Type to search

Endorse This: A Texas Cop You’ll Like

Endorse This Top News

Endorse This: A Texas Cop You’ll Like



What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? Or in this case, what happens during a routine traffic stop when a Texas police officer comes face to face with a “sovereign citizen” — a member of a right-wing fringe movement that denies the government holds any authority over them.

Click above to watch as the “sovereign” man repeatedly challenges the cop’s authority — refusing to even show any identification. But nothing — not even the car window he wouldn’t open — can shield him from the full force of the law.

Video via Southern Poverty Law Center.

Get More to Endorse Delivered to Your Inbox

[sailthru_widget fields=”email,ZipCode” sailthru_list=”Endorse This Sign Up”]


You Might also Like


  1. Charlie June 11, 2015

    I think the wiseass in the car should get 3 months at hard labor and loose his DL for 6 months. Maybe that’ll change his attitude.

    1. johninPCFL June 11, 2015

      Hannity, O’Reilly, etc. will no doubt come to this toothless droolers defense, but the 15-year-old girl grabbed by the hair, thrown to the ground, and sat on for talking back to the cop “asked for it”.

  2. i2grok June 11, 2015

    He should have identified himself as a member of the Texas legislature, he certainly knows the party line.

  3. manifesto2000 June 11, 2015

    Posted on the youtube page:

    It is pretty clear that the continent needs to develop a serious civics project that will educate people as to what is required for living in a democratic society. This sovereignty idiocy is largely the result of people being neglected, and allowed to develop a world view that is based on alienated, ignorant self delusion. Many of these so-called freedom movement adherents think that democracy is mob rule, and they have no sense of what responsible citizen duties are. There needs to be a conscious effort to get the poisonous and antisocial attitude replaced with a capacity for responsible citizenship.

    1. Joe Glass June 11, 2015

      Yes, indeed. It seems lately, that I read about individuals flauntly their presumed rights, while in actuality, drawing more attention(negative, mind you) and subsequent suspicion by authorities.

      I was appalled at that guy who brought his AR15 to the airport last week, because of Texas’ Open Carry Law. He claims it was to protect his daughter while being dropped off.

      Hey, I am an NRA member, 2nd Amendment Supporter, gun owner, etc. but that stuff was just plain wrong. It tends to make those of us that want to be responsible citizens/gun owners, look like we are all in these “Defiant Rights Groups” or something along that line.

      1. trog69 June 11, 2015

        I’m a bleeding-heart liberal, but I believe everyone has the right to have firearms for home protection, and for hunting.

        Anything more, and they should show a need.

    2. trog69 June 11, 2015

      I think, for most of them, they completely reject the idea of citizenship. Nevermind that they use taxpayer-funded roads and hwys, are safe in their homes and businesses due to taxpayer-funded law enforcement,( which they all reject out of hand) and that they are relatively safe from typhoid and other dangerous, communicable diseases due to taxpayer-funded health outreach.

  4. LADDIED June 11, 2015

    Again as usual the cop is out of line. The man is not in the process of breaking any laws, and does not represent a threat to the cop or anyone else. The cop should have called his supervisor as requested. There was no excuse for damaging private property, and risking injury to a citizen. If the supervisor, agreed that it was necessary they could have towed the car to impound, with the man in it. If the cop really felt the man was in violation of traffic law, he could have wrote a ticket and stuck it under the mans windshield wiper and went on his way.

    1. CrankyToo June 11, 2015

      You’re joking. Right?

    2. lawdood June 11, 2015

      What are you smoking? It must be really good.

    3. Allan Richardson June 11, 2015

      That would be easier, but maybe this was the fifth such *hole he had to deal with that morning. Basically this idiot was trying to say he didn’t have to comply with ANY laws. And incidentally, in most states, and I’m pretty sure in Texas, although a PEDESTRIAN does not have to show a driver’s license (he may not have one and doesn’t need one to be walking), a motorist driving a car DOES; it is part of the stipulation that goes with issuing the license, that the licensee, when driving or having just parked or about to pull out of a parking space, has to identify himself if stopped for possible violation of traffic laws.

      Part of this is for the licensed driver’s protection in case the car is stolen; a citation issued on a “John Doe” basis could be charged against the registered owner even if a stranger had taken the car without permission, and there would be no way for the owner to show that he was not the driver. With the driver having to show a license and registration before the ticket is issued, and sign the officer’s copy of the ticket to show receipt, there is no chance of a mistake.

      Speeding not a crime? Not in the same sense as murder or burglary, but it is a civil infraction. But resisting arrest (receiving a ticket is legally an arrest, even though without the physical detention) IS a crime, so he would have been better advised not to play semantic games with the cop. I don’t think he would have been shot, even if he were a minority, unless he drove off, but why do it the hard way? Oh yes, he wanted to promote anarchy as a political philosophy. Cliven Bundy on a small scale.

      1. mountie June 11, 2015

        You need to learn the law. In almost every state of the union the courts have repeatedly stated that an individual operating there own vehicle for non commercial purposes does not require a drivers license. It just so happens that the individual in the car is correct and the cop is wrong. I hope he sues the city, county or state for everything they have and then put the tab for it as a separate line item on the tax bills. I support police, but they need to actually know the law instead of what they may have been told.. By legal definition a driver is someone operating a commercial vehicle on the public road.

        1. Allan Richardson June 11, 2015

          Can you cite one of those court cases? And what makes someone who is bad enough at driving to require a license any LESS dangerous if he is not doing so for pay? Traffic laws were written to promote SAFETY, and getting paid or not has no relation to the ability not to kill yourself and others. Actually, most states issue a different KIND of license for commercial drivers because they usually drive vehicles with more technical rules to obey (e.g. buses and big rigs) and are responsible for the safety of larger numbers of people. If there were no need to license “amateur” drivers, why would every state have separate licenses for amateur drivers and professional ones?

          This sounds like another one of these sovereign citizen nut jobs.

          1. mountie June 12, 2015

            It will take me a little while to hunt through my legal files but I will be able to give cites. In the mean time I suggest you take a look a legal dictionary like Bouvier’s or Black’s. Not the so called legal dictionarys that you can find online, Some of them may have the correct definition but I doubt it. Laws are written using words that everyone thinks they know the meaning of but in a legal sense the meanings are not the same. The states have the right to control commerce, therefore a commercial license can be required to use the public roads for profit but not for driving to grandmas for dinner.

            Here are some cites but not nearly all:

            The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and
            transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

            “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public
            highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

            “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which
            the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116,

            “The right to travel is a well-established common right
            that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

            Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:
            “The state cannot diminish rights of the people.”

            Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,
            “Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.”

            “The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24

            “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

            “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

            There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.” Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
            What you must learn is that a driver is legally defined as someone operating a commercial vehicle not a private vehicle.

          2. mountie June 12, 2015

            You probably do not realize that when you register your vehicle and get a title from the state that you no longer own the vehicle. In law the only proof of ownership is the Original Certificate of Manufacture. This is given to the state in order to get a title. So now they own the vehicle, even though you paid for it and you gladly pay a registration fee to rent your vehicle from them.

          3. Mr Corrections June 13, 2015

            Again, this is completely false. Whoever is giving you this information is doing you a service.

          4. Mr Corrections June 13, 2015

            Yeah, that’s basically gibberish.

        2. Mr Corrections June 11, 2015

          That is completely false.

    4. jamcrky June 11, 2015

      you must be related to this guy…..

  5. lawdood June 11, 2015

    So where are the right wing calls for this man to “just comply” and how he’s “no angel?”

    1. Allan Richardson June 11, 2015

      IOKIYAWR: It’s OK if you’re a WHITE Republican.

  6. littlewitch June 11, 2015

    Did anyone else think the officer had detained Matthew McConahay…was he driving a Lincoln?

  7. Charles Phillips June 11, 2015

    In my utopia, the officer would be allowed to shoot this f***ing idiot and leave his worthless carcass to be devoured by buzzards. Next anti-social, anti-authority Texas loony toon, step up please.

  8. jamesowens June 12, 2015

    when stupid resists self righteous- but the cop tried to be polite

  9. Bill June 12, 2015

    This guy sounds like an idiot, he thinks he knows the law…He doesn’t

  10. jtxl June 13, 2015

    amazing restraint but I am sure it is because he is white. If the driver had been brown or black, there would have been a death.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.