Free Keene

Comment by diana

January 11, 2009 @ 9:12 am

The mistake people make is to heckle the cops. This feeds the ‘us vs. them’ situation. The laws are stupid. The cops are supposed to enforce the stupid laws. Those guys were calm, didn’t taze anyone. I’d rather see someone in the crowd make some salient points of discussion for the cops to think about. How does anyone know that the cops don’t think it’s a stupid law and don’t like enforcing it and may think further about it later, esp if someone gives them something to think about. (Other than remembering they were called ‘nazi’.)

I’m just saying that calling those guys ‘nazi’ is probably NOT being part of the solution, but rather con’t to contribute to one aspect of the problem.

Comment by Chris Riffert

January 11, 2009 @ 10:13 am

While you bring up some good points…there are some other things to consider.

These cops are completely free to perform another line of work…they chose to enforce stupid laws and wake up on a daily basis and still do choose to enforce stupid laws. The Nazi comment is apt in this case. Nazi soldiers and secret police (gestapo) were probably average, ordinary citizens. Many may have even disagreed with orders and laws that they had to follow. However, by not resisting through some means they gave their implicit compliance. As is the situation here. Obviously the term, nazi, now has an ominous overtone that makes it more evil than other similar words like fascist, or bolshevik.

A further point, you said the cops remained calm, didn’t taze anyone, etc…

I fail to see how we are supposed to be grateful that they didn’t use any extreme force to make others comply with oppressive laws. In a free society, the use of force SHOULD be minimal, as people would have no reason to make others do anything.

(although the camera guy that kept tapping the cop on the shoulder was pushing his luck…I hate being touched when at work in a public place, without having given implicit permission to be touched–such as a handshake, etc…)

Comment by Stanley Pinchak

January 11, 2009 @ 10:37 am

diana,
It is an us vs. them situation. If you understand that the state is a gang of thieves writ large, and that the police are the enforcement arm of the state, it is clear that there is a distinct boundary between the tax consuming and the tax paying classes. Were the police to actually provide services that the public at large wanted in the quantity desired by the public, they would not need to depend on coercion and taxation (but I repeat myself) to fund their operation. In all other matters, the concept of monopoly is bad, but somehow when it comes to protection of rights, the public can not understand that monopoly leads to higher cost, and poorer service, even to the point of acting counter to the wishes of those paying for the service. I highly recommend a dose of Murray Rothbard or other anarcho-libertarian to further elucidate these ideas for anyone who still is confused on this issue.

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp

or basically anything on the topic of the state at

http://mises.org/

Comment by jesse

January 11, 2009 @ 10:40 am

I wonder what would happen if the police officers decided not to arrest Andrew?

I mean, isn’t the whole point of civil disobedience a call to action?

Comment by Troy

January 11, 2009 @ 10:41 am

The problem with cops is that it requires a certain mutation in one’s character to drive someone to become one. (couldn’t get laid in high school, got cut from the baseball team, etc.). Cops LOVE the power. It’s an aphrodesiac to them. There is NO reasoning with them. If you appeal to their logic they will mock you. They will NEVER consider anything you say.

I find it satisfying pushing them right up to the brink of meltdown with polite uncooperativeness.

Comment by Andy White

January 11, 2009 @ 3:04 pm

These cops think they can go around ruining peoples lives without it coming back to them. They are sadly mistaken.

Comment by Tom Lundy - Orlando

January 11, 2009 @ 6:16 pm

Men become cops because they are insecure about their masculinity.
That insecurity stems from that fact that they have very little facial hair.
They think that if they go around beating people up, that makes them more of a man.
Have you ever seen a cop that could grow a full beard?
Why do women become cops? No idea.

Comment by Dan Steward

January 11, 2009 @ 6:42 pm

To Diana,

If you want to hold the cops up to some magical status as demigods or whatever, that’s between you and the contents of your head.

Here, we all know better. Cops have no “virtue” that is bestowed upon them simply by having a badge pinned on their shirt. You blurt out rife absurdities about them and worship their misdeeds, likely based on the fantasy world you believe in, that movies, tv & print wrongfully portraying them as heroes. They are no such thing. They are an occupying army that has long ago given up protecting our lives and property.

Even the so-called “good cops” will cover for each other when it all goes sour. Did you really think that none of the people there ever had a legitimate gripe against the police?

Please feel free to take that ridiculous trash you believe in, somewhere else.

Dan

Comment by RWW

January 11, 2009 @ 11:29 pm

Have you ever seen a cop that could grow a full beard?

That’s actually a very interesting point.

Comment by "Radical" Russ

January 11, 2009 @ 11:57 pm

I couldn’t find a contact link so I hope someone moderates these comments. I am Russ Belville, host of NORML’s Daily Audio Stash news and entertainment podcast. I would very much like to interview Andrew about this story for the podcast and if it goes well, perhaps my XM Satellite radio show.

“Radical” Russ Belville
Host – NORML Daily Audio Stash
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
http://stash.norml.org

Comment by GCD

January 11, 2009 @ 11:59 pm

Lincoln (the proto-Nazi) had a full beard so that blows a hole in your theory.

Comment by Frank

January 12, 2009 @ 12:04 pm

Diana, in the 30’s in Germany, the SS were enforcing “stupid” laws as well. If you remember, when members of the SS were put on trial, the argument “I was just following orders” did not work.

Comment by Michael Dee

January 13, 2009 @ 11:12 pm

No victim then the law is unreasonable to seize his person and his property therefore violates the 4th and 5th amendments of the constitution of the united states.

What ever he does do not claim marijuana is a fundamental right. The claim is that marijuana is property and protected from unreasonable seizure.

Judicial review of criminal laws is the reasonableness standard of the 4th amend.

It is to bad lawyers and judges will not protect individual right secured by Amends 4 and 5.

http://www.ursm.us

Comment by Michael Dee

January 13, 2009 @ 11:15 pm

Being arrested is deprivation of liberty. Due process of law requires deprivation of liberty to be reasonable.

Go to http://www.ursm.us

see page Police power