this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
109 points (98.2% liked)

No Stupid Questions

40612 readers
583 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The phenomenon of sovereign citizens persistently trying to win court cases with their principles, despite a lack of success, is indeed puzzling. On YouTube alone, there are around 5,000 videos showing sovereign citizens facing defeat in the courtroom. These individuals often make claims that have yet to prove successful and frequently end up incarcerated.

Why do people continue to adopt this seemingly futile approach? It's akin to watching 5,000 parachutists attempt a failed jump from the Eiffel Tower, only for newcomers to keep trying despite knowing, or perhaps ignoring, the inevitable outcome. Despite the growing pile of mangled bodies at the base of the tower, every day people decide to climb up and try for themselves.

The dedication of these individuals is noteworthy; they invest a great deal of time mastering the intricacies of their "sovereign" defense. Yet, it seems that they dedicate little time to researching previous legal outcomes or understanding why their arguments haven't held up in court historically.

What drives this persistence? Is it a deep-seated belief system that overrides rational analysis, or is there another factor at play that encourages them to keep going despite overwhelming evidence of failure?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LordGimp@lemm.ee 10 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

It's funny because the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS work for cops.

Speeding? You mean traveling in a conveyance.

Assault and battery? You mean protecting and serving.

Deprivation of rights, kidnapping, and false imprisonment? You see, your honor, I didn't know about any of that stuff so it shouldn't apply to me.

In conclusion, the only "sovereign citizens" in this country are the bitches in blue.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Police have special powers according to the law, so no, the same arguments don’t work.

[–] LordGimp@lemm.ee 7 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

They REALLY don't. They have very situational allowances that have become defacto "special powers" thanks to a combination of decades of copaganda and huckster "warrior programs" that teach wannabe bullies that they are the most important of gods special snowflakes whose only responsibility is saving their own ass.

Check out the guy that got stabbed in the face repeatedly on an NY subway while cops watched from 10 feet away, behind a safety door meant to protect the train conductor. Took them to court because their motto was literally "protect and serve" and got a real live judge to say out loud that it wasn't literal and cops have no duty to actually protect or serve anyone, legally.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

They REALLY do. What you call “situational allowances” are what we’re talking about. You can’t turn on some flashing lights and speed through red lights to get to a crime legally. They can.

Police have special powers that the rest of us don’t have. If they didn’t then police wouldn’t even exist.

[–] LordGimp@lemm.ee 4 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

The problem I'm talking about is when they speed through red lights because they think they have these "special powers" when they law is EXCRUCIATINGLY explicit on exactly when and why cops can sometimes disregard certain legal requirements. That does not mean they can do what they want when they want. That's exactly the kind of people OP is talking about, and that's cops. To a fuckin T. Nobody else goes to court, cries ignorance as an excuse, and expects to get away with it.

My real problem is that it works for them. Qualified immunity is a disgrace to law, as is the absolute immunity enjoyed by judges and magistrates. You want to fix law, fix that first.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 5 points 11 hours ago

Ok so your issue is that police abuse their powers, powers that regular citizens do not have. I agree that’s a huge problem and it should be addressed regularly.

That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand though. Sovereign citizens live in la-la-land. There are no special hidden laws about “travelling vs driving” where you don’t need a drivers license to drive on public roads. There are laws that allow police to speed and go through red lights.