One of the most entitled group of people are those formerly referred to as sovereign citizens. I say formerly because most of those with this type of ideology will not admit membership or loyalty to any group or organization, but now refer to themselves as sovereign or free men traveling upon the land. When approached by police officers, they will be quick to say that they are not driving, but traveling. They refer to archaic documents, such as the Articles of Confederation (which incidentally was repealed and replaced by the US Constitution). They also quote maritime laws as applying to those on land (as if they don’t know the difference) and they are not under contract with any corporation such as the federal government. In essence, their claim is that man’s law does not apply to them and that they only adhere to common law. Their vehicle is not a motor vehicle but a conveyance. They will try to educate law enforcement by handing them literature and not their license and registration since the latter two documents do not apply to them. Since they are not driving a commercial vehicle, no license or registration of their “conveyance” is required. If officers accept the literature, they will tell the police officer that they have been served and must release them to continue their travels.
Their intention is to confuse and intimidate law enforcement and court officials by misrepresenting legal terminology and unrelated legislation. To those police officers who are in the know, these individuals quickly find out that they cannot misguide or sway appropriate police action.
I have pulled over several of these individuals and most of them will comply with giving me their license or registration when they find out I know more about what they profess to believe than they do. These are those I call graduates of YouTube, Social Media and Uncle Bob. They take their cues from those who have nothing to lose because they would not dare do what they encourage others to do. They like their freedom too much and they can’t put up more videos on the net from inside the jail.
There was one that held fast to his beliefs until I told him that I would give him one last chance to produce his license and registration to me. If he did not, since he liked to travel, he indeed would. Not as a freeman but as a shackled one in the back of my cruiser. He would travel to the jail where he would no longer travel elsewhere until the judge said he could. His conveyance would also travel…to the impound lot and would not be free until the expensive lot fees were paid. And, btw, he could bring his strawman with him. The back of my cruiser seats two. He then immediately complied and produced his documents for me.
It needs to be known that some of these individuals are extremely dangerous and will kill anyone that hinders their travels. Watch the video below to see to what lengths they will go to elude law enforcement and incarceration. Viewer discretion is advised as it is graphic.
The next group of individuals I will now reveal have taken entitlement to a whole new level. I am not talking about all or even most within these organizations. Yet there is enough to make it apparent there is a need for major adjustments. Management in these organizations have thus far as a whole been ineffective in curbing the entitled attitudes of the violators. Quite frankly, drumroll please, these organizations are police departments and the guilty ones are the police officers.
Since some who believe that even off duty they are still police officers they should be granted a pass on speeding or other motor vehicle violations by just the flash of the badge. They feel that convenience stores owe them free coffee and some restaurants should feed them for free. We will address these entitlements in a bit. Let’s take them one by one:
Professional Courtesy:
It is understandable on very minor issues that professional courtesy be extended from one first responder to another (police, firefighter, paramedic, etc.) We do have to work together, even if they are not from the same jurisdiction. Our goal is to promote partnership.
However, there comes a time when professional courtesy becomes professional enabling and legitimacy. Serious motor vehicle violations and even crimes are not enforced which, at the very least, makes us hypocrites. At a higher level of looking the other way we become proponents of injustice. This goes directly against the oath we take. No wonder the public has lost their trust in us. Once again, I trust that the majority of police officers will not participate in this inequity, but just a few is a few too much.
I started, for the most part, pulling away from professional courtesy when I caught the same police officer from another jurisdiction in uniform but in his personal vehicle going home three times in three weeks speeding on the same highway. When I approached the window, he started to laugh saying, “Man, you caught be again!!” I told him to give over his license and registration. He asked me, incredulously, was I really going to write him a ticket? I told him I was and that I know he has his service weapon on him so I needed for him to keep his hands on the steering wheel where I could see them. He exclaimed, “You really think I’m going to shoot you?” I replied, “I told you two other times not to speed on my streets, and you have disregarded what I said with impudence. I don’t know what you are capable of.” I went back to my cruiser and, while I was writing the ticket, in accordance with our policy, I called my sergeant to tell him that I was writing a police officer a ticket. I explained to him why. He told me that he would call me right back. Just about the time I finished the ticket, he called and told me to issue it to him, and that he had just called the police officer’s lieutenant. After he signed it, I was to tell him to turn his vehicle around and report to his lieutenant’s office. My sergeant told me not to tell him, but he was going to be suspended without pay. He must have prepaid because I do not remember him appearing on my docket in our court.
I encourage all police supervisors to regularly spot check officer’s traffic stop body and dash cam footage to eliminate the abuse of professional courtesy. We as police officers must not feel we can do what we want just because we are part of law enforcement. It should be required that when a police officer pulls over another first responder, he must advise his supervisor. His supervisor must ensure that appropriate enforcement is adhered to. This is one way we can earn back the trust from the public.
Taking Entitlements with Citizen’s Liberties:
One thing that bothered me when I first began in the police department that was thankfully corrected with new leadership was the way officers stopped those walking in high crime areas, especially at night. Officers would see a pedestrian walking down a street and mark out with them telling dispatch they were out with a suspicious subject and would give their location. They felt that anyone that would be walking in a high crime neighborhood at one or two in the morning was up to no good. This was their entire articulation of justification for the detainment of these subjects. They would then demand their identification, which an officer cannot do unless they are conducting a valid investigation. This was not right. You may disagree if you are an officer, but let me show you how this is a violation of citizen’s civil rights.
Whether you know or care to believe or not, most of the residents who live in a high crime neighborhood do not choose to do so. They just have no choice due to their poverty. The majority of the residents are not lawbreakers, drug traffickers or murderers. They are decent people just trying to make it. More times than not, all the person walking is trying to do is to get from home to something like work, and then back home. They’re walking to work because they do not have a driver’s license or cannot afford a car. The last thing they need is to be late for work because they are being detained and harassed by the police.
Now, if that same individual was coming from a porch where someone transacted with them, and when he spotted the officers, he suddenly turned around and walked the other way, then you have something to investigate.
Another valid initiation of an investigation is if the police officer has had previous knowledge of this particular individual on the street and is known to commit crimes in the neighborhood and are in the same part of the neighborhood the last time they were arrested.
Another entitlement law enforcement seems to take out on citizens when it comes to those who are carrying a concealed weapon, or even one in a holster on his hip in plain view. Since it is not every day someone comes into, say, Walmart, strapped with a side arm, some citizens will become alarmed and call 911. When officers respond to the armed individual who is doing nothing but shopping and “gets out” with him to make contact, they are becoming precariously close to a violation of the second amendment. Remember, if a police officer is to detain someone, they must have reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has or is about to be committed. Tell me, how is someone that is exercising his second amendment right committing a crime? Officer’s may say that they have the right to see if the armed individual has any criminal history that would revoke his right to bare arms. Or if it is concealed, does he have a CCW permit? This is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever heard. Let me explain.
If a police officer sees a vehicle appropriately operated on the highway, can that officer pull the motorist over just to see if he or she has a license and is not suspended only because it is on the highway? Absolutely not. An officer must have reasonable articulable suspicion that the driver has committed an infraction before he or she can pull them over. You still tracking with me?
So, how in God’s green earth can you feel that it is okay and proper to detain, demand identification, and check to see the legality of someone who is claiming a Constitutional right, again A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, but you cannot do the same thing of a motorist when driving on the highways is a PRIVILEGE and not a right?
When I would get dispatched to these calls at the stores, I would respond. I would go through and locate the individual from a distance. I would watch him for a couple of seconds. Yep, he is shopping. There are no indications he will commit a crime. I would then leave and tell dispatch no violations were observed and that all the individual was doing was shopping. I would not even walk past and say hello, for fear that he might take it as a form of intimidation. If you are an officer and make it a habit to violate citizens’ 2nd amendment rights in this way, you might want to stop before a knowledgeable citizen and a good attorney drain your bank account.
Free coffee and meals:
Now you did it, Cravey. You are being way too picky. These convenience stores and restaurants do this as a courtesy for us in blue. Ok, maybe free meals is a bit much, but coffee or fountain drinks? What’s the harm in that?
Well, first of all, in most departmental policies forbid gratuities, but seem to cast a blind eye with free coffee and fountain drinks. Maybe a new approach where even the free beverages are cut out is something that needs to take place.
I will admit when I first started as a police officer, I had a free cup or two (actually way more than that) of coffee. I would always go up to the counter with my debit card, but the clerk would tell me that he could not charge us and that it was free to us. So, I would thank them and be on my way.
However, one convenience store experienced two armed robberies in one week. The owner of the convenience store exclaimed to his employees, “I give these officers free coffee!! Where are they when I need them??!!” He then suspended the free coffee program and had the clerks charge the police officers for their beverages. That’s when I realized–he wasn’t giving us free coffee out of the graciousness and appreciation of his heart. He was paying (and quite cheaply) for protection of his store. When that store was in my zone, I would still patrol and go inside to check on the store and clerks. But from then on, I usually brought my own coffee in my thermos from home. If I had to get coffee from another convenience store, I would go up to the counter and demand I pay for my coffee. When the clerk refused, I told him to hold on that I forgot something. I pulled a couple of Twinkies or packages of donuts and place it on the counter. I would let the clerk ring it up, I would pay for them and then I would turn around and put them back on the rack. The clerk would complain that it would mess up the inventory and I would tell them if they want they can take them off and eat them or give them away, but I am paying for my coffee. I was not going to be beholden to anyone. The clerks realized when they saw me it was easier to just charge me.
I hope what I have written will be taken by police officers who read this in the spirit it was given. We cannot afford to take the liberties we thought we were entitled to in the past any longer. We need the citizens cooperation and trust to be able to protect them effectively. So what about it? Write in the comments if you agree and even if you don’t and why. You can be frank. I don’t get offended easily. Above all else, my brothers and sisters in blue, be safe out there!!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DON’T ALLOW YOUR ATTACKER GET TO THIS POINT–PROTECT YOURSELF NOW AND CLICK BELOW!!
