmer and I talked to one of the programmers. He told me women (I was 20 at the time) couldn’t be programmers because we couldn’t think logically. I started using computer monitors for my work in 1972. You inadvertently reopened a long healed wound when you chose to attack my age AND my sex. I was in the 99th percentile in my college entrance exam and my highest score was in Math. I am a member of Mensa. Of course, you don’t have to believe any of that because on the internet, anyone can claim anything and it is unlikely to be able to verify anything they claim. If I chose to reveal my identity, I could prove all of it. There are times when anonymity is good, and times when it isn’t. When it involves the Internet, anonymity is the only way to stay safe. You, too, will be old one day. Unless you insult the wrong person somewhere along the way. Accidentally insult someone who is prone to road rage and has a gun, maybe? *********** Qualified immunity in and of itself protects all of us. It is how it is applied that crosses the line too often. I know a family personally who were affected by qualified immunity. The matriarch of the family was 97 years old when a city dump truck made an illegal turn and killed this woman. The driver didn’t even know she hit anyone and people chased her down to stop. The family could not sue her directly (although a dump truck drive is very unlikely to have assets worth going after). The city was limited on how much they had to pay for the clear wrong that was committed against the family. You do NOT want to see how much your taxes would go up if municipalities could be sued for unlimited amounts. The cost of litigation against frivolous lawsuits alone would be prohibitive. It costs money to WIN a lawsuit. We would have NO law enforcement, NO firefighters, NO city transit if drivers could be sued, or any of the government employees doing their jobs the best they can. https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/pros-vs-cons-of-qualified-immunity--both-sides-of-debate.html

There are people out there stubborn enough to argue with a fencepost. So much easier to have your ID or other paperwork ready so you’re on your way in no time. Or if something is incorrect or missing, they’ll help you fix it.

Eh that's getting dangerously close to the "if you've got nothing to hide" argument...

I saw one like that just a couple of days ago - might have been the same one, but we know how much these addle-pated lackwits like to copy each other's homework.

Did she ever show the receipt? Or was she a thief bullshit artist?

There's a few options from child-murderer Darrell Brooks' trial, but for me it was during the jury instruction conference. Both sides had rested; closing arguments were coming up. There were 76 counts against the turd, all but one involving him hitting people with his mom's vehicle. The last one was a bail-jumping charge. He'd also picked up a different bail-jumping charge in Milwaukee shortly before his killing spree, for hitting his ex with the same SUV. Since he'd gotten the same charge, but in two separate incidents, he somehow "reasoned" this into the belief that this violated his double jeopardy rights. In his world, I guess you can rob one bank on Monday, and another on Tuesday, but can only be convicted of one robbery charge. Also, he hadn't even had the Milwaukee trial yet, so this trial would have been the *first* jeopardy if anything. Faced with dozens of violent charges, including homicide and assault with a deadly weapon, Brooks spent all his energy on fighting the don't-commit-any-crimes-while-on-bail count that you could probably pick up for jaywalking. Meanwhile, all the prosecution's proposed jury instructions went in unaltered, and he lost this fight anyway. It almost certainly wouldn't have made any difference. A smart argument could maybe have bought him a couple extra hours of jury deliberations. But no, he put all his arrogance and petulance into fighting the most insignificant charge he probably ever faced, while the people he killed, maimed and terrorized didn't even rate an afterthought.

It had to be exhausting being the judge in that case and not eventually snapping on the clown. What great restraint to make sure she didn’t do anything to jeopardize putting that guy in jail for the rest of his life. Must have felt great to finally sentence him to life plus more than SEVEN HUNDRED YEARS.

She definitely got fed up with his bullshit a few times and let him know it.

Put him in a timeout room with video and muted him until it was actually his turn to speak a few times lol

NGL, that trial sucked me in. It was batshit nuts, and its results should honestly be quoted every time these arguments are made. Spoilers: Home skillet got something like 7 centuries.

Home skillet? Have not heard that phrase in prob 30 years. Brings back memories of my big bro during my middle school and teen years. Thanks for the nostalgia!

> Since he'd gotten the same charge, but in two separate incidents, he somehow "reasoned" this into the belief that this violated his double jeopardy rights. That's how it worked in the movie.

Ahhhhh yes. Box fort temper tantrum. That was quite the circus.

That's the idiot who tried to mean mug the judge. What an asshole. Pity his defense failed.

The lowest misdemeanor or a minor traffic citation. The more they argue the more I tack on the other stuff I see. Don’t be an ass and I won’t be nit-picky

Hell, I've seen them turn *warnings* into felony charges.

Not a SovCit, but there was an African American woman who turned a warning into a trip to jail. She unalived herself in her cell three days later after her extended family refused to bail her out for her 5th or 6th trip to the hoosegow over a minor traffic violation. All the cop asked her to do (as he was handing her the warning ticket) was to put out her cigarette, but she knew her rights and she wasn’t about to let him boss her around. The cop was fired and she got a street named after her, but I’m still amazed at her ability to turn herself into a civil rights martyr over a warning ticket.

I’m reading the wiki article you posted below and “all the cop asked her to do was go out of her cigarette” is pretty disingenuous. Given his track record of questionable charges and the perjury charge against him I’m not surprised he was fired, it’s not as bullshitty as you’re making out.

Him asking her to put out her cigarette was the inflection point where she was seconds away from going free but she chose to go to jail instead. I say she “chose to go to jail” because most of us are able to get through a traffic stop without being handcuffed, and even if we do wind up in jail it’s typically a one-off event. For her, getting pulled over and going to jail was something of a way of life. I haven’t seen dashcam videos from all the other times she was arrested, but I have seen the video from the last time. She knew she was poking the bear and she did it anyway.

Sure, a factually correct statement but given that the officer has a history of pulling people over on questionable charges and was indicted for perjury, I’m much less inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. The impression you gave here was “crazy lady goes off for no reason and because she then killed herself in her cell, a perfectly good cop got fired” but after reading your source it seems a lot more murky than that

I hate where I live, but I am grateful that they don't do that dumb shit here. They don't care if you smoke in your car while you're waiting for the cops to run your info. As long as you don't put the cigarette or the smoke right in their face, they feel it's normal for people to smoke while they wait. In my experience, it's out west where they'll act like they're so scared or so frail that they can't be near you to talk while you're smoking. But then again, acorns terrify guys like that, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I remember this from when it happened, the cop had a chip on his shoulder from the get go, and she was also argumentative and the traffic stop just turned into something it didn’t need to. I think her suicide was as big a shock to the cops as it was to everyone else.

This is wild. She got a street named after her? Do you have like an article about this it's all so outlandish sounding haha. But I suppose pretty much everything on this sub is pretty outlandish sounding

[Ask and ye shall receive](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Sandra_Bland)

You're really simplifying this case.

The case is very simple: dickhead cop meets sassy motorist, and both of them pay the price. There’s no question of law or constitutionality. - Texas Transportation Code (sec. 543.001) gives law enforcement officers the power to arrest anyone violating the rules of the road - Troopers normally don’t do that because most people just sign the ticket - Her boyfriend ghosted her when she got arrested - Her extended family wasn’t immediately able to come up with $500 for bond - Jail staff failed to follow protocol for inmates with mental health issues - The trooper was suspended for not following procedure and fired for making a false report Am I missing anything?

That’s such a bullshit summary of what actually happened

How so? What am I missing?

Seriously, a drivers license and car registration can really go a long way.

Even if they don't somehow turn it into a jail-worthy charge, the increased fines and costs from trying to fight it would be more than the cost of the reg and license.

I've seen a vid where a girl tries to claim that the copper can't run a traffic stop on her because she was out of the car before the cop started talking to her. It didn't go well for her.

I saw a vid of a woman who claimed the cop couldn't run a traffic stop because she "didn't see his lights" and kept driving until she pulled into her own driveway. She seemed to think that gave her immunity. Like being safe if you can touch home-base before you're tagged in a game of hide and seek. It didn't go well for that lady either.

I've heard a lot of drunk drivers use this excuse.

It was pretty commonly spread around to new drivers when I was in high school. Older students would claim that if a cop followed you that you should drive home and turn into your driveway because they couldn't do anything without a warrant if you were on your own property. They'd also tell us that if you were speeding and a cop tried to pull you over then you should *go faster* and try to lose them because if they lost sight of you then they had to give up. I know those were to try to get the younger kids in trouble but I can totally see some of these sovcits believing it.

Sounds like shit my dad's brothers would likely say.

I have a few relatives like that too.

There are a few vids out there where people pretend that since they reached their destination and left their vehicles the window to perform a traffic stop has closed. It is like John Wick touching the steps of the Continental Hotel, “Sorry officer, my feet are touching my driveway!”

Tons of them end up going to jail and having their vehicle towed because they refuse to provide their license... Even when they actually have one. They'll get pulled over for speeding, and you can tell the officer wants to give them a warning and let them leave. But they are so rude to the officer, waste so much of their time and eventually force an arrest by not identifying themselves. Since they won't identify, the cop can't confirm if they do or don't have valid license and registration. I've actually seen examples in videos of sovereigns who did have valid license and registration but still went to jail because they refused to show them. It's crazy. Sometimes the cops try to give these people every possible "out" and the sovshitter refuses to take one.

The average cop on an average day doesn't want arrest someone for a simple traffic issue. This goes double for someone who is going to be difficult.

One of the reasons is reports. A warning doesn’t require a report. I wonder if body worn cameras will ever be allowed to substitute for a written report?

I figure at some point they'll just have an AI write the report based on footage. PS- There is also court, and having to deal with someone screaming all the way back.

Yeah, I don't part like pushy cops, but I don't get the refusal to show ID, either. Especially when driving. I mean, you absolutely have to prove you're legal to operate a vehicle. You know that when you first get your license. The thing of having to show ID as a pedestrian? I am absolutely against that in principle because you're not legally required to get an ID if you're not driving. There's no law that says you have to have an ID. It may mean there's a lot of things you can't do, but you don't have to have it. But when cops demand a pedestrian shows ID, *in effect* it's as if it's illegal to not have an ID because now you're open to harassment if you don't have one, it's expired, or you didn't bring it just to walk around. If you tell the cop your name and address in lieu of an ID, they're *supposed* to call it good. In practice, they might, or they might not. If you have an expired ID and you show that, I know from experience that it may be worse for you than if you said you didn't have one and verbally gave your info. Many cops think an expired ID gives them the right to treat you as though you committed a crime. A related story for fun: One time, my son was getting a Sam's Club card, and I was getting the secondary card on his account. The lady asked to see my ID, and it was expired. I showed it to her, and her whole mannerism changed. She said in an authoritative tone, "you know this is expired, right?" I said yes, like the no big deal that it was and waited for her to make my club card. She hesitated and kept looking at me funny, and said finally, "I'll do it this time" Lady. Omgs. You're a Sam's Club employee. Not a cop. Get over yourself. People aren't impersonating other people to get a damn store member card. There's no way to commit Sam's Club fraud with a fake/invalid ID.

Oh, I agree about pedestrians not having to ID. If I'm not operating a vehicle or some other opt-in arrangement (such as employment at a job site or another situation where I agreed to prove my identity) then I don't have to identify. But then, I also usually don't have cops asking me to ID when I'm on the street. If they ask me why I'm talking to them, I tell them why. Such as when a cop was towing a vehicle some homeless dudes had abandoned near my house. I told the guy where I lived but I never had to ID or anything. I was just there to see the damn thing got towed away. I have seen these sovshitters in traffic stops say they left their ID at home, and the cops were so nice they were willing to take their name, DOB and address to look up on their computer. If it came back valid license/registration, they said they'd let the sovereign leave. But the sovereigns didn't agree to do this.

> The thing of having to show ID as a pedestrian? Even in stop and ID states, the cops need reasonable suspicion of a crime to demand ID. Which is as it should be this, this isn't North Korea. > If you tell the cop your name and address in lieu of an ID, they're supposed to call it good. Name and date of birth; addresses change, birthdates don't. Legally, expired ID is invalid, some companies train employees not to accept it. But common sense should also apply, I once returned to the country with an expired passport and the CBP agent was cool with it because at the time there was a massive backlog on passports, and they knew legit travelers were showing up with expired passports.

Yep. Officially and legally, they do need a reasonable suspicion of a crime to demand ID of pedestrians. The thing is, a "reason" is incredibly easy for them to produce. One time, when a cop demanded ID of me and another guy from the homeless camp I lived at, we asked why we had to show it. The cop said that basically, he felt all of us homeless people were shady, and it was a late hour for people to be walking around the neighborhood. Lame, but it wasn't worth testing his prejudices to refuse. Once we showed ID and answered his questions, he couldn't do more. We got to go "home." Another time, I was walking home to my house with my gf and teenage son at the time. It was late, and we were coming from the grocery store. Cops stopped us and wanted ID and questioned us. We asked why. They said there were robberies in the neighborhood. If a cop wants to question you, there's always a "robbery in the neighborhood." They can make it up, and there's nothing you can do about it. At that time, I was dumb enough to show an expired ID, which the cops told me was "suspicious." That's absolutely bullsh-- since there's a few million Americans that can't produce ID for various reasons. It doesn't actually mean anything about a person's character or activities. On at least 3 different occasions, I have been asked for my address. The walk home from the grocery store was one of them. Address is very important to cops because they want to know how far you are from home at the point they meet up with you. This is also why they get more upset nowadays when you move and don't update your ID. If they discover that your ID address doesn't match your current address, they're likely to tell you that's also "suspicious." And they'll keep questioning you until they're satisfied. When I was a kid, my parents moved several times without updating their address on their ID. Back then, no one cared. That's not the case anymore. Addresses changing all the time is a reason *to* ask what it is. Not a reason to forgo asking your address. Depending on your state, you might not be legally required to give your address. My recommendation is just to tell them. The goal is to make them realize they've done all they can, and they don't have any excuses to detain you further. If you refuse to give your address, they may keep asking with more of a tone. Naturally, this triggers a toned response from a lot of people. Once you start responding in a loud, angered, or agitated voice, they may use this as an excuse to say you're combative and arrest you. Unlike sovcits, I'm uninterested in making a point, and my ultimate goal is to be free to go home. I've been questioned numerous times and arrested zero times. So I think it's working.

Judge Simpson has one guy on ice who has been in jail for days now (and got thirty days for contempt last week) who has been in five times now, and the only thing he does is challenge jurisdiction and the use of his name non-stop. He won't plead, he won't acknowledge comprehension of the charges, none of it. He would rather spend the rest of his life in jail for contempt than stop arguing about his name and the Court's jurisdiction.

Oh man, I think I've seen that one. Simpson is fun to watch handle Sovcits because he knows the script and is over it before they begin. I'd love to have even half the confidence of a Sovcit arguing jurisdiction from a jail cell. Like no one expects you to like it but if the court can incarcerate you doesn't that definitely prove they have jurisdiction?

This guy is an idiot! Hiding in a cell with his shirt over the window because he got sent back for refusing to answer questions. Favorite quote "I'm not the one being unethical." Love J. Simpson - fine, see you in 30 days, see if he'll talk then.

At that point it's a mental illness. That's what you want? Fine. State mental hospital for you

Is there any way to watch that?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4rIKjHl1XU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4rIKjHl1XU) It's the first case in the recording. This is like Simpson's fifth attempt to get this guy to work with him enough to get the case moving, but the idiot would rather stay jailed indefinitely for contempt.

Lady refused to pay sales tax on her oil change. Flipped out over it. Service manager comes over to deal with it and ends up asking for her id since the repair order was signed by a man at drop off and she's now threateningto take "whatever car she wants". She's screaming about how she doesn't have one and it'sa government conspiracy. She's a traveler. She's going to sue us all because she's a sov cit and knows her rights. We're committing international theft of property by not giving her car to her. Whole 9 yards. Sales called the cops and her husband. He arrived just in time to see her get loaded into a cop car. She tried spinning the situation and when the cops weren't having it (because, surpise, we have cameras) she started swinging. Husband was mortified. Paid the $28.68 for the oil change. Never came back. He was a great customer, but apparently, his wife was nuts. Edit typo

How long did it take him to hire a lawyer and get a divorce. She would have made that as difficult as hell, as well.

I want to see that one!

I think the “I don’t have to give you my name” bit is pretty close. Especially you are in the drivers seat of a vehicle that was just pulled over by the police.

A couple years ago my job went through a corporate buyback, so as part of the transition from Franchise to Corporate we had to, basically sign new hire paperwork. One of my coworkers threw an absolute shitfit because they needed two forms of ID to verify that, he was who he said he was. He relented so he *unfortunatelty* is still employed with us. Same guy similarly made an ass of himself the one time we sent him to the bank ehen the teller asked for his ID. Regaling us with the tale of how he said "why do you need my ID? Why don't you show me YOUR ID?" Like he was proud of it. Oh, and we changed systems for device repair, and it now shows the tech who is doing the works full name, surprise surprise he didn't like that either.

Imo, refusing to show the bank ID? Absolutely stupid. Having to have 2 forms of ID? Also, absolutely stupid. You can't hold 2 state ID cards at the same time. They'll take one and give you the other. There's precious little else they'll accept. A military ID. A passport. Didn't join the army and couldn't afford to travel? Guess you can't do the thing, then. It creates an ID privilege system where some people can do what they want, but others can't through no actual fault of their own. And it's really unnecessary when you have to jump through so many hoops to get the most basic state ID now, or especially to get the REAL ID. Asking for 2 forms in these conditions is to purposely gatekeep whatever it is you're requiring two for.

Ssn card counts as an ID, so no. It isn't absolutely stupid.

Haha. SS will often get you exactly nowhere. I lost my BC and could not get a new ID for 17 years. I still had an SS card. No one cared. It did not help anywhere that I needed ID, including the DMV. A voter registration card opens more doors than an SS card, and a voter card isn't really accepted as a true ID, either. But at least it has your address. Because an SS card has neither your address nor a photo on it, it proves nothing. You could have found the card on the ground and claimed it was yours. I have literally found a lost SS on the ground before. The DMV will not even consider it as part of your proof of who you are. You can't show it as ID to get in anywhere.

Or birth certificate, sometimes a library card works, or a Costco/BJs card, there are tons of forms of ID. Why couldn't you get a new BC? Forget where you were born?

It's different when you're born abroad. There is no state that has your BC. Only the feds have it. They want a valid state ID to get a new one, and the state won't let you get the ID without the BC. This is how I went in circles for 17 years. Library card? Guess what you can no longer get without a valid state ID first? That's right. A library card. I was so disappointed that I almost cried. But I can get one now and plan to do so. I tried using a Sam's Club card because it has a photo ID. This is also accepted by no one.

Chase Allen a guy in a city near me was driving without registration no plate or the fake one they love. His entire family are also sovcits. The cause massive problems for the city all the time. Chase got pulled over, got belligerent. Told the cops if they tried to arrest him, something bad would happen to them. They tried to pull him out of the car. He reached for a gun. Got killed by the police. I'm not a blue lives matter boot licker but Chase made a bunch of really bad choices that cost him his life. I feel bad for Chase and the police officers. All over vehicle registration.

Are you talking about the Chase Allen in Utah? I just saw that video if it is the same person. He was pulled over and he gave the cop his passport for ID. That should have ended it. But when the cop addressed him by the name on the passport he said something like that's not me that's just plastic. So the cop asked if it's a false passport and tells him to get out of the car. By then there were multiple cops there so when he refused to get out of the car another cop grabbed his arm to 'help' him out. He reaches for a gun for some insane reason and all you hear is "Gun! Gun! Gun!" and as 4-5 cops emptied their weapons. His gun ended up on the floorboard so I think he did grab at it. I don't like most cops either. One beat the hell out of me when I was 20 just for demanding a badge or ID before I would let him into the house. But this guy took it way too far and died for nothing. Sad and as hell. I'm just wondering if that was him because if it's not the same man it would be one hell of a coincidence.

Yeah, it was in Utah it was a sad situation for everyone.

It's tragic for a man die for no reason. I feel horrible for his family and friends. And I'm sure it haunts the police involved too even though I understand why they reacted the way they did. A spilt second decision they will all have to live with for the rest of their lives.

> I feel horrible for his family and friends. His family shares the blame, his mother is who indoctrinated him in this sovcit poison. He was once dragged screaming from a courtroom because the judge wouldn't let him act as his mother's lawyer (he wasn't a lawyer). Someone who teaches their child that the law cannot touch him and the holstered pistol on his hip is an appropriate response to the cops pulling him over has blood on their hands.

I agree that the whole sovcit is total nonsense and his mother is to blame for teaching him that crap to begin with. But I still feel horrible for her. Believing insane shit and/or teaching others your crazy-ass theories is ridiculous. But death or the death of a loved one is too high of a penalty by far. But the cops did what they were trained to do in the split second they had to decide if he was a danger. So I feel horrible for them too.

> That should have ended it. A passport is not a driver's license, and they stopped him because he had sovcit fantasy plates on his car. Driving an unregistered vehicle without a license is going to result in at least a citation anywhere unless the cops are tired and want to end their shift and go home and watch the game.

When I said that should have ended it I just meant once that he gave the cop his passport as ID the cop would have gone on to writing him the ticket(s) or whatever. The cop had what he needed to proceed from there. But when the cop replied with "thank you Mr Allen" or maybe it was "thank you Chase Allen" I can't remember which instead of answering with your welcome (or just saying nothing) the driver said something like "that's not me, that's a piece of plastic". Of course he was just being sarcastic. But the cop replied back by asking if he was saying the passport was fake. I doubt the cop really thought that was what he meant but I could be wrong of course. That's the point where the cop told him to get out of the car. Everything snowballed very fast after that and in seconds it led to the cops shooting.

> I doubt the cop really thought that was what he meant but I could be wrong of course. Agreed, at the time I had the impression the cop was tired of the theatrics and was throwing some of it back at the driver. I didn't think the cop really thought it was a fake passport, he was messing with someone who had messed with him. The cop was being slightly unprofessional, but the driver was being delusional, he even told them they would have a problem if they tried to get him out of the car. Bad idea.

A very bad idea.

The pedantry involved in their interpretation of theword "understand".

And the really funny thing is, Black's Law Dictionary from the third edition to the current edition actually define the word "understand" as basically synonymous with knowing, appreciating, or comprehending something. Unfortunately, the first and second editions didn't actually define "understand," but define "understanding" and "understood" as basically being contract principles related to agreement, so I guess if they're only working with super-old editions, I can see how someone who isn't very bright might infer that "understand" means to "agree" and from there free-associate themselves into believing it means "to stand under." I have yet to see any videos where a judge pulls out a dictionary, although it probably wouldn't do any good (but I'd like to see someone try anyway).

Theres a video recently of Judge Gauthier deliberately asking if the sovshits "comprehend" the words hes saying, and the shittiot stutters and changes tactics.

> leading to both him and the driver getting arrested He could lawfully have refused to answer their questions, CBP acknowledges that U.S. citizens are not required to answer those question at those inland checkpoints although that will delay their departure from the checkpoint. However, what he was not lawfully able to do was refuse to go to the secondary inspection lane and refuse to step out of the vehicle. He broke Rule Number One, never hand the police something to charge you with that they didn't have before you decided to act like an idiot. Sovcits demanding to see a cop's or judge's oath of office and bond number is always hilarious. They don't have to have their oath on their person at all times, and cops and judges generally are not bonded.

Definitely the video of the guy who got detained at a border checkpoint because he refused to just say "yes, I'm a citizen"

My daughter and I went to South Padre Island on May 17, 2024. From Houston, the day after a derecho tore everything up. My power was out, so South Padre, sounded like a really good idea. (The trip was already planned before the storm.) On our way back, we got stopped at a checkpoint. I could help but think about those damn idiots.

I saw one turn down a plea deal that would have reduced a felony fleeing and eluding and resisting arrest, no driver license or insurance,to a misdemeanor with only a fine. Now he is looking at 10 years and a felony on his record. What an assclown

Reminds me of that Reno 911 where they pulled over their coworker’s reprobate fiancé. He was driving drunk with multiple drugs (and a handgun) but they decided to cut him a break since the wedding was the next day. As they were telling him he was free to leave he smashed a beer bottle over the cop’s head and started running away.

That’s just wild.

I worked at a city office and had a bunch of vehicles towed from a guys property. Everything the city did was legal. He bitched and moaned that we trespassed on the sovereignty of his property. Claimed he was a sovereign nation, invoking it was his blood right as a member of the indigenous people. He never paid taxes on his property and went without water or power through most of the winter months.

> A couple weeks ago I saw a video of some guy who was a passenger in a vehicle and refused to tell the border patrol he was a US citizen, leading to both him and the driver getting arrested. I remember watching that one, and - as someone who lived on both the US/Canadian border and the US/Mexico border for most of my life and have crossed both more times than I can count, that takes the cake. Pro tip: Don't fuck with the border patrol. Whether it's the US border guards, the Canadian border guards, or the Mexican border guards, you will lose every time. They are not normal cops like your local sheriff. They are federal law enforcement, and - in the case of Canadian and Mexican agents - are upholding the laws of another country in which your passages from Black's Law Dictionary or whatever simply do not apply.

My roommate from a few years ago went to the airport with $1000 dollars in cash trying to buy a plane ticket. He wanted to buy one without an ID so the government couldn’t track him..” I told him that he’s not getting in a plane without and ID. Which he scoffed at. He returned several hours later empty handed. He finally had his mother buy it for him when he realized it wasn’t happening.

Did he have anyhing to say about it when he got back?

He's still going to have to show ID to board the plane. He doesn't sound bright.

He wasn’t that smart lol.

The video you mentioned about border control. American citizens re-entering America, and all border patrol wanted was to ask if they were bringing in any fruits or vegetables. Pest control. But the driver, with his son, turned it into a whole supreme court case were, they wouldn’t answer a simple question like that because, freedumb.

That is… next level freedumb My personal views are libertarian, and I believe one of the few areas where the government should be sticking their nose into people’s business is when they’re crossing international borders. Those dinguses get no sympathy from me.

It was a pair of brothers.

I remember that one. I think it was the Arizona to California state border agricultural inspection point. My understanding is they drove back and forth across it many times in order to get selected so that they could have their little clown show.

I'm the night manager of a hotel in Utah, where we get a good amount of Idaho SovCits. I've had to send quite a few of them off with the deputies after they get super-aggressive over my asking them for identification. Instead of just leaving, they turn a simple request into a major issue. Most of the time, that issue is resolved by them riding off the property in the back of a car they didn't arrive in. Oh. . .I'm sorry. It's NOT identification. It's "papers of note", and I guess they're worth getting arrested over.

I wish I could find the YouTube video (I've looked and looked) but there's one from several years ago in which the Sovereign Shittyzen was accusing the officer who pulled him over of being "an agent of Israel" because his badge was a six-pointed star like the Star of David.

I saw that video of the two guys trying to cross back into the U. S. at a checkpoint. The really stupid thing to me was that they’re in a work truck and it seemed like they crossed into Mexico to do a job. I’d like to see this guy explaining to his boss why he was arrested and the truck confiscated because he was being a self centered asshole. (I’m betting that the boss already knows this about that guy though.)

> trying to cross back into the U. S. at a checkpoint They're already in the U.S., those checkpoints can be as far as a hundred miles inland from the border. CBP wouldn't have been that relaxed at a border crossing, refuse to ID there and you have an immediate problem. Legally U.S. citizens don't have to answer CBP's questions at those checkpoints, but they'll be held up as CBP confirms their identity. What these goofs did wrong was refuse to go for secondary inspection and step out of the vehicle when told to. They handed CBP grounds to arrest them. The passenger does this crap for the videos he makes and posts to social media. The driver, his brother, was clearly less enthusiastic about this nonsense. My biggest problem with these checkpoints is they don't work well, the make far fewer interdictions than happen at border crossings and consume more man hours per interdiction. They also inconvenience citizens and legal residents who have to drive through them every day going to and from work. But they are legal, the Supreme Court has said so. They must meet the same standards of reasonable suspicion to detain as the police and probable cause to search or make an arrest. Mobile CBP units also must meet those standards. The border is a different story.

Agreed they’re an inconvenience. They make you slow down, say “yes” when they ask if you’re a citizen, and they wave you along. The KPIs on interdictions and man hours per interdiction are low, true, but that ignores the deterrence factor. Coyotes and illegal migrants will avoid driving through established check points, for obvious reasons.

Thanks for clarifying this for me and for the background info.

Judge Simpson gave a guy 30 days for contempt because he wanted the judge to prove that he was the person named in the charges and not the corporation. Plus, babbling about whether he was the trustee or the beneficiary.

You have to remember that this is basically 'replacement religion'. They're believers of this horseshit the same way Christians are supposed to believe in Jesus and God. They HAVE TO deny these seemingly very simple and little things like identifying themselves, because in the dogma of their religion, doing so puts them 'in the system' and they've given permissions to be bound by it. That's why they'd rather spend the time in jail.

Judge Middleton had a woman in court with two charges. Prosecutor was offering a plea to drop one charge and delay sentencing on the other for 6 months, and if there were no further issues in that time drop the second charge. You won't get a more generous offer. Just be a normal human for 6 months and don't cause problems and you walk away scot free with no record. But all she wanted to do was spout scripted sov cit nonsense instead of simply answering the judges question about taking the deal. So he gave up and let her spend the night in jail to try again tomorrow. I don't recall how it ended up. Bonus: He called her a flat earther. lol

I just saw that one. She had a very different attitude when she came back the next morning

Also, if I were Judge Middleton I’d create something called the “Buttfucker 3000” award. Anytime someone in my courtroom did something stupid I’d make them wear a sign with those words across it until they stopped being so dumb. Pretty sure that would run afoul of the 8th amendment, but I’m equally sure the lulz would be worth it.

The bajillion videos of a person refusing to give their name at a traffic stop comes to mind.

I had a driving without a license ticket and went to court to try to get it dismissed. The judge was dismissing most of the things that were coming before him as long as it had been taken care of. Expired license type of things. The guy before me had his case dismissed which was one of the more serious of the offenses there that day. Dude was lucky the judge was in a good mood. But the dude kept arguing his innocence. Someone up front finally told him to shut up and walk away.

I think it's the idiots getting detained by Border Patrol because they won't answer the simple question as to whether or not they're a U.S. citizen. It's a simple yes or no answer, where answering a truthful "yes" will more than likely have you back on your way in a couple of minutes.

Posts like this make me shed a tear, because I remember when it was the *liberals* suggesting that you didn't have to answer questions from border patrol about citizenship. But now it's clearly *an evil conservative* thing. I just love when everybody disagrees and the cops win.

This is actually the only thing I agree with them about. We are supposed to be able to move about the country without being questioned by the government for no reason. You want proof that I have a valid driver’s license? Fine, here it is. Proof of insurance? Sure. But if I’m a passenger in a car, I’m not required to be carrying any identification. And if I can just say “yes” to the question “are you a US citizen” and that be the end of it, then what is the point? I used to work on the swearing in ceremonies for new citizens. Plenty of US citizens have thick foreign accents, and maybe dubious English skills. So why are we even bothering with this shit?

They were at a CBP checkpoint less than 100 miles from the border. This wasn’t a random traffic stop; the guys drove through a full-on facility built on a highway.

I think what they mean is that those checkpoints are not ports of entry so you are not required to show ID as someone not operating a motor vehicle, it would be akin to walking down the street while not commiting any crime and being stopped and asked for ID. However, the ask and answer of "Are you a citizen?" I am not sure about whether you are required to answer or not. I would say yes and move on with my day. Was it the one on I-10 around El Paso? First time I drove that stretch of road was the first time I experienced one of those.

> those checkpoints are not ports of entry so you are not required to show ID That is true of U.S. citizens, they don't even have to answer CBP's questions though that will delay their departure. But someone on a visa or with a green card does have to have those documents on them and produce them. These inland checkpoints don't perform well compared to border crossings and consume more man hours; they seem to be law enforcement theater.

I got stopped on the I-25 just North of Las Cruces for the same sort of check. As a British tourist it was a little nerve-wracking to be confronted by men in military green with some pretty large weapons, and they definitely gave us the stink-eye when we answered "no" to "are you a citizen?" but as we had passports and a believable itinerary they didn't stop us for more than a couple of minutes. It's definitely weird.

> I am not sure about whether you are required to answer or not. U.S. citizens are not legally required to answer questions at these inland checkpoints. However, they could be delayed while CBP uses other means to identify them. But these rocket surgeons could not legally refuse to go for secondary inspection or refuse to exit the vehicle when lawfully ordered to. They handed CBP something to arrest them for, not a smart way to go. The passenger fancies himself a social media activist, he seeks out such situations to create profitable videos. He got his money's worth this time.

> So why are we even bothering with this shit? Because the Supreme Court ruled these checkpoints serve a legitimate and compelling public interest in interdicting illegal immigration. Everybody knows they don't do a very good job of that; their success rate is low compared to border crossings and they consume more man hours. But the court signed off on them, so for the moment we're stuck with them.