This video shows a clearly obnoxious and possibly unstable individual who hounds court security with a series of nonsensical statements about not being a person. The court staff shows considerable restraint and professionalism until the man is tasered for trying to get into a court area with a camera.
In the view, the man insists “I don’t have a last name. I don’t have a first name either. I got a name, my name is Robert. You can call me Robert.” He then draws a nonsensical distinction in saying “I’m not a person. You deal here with persons, of which I am not. I’m a man.” When he denies being a citizen of the United States, but admits to being a citizen of Idaho, he then refuses to produce his license on the grounds that “My person does [have one]. I don’t. And I don’t wish to create joinder with you.” He was soon joined with a taser.
I am highly sympathetic to the court security in such a situation and I do not contest the right to keep out cameras. However, I wonder why a taser was used rather than simply restraining the man and possibly arresting him. Once again, the man is clearly rude and seems a bit off. However, we have previously discussed how tasers have become the first response in such situation and used almost casually. This man was clearly in the wrong in trying to get in despite the warning. However, he took one step and was tasered by the officer. These tasers can be deadly in some circumstances and are similar in the legal level of force to the use of a police baton. Where officers (of which there were at least four here) once physically restrained such individuals, they often now use tasers.
What do you think?
Gehe I am so sorry. They are lucky t have you there for them.
At first read i thght maybe the man was trying to turn citizens united on its head, I am not a person… but the more I read (cant see vidoe at moment) the more it seems apparent that this man is ill.
I suppose it comes down to deciding, in the blink of an eye essentially, can this man injure us and others? and if so how do we deal with him. A lot of the videos we see with police ‘overresponding” are clearcut instances of overreach and reaction. This one I am not so sure.
A Taser is a deadly weapon. When you use one against a human being you are assaulting that person with a dealy weapon. There is a body of law which dictates when you have reason to assault a person with a deadly weapon. To suggest that they just tased the guy is like suggesting that they just smacked him with a donut. No, they fired upon him with a deadly weapon. In the years to come there will be a number of jury verdicts on behalf of plaintiffs who are the heirs of dead guys who were tased. Then you will see the err of just saying that the pigs tased someone. Tased: shoot to kill! That is what it is. Y’all dont get it Mr. Turley.
Neither baton nor taser were warranted by the apparent threat, I feel. But there are those who know better how these sovereign types function. If he truly feels he is sovereign then he does not rely on the protection of laws and those who enforce it. He might therefore be armed to protect himself.
The bailiffs and their chiefs have to consider other matters: Does this disturbance create a hinder to the operation of the court? Does taking him down, other than a successful “up against the wall” and cuffing, as mentioned give an assured and low profile outcome. The simplest and fastest was to taze him.
I think we will see this more and more often, for reasons of convenience. That the tazed dies is of no concern to them, it is part of the job to do it and innocent old ladies are expendable. And the bailiffs are covered, if death occurs.
mkahill, I’m not trying to shut anyone up, I’m trying to get them to back up what they say. And again dear sensitive mkahill, if saying someone is “in the comfort of their own home” is ridicule then you need to buck up, buttercup. The point is she was @ home and these bailiffs were involved in a confrontation. We’re all presumably in the comfort of our homes, offices, coffee shops as we write. Myself and others have a frame of reference since we’ve been involved w/ conflicts like this. But, we’re still being Monday morning quaterbacks. The difference is we’ve played the game .Not all opinions are informed or equal. This isn’t grammar school.
“Life’s hard, wear a f@cking helmet.” Dennis Leary
A corporation is a person correct? The STATE is a person.
Person means mask.
The guy seems like he was duped by the PAY-triot movement
They espouse the idea that “person” means only corporate entities and does not include “natural persons”.
As far as being a citizen of a State and not a citizen of the United States goes, the courts have repeatedly said there is a dual sovereignty. In the past people were only referred to as citizens of a state and not as US citizens. Why can not some elect to be of one and not the other???
as an aside…
I think that sovereignty can not be possessed by an incorporeal state because of Calvin’s Case (which is cited in 400+ federal cases as authority)
“1. Ligeance is a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his Sovereign. This ligeance and obedience is an incident inseparable to every subject; for as soon as he is born he oweth by birth right ligeance and obedience to his Sovereign…
But between the Sovereign and the subject there is without comparison a higher and greater connexion: for as the subject oweth to the King his true and faithful ligeance and obedience, so the Sovereign is to govern and protect his Subjects…
It is true, that the King hath two capacities in him: one a natural body, being descended of the blood royal of the Realm; and this body is of the creation of Almighty God, and is subject to death, infirmity, and such like; the other is a politic, body or capacity, so called, because it is framed by the policy of man…
… First, every subject (as it hath been affirmed by those that argued against the Plaintiff) is presumed by Law to be sworn to the King, which is to his natural person; and likewise the King is sworn to his subjects which oath he taketh in his natural person: for the politique capacity is invisible and immortal; nay, the politique body hath no soul, for it is framed by the policy of man…
4. A body politique (being invisible) can as a body politique neither make nor take homage: Vide 33 Hen. 8. tit. Fealty, Brook. 5. In fide, in faith or ligeance nothing ought to be feigned, but ought to be ex fide non ficta.”
Read the last sentence again and again and again. .
I won’t even get into the fact that the States and Federal government disclaim any individual duty of protection which is the very substance of sovereignty.
nick spinelli, Ridicule is the coward’s tool. This is a blog where differences of opinion are encouraged and ridicule of a person sitting in her home is no answer to the opinion she expressed. It’s just a retired PI trying to be a tough guy and shut up anyone who might hold an opinion that is at odds with his own as if he’s still on the street snapping pictures of scumbags instead of in a salon discussing ideas. Tables are turned here and you have no credentials other than the strength of your intelligence and your ability to reason. Holster your rhetoric taser, and stop claiming you’re just the victim of others misunderstanding. And thinking Gene H was off the blog because someone, probably you’re thinking it was your superior self, hurt his feelings is beyond stupid. The only thing dumber is actually posting it.
After watching the video, it didn’t seem necessary to use the taser. The guy was clearly being a douche. But, it looks to me that he wasn’t in any way being violent or threatening. If he needed to be arrested for some reason (I’m skeptical there’s cause for that), then security should have told him he’s under arrest and at a minimum attempted to arrest him. If he resisted then maybe use of the taser might be warranted.
DigitalDave asks, “You should ALWAYS visualize and rhetorically ask “Would a baton have been appropriate in this situation” when a taser is used.”
*************************************
Not necessarily in that order. I am trained in the use of a baton, and the first words out of the instructor’s mouth at the start of the first class was, “Keep in mind that this baton is a bone-breaker.”
A baton should not be used unless the officer has reason to break bones, including possible infliction of a skull fracture.
The dude “was asking for it.”
Why should court security potentially harm themselves first…or possibly someone else in the crowd, first, before tazing the puke…
Unless there is a PHYSICAL THREAT to the officers or bystanders, there is NO REASON to resort to a taser.
I also notice that police always use the excuse they want to be “safe” on the job…if they want to be safe, then they need to go to barber school…
Kraaken, Everything that occurs in a courtroom is documented and is public record. As stated previously, there are witness safety concerns. Gang members and other criminals have used cameras to photograph witnesses in court to intimidate them. If you watched the video a woman covered her face as she walked by the “douchebag” w/ a camera. With a few exceptions[juvenile, paternity, etc. cases] courtrooms are open to the public and you can get a transcript of everything said on the record.
Referring to the value of teaching civics:
“[T]he reason that I said that I think it is the most significant problem that we’ve got is that I think that some of the aspects of current American government that people on both sides find frustrating are in part a function of the inability of people to understand how government can and should function. It is a product of civic ignorance.” – Justice Souter
Interesting find, Dredd.
bettykath, My problem w/ your comment here, and others are they are so unequivocal. Frankly commented right after you and had a more reasoned and less shoot from the hip response. You have a bias and it skews how you see the world. Now, we all have bias, but yours tends to blind you on some issues. Your derision for those bailiffs was palpable.
Gene, My prayers for your friend and relative. Cancer is horrible and it killed my sister @ a too young age. We can agree on that.
>”and I do not contest the right to keep out cameras”<
And why NOT? Doesn't the public have a right to observe what is done in their name? How can one make the case for photographing the police (of which I am a proponent) but say that photographing a Courtroom is off limits? The courtroom is the end product of what the police have begun. Seems to me that if one is allowed, so should the other. As for the tazering, the person was OBVIOUSLY mentally unstable. Four against one would seem enough force to subdue without injuring 'Robert'. Guess it's the 'If ya got 'em, use 'em' mentality.
Talk about a legend in your own mind, nick. You aren’t smart enough to hurt my feelings. I do, however, think you’re a douchebag who can’t argue his way out of a wet paper bag so he hides behind bluster. That hasn’t changed in my absence.
The truth of the matter is I’ve been absent because a friend of mine has terminal cancer and I’m caring for a sick relative, but thanks for showing what assumptions do and thanks for again talking out of the improper orifice.
You never disappoint. Then again, you create such a low level of expectation, one would have to be a non-verbal zombie to set lower expectations.
nick,
so sorry you can’t handle someone disagreeing with you and that you think insults will make it all right. I also think, in your second reference, to me that you were doing some projecting.
What Gene said..oh wait he didn’t say anything. I’m not looking for a battle so why don’t we just let this one go. I know you had your feelings hurt and left for awhile, but let’s save our conflicts for substance not on idiots who get tazed. There will be plenty of opportunities.
What OS said…..