DM

[Dale Eastman]

Bodycam footage of Two Tulsa officers getting shot after they attacked a peaceful man in his car.

The man in the car showed a great amount of restraint in my opinion.  He gave them every opportunity to walk away.  He asked them to leave him alone.  He even said he'd take a ticket they give him and leave, but that wasn't enough for these cops.  They chose to escalate and initiate force (although if we're honest, the cops were threatening deadly force the moment they flashed their lights and forced this man off the road).

He didn't open fire until after the cops initiated the attack on him with a taser, then sprayed pepper-spray in his eyes, then violently ripped him out of his car and started wrestling with him, at which point he (righteously) pulled a firearm and shot these two violent thugs.

May they rot in hell.  There is NEVER an excuse to initiate force against a peaceful individual without their consent, not even if you're enforcing the opinions of popularity-contest winners at gunpoint (aka "enforcing the law").

this is definitely something I will adamantly disagree with you on. Two things here:
I believe these two got shot because they handled the situation wrong. They argued with an idiot and gave him time to take control.
This guy got himself in the situation not the other way around. He drove recklessly right in front of a cop. Did not have a tag. Did not have insurance. Did not have a license. Refused to cooperate.
Not trying to start a fight. I would like to hear how you honestly justify this idiots actions.

➽ Refused to cooperate.

That makes me think you think the cop had non-bogus authority.

If so, Where do you think the cop got his alleged authority?

Perhaps he was an idiot, perhaps he was not. You were not there, I was not there. If you had been there, I would vociferously challenge you on both your observations of the facts and your criteria used to judge the motorist's idiocy.

What I observed in the video was government doing the only thing government knows: Extort people.

Governments exist by extortion. Do what they tell you to do or they will hurt you.

Gimme a cut of your payroll or we'll hurt you.
Don't drive without our permission or we'll hurt you.
Don't drive a vehicle without paying for our permission plate or we'll hurt you.
Don't exceed our arbitrary speed signs or we'll hurt you.

The cop turning on his "pull over or I'll hurt you lights" caused harm by stealing the motorist's time and overriding the motorist's free will. Harm is done every time a cop lights somebody up.

“...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...”

That’s from the Declaration of Independence.

I have never consented. The guy that shot the cops obviously didn’t consent. Did the #metoo movement not help highlight the importance of consent?

Because we do not consent, claim and exercise of power/authority is by definition of our founding principles and documents an UNJUST and TYRANNICAL abuse against a sovereign person/persons.

[Reply to 3rd person] ok I’ll bite. If you are citing the Declaration of Independence then you must believe in what it says.

You, whether you agree with it or not, are part of a society and are therefore not sovereign. Sovereignty requires complete autonomy and independence. As a member of said society you therefore consent to it. By being a part of this society you know our founders felt it was important to limit government power and to make its citizens more powerful than the government, to change the government, to control the government. I believe as a conservative myself that government has gotten “too big for its britches”.
This is all leading back to the actual case of an idiot that shot cops.
David Ware, idiot extraordinaire, is a member of a society in which he doesn’t want to be a part of, doesn’t want to play by the rules, and thinks the rules do not apply to him. He is not sovereign, or autonomous therefore he needs to participate in the society he is part of. He clearly knows that driving reckless, in a vehicle without a tag, without insurance, without a driver’s license, while being a felon with a concealed weapon is not allowed for obvious reasons. The police had every right to take him and his property into custody due to his ignorant arrogant actions of failing to participate in the society he is clearly part of.

the police officer got his authority from the society in which he participates.

David Ware is an idiot, that is obvious. Just for your information you live in a society that has a Democratic Republic, that is by far one of the best if not the best example of government known. You can disagree with it, you can change it.
As a member of said society you consent to it’s rules. Just because you claim to be sovereign doesn’t make you sovereign. David Ware is a member of the same society and he believes he doesn’t need to follow its rules. That has consequences as he is about to discover.

I’ll start with this, David Ware is a member of the society he lives in, whether he agrees with it or not. He is not autonomous or sovereign, for he relies of that society and is part of it.
He was clearly aware, as you are, that the society he lives in has rules. He chose to ignore those rules. He did ask the officers to be there by his inappropriate actions. He clearly knew that he needed to have a car tag, a drivers license, insurance, and should not be driving recklessly. He chose to make those decisions. Those decisions are what led him being pulled over. He is a felon with a concealed weapon another sign of his intolerance to follow rules.
David Ware didn’t defend himself, he murdered one man and attempted to murder another.
The officers had every right and authority granted to them by the society in which they participate to take David Ware and his property into custody. His refusal to cooperate with them is what led to violence not the other way around. How is someone a “peaceful person” when they are uncooperative, verbally hostile, refusing to follow the rules of there environment, and have a clear history of violence.
I’m going to give you scenario. What is if someone came into your house and squatted? You don’t know them, you don’t like them, who knows maybe they’re loud, smell bad and pee on your carpet. They just walked in, sat down, and refused to leave? By your statements above they are peaceful. Is that ok with you? Do you want them there? How would you remove them if not by force?

the authority is granted by the society as a whole in which a given individual resides.
You cannot be both peaceful and disobedient at the same time. You may not be violent but you’re not peaceful. Disobedience is confrontational at it’s core.
I know you believe in being a sovereign citizen. You cannot be sovereign without autonomy and you cannot be an autonomous individual and participate in a society. Therefore you have two choices, figure out how to become autonomous or participate in a society. Societies have rules that the members of that society must follow.

I would hope that if they could see the future and change it that it would have ended without injury. Hind sight is better than none but after viewing the video my first thought was those cops should have known better. They let David Ware control the situation instead of them and it went out of control quickly.

Repeating what I said under the other comment:

I don't think you understand how a government works...

I'm not talking about how you were indoctrinated to BELIEVE governments work, I'm talking about the observable actions of those called government.

What is believed by many is not what is observed in action. Part of the indoctrination is to get people to ignore the inconsistencies and the contradictions.

Dunno how soon I'll be able to reply to what ever you reply with. I am anticipating a good discussion.

"the authority is granted by the society as a whole in which a given individual resides."

How specifically did that delegation of "authority" occur? Who in the "society" had "authority" over this individual in the first place, and how specifically did they delegate it to someone else?

"You cannot be both peaceful and disobedient at the same time."

Yes you can. The individual in this video was peaceful during an onslaught of assaults being waged against him while he was sitting in his car peacefully and disobediently. The only violent/non-peaceful persons involved were the officers who initiated the assault against this guy. The guy in the car's actions with the gun were purely in self-defense and as a last-resort.

"You may not be violent but you’re not peaceful. Disobedience is confrontational at it’s core."

It's just disobedience. If you perceive me disobeying an order you give me as me being "confrontational", then that's on you, not me. I just want to be left in peace. I'm not looking for confrontation, but I'm also not anybody's slave. This individual's disobedience wasn't confrontational in the video. He was just sitting there. The only people who were confrontational were the cops in this instance. They're the ones who pulled him off the road. They're the ones who started barking orders at him. They're the ones who attacked him. He wasn't confrontational until the moment he decided to defend himself. Had the officers (who WERE being confrontational) just left him be, he'd have driven home and nobody would have known the difference. If the cops weren't on the road, he'd have made it home, climbed into bed and everybody would have woken up the next morning.

"I know you believe in being a sovereign citizen."

I don't actually know what a "sovereign citizen" is, but I've always assumed that refers to cops. What is a "sovereign citizen"?

"You cannot be sovereign without autonomy and you cannot be an autonomous individual and participate in a society."

If you'd like to back this with some supporting reason or evidence, I'd like to understand how you came to the conclusion that autonomous individuals cannot "participate in society" (I don't know what specifically you mean by "participate in society", either). Is that true because you say so, or what? Are you saying that a person who is sovereign (has the right to self-govern, which you are since you own yourself and nobody else owns you) is limited in their ability to "participate in society"? What specifically does that mean and why do you think it's true? What method did you use to conclude all of this, or is it just something you were taught as a child then later as an adult and maybe never questioned?

"Therefore you have two choices, figure out how to become autonomous or participate in a society."

This sounds like a false-dichotomy to me. Those with the right to self-govern are perfectly capable of doing anything that anybody else is capable of doing.

"Societies have rules that the members of that society must follow."

"Society" is a fiction. It is a mental construct used to refer to an aggregate of individuals living in close proximity. If there are rules that exist in that society, those rules can be obeyed or they can be disobeyed and the only ones with any obligation to obey them are those who agreed to them in the first place. They don't have to be obeyed and no, not everybody in a "society" agreed to them. If people will attack you for peaceful disobedience to one of those rules, well maybe it's time to start fighting back (as this individual did, and as I hope many more will do as well until people stop enforcing bullshit rules on individuals in a society, or until enough officers fear for their safety that they refuse to show up to work). Enforcing tyranny should be as expensive as possible.

⚠ Item 1.
➽ You, whether you agree with it or not, are part of a society and are therefore not sovereign.
➽ [...] David Ware is a member of the society he lives in, whether he agrees with it or not.

What do you mean by society?
How does one become a member of a society?
Please present your evidence that you rely upon to make the claim that "David Ware is a member of the society he lives in"?
⛔

⚠ Item 2.
David Ware, idiot extraordinaire, is a member of a society in which he doesn’t want to be a part of, [...]

You read David Ware's mind? Impressive. You can read minds like a clairvoyant or an ESPer. What are the numbers for the next super huge lottery drawing, and its date? Send me a private message with that info and I'll split the winnings with you. /snarcasm
⛔

⚠ Item 3.
Me ➽ If so, Where do you think the cop got his alleged authority?
You ➽ the police officer got his authority from the society in which he participates.

What is meant by authority?
What, specifically, do you mean by authority?
Do we agree that authority means a higher claim on the individual's free will than that individual has?

Doesn't this mean the society must have that authority in the first place before it can be delegated (granted, given) to the cop?
Doesn't this mean the society must have superior authority over an individual's allegedly subordinate self authority?
⛔

⚠ Item 4.
How does this happen when we all are alleged to have equal rights?
Wouldn't equal rights mean equal lack of authority of others... Including politicians?
If so, then whence comes authority over another?

⛔
⚠ Item 5.
You ➽ the authority is granted by the society as a whole in which a given individual resides.

Setting the scene:
An uncharted deserted island.

Act 1:
You are the only person on that island.
Would you consider yourself to be a society of one?
Whether you consider yourself a society or not does not matter. Would you agree that you are the sole authority over your actions on that island?

Act 2:
You and I wash ashore on that island at the same time.
Are you and I a society?

Society comes from Latin societatem (nominative societas) "fellowship, association, alliance, union, community," from socius "companion, ally,"

Are you and I a society if we are at war, stealing each other's food, attempting to deny each other access to fresh water and food? I submit that we would not then be a society.

Are you and I a society if we work together and assist each other with the tasks required to sustain life and survive? Are you and I a society if we work together and assist each other to make life and survival easier? I would then agree that you and I are then a society.

Since there is only the two of us on the island, we would have no choice, negotiate an agreement on any issue of conflict, or go to war.

Wouldn't you agree that neither of us has superior authority over the other?

How would a society of the two of us have alleged superior authority of either of us as individuals?

Act 3:
You, I, and a third person wash ashore on that island at the same time.
Wouldn't you agree that none of us has superior authority over the any other?

How would this society of three have superior alleged authority over any of the three of us as individuals?

➽ You, whether you agree with it or not, are part of a society and are therefore not sovereign.

If the three of use have an equal lack of authority over any other, Wouldn't that mean all three of use are sovereign to all others?

➽ As a member of said society you therefore consent to it.

What, specifically, do you mean by "it"?
Context from your other posts suggest: As a member of said society you therefore consent to society.
If so, what, specifically, is being consented to?
From context I assume your intent is society's rules.
By what authority does society make these rules?

By what authority do the three of us on that island, the three of us with equal lack of authority over the others, presume to make rules, commands, and demands for each other?

➽ He was clearly aware, as you are, that the society he lives in has rules.

How do the rules for the deserted island come to be?
⛔

[Dale Eastman]

I don’t think you understand how a society works.

I don't think you understand that you can not delegate an authority that you personally do not have.

If you do not have authority to drink my beer, How can you delegate authority to drink my beer to anybody else?

I don't think you understand how a government works...

I'm not talking about how you were indoctrinated to BELIEVE governments work, I'm talking about the observable actions of those called government.

What is believed by many is not what is observed in action. Part of the indoctrination is to get people to ignore the inconsistencies and the contradictions.

Dunno how soon I'll be able to reply to what ever you reply with. I am anticipating a good discussion.