Wild chase ends in violent crash in Tempe.Suspect says he has right to kill cops.

I watched the live stream of this guy speaking from court about his rights to kill police and free travel. I'll post links below.

"It all began in the west Valley on State Route 85," said DPS Trooper Kameron Lee. "One of our sergeants attempted a traffic stop on a red Jeep SUV, northbound on SR 85 at MP 138, which is north of the prison and south of MC 85." The SUV failed to yield to troopers and took off, and officials began a pursuit.

Troopers attempted to throw down stop sticks on ST 85, but the SUV managed to swerve around them and kept going. Helicopters and DPS troopers followed the suspect as he continued to drive at high speeds along Interstate 10, eventually transitioning onto the 202.

"As that vehicle approached one of the stoplights it was held up in traffic. At that point, two of our unmarked vehicles tried to box in the SUV to get it to stop and take the suspect into custody. But the suspect veered to the right and rammed one of our patrol cars and then continued southbound at a high rate of speed," said Lee.

Taebel then picked up even more speed, racing south on Rural and dangerously weaving in and out of traffic and even sideswiping another vehicle. "As it approached Spence Avenue, it sideswiped a white SUV," said Lee. The chase came to a violent end when the suspect slammed into another car on Rural just south of Apache, spinning out in a cloud of flying metal and billowing smoke. "He continued into the intersection where it struck a black SUV, almost head-on, causing a major collision," said Lee.

Apparently this guy has a rap sheet longer than my honey do list and he feels that because the stop was unlawful he has the right to resist and or kill to keep his liberty.

Link to article

To make things even weirder they allowed the guy to make a press statement from jail!!! WTF!!!!! I have been arrested and I never got to make a press release.

Press Interview from Jail

Now I am all for sovereignty and free travel unmolested. But the second you get a drivers license and get behind the wheel you basically give up your 4th amendment right. If you want free travel you gotta walk these days as much as that sucks and even then LEO's can make up whatever they want to search you.

What do you guys think? On a Jury of 12 he might get one.

There is a reason people under 35 rarely get called for Jury duty. I showed this to my father and without even listening to any argument he said the guy was guilty.

If I am on his Jury I will at least give him the consideration his argument deserves.

Law Enforcement creates a lot of issues to justify its own existence.

You put on a badge...You must prepare for what that could mean for you.

Just because you are "justified" in your own mind to go after someone "breaking the law" does not mean they will not react to preserve their own life when you are attempting to take it or make them afraid that you are.

Free travel and recklessly endangering the lives of innocent bystanders are two entirely different things. He made his disregard for the lives of others clear as he was colliding with them while trying to escape the police. He's just making excuses for his criminal behavior.

You are free to travel throughout the United States. You're just not allowed to do it in a way that can kill people, like flying down the road at 138 mph.

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

Pull over when the cops flip on their lights.
Why is that concept so hard for some to grasp?

originally posted by: SR1TX
Just because you are "justified" in your own mind to go after someone "breaking the law" does not mean they will not react to preserve their own life when you are attempting to take it or make them afraid that you are.

What makes you think he had reason to believe the officers were intending to murder him?
And he was breaking the law, which exists for a good reason. If everyone flew around at 138 mph, there would be alot more crashes and deaths. He did crash into people as a result of his speed and reckless driving, after all.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: PraetorianAZ

Pull over when the cops flip on their lights.
Why is that concept so hard for some to grasp?

Yeah,


Why wouldn't people just willingly pull over so that Mr Terminator with mental disorder, gun, and badge, cant indiscriminately end their lives because he felt "Threatened"

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: SR1TX
Just because you are "justified" in your own mind to go after someone "breaking the law" does not mean they will not react to preserve their own life when you are attempting to take it or make them afraid that you are.

What makes you think he had reason to believe the officers were intending to murder him?
And he was breaking the law, which exists for a good reason. If everyone flew around at 138 mph, there would be alot more crashes and deaths. He did crash into people as a result of his speed and reckless driving, after all.

Well he only started driving at 138 MPH when the LEO's in unmarked cars tried to box him in. I guess at that moment he felt his life was in danger and had to flee. Not trying to argue or justify his action. Just letting you know his side of the story.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: PraetorianAZ

Pull over when the cops flip on their lights.
Why is that concept so hard for some to grasp?

Some people like myself like our freedom and our privacy. And we feel it is our right to travel down the road unmolested by LEO's or anybody. Some people are willing to go through great lengths to protect their sovereignty.

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

If I am on his Jury I will at least give him the consideration his argument deserves.

What argument? You can tell before he even starts he’s a sovereign citizen. There’s no “argument” to be had.

originally posted by: SR1TX

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: PraetorianAZ

Pull over when the cops flip on their lights.
Why is that concept so hard for some to grasp?

Yeah,


Why wouldn't people just willingly pull over so that Mr Terminator with mental disorder, gun, and badge, cant indiscriminately end their lives because he felt "Threatened"

How many times did the cops shoot this guy after he led them on a high speed chase putting many innocent lives in danger?

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: PraetorianAZ

Pull over when the cops flip on their lights.
Why is that concept so hard for some to grasp?

Some people like myself like our freedom and our privacy. And we feel it is our right to travel down the road unmolested by LEO's or anybody. Some people are willing to go through great lengths to protect their sovereignty.

You don't actually have the right to drive, but you do have the privilege. When you apply for a drivers licence, you agree to certain terms governed by each state.

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

His argument considers zero consideration.

Driving is a privilege, not a right, and when you accept the burden of driving a vehicle, you also accept the laws that govern the use of that vehicle, which include the authority of law enforcement to conduct traffic stops, laws against speeding, laws against using your vehicle as a battering ram and damaging other people's property, laws against driving recklessly to the point of ending the chase like what happened here, and laws against fleeing police (both in a vehicle and on-foot).

Now, I'm not saying that the LEOs should have necessarily continued this chase in the manner that they did on populated roads, but no, this guy deserves zero consideration for his argument, as the laws are plane as day. If he wants to play roulette with his and other people's lives, that's his dicked up decision, but this guy will deserve every single minute of prison that he receives from this incident.

This has nothing to do with free travel--not all modes of travel come with unfettered freedoms.

From the linked story:

DPS says Taebel has an extensive criminal history including violent felonies and misdemeanors stretching across several states. He has a California driver's license and has served prison time in New York. DPS also said he has 'anti-government' views.

According to court documents, Taebel stated he will not obey laws imposed to his freedom and also stated he had the legal authority to take an officer's life to preserve his freedom.

Nope...f**k this sovereign-citizen, (probable) tax-denier jackass. And I personally feel that he should have to do a lifetime of community service, but focused on the whims of the 47-year-old woman whose life he could have easily taken that day. I hope that she sh*ts in a bucket every day and makes him empty it...by hand.

Or mouth.

ETA: This should not be in the PC forum.

originally posted by: SR1TX

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: PraetorianAZ

Pull over when the cops flip on their lights.
Why is that concept so hard for some to grasp?

Yeah,


Why wouldn't people just willingly pull over so that Mr Terminator with mental disorder, gun, and badge, cant indiscriminately end their lives because he felt "Threatened"

It's a tad early in the thread to already go full-retard with your anti-cop tirade.

You opt to drive a car, you opt to be governed by the legislated rules of the road. You break those rules, you get pulled over. You flee, you get what's coming to you, especially when you damage other people's property and put their lives in danger in the process.

But, yes, let's escalate it to speculation that this cop would have walked up, asked if he was Sarah Conner, and then shot him...because that's not irrational fear at all.

Jesus...how's that theory of cops raping people in an alleyway going, by the way? (nevermind, don't answer, it's off-topic to this thread)

Looks to be another uninformed informed douche.

Enjoy your stay at the tax payers dime hopefully next time you die.

Looks to be another uninformed informed douche.

Enjoy your stay at the tax payers dime hopefully next time you die.

a reply to: trollz

they were cops, what makes you think they didn't intend life threating force? i think what the guy did was wrong, he should have stopped. but if he is black, i kinda understand why he did it.

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

Now I am all for sovereignty and free travel unmolested. But the second you get a drivers license and get behind the wheel you basically give up your 4th amendment right. If you want free travel you gotta walk these days as much as that sucks and even then LEO's can make up whatever they want to search you.

What do you guys think? On a Jury of 12 he might get one.

Anyone can to anything they are physically able to do. That's a person's natural right.

Each citizen decides on what rights he or she is willing to give up, and which rights and when is all dependent on context.

We might "imagine" that other people have to do this, or have to do that, because of our own "perspective" on how society works. But, who teaches us this perspective? Do we learn it in high school? Are there any classes on it? Does any high school have a course on "How to be a good citizen?".

So, what it comes down to, is each person's personal experience growing up.

Now the vast majority of citizens, encountering the LEO on the highway for the first time, flashing their lights, would just pull over, mostly curious about what the cop wants.

But, if a person has encountered these LEOs several times before, that person's attitude is likely to change. He is likely to feel "picked on", even if it's just "coincidental" that so many LEOs have selected him to pull over. The mind of the citizen is then likely to start dwelling on his "natural rights", and he'll do a lot of thinking on the subject. He may even research the topic in the library or internet, and start to form conclusions that is consistent with his desire to "fight back", since he doesn't see this LEO contact happening to the other citizens round about him, everyone else seems to have freedom to travel.

So, these things don't happen because some random LEO pulls over some random citizen. They only happen when a "pattern" has been established, that leads the citizen to feel unfairly treated.

So, while we "observers" can all sit in our high chairs, and judge the guy for his seemingly "crazy" actions, all it means is that we have never experienced the feeling of being "picked on" ourselves, or "targeted" by Law enforcement. So, we have no emotional understanding, just intellectual views.

Yet, it's our emotions that determine what our intellect will think about.

The guy exercised his "natural rights", and the LEO's got an education.

The guy obviously "doesn't care", because he is "beyond caring". He was frustrated beyond his breaking point.

From time to time, some people will be picked on, and they will react in similar ways.

That's the natural law.

We will see this more and more in the future, because we're keeping "records" in computer "databases", and the LEOs have access to those records from the computers in their cars, and can easily "look up" a driver's license plate to find out if he has any "prior records", then being "human", those "LEOs" will naturally "pick on" the very citizens who have "already had contact" with Law enforcement, just to see if the citizen is doing anything wrong. The cops get merit for finding and arresting wrong doers, and so they have an incentive to "pick on" people who have previously been accused or actually done things wrong, since that is the "low hanging fruit".

So, now we can understand why the events followed the path they did, and we can either change the system, or continue to marvel at how this type of thing continues to occur in our modern times, with all our ability to analyse and study patterns of human behavior.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: PraetorianAZ

His argument considers zero consideration.

Driving is a privilege, not a right, and when you accept the burden of driving a vehicle, you also accept the laws that govern the use of that vehicle, which include the authority of law enforcement to conduct traffic stops, laws against speeding, laws against using your vehicle as a battering ram and damaging other people's property, laws against driving recklessly to the point of ending the chase like what happened here, and laws against fleeing police (both in a vehicle and on-foot).

Agreed.

When he got that driver's license, he agreed to abide by the laws of the road.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

What argument? You can tell before he even starts he’s a sovereign citizen. There’s no “argument” to be had.

Is, 'sovereign Citizen' an American metaphor for a Nut case??

originally posted by: smurfy

Is, 'sovereign Citizen' an American metaphor for a Nut case??

I guess "Sovereign Citizen" is one born on the land, verses "Naturalized Citizen" who comes from some foreign land.


The critical difference is that the "Naturalized Citizen" chooses to be part of the society, and "has to accept" everything that society stands for, as described by its written laws, policies, and practices.

The "Sovereign Citizen", on the other hand, never made any such agreement "to accept" anything, never "had to pledge" allegiance to any system, and he therefore sees himself as part of foundations of the nation itself, with rights "to determine it's laws", select which laws he will abide by and which are against his own perception of the rules that he would have established for "his land."

This, by the way, can be "inferred" from the U.S. Constitution, which deliberately makes the distinction between "Natural Born Citizens" and "Naturalized Citizens". If the constitution did not "enshrine" the distinction, by establishing this difference and asserting "who could rule" and "who could not rule" over the population, by limiting the office of the President to these "Sovereign Citizens", then we'd all be equal and the same.