Sam Update: Guard Confiscating Food / Sweltering Heat

April 29, 2009 by Ian Freeman
Filed under: News, Personal Freedom, Thuggery, Update 

I have finally spoken with Sam. Turns out my upstairs phone was off the hook slightly for three days, which is why I’d not heard from him. He is still on a hunger strike. He had been trading his food for things like stamps until recently. A new jail guard handing out food would ask Sam if he was going to eat it and when Sam said no, the guard would deny and is denying Sam the food.

Also, the jailers apparently don’t turn on the air conditioning until June, so the inmates suffered in sweltering heat in the upstairs facility these past few days, and that will only get worse over this next month. More adventures coming in his blog posts here at FreeKeene.com and also Sam is expected to call in on tonight’s Free Talk Live.

Sam has requested that those sending books should send them to the jail library and is very appreciative of all the letters he’s receiving through mail-to-jail.com

Comments

19 Comments on Sam Update: Guard Confiscating Food / Sweltering Heat

    2. bile on Wed, 29th Apr 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?

    3. Dan Steward on Wed, 29th Apr 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

    4. Jeff on Wed, 29th Apr 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.

    5. jzacker on Wed, 29th Apr 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.

    6. Charlie on Wed, 29th Apr 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.

    7. .Jazz on Wed, 29th Apr 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.

    8. Lpviper on Wed, 29th Apr 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.

    9. Vix on Wed, 29th Apr 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.

    10. vc on Wed, 29th Apr 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.

    11. Curt Springer on Wed, 29th Apr 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.

    12. Lpviper on Wed, 29th Apr 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?

    13. Ian on Wed, 29th Apr 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.

    14. Curt Springer on Thu, 30th Apr 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.

    15. jzacker on Thu, 30th Apr 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?

    16. bile on Thu, 30th Apr 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.

    17. Jake the Muss on Thu, 30th Apr 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.

    18. Lpviper on Thu, 30th Apr 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

    19. candy on Sun, 3rd May 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.

    20. Zeus on Sun, 3rd May 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.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!





*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the answer to the math equation shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the equation.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam equation

Subscribe without commenting