Free Keene

Comment by bile

April 29, 2009 @ 3:26 pm

He should probably just lie and take the food. If they then refuse to give him food I believe that could be made into a big deal.

And where’s Van Winkler in all this? Has anyone talked to him about this?

Comment by Dan Steward

April 29, 2009 @ 3:43 pm

I agree Bile. He doesn’t owe anyone who jails him with a lie, (as in the bogus charges against him) even the slightest bit of the truth.

He might just change his mind and decide to eat anyway. Cheshire County now has it’s very own foundation for a Nazi death camp. Starving the prisoners is where it starts.

Dan

Comment by Jeff

April 29, 2009 @ 3:51 pm

Just when I thought that the situation could not possibly get any more preposterous, it does.

How any person in the position of that guard can do what he’s doing and sleep at night is beyond me.

Comment by jzacker

April 29, 2009 @ 4:22 pm

Sam has to complain via the grievance process. If he does, things will be more likely to change. Heat/Cold conditions are part of what they call ‘conditions of confinement.’ The Supreme Court has already ruled that inmates have a First Amendment right to complain about conditions of confinement. And they have an 8th Amendment right to receive a remedy should the conditions constitute a danger. If the heat is truly ’sweltering’, he should start filing grievances immediately. If he does not file a grievance, he might not be able to file a lawsuit later.

I thought they said this was the ‘nice’ jail? Sounds crappy. Is it at least a clean place? too much heat tends to breed germs and insects.

I think that lying is probably not a great idea, although I would totally support it if Sam chooses it. But Sam cannot conduct a hunger strike and then complain about not getting food. That just seems silly.

Comment by Charlie

April 29, 2009 @ 5:05 pm

Ian, that makes sense. Reading the last update from Sam lead to unanswered questions. Now it seems clear to me that it is not a denial of food but merely the employment of an often-used solution found in jails and psyciatric wards to enforce the policy of not sharing food with other inmates.

I would be concerned if however Sam asked for food to eat and was denied. That would be inhumane. All this is not to say I don’t like the policy, but as long as the Cheshire county jail and the government justice system exist as privileged monopolies, nothing better should be expected from them.

Comment by .Jazz

April 29, 2009 @ 6:12 pm

I thought you’d be happy that the jail guard thugs weren’t wasting your tax money on food that wasn’t going to be eaten!

Also, how many of us have jobs and live in homes that aren’t air conditioned? Seriously, the prison (where Sam is choosing to reside) is not a Hilton. Plus, this is New Hampshire in April, not the tropics.

I just can’t sympathaze for a man who complains about the weather in April and and is upset at not receiving food after he denied it.

Waaaahhhhhhh.

Comment by Lpviper

April 29, 2009 @ 6:29 pm

No, sir, Sam is not choosing to reside there. He is asserting his natural rights and being imprisoned by tyrants for his trouble.

Comment by Vix

April 29, 2009 @ 6:30 pm

Jazz: “(where Sam is choosing to reside)”

You cant choose to be some place you cant leave. Its the state forcing Sam (and many others) to stay in these contions.

Comment by vc

April 29, 2009 @ 6:37 pm

Interesting to read the utilitarian arguments justifying the denial of nourishment.

If it is ok for the guard to determine whether the food will be eaten by the prisoner before he doles it out, then why is this limited to the whole tray, all or nothing? Why not question each and every prisoner about their intent to eat their food and in what quantity?

Are you sure you are going to eat all of that tray? I’m only going to give you half a serving as you did not eat your peas yesterday!

Then, of course, what shall we do with the incorrigible types who don’t finish their trays? Force feeding? Well, prisoner, did you not just tell me that you were going to eat your food? What is that on your tray, deceiver? We are concerned that you may give some to another prisoner. Open wide!

What is next? Do you intend to breath that air? No? Well, let’s just put you in a room and suck all the oxygen out.

Comment by Curt Springer

April 29, 2009 @ 6:50 pm

I wish there could be some negotiated conclusion to all of this. On the one hand there are the various charges against Sam. On the other hand he has been in jail for more than two weeks and he seems to have a valid claim of injury relating to his arrest. I would like to see some deal where he gets out of jail with no more than violation-level convictions.

In a wider sense, I wish somebody in the community could be an honest broker between the activists and the court system, and arrive at a common understanding about the use of cameras in the courtroom.

It looks as though several more of you are aiming to be incarcerated as of Friday. I don’t see where this is going or what good will come out of it.

Comment by Lpviper

April 29, 2009 @ 7:02 pm

I could see your point if the ‘charges’ weren’t all baseless nonsense. How shall he face his accusers? Who are the victims?

Comment by Ian

April 29, 2009 @ 7:33 pm

Jazz,

Uneaten food on trays is thrown out. I’ll be happy when peaceful people are released from captivity.

It’s clear you care not for the well-being of prisoners. I imagine it’s because you’ve told yourself that you’re law abiding so you’ll never be in there.

They keep writing laws. How can you be sure you’re following them all?

I bet if you got put in, you’d quickly become quite concerned with the conditions.

Comment by Curt Springer

April 30, 2009 @ 9:23 am

Comment by Lpviper

April 29, 2009 @ 7:02 pm

I could see your point if the ‘charges’ weren’t all baseless nonsense.

I’ve already mentioned that I’m not convinced that Sam was legally in the right. It wouldn’t be fair to Sam to say more than that, as he is in no position to respond.

My thought is that there will need to be some give and take from both sides to get Sam out of jail, not people taking hardened ideological positions.

I suggested violation-level convictions because these are not “crimes” in a legal sense and can not be used against him in future cases. I’ve noticed that when people have attorneys, there is often a plea bargain that knocks misdemeanors down to violations. That way the prosecution gets a conviction, but the defendant has no record and no penalty beyond the immediate fine, if any.

Comment by jzacker

April 30, 2009 @ 11:41 am

I think arguing ‘no victim, no crime’ is pointless. It’s not a valid legal position to take. Where did this position even come from?

Comment by bile

April 30, 2009 @ 11:50 am

Political science, philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensual_crime

Derived from the harm principle / non aggression principle.

Comment by Jake the Muss

April 30, 2009 @ 7:49 pm

As Bile said it’s not a valid legal technique, it’s more of a political statement. I think most people who advocate/use it realize that it is legal gibberish. That is sort of the point.

I personally wouldn’t use it because I would have a different strategic goal to those who use it.

Comment by Lpviper

April 30, 2009 @ 9:56 pm

If any of this crap got in front of 12 informed jurors it wouldn’t stand a chance of earning the prosecutor his conviction, because these charges are crap, and the whole thing they are pulling here is crap. I refuse to even begin to validate the positions of any of the tyrants who will not let Sam go, and I believe that negotiating with these animals will only encourage them to do more of it. I also think that if Sam disagreed in any significant way with what I just stated, he wouldn’t be in jail right now.

Thanks

Andy in Michigan

Comment by candy

May 3, 2009 @ 4:58 am

Subjugate the people,change the laws,enforce them,change them again to suit your own purposes,after all,you were voted into POWER.So much for your democracy.

Comment by Zeus

May 3, 2009 @ 5:44 am

As Bile said it’s not a valid legal technique, it’s more of a political statement. I think most people who advocate/use it realize that it is legal gibberish. That is sort of the point.

Well, it’s not considered a valid legal technique because the legal system that ignores it isn’t interested in morality, only the rules and whether you broke them.