Guy With Mad Knowledge Saves His Son From Cops

[Harry Evans]

Truly American as opposed to Semi-American? There is no truly American. There are indigenous and non indigenous people. America is legal fiction. Created to signify the change of ownership from King George III.

America was founded in 1776. Many can argue the legitimacy of this happening, but the same is true for the origins of many countries. The fact is that the international community recognizes America as a country. If you live here, use our roads, send your kids to our schools, etc, you are accepting its rules and laws. If you are a citizen, as defined by the American govt, then you are American, equally as much as a citizen of Germany is German (even if his parents were not). Besides, when does indigenous start? Natives likely migrated across the Bering Straight in ancient history, but now they are considered natives. But because someone's great grandparents came here 300 years ago, they are not native? The distinction is arbitrary, which is why we use citizenship. America is no more legal fiction than any government in history, your viewpoint is merely based on the time you were born.

So you agree the police as a whole are liars and will bend the truth to suit their ends and targets.

No, I do not agree that on the whole police are liars. I believe many are, and many are not (sadly, far too many are, I will agree). I also believe stereotyping people with such a generalization is short-sighted and unfair. I train with multiple police officers, and I hear about the good and the bad. I have been on the bad end of police misconduct, and have spent multiple years on probation for no reason because of it, but that doesn't mean that every cop is evil. I have heard people say insulting and unacceptable things on forums, bit it doesn't mean that "forum posters as a whole are assholes." It means those specific ones are.

It is if one is concerned with reality.

Being right is not all that matters, even for one concerned with reality. In reality, being right on one issue can make you wrong on another. For example, your pregnant wife asks you if she looks fat or generally worse. You are right if you say yes. You are more right if you soften the blow, sacrificing purely being correct in order to not be a jackass or demoralize her. So how is it not living in reality to examine whether now is the time to show how right you are?

If he had just randomly walked up to the police and ranted on them you would have a point. As it stands he was defending his child. A strong parent is something we should all hope to be.

Standing up for your child is one thing. Overly aggravating the officers holding him is another. I think this would have been resolved much quicker, with the child out of the car in less time, if the guy would have calmed down. Instead, the kid had to wait through a long standoff. I'm not saying he should walk away, I'm saying he should use a reasonable tone at times, rather than trying to get a rise out of the cops. A strong parent puts aside his desire to show how right he is in favor of his child's well being.

You cannot know this in any reasonable way. A friend of mines was arrested on triumph up terrorist charges. We had a few hundred people call the police station and harangued them on the phone and in person at the front desk. He was released before he made it to the station. Bullies do not respond to kindness.

Your friend's situation is not a good analogy. It is a wonderful showing of power in numbers, and standing up for yourself. However, this looked like the cops had either driven the kid home and asked why he was unsupervised, or detained him to ask about the same, and the guy flipped. There was no threat of arrest that I saw, so his antics could only have delayed the cops in making a decision to let him go. Either way, there is a higher chance that the cops decide to arrest the kid on some BS technicality after this showdown than there was before the dad went crazy. That's why I'm saying his actions are selfish, rather than protective.

The filming was for his protection and so the police could not change their story after the fact.
This very right is becoming illegal as the police as sick of evidence that proves them wrong.

He went beyond protecting himself with film. He kept trying to get the police to commit to statements with logical fallacies and false premises (treason, intl' law), and kept going after the son was released. His goal was either to pursue $$ out of a lawsuit, or post himself online as a hero. It's obvious from his tactics and comments, especially towards the end.

Emphasis is a must when dealing with mental Lilliputians.

Emphasizing his points further was not getting through to these cops, who had ceased listening to his rant early on. It's not like arguing even harder was going to get them to say, "holy crap, you are right. I am so sorry." The emphasis was for his video audience, who we assume are not Lilliputians. Therefore, he was going over the top.

I will quote him from the video.

" Universal Declaration of Human Rights. No one shall be arbitrary deprived of a Nationality or the right to change one, "

" And we can talk about international law violations"

I found nothing objectionable, yet you have? what might that be?

How you seen the ratings on this video on Youtube? 85% voted this video up. What specifically did you find incorrect about his argument. Hi son was 9 years old. There is no way I would have let my son get into a cop car and be taken away.

The Universal Declaration of Rights can be misunderstood if interpreted based on one sentence at a time. Just because some American decides that he doesn't want to listen to cops, doesn't mean he can just declare that he is no longer American. This guy didn't found another country, or try to switch citizenship and get stopped by the cops. He just tried to cite intl' law to confuse the issue. The declaration has no bearing on this situation, but rather discusses when a group wants to become independent. Even then, though, there is much more to the process than that one simple sentence...just ask Palestine.

And what international law violations is he talking about? This is a domestic issue. Take this to the UN and see what happens - they will laugh you out of the room. He also mentions treason and a few other intense accusations that make no sense. My point is, if he focused on the basic issue, he's be much easier to side with. As it stands, I think everyone involved except the kid was being an asshole. One other thing: I don't base my opinions on youtube votes. First of all, I don't care about what people on youtube think, and second, who knows why they voted it up? Maybe they just enjoyed the video. How many people have voted up crazy videos of evangelists, nutcases, etc? A vote up is for entertainment, not agreement.

The argument was the victory.

Exactly my point. For him, the argument was the victory. It should have been, and only been, getting his son released, but instead, he focused on the argument. This is real life, not a debate. You win by not getting screwed by the police, and not marking your son as a target for local officers in the future. You win by teaching your child composure in stress situations, the downsides to picking fights with authority figures, and proper ways for an intelligent, educated human to debate.


Overall, I am not siding with police in general, or these police specifically. They were wrong, and the father stepped in. I actually agree with most of your points, and some of the father's. What I am saying is that the father acted in a ridiculous, over-the-top manner that was unnecessary at best, and dangerous at worst (getting in an armed person's face with belligerence while you son is in their car is unwise and dangerous). I wish he had been calm and collected, because then I would have been typing about immoral police officers, and I could have given this guy his props.

[Harry Evans]

No problem about the quotes, man I am happy (and kinda shocked) that someone can disagree on a forum without being nasty. Thank you for taking this as an intellectual debate rather than a personal attack, and for remaining polite. I will do the same.

However, I think your arguments, at least from my viewpoint, categorize your views as extremist. Not in the sense that people describe radical terrorists, but in that they are skewed far to one extreme, to the point that they take away what most consider basic assumptions. I am not going to make arguments with this post. I am just going to restate and elaborate on each of your points. Some of them don't seem to directly acknowledge my own, but I will focus on your points, rather than mine. If I am not mistaken, some of your main points are:

1) Most modern countries are legal fiction, and therefore their rules, laws, and even the things that define them as countries are invalid. Any country that was not founded in an entirely unpopulated area, or was founded with any use of force or war beforehand, is legal fiction. We should follow our own laws therefore. However, Moors and their laws are exempt from this context, despite the fact that they "came to conquer, occupy and rule the Iberian Peninsula for nearly 800 years" (Wikipedia, first sentence of entry for Moors), at times with force and violence. Moor law supersedes American law in America.

2) American citizenship does not make someone American. Inhabitants of America are also not American. As a matter of fact, nothing can make you American unless your ancestors were here in 1491. If they came from elsewhere before 1491 and killed their way into civilization, that is fine. The destruction of a culture that started in 1492 invalidates any new culture that arrives thereafter.

3) You "did not give anyone the power to rule over [you] morally or ethically." For some reason, this means that they can not rule over you legally. Concepts like the civil contract, or reaping the benefits of being an American citizen do not mean that you also need to abide by American laws. You can simply take the good, and ignore anything you disagree with. Parents, for some reason, have the right in any case to rule over one morally and ethically.

4) "Sweeping generalizations" are an acceptable means of debate.

5) Being right is ALWAYS more important than being tactful, or recognizing that demonstrating your correctness can cause other kinds of damage. For example, if my boss asks me if I think he is an idiot, and if I actually do, I should say yes, rather than protecting my job by lying. What matters is only the truth, not the repercussions.

6) You do not think the officers were aggravated (I wonder what they would say if you asked them whether they were).

7) The man's decision to be right, rather than focus on what is best for his son, is acceptable not because of his knowledge, but because he had conviction. Conviction takes precedent over logic.

8) "But other people were doing it" is a legitimate excuse. European kids running around make whatever this kid got picked up for okay. Similarly, if Europeans are speeding in the area, Moors should be able to speed at will unless every offender is picked up. His bringing this up had nothing to do with playing a race card on camera.

9) It would be hard to stick something on a 9 year old without evidence. Therefore, history has shown us that cops can't just arrest him, and either find something to charge him with later, or release him after he has been held a bit. Without evidence, it is impossible for this kid to have been screwed.

10) Nothing the man said was logically fallacious. This includes accusations of treason, international rights violations, and the general concept discussed above that American citizens and inhabitants don;t have to follow American laws.

11) Many people record conversations. This fact made it acceptable to make arguments that couldn't possibly help his son, but were addressed to the audience. Once the scene is being recorded, the goal of the man should change from protecting his child to showing the audience that he is right. We should also ignore the legal issues involved (it is not legal in many places, such as CA, to record someone without their permission).

12) Moorish law is different from Constitutional law. Therefore, Moorish law takes precedent.

13) Palestine is unique because its borders are controlled by occupiers. This is not identical to the situation in America, where in your opinion, native (and apparently Moorish) borders are being controlled by the American govt (also occupiers in your opinion). Basically, if a single person or a group decides they don't like their govt, they should be able to just make a new one, and this new one should take effect instantly, overriding any laws the people were previously under. Palestinians are prisoners, but this is unique from Native Americans and other occupied groups in history for some reason.

14) This situation falls under, or has anything to do with, international kidnapping laws from 1980. Since America is a legal fiction, any detention or arrest in America by an officer of the law is kidnapping. Detention and arrest should be considered the same thing.

15) Treason is an act against ones own country. Even though this man is, according to yourself and himself, not part of this country, acting against him is acting against America. Any time a single person's sovereign rights are violated, it is treason.

16) Youtube represents Zeitgeist, and therefore is a good general marker of public sentiment. Voting a video up means that everyone agrees with the argument in a video, and not that they simply enjoyed watching the video. The fact that the President and the media use youtube, and the fact that youtube has been beneficial in the past, makes youtube the ultimate public conference. If a video gets 85% votes up, than anything said in the video can be assumed to agree with the sentiments of 85% of the population.

17) Arguing and accomplishing a goal are always the same thing. It is never worthwhile to let a correct argument go to avoid worse repercussions. In this case, it is not possible that calming down would have freed the son quicker.

18) Since the father and son were black, becoming belligerent and antagonistic was acceptable. Blacks are treated unfairly and irrationally at times, so they have a right to treat everyone else unfairly and irrationally.

Is any of this off, or is this how you feel? Don't you think these ideas present a situation in which nobody could live comfortably? Do you think this man would be better off if treated as a non-American in general? Do you think that this same man would call the cops (who are paid for by taxes and commanded by the government) for help if someone else attacked his son?

[Harry Evans]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don't see how you can live here, utilize the benefits of being in the greatest country in the world, and then try to claim that you are not required to follow American laws. This guy's child was playing on streets that were paved by the American government...not the Moors. I'm not French, but if I go to France and start some shit, I'm going to get in trouble. If I go to wherever my ancestors are from and start some shit, it will be no different, even if my ancestors were there for 3000 years.

IMO, if you don't like the way things are here, then use the legal system to try to make changes. If you don't like the current legal system, or don't think it's effective, I can empathize, but go try to make changes anywhere else. It's not like they have a suggestion box in other countries. The fact is, making changes in countries with hundreds of millions of people is very slow and difficult. Unfortunately, in the meantime, you have to abide the the laws of the land that you live in, or leave.

There are people all over the world who consider themselves natives that were there before the current government. Just like everybody else, when they ignore the laws of the country they reside in, the are subjected to the same repercussions.

[Harry Evans]

Sorry man. Your responses are so unrealistic that I don't see a point in breaking them down. Most are entirely semantic, changing the topic or point I was making to seem right (e.g. "Now I never said I didn't obey the law. Just that I didn't agree to sign a social contract binding me to the law.") This is actually a great example of the type of arguing the father was doing himself - it may make you feel confident and correct, but it serves no purpose and has little basis in reality.

Other comments of yours are just way over the top in terms of conspiratorial paranoia. I'm sorry, but while black people in America don't have it as good as some others, they also don't have it nearly as bad as you are making out. And my black, non-whitewashed friends agree. And my comment about making changes the legal way actually goes on to say that I understand why you might think that is either impossible or takes too long, but instead you cut that out and restate it as your own point (which you later refute with comments regarding the Patriot Acts). Or, sure the French Revolution happened. It doesn't change that if you go to France today, and break their laws, you are going to jail (unless you manage to start a revolution, which I think we can agree this father had no chance of doing on that day).

At this point, you are taking my comments out of context, and breaking them into little pieces that don't make sense standing alone, so I'm not going to restate what I meant in each case. My point in the first place was that this guy was more concerned with being right and showing his argumentative dominance over some admittedly dumb police officers, than with protecting his son and ending the standoff. He was a jerk about how he handled the situation, and could have had more tact, poise, and composure. None of these things would have prevented him from standing up for his son, and none would have slowed down the ultimate result (though I would argue that they could speed it up). Bringing up crazy things like treason, intl' kidnapping laws, and his Moor background destroy a ton of his credibility in my eyes, and I assume the eyes of many others who he hopes to convince by posting this video. It makes him sound like a ranting and raving lunatic, and that disappoints me because, as I said, I agree that the officers were acting wrongly. Maturity and composure are more important skills for daily life IMO than knowledge of obscure details of intl' politics.

[Harry Evans]

I just realized that, in attempt to make my points and explain my frustration, I came off in my last post as attacking and angry. Not my intention - my apologies.

[Frank R.]

@Harry Evans - agree with your legit posts. Didn't seem rude at all. Mr. CIA tends to drift off the subject in an attempt to express what seems like an agenda he has. He breaks down people's post and takes it out of context to have the one up on you while citing completely extreme and unrelated subjects. I liked a few of his first posts but now it's getting out of hand; can't believe how someone can live so paranoid and borderline delusional.

[Harry Evans]

@Frank - Thanks man. I'm always down for an interesting conversation with someone whose views differ so vastly from my own. But I'm glad to hear it's not just me. I was starting to think I was either missing something, or going off the deep end myself.

[Eddie Bravo]

That was super confusing but damn it worked. I'm always happy seeing someone do everything they can to protect their kids, unconditional love is what life is all about

[Cody Kietzman]

I don't think I like you Caliphate Ishtar Allah.

[Cody Kietzman]

Hows Nebraska man, still cold as shit I bet. While your in the thinking mood get high son.

Nebraska is the best place i have ever lived. Its a balmy 76 degrees right now with a projected temperature in the eighties tomorrow. I think i'll go fishing. Have you ever spent any time here? I feel like you would have a different opinion. I have the best training partners in the world, its a real family here. How is earth hole? Where is that by the way? So is that your hobby, get high and hang out on the forums?