It is our right to travel, which I have done often. It is not our right to drive, that is a privilege to those that earn it, by study & practice, and shows on your driver's license.
You are playing masonic games and speaking to the very point of this video, driving is defined as something you do in commerce and requires a license, travelling does not. The encyclopedia of the United States law published by the West known as American Jurisprudence states; “The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himselfin an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.” -II Am. Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sec. 329, p. 1135 It is common knowledge that we have the right to travel by automobile.
@@zenziariusThe reason that we have a type of license categorized as a C.D.L., or "Commercial Driver's License", is to distinguish between that and a NON-commercial D/L. A non-C.D.L. means that you have demonstrated, AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, your proficiency at safely operating a motor vehicle having passed the Road Test. Having passed the written test, you have demonstrated your knowledge of basic traffic laws the meaning of American Road Signage, speed/hazard zones, lawful passing on a 2-lane, etc. You have an obligation to Society to prove that you are still of sound mind and body to drive a car and it has NOTHING to do with whether you're driving to the grocery store or delivering for Papa Johns.
@@mycharmedunicorn8715 Careful with the broad strokes, buddy. I'm about as classic-Liberal as a Democrat can get and I understand the Social Contract. To drive a car, I grasp that driver's license is incumbent upon me because it's proof-positive that I have a basic knowledge of traffic laws and can safely operate a passenger vehicle weighing on average 4,000 Lbs and capable of speeds over 100 MPH. The fact that YOU understand this aspect of the Social Contract and accept your obligation to others means you might not be as far Right as you think you are. Last Election cycle, many Republicans treated Covid19 protocols the way Sovereign Citizens treat Traffic laws, as if they had no obligation to anybody but themselves. Watching Conservatives being dragged out of Private Sector property by Law Enforcement, ranting about their "right to make their own choices" regarding masks and other health/safety protocols, was BANGING HILARIOUS. It was as fun as watching these guys get their windows busted out for not complying with a traffic stop.
You can only run from police if they have a reason to stop you. We have the right to travel in automobiles. The state has converted this basic liberty into a privilege. Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
Police attack people when they stop them without a reasonable articulable suspicion or single articulable fact that they were involved in a crime or that they are about to commit one.
@@zenziarius Police were investigating a potential DV incident in the parking lot of a restaurant(if you call Panda Express a restaurant). Woman holding a baby in the midst of an argument and the man had a stick in his hands. That was their probable cause. The pursuit was simply the byproduct the man not complying with a DV investigation.
@@kevinhummel6901 None of what you state is a crime and again the officer said this was provided through an anonymous tip. It is unfortunate people seem to not want these cases to go to the supreme court. To much money involved for the states.
@@zenziarius So you think stopping a potential domestic incident does not warrant intervention? Leaving the scene of the investigation can bring Obstruction charges. That is against the law. What were you charged with and convicted on because of this anyway?
@@kevinhummel6901 No, I do not believe an officer should be able to utilize an anonymous tip that did not allege a crime as reason to perform an investigatory stop. There also was no "scene" or "investigation". The final charges in this case were fleeing and eluding and malicious destruction of property (for the gate at the end of the video).
Not obeying a police officer is NOT a hero 🙄. At the point of the attempted traffic stop the driver of the pickup had no idea if there was or was not a reason for the attempted pull over. Only in Michigan😂.
I see people who stand up for basic rights when attacked as heroes. I cite Public Law 94-583 for the reason to pull people over while they are travelling, an officer needs a warrant to a case "in which money damages are sought against them for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property." Otherwise the officer needs a reasonable articulable suspicion or single articulable fact that they were involved in a crime or that they are about to commit one. The "police" in Michigan do not allow anyone to travel by automobile.
@@kevinhummel6901 Yes, the issue is these "police officers" assume you are always operating in commerce while in an automobile. Are you supposed to take the plate off while travelling? What happens if you travel in an automobile in your area without a plate?
@@kevinhummel6901 All licenses are commercial in nature. You can see commerce mentioned in the legal definitions. Here is 18 USC § 31(a)(6) Motor vehicle. - The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for COMMERCIAL PURPOSES on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo. Here is another from RCW 9a.04.110 and reads in relevant part; (28) "Vehicle" means a "motor vehicle" as defined in the vehicle and traffic laws, any aircraft, or any vessel equipped for propulsion by mechanical means or by sail; Notice the above statute definition does confine itself to Washington codes and policies, but by use of the term “laws” implies all laws including Federal.
"We received an anonymous tip that two people were arguing in a Panda Express parking lot. The female was holding a baby. The male was holding a stick. They got into a blue truck and drove away."
@@kevinhummel6901 I am not sure where you got that information. I have the entire court transcript and no where in it does it say "domestic violence incident", but it does say ANONYMOUS TIP. If you have insider information please enlighten me.
That was Al Cowling driving. OJ was laying down with a🔫 to his head. The fact that he was trying to keep OJ from Adolf-ing himself is the mitigating circumstance under which Cowling wasn't prosecuted for fleeing and eluding.
@@MalakaiVanCoillie Any operation of a motor vehicle is driving. There is no distinction and it make no difference whether you're driving on your own time, or employed in the commercial operation of a car. Larger vehicles, like 18-wheelers, require a C.D.L. or Commercial Driver's License. You do not have the right to drive, it is a privilege you have to demonstrate the ability to exercise responsibly.
Misleading Title is a Flag and is a Terms of Use Violation. Your title implies that the people being chased and apprehended attacked a "Michigan Family".
It is also clearly stated in the description that it is the Michigan family being attacked. You did see them use spike strips and blow out three tires?
@@zenziarius No matter what the description says, the title can't bait-and-switch. The police employ stop sticks and P.I.T./T.V.I. maneuvers when people can't figure out that blue lights mean "Pull. Your. Ass. Over." Let me guess: You think traffic laws are invalid, that you don't need a driver's license and car insurance and that the USA and the states are "a fictitious corporation".
@@troyevitt2437 This video in both it's title and description reference travelling and the first minute of the video contains a statement from an article titled The Right to Travel: A Fundamental Right of Citizenship from the Journal of Transportation Law, Logistics and Policy. Their is no law I know of that states you must stop for "blue lights" while travelling.
This case has already gone through court, the police officer admitted on record he had no reasonable articulable suspicion or single articulable fact to initiate the stop. He admitted he did not witness any crime committed and his excuse was "I received an anonymous tip that two people were arguing and a baby was crying." He did not corroborate any information related to any crime and never questioned any witness or got any names.
@mycharmedunicorn8715 Yes, a police officer has to have a reason because we have the right to privacy and we are explicitly protected by the constitution from unlawful searches and seizures. They call it having a reasonable articulable suspicion or single articulable fact.
It is our right to travel, which I have done often. It is not our right to drive, that is a privilege to those that earn it, by study & practice, and shows on your driver's license.
You are playing masonic games and speaking to the very point of this video, driving is defined as something you do in commerce and requires a license, travelling does not.
The encyclopedia of the United States law published by the West known as American Jurisprudence states;
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himselfin an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.” -II Am. Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sec. 329, p. 1135
It is common knowledge that we have the right to travel by automobile.
@@zenziarius🤣🤣🤣 let me guess...demonrat?
@@mycharmedunicorn8715 You are clearly new to this, that is a terrible guess.
@@zenziariusThe reason that we have a type of license categorized as a C.D.L., or "Commercial Driver's License", is to distinguish between that and a NON-commercial D/L. A non-C.D.L. means that you have demonstrated, AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, your proficiency at safely operating a motor vehicle having passed the Road Test.
Having passed the written test, you have demonstrated your knowledge of basic traffic laws the meaning of American Road Signage, speed/hazard zones, lawful passing on a 2-lane, etc.
You have an obligation to Society to prove that you are still of sound mind and body to drive a car and it has NOTHING to do with whether you're driving to the grocery store or delivering for Papa Johns.
@@mycharmedunicorn8715 Careful with the broad strokes, buddy. I'm about as classic-Liberal as a Democrat can get and I understand the Social Contract. To drive a car, I grasp that driver's license is incumbent upon me because it's proof-positive that I have a basic knowledge of traffic laws and can safely operate a passenger vehicle weighing on average 4,000 Lbs and capable of speeds over 100 MPH.
The fact that YOU understand this aspect of the Social Contract and accept your obligation to others means you might not be as far Right as you think you are.
Last Election cycle, many Republicans treated Covid19 protocols the way Sovereign Citizens treat Traffic laws, as if they had no obligation to anybody but themselves.
Watching Conservatives being dragged out of Private Sector property by Law Enforcement, ranting about their "right to make their own choices" regarding masks and other health/safety protocols, was BANGING HILARIOUS. It was as fun as watching these guys get their windows busted out for not complying with a traffic stop.
Running from the police is never a good idea no matter what your beliefs are. They should have stopped and taking what they had coming
You can only run from police if they have a reason to stop you. We have the right to travel in automobiles. The state has converted this basic liberty into a privilege. Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
I argue an "officer" needs more than a R.A.S. or S.A.F. to stop a traveler.
Is this guy the attacker? Or are you saying the police are attacking the people in the truck by pursing them for every good reason?
Police attack people when they stop them without a reasonable articulable suspicion or single articulable fact that they were involved in a crime or that they are about to commit one.
@@zenziarius Police were investigating a potential DV incident in the parking lot of a restaurant(if you call Panda Express a restaurant). Woman holding a baby in the midst of an argument and the man had a stick in his hands. That was their probable cause. The pursuit was simply the byproduct the man not complying with a DV investigation.
@@kevinhummel6901 None of what you state is a crime and again the officer said this was provided through an anonymous tip. It is unfortunate people seem to not want these cases to go to the supreme court. To much money involved for the states.
@@zenziarius So you think stopping a potential domestic incident does not warrant intervention? Leaving the scene of the investigation can bring Obstruction charges. That is against the law. What were you charged with and convicted on because of this anyway?
@@kevinhummel6901 No, I do not believe an officer should be able to utilize an anonymous tip that did not allege a crime as reason to perform an investigatory stop. There also was no "scene" or "investigation". The final charges in this case were fleeing and eluding and malicious destruction of property (for the gate at the end of the video).
Not obeying a police officer is NOT a hero 🙄. At the point of the attempted traffic stop the driver of the pickup had no idea if there was or was not a reason for the attempted pull over. Only in Michigan😂.
I see people who stand up for basic rights when attacked as heroes. I cite Public Law 94-583 for the reason to pull people over while they are travelling, an officer needs a warrant to a case "in which money damages are sought against them for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property." Otherwise the officer needs a reasonable articulable suspicion or single articulable fact that they were involved in a crime or that they are about to commit one. The "police" in Michigan do not allow anyone to travel by automobile.
@@zenziarius Public Law 94-583 = Foreign Soverign Immunities Act. interesting how this would apply to a truck with Michigan plates.
@@kevinhummel6901 Yes, the issue is these "police officers" assume you are always operating in commerce while in an automobile. Are you supposed to take the plate off while travelling? What happens if you travel in an automobile in your area without a plate?
It is called an “operator’s license” and not a “driver’s license”. The license involves operating a motor vehicle, with no mention of commerce.
@@kevinhummel6901 All licenses are commercial in nature. You can see commerce mentioned in the legal definitions. Here is 18 USC § 31(a)(6) Motor vehicle. - The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for COMMERCIAL PURPOSES on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
Here is another from RCW 9a.04.110 and reads in relevant part; (28) "Vehicle" means a "motor vehicle" as defined in the vehicle and traffic laws, any aircraft, or any vessel equipped for propulsion by mechanical means or by sail;
Notice the above statute definition does confine itself to Washington codes and policies, but by use of the term “laws” implies all laws including Federal.
This video is ridiculous. Just stop them for god sake. Why are the police following them???
"We received an anonymous tip that two people were arguing in a Panda Express parking lot. The female was holding a baby. The male was holding a stick. They got into a blue truck and drove away."
Police were meeting the driver to investigate a potential domestic violence incident in a parking lot and there was a 1 year old in the car.
@@kevinhummel6901 I am not sure where you got that information. I have the entire court transcript and no where in it does it say "domestic violence incident", but it does say ANONYMOUS TIP. If you have insider information please enlighten me.
Is OJ driving that truck?
That was Al Cowling driving. OJ was laying down with a🔫 to his head. The fact that he was trying to keep OJ from Adolf-ing himself is the mitigating circumstance under which Cowling wasn't prosecuted for fleeing and eluding.
The subject in this film was travelling.
@@MalakaiVanCoillie Any operation of a motor vehicle is driving.
There is no distinction and it make no difference whether you're driving on your own time, or employed in the commercial operation of a car.
Larger vehicles, like 18-wheelers, require a C.D.L. or Commercial Driver's License.
You do not have the right to drive, it is a privilege you have to demonstrate the ability to exercise responsibly.
Thank god dispatch has been updated!
Misleading Title is a Flag and is a Terms of Use Violation. Your title implies that the people being chased and apprehended attacked a "Michigan Family".
The family in this video are obviously the ones being attacked. You call it chased and apprehended, I call it attacked.
@@zenziarius It was not the driver's discretion NOT to stop when there are blue lights behind him.
It is also clearly stated in the description that it is the Michigan family being attacked. You did see them use spike strips and blow out three tires?
@@zenziarius No matter what the description says, the title can't bait-and-switch.
The police employ stop sticks and P.I.T./T.V.I. maneuvers when people can't figure out that blue lights mean "Pull. Your. Ass. Over."
Let me guess: You think traffic laws are invalid, that you don't need a driver's license and car insurance and that the USA and the states are "a fictitious corporation".
@@troyevitt2437 This video in both it's title and description reference travelling and the first minute of the video contains a statement from an article titled The Right to Travel: A Fundamental Right of Citizenship from the Journal of Transportation Law, Logistics and Policy. Their is no law I know of that states you must stop for "blue lights" while travelling.
This case has already gone through court, the police officer admitted on record he had no reasonable articulable suspicion or single articulable fact to initiate the stop. He admitted he did not witness any crime committed and his excuse was "I received an anonymous tip that two people were arguing and a baby was crying." He did not corroborate any information related to any crime and never questioned any witness or got any names.
A police officer has to have a reason? Why?
@mycharmedunicorn8715 Yes, a police officer has to have a reason because we have the right to privacy and we are explicitly protected by the constitution from unlawful searches and seizures. They call it having a reasonable articulable suspicion or single articulable fact.
@@zenziariusyour nuts
@@PrincetonMontgomery Do you know what is beyond the 60th parallel?
@@zenziariushow does he know what he did or didn’t do if he doesn’t pull over? Would you do the same as that driver?