7 ms·

> According to a police report from the March stop, which the department released after the shooting, Gaines was stopped when an officer saw that in place of a

• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• rahimnathwani 10y ago
  "quotes her spouting more of the sovereign citizen legal gobbledegook" It's sad that the top comment on this thread is just name-calling. Why do you consider her views to be 'gobbledegook'?
  • smcl 10y ago
    I don't see it as an attack on their views in general (though the sovereign citizen stuff is pretty odd, IMO) but that those sorts of people tend to ramble in an extremely weird way. If you haven't seen this specifically then think of a sort of madder, less coherent version of Glenn Beck or Alex Jones.
    • rahimnathwani 10y ago
      So, it's not a vague attack on their views, but a vague attack on their communication style?
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  • linkregister 10y ago
    The sovereign citizen stance is accurately characterized by the term "gobbledegook." It is predicated on the false legal theory that the US federal government has no legal authority on citizens that claim they are only beholden to individual states. This viewpoint is based on the original Articles of Confederation, while ignoring or disregarding the authority of the Constitution. It also employs fictions such as the assertion that courts that have gold-fringed flags are courts of Admiralty and therefore are illegitimate. There are some opinions that should rightfully be disregarded. Edit: this is also covered by the OP's links.
  • aab0 10y ago
    Maybe you should read up on Sovereign Citizen stuff. It is literally gobbledegook, based on making up linguistic stuff like claiming that 'understand' means 'stand under [to make a contract]'. Some of it is free-association verbal gibberish based on sound similarities, strongly reminiscent of schizophrenia's 'word salad'.
• bmmayer1 10y ago
  Why does it matter? Having a cardboard license plate and an uncommon political belief doesn't make someone deserve to die.
  • 2bitencryption 10y ago
    Nobody deserves to die (unless you believe in the death penalty I guess?). However, threatening to kill people, and exhibiting signs of extreme instability and violence, makes someone a danger that needs to be neutralized. If that person pulls a gun on the police during that process, they are not likely to end up in a good spot. Especially with a five year old in the vicinity.
    • rahimnathwani 10y ago
      I agree that the outcome could have been predicted, and I would not have acted in the same way she did. But let's have some empathy: she was in her home, and some folks came to her home and attempted to remove her, with threats of violence. She didn't believe they had legal authority to do that. What would you do in that situation, with those beliefs?
      • erroneousfunk 10y ago
        I live in the US. Let's say there's a law I disagree with. If I break that law, and police officers take action to enforce it, I'm still capable of cooperating with the officers and working through the system, using my rights as a citizen to achieve as fair an outcome as possible. Now let's say I disagree that police officers have the right to enforce the law, and that, in fact, the entire legal system doesn't apply to me, and it infringes on my fundamental rights as a human being. I don't need to work through the system, because the system doesn't apply to me! Well, that sucks -- I still live in the United States, where the power of the law is ultimately backed by a large citizenship that does believe that the laws apply to them, and also by an incredible military force and globally connected political powers. Clearly, saying "the law doesn't apply to me," while I'm living in the US, is about as useful as saying "the rules of physics don't apply to me." In the interest of self-preservation, while pursuing my ideologies, I might abscond to some country that does not have political ties to the US, and obtain citizenship there. Heck, I might just find my own island in the middle of nowhere and live out the rest of my days in the peace of my own personal government. Great! Everyone's happy! However, essentially declaring war on an institution far more powerful than yourself, while the institution has both the self-interest and ability to enforce its laws isn't so much "exercising your personal ideologies" as it is "a symptom of an insane person with no sense of self preservation" There are refugees all around the world that are fleeing from the ideologies of their own governments. That's within their rights as human beings. However, it's a symptom of insanity, not personal ideology, to believe that the laws of the country literally don't apply to you while you're there. This is why we don't often see these refugees driving around the streets of their home country, disobeying (relatively) minor laws in an extremely attention-getting way, trying to pick fights, and then threatening to shoot cops. I'm sure there are examples of this, but I'll just say the same thing in those cases -- that's not political ideology, it's insanity. And when insane people wave guns around, they get shot.
• tamana 10y ago
  It's not gobbledygook to disagree with the government. (Is the Declaration of Independence gobbledygook?) It's only gobbledygook if you expect a police officer or court to be persuaded by your reasoning. Gaines defended her sovereignty with her gun, just like the US and MD government does. Unfortunately for her, the MD government used it's guns more preemptively, aggressively, and effectively.
  • rbanffy 10y ago
    Her sovereignty had absolutely no legal standing. Declaring oneself above the law does not automatically make it true. Neither shooting at police officers. We read a lot about police violence but, in this case, I'm inclined to believe they acted very reasonably.
  • stevenwiles 10y ago
    What point are you even trying to make?