Police must come down hard on lawless sovereign citizens after Australia suffered a second extremist attack in a growing pattern of violence, an expert says.
Two detectives were shot dead while another was seriously injured when an alleged sovereign citizen opened fire on police executing a search warrant in Victoria’s rural town of Porepunkah on Tuesday.
The gunman, 56-year-old Dezi Freeman, remains on the run.
The attack is eerily similar to the 2022 Wieambilla shootings in remote Queensland when Constables Matthew Arnold and Rachel McCrow were ambushed on a rural driveway.
Brothers Nathaniel and Gareth Train, alongside his wife Stacey, opened fire and killed the constables while two officers fled for their lives.
All three Trains were shot dead by specialist police hours later after refusing to negotiate or surrender.
The similarities between Wieambilla and Porepunkah are alarming, extremist expert Joe McIntyre said.
‘Both of these are in the regions. These are people who see a distrust of society and want to remove themselves from it,’ the University of South Australia Associate Professor told AAP.
He believed the latest incident should not have come at a surprise, saying Freeman should have been on the authorities’ watch list.
‘The accused shooter has a really long history of pseudo-law litigation, he looks to be one of the original versions predating COVID, where most were radicalised,’ Dr McIntyre said.
The gunman, 56-year-old Dezi Freeman, remains on the run
‘He should have been on a lot of lists. He needs to have been treated differently and that needs to be looked at going forward.’
A coronial inquest into the Wieambilla attack heard the Trains were motivated by religious extremism, believing police were persecuting them amid a battle between God and Satan.
The Trains were not deemed sovereign citizens, people who believe state authority is illegitimate and individuals have residual sovereignty.
Dr McIntyre said authorities had a narrow understanding of the term but believed as Christian extremists, the Trains should have been considered sovereign citizens.
‘There was a missed opportunity that has been replicated (in Victoria), and these instances are unfortunately inevitable in this type of behaviour,’ he said.
‘Once the law is optional, then lawfulness itself becomes an option.’
Police must take a very different approach to sovereign citizens and come down hard when they breach laws such as tax fraud ‘rather than waiting for them to do a violent crime’.
‘We need to be looking at the conduct they’re already doing which is unlawful,’ Dr McIntyre said.
The Porepunkah shooting bears similarities with 2022 Wieambilla attacks, an extremist expert says. (Simon Dallinger/AAP PHOTOS)
The federal government said the rise in sovereign citizen radicalism was a major concern.
‘A lot of people went down the rabbit hole during COVID, and they never came back up,’ Home Affairs opposition spokesperson Andrew Hastie told ABC Radio.
Queensland Police have extended its condolences to its Victorian counterparts and families of the detectives who ‘made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty’.
What Aussies need to know about Sovereign Citizens
Sovereign citizens are concerned with the legal framework of society. They believe all people are born free with rights – but that these natural rights are being constrained by corporations (and they see governments as artificial corporations). They believe citizens are in an oppressive contract with the government.
SovCits reportedly believe that by declaring themselves ‘living people’ or ‘natural people’, they can break this oppressive contract and avoid restrictions such as certain rates, taxes, and fines – or particular government rules on mandatory mask-wearing.
The SovCit movement arose in America decades ago, with roots in the American patriot movement, some religious communities, and tax protest groups. It has also been known as the ‘free-man’ movement.
Re-interpreting the law
SovCits see themselves as sovereign and not bound by the laws of the country in which they physically live. Accepting a law or regulations means they have waived their rights as a sovereign and have accepted a contract with the government, according to SovCit belief.
The SovCit movement doesn’t have a single leader, central doctrine or centralised collection of documents. It is based on their reinterpretation of the law and there are many legal document templates on the internet for SovCit use to, for example, avoid paying fines or rates they see as unfair.
SovCits tend not to follow conventional legal argument. Some have engaged in repeated court action and even been declared vexatious litigants by the courts.
The SovCit movement has many local variations but there are some key commonalities across the Australian SovCit movement.
Key beliefs and phrases
A central belief, according to news reports, is that the Australian government, the police, and other government agencies are corporations. Believers feel they must be on guard to avoid entering into a contract with the corporation. They often do this by stating, ‘I do not consent’ and trying to get the police officer or official to recognise them as a ‘living’ or ‘natural’ being and therefore as a sovereign.
SovCits are often careful to avoid showing ID such as driver’s licences or giving their name and address. Saying ‘I understand’ also risks being seen to agree to the contract so SovCits will repeat the phrase ‘I comprehend’ to show they are refusing the contract.
Many reject their country’s constitution as false and reportedly refer to the Magna Carta of 1215 as the only true legal document constraining arbitrary power.
SovCits often come to the attention of authorities due to driving offences. It is a core belief of the movement that ‘sovereigns’ have the right to travel freely without the need for a drivers licence, vehicle registration, or insurance.
Source: The Conversation
