I did, and it is. I never committed to you to giving you an exact count.

If you are trying to imply it is not illegal in any state, feel free to support that claim. Or not. Don't care.

Lol

I'm not talking some sort of confrontation or stand-off. Most agencies in most states will still attempt to locate and save someone from a  suicide attempt.
When Suzie Citizen calls 911 to report that her friend Bobby is slashing his writs on Instagram, LEO inmost places will attempt to locate Bobby and ascertain Bobbys welfare and prevent the suicidal act and get Bobby some help.

 What's the point?

You can't have a conversation with a person who, at best, is incapable of or not willing to understand what you are saying and, at worst, has accuracy related issues.   No matter what you say he will twist and contort it into something you didn't say, attack you for it, and then quote something out of context and say it says something it doesn't.

For fuck's sakes he thinks there aren't state labor laws enforced by law enforcement at EVERY LEVEL (as if a "local cop" whatever that means, is going to ignore a lawfully issued warrant while working in their jurisdiction).

A person who claims or at least implies to work in that field who doesn't know something as basic as that isn't going to be swayed with argument which proves, again, why it does no good to argue on the side of the road.  Save that for people who have actually studied the law.

With that said, I'm done with this thread as those willing to have a good faith conversation have already moved to greener pastures.

Cya.

Case in point some posters in this thread.

I guess he's supposedly checked out of the thread, but this is where someone tells you you aren't having a good faith conversation, or that you aren't comprehending whatever garbage he's contorting, or maybe we'll dial in just a tiny bit of hyperbole and bring up that local LEO are literally the Stasi because Hillary Clinton hasn't been prosecuted and there are lots of illegal immigrants.

Make sure you have a vigorous debate about the constitutionality of whatever laws you enforce today, by the way. I had a methhead today tell me that I couldn't arrest him because he was fleeing from a gay rapist in a stolen truck. I feel as if the laws he was telling me applied in this situation may not have existed, but I left my statute book in the office, so I violated his rights thoroughly and shined my jackboots on the way out the jail.

That's a BS ticket, but the driver is dumbass.

Neither did I.

When did the lawfulness or any pertinent section of any state laws even come up in the thread. Maybe I missed something since page one

Back in the early 2000's there was a guy who for whatever reason would come back to my tech bench and argue the merits of Sovereign Citizenship.  On one hand it was interesting that a seemingly intelligent guy would devote so much time and attention to something that is completely pointless.  Cue Bobby Fuller and "I fought the law and the law won".

The reality of American life is cops are going to pull people over and give them tickets.  It's like the Japanese tea ceremony.  The cop has his scripted part and "you" have your scripted part.  If you say and do the right things you will get a ticket or a warning and be on your way.  You pay your fine (think of it as a tax) and the matter is done.  If you deviate from the script you increase the probability of a worse than normal outcome.

Logically speaking nothing else matters except minimizing the effects of your encounter with the law.

In this thread we discover who is really paying attention to what is going on in this country.

Gotta jack up that social credit score I guess.  

We all criminals now.  

Finally. Goodbye

There are 50 states. Name one, just one, where suicide is illegal and what the penalty is.

Bear in mind, we aren't talking about assisted suicide. That's illegal for the person assisting with the suicide with criminal penalties in most states.

You made the claim. Back it up.

True. But, if Bobby comes to the door, refuses to open it or come outside, if he'll talk to us through the door we'll talk to him. If he ultimately refuses to cooperate, we leave. He hasn't committed a crime (suicide isn't a crime in my state) so we aren't going to force the issue. If he offs himself, we hold no liability in his shitty life decisions. We fairly regularly deal with suicidal people who we end up leaving them to their own devices. Most don't off themselves.

Sovereign citizens are trying to provoke confrontations. It helps their sense of constant victimhood....much like certain posters on this site.

If it was only that easy LE would. Sovereign citizens usually have suspended licenses, like to get DUIs, frequently have active warrants, and are often involved in various criminal scams. They are ALL shitbags....some are worse than others though. A few get fooled by the stupidity for a bit and try it out. When they fail, they sometimes decide that wasn't a good idea and they should probably not use sovereign citizen ideas.

Wackwitz v. Roy - http://law.justia.com/cases/virginia/supreme-court/1992/911384-1.html
Suicide, therefore, remains a common law crime in Virginia as it does in a number of other common-law states.

NOW... you said the following...

So, if LE don't care if you want to harm yourself only... then why are they bothering to pull people over for not wearing their seatbelt?

Common law crime?

Whats the statute to charge?  We dont have it here in NJ, so I am curious.

No idea.

Do you think you’re the arfcom English teacher? You’ve been in here stringing nonsense together for days. All of it wrong. It’s all wrong. The fact you don’t know that just illustrates how wrong it is.

That sounds like a very reasonable policy to me. You're doing a welfare check as requested by a 3rd party, and if the person being checked on says they're fine, or tells you to go away, what cause is there to say or do otherwise?

Forcing yourself into the situation seems like it would significantly increase the odds of things going sideways. I hate the idea of "suicide by cop". If a person wants to commit suicide, that is their choice, but there's no reason to ruin other people's lives in the process by forcing them to do it for you.

Just curious, but what are the circumstances, if any, where you might try to forcibly gain entry during a welfare check of this nature?

I know it's off topic, but it's something I've always been curious about.

Coltrifle is 100% right. Most people are like “fuck I got pulled over. Ok here’s my info. Whatever” anyone that doesn’t is hiding something and that something is usually criminal. Sometimes little sometimes big.

Everyone in here crying about seatbelts and minor offenses has no grounding in reality and when pulled over even they provide ID because they are likely, despite being stupid, generally law abiding. To refuse to ID and roll up a window under ANY pretext (sovcit, muh freedumb, etc) meets the threshold for PC to arrest based on any number of state or local laws.

Sovcits are dangerous as well, they’ve killed cops in shootouts and random citizens while fleeing. Somethings you just can’t let go. It’s equivalent to appeasement. Nothing good comes from it.

you have to obey the officer , but i still dont understand why your insurance policy is not linked to your license on a computer database, that stupid little tear off card is so 1990's

A suicidal person and forcing entry? In my experience only when contact is lost and there’s no known deadly weapons involved. It basically has to meet the exigent circumstances standard. Except the goal is to save a life.

If they say “I’ve got a gun and I’m gonna kill myself” we can talk all day but we’re not going in. A suicidal person is a homicidal person. Some Baltimore cops made case law recently because they shot a guy that was stabbing himself. He wasn’t a deadly threat to anyone else. They were acquitted because apparently it’s new law but you can’t just shoot someone stabbing themself. Obviously if he’d had a gun it would have been different as they’re ranged.

Now if we’re talking on the phone, the subject says they’re going to cut their writs in the tub and then the line goes dead. You may or may not see entry. Depends on the appetite for risk. Every situation is different but if you’re not a threat to me or another person we may or may not go in.

Cops don’t willingly let people die but there’s priorities of life and hostages are the tip top of that ladder. Suspects and suicides are at the bottom.

Some are, some aren’t. And some states computers can’t read other states even if they are connected. It’s very stupid I whole heartedly agree with you.

It used to be illegal in CA to Attempt Suicide, that was eliminated a few years ago.  (It was only a few years ago that they dumped the Dueling Laws, probably in the same clean-up.)  Still illegal to assist, aid, abet, encourage, etc etc.

The problem occurs when the suicidal person wants to commit suicide by other person and is attacking others to get them or the police to shoot them.

Their whole sovereign game is being played because they've usually  run afoul of the legal system on multiple occasions and are trying justify why they don't have to abide by societies laws

 Possibility of hostages, turning the gas on in the residence for an explosion, harm to others.

Don't forget that for many suicide is the way they give the big, "FUCK YOU" to their friends and family.  So the negative effects on others often doesn't matter to them or are intended.  Also sometimes you don't get a real accurate description from the concerned of what the issues may be.

Unless the person says what I call the magic words that they want to harm themselves or another person, that's exactly what we do..walk away. Once they admit that they want to cause harm, they're going to the hospital for an evaluation

It is in our state. But since it takes up to thirty days for DMV to update the database, the requirement to produce a paper card is still on the books
And then there's the issue of out of state registrations...

 It is in CA.  The insurance companies notify DMV that your policy is no longer in force.

On the plus side for the DMV in CA is that they now have kiosks in various places to take care of common tasks.  My son renewed his registration and got the tag ata the local Ralphs, using a credit card.  Still can't use a credit card at the DMV or AAA but apparently working on that.

I can't help but wonder if this is directed at me. I don't personally feel a sense of victimhood, nor am I a sovereign citizen; I have merely had some interesting encounters with law enforcement that I thought I would share.

In all three incidents that I shared, I was able to have a calm and rational discussion with the officer/game warden, and was able to clear up any misunderstanding before the situation progressed to citations, court dates, or possible arrest.

What saddens me is the overwhelming LEO opinion here that they wouldn't even let me speak; they would simply write the citation regardless of circumstances, and would arrest me if I questioned it. I'm not talking about arguing like these sovereign citizens, I'm talking about a simple conversation between adults to clarify the situation.

I have always treated officers with the utmost respect, and when I have been stopped for cause (speeding, taillight out, expired tags ), I own up to it immediately, sign the citation, thank the officer for his service, and let him continue on his way. I have never been confrontational or disrespectful under any circumstances.

I have questioned officers, however, when I knew that there was a clear misunderstanding. It's not arguing, it's not bickering, it's merely asking the officer to take the time to help clarify the situation with me. If we discuss it and I'm wrong, I certainly won't argue the issue any further. On the flip side, if we discuss it and I can show the officer that it was a simple misunderstanding, I hope they would be professional enough to accept it for what it is, rather than ignore me and write the citation regardless.

Even though Redarts seems to think I'm hung up on the scenario of being threatened by an officer and calling his bluff, that is honestly the scenario that I find the most amusing but the least serious. He was just trying to get me to tell him what he wanted to hear, even though company policy prevented me from doing so. Had he pursued trying to buffalo or railroad me, I might feel differently, but these days I can't help but look back and laugh about how it played out.

The other two scenarios were far more concerning, considering the circumstances. Being accused of hunting illegally has some rather severe penalties, not to mention the fact that it would have completely ruined the rest of my hunting season. Considering I was able to prove to the game warden that I was within the law by showing him the exact page in the hunting synopsis, that situation was defused rather quickly, and I was able to continue with my hunt.

My concern is that based on this thread, it sounds like many LEO here would refuse to listen to me or let me explain the situation, despite my being able to produce the law in question as evidence that exonerates me. They would say "Tell it to the judge", and continue to cite me for a violation that I did not commit.

I'm not trying to "argue" my way out of a ticket, I'm trying to explain (and prove) that no ticket is warranted under the circumstances. Unfortunately, it sounds like that would fall on deaf ears among the LEO here on this forum.

The third scenario was also not an "argument" by any means. When he asked if I knew why he stopped me, my only response was "No, officer. Honestly I don't!"

He explained the charge of speeding, which I knew was impossible. I asked him to confirm where the event took place, politely explained that I had not even traveled on that section of road that day, and was physically parked alongside the road when he went by me, a full half mile from where he had witnessed a similar colored vehicle speeding.

It was not an argument, it was not trying to beg or plead my way out of a ticket, and it was not trying to explain that the laws don't apply to me. I was simply explaining to the officer that I was never physically in the area where he observed the speeding vehicle, and gave as much detail as I could to help support my statement. The only other thing I could have done would be to ask him to review his dashcam, as I knew the dashcam would exonerate me for certain, if it came to that.

Thankfully, he seemed to be a much more kind and civilized officer than many of those we have here on this forum, as he took the time to explain the charges, patiently listened to me explain my side of the story, and was honest and open-minded enough to admit that he made a mistake.

To me, that is how adults should interact in a professional setting. Two adults should be able to have a brief conversation, with both sides sharing their views, before determining how to proceed. I'm not saying every encounter has to be done this way, but if a person wants to calmly, politely, and briefly discuss the situation, what do you really have to lose?

On the other hand, for one side to automatically plug their ears and refuse to listen is unprofessional and disrespectful in my opinion, and goes against the very idea of police officers being honest and impartial.

I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind, but I am trying to illustrate that not every discussion has to be an argument, and an officer shouldn't be so quick to dismiss a person's questions or statements regarding the crime they are said to have committed.

Not all of us are against you, as many of you seem to think. Merely questioning or making a comment is not arguing, unless you choose to make it into one. If I'm in the wrong, I accept it without question. The only time I question something is when I believe it to be wrong, and would like clarification on the subject.

You guys continue to enforce the laws the way you see fit, and I'll continue to try to discuss things as adults if necessary.

Sounds an awful lot like inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch to me.

Now research the differences between common law and statutory law.

There is not a single state in the US....yes that's all of them....that makes suicide a crime per statutory law.

That's why you won't find a punishment associated with suicide.  So, will LE enforce some common law that has no threat of punishment?  Not a chance in hell.

Huh?  Don't understand criminal law do you?

And?

As I said, Suicide is a crime in several states.

Wrong again.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5441037/Mentally-ill-Maryland-man-convicted-attempted-suicide.html

Now, once again... if the police don't care about someone that is only going to harm themselves, why are they pulling people over for not wearing their seatbelts?

I don't expect you to understand. Feel free to look it up.

Sounds like you know fuck all about this stuff.

Several of the ones I have dealt with are amateur lawyers.  Much like some posters here, they think they understand the law and by throwing out some random bullshit thinking it will fool people.  It's usually just easier to arrest them and ID them with fingerprints instead of listening to them argue and refuse to ID themselves roadside. Tell them they are under arrest for whatever you stopped them for and ask them to get out of the car.  Then order them to get out of the car.  Then break the window and remove them from the car.  Pretty simple stuff.  Last borderline sovereign citizen I dealt with wasn't on a car stop.  He was uncooperative with a repossession of his car.  Didn't want to pay his loan but also believed he could throw out some sovereign citizen bullshit and thus he wouldn't have to pay his vehicle loan.  Luckily for him, he was smart enough to see the walls closing in and ended up cooperating.

Funny thing about breaking sovereign citizen windows....my department has broken a lot of them.  We haven't paid for a single one we broke.  We have found over the last year or so they are a bit more cooperative on traffic stops than they used to be.  They still try to argue but they usually end up IDing themselves pretty quickly once they realize their window is about to be broken.

Clearly this is going to be a well reasoned adult conversation without deflective ad hominem.

From your link.....

While Joe Riley, the Caroline County's interim top prosecutor, told The Baltimore Sun he would not use the charge in the future, it was claimed it was never their intention to send the 56-year-old to prison.

The man's complete rap sheet included attempted suicide, reckless endangerment and endangering his safety and the safety of his brother while intoxicated.

It was reported the state's plea offer relied on him pleading guilty to one of the counts - and the man picked the attempted suicide charge.

No officer, even in MD, would make an arrest on that charge.  Note that in that case, there was a victim (his brother).  That's what he was arrested for and then the prosecutor then decided what charges they would pursue.

Just like a sovereign citizen.

I didn’t insult you. It’s not an insult to not know fuck all.

Not providing ID, not listening to commands and rolling up a window are criminal in nature during a traffic stop. You were wrong.

Even the Maryland article you posted stated the suicide conviction was common law and not statutory. That was charged by the DA and not the police. So again, you were wrong.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. Which seems to be the norm with yourself and other posters.

The only thing you’re right about is that talking with you might well be worthless, being you know fuck all about criminal patrol.

Not an insult. I’m sure you’re a great hominem.

You keep moving the goal posts...

First you claimed that suicide wasn't criminal in any state.

When proven wrong, you said there was no criminal penalty.

When proven wrong, you said no cop would arrest on that charge.

You'll never be satisfied. As I said.... Suicide is a Crime in several states.


YOU CONTINUE TO DODGE THE ENTIRE POINT. If police don't care if an individual harms them-self, your claim, then why are they pulling people over for not wearing their seatbelt?

Found another sovereign citizen.  Guess if you get stopped for a seatbelt violation you'll be getting your window broken and booked in jail.  FYI...it'll be for things that are illegal per statutory law.