The Only Video of Sam’s Arrest

May 4, 2009 by Ian
Filed under: Obscured Truth Network, Police, Thuggery, Video

This is the only known footage of any of Sam’s arrest (his removal from the city building and loading into a cop car), just now being released due to technical difficulties:

Thankfully this movement contains many activists with video cameras. This means we can be in multiple places and recording them all if necessary. Some of us are now coordinating and stationing camera-toting activists at various entrances to government buildings so as to be best prepared for events like this. What innovations can you bring to this movement? How will your talents help us achieve a voluntary society? Thanks to Free Keene blogger AnarchoJesse for capturing this raw footage.

http://jailedactivist.info bile

The idea of using radios was good. Perhaps having the cameramen who are spread out be on a conference call to ease coordination. Google has TrackMe which could maybe be used to know where people are… though it probably doesn't work on most phones. I've not looked into it. It would also be good to have at least one person with a hand held scanner so you can keep track of what the officers are doing.
http://jailedactivist.info bile

Was also thinking that i'd be nice to have a scanner per town type setup and stream it online. It'd be boring listening but for those interested in finding out what goes on in a town it may be worth it. Especially in Keene. And that way everyone doesn't need to buy a scanner.
Lpviper

It could also be good civil disobedience. In Michigan here it's against the LAW to carry a handheld scanner in your vehicle unless you work for police, fire, or ambulance.
http://jailedactivist.info bile

And almost forgot… http://www.eye.fi/cards/

Like Qik but for SD based cameras through WIFI. Not sure if there is access at or near the courthouse though.
jzacker

who were the two people hurting Sam? I saw one in uniform and one plain-clothed person.

Sam did good by not walking. I know it hurts his arms, but he shouldn't comply with thugs. That just enables them.

Maybe people can curl up into a ball, making it harder to carry them. Curling into a fetal position is non-violent and a normal reaction to being assaulted.
Lpviper

I like it, but curling into a ball could be interpreted as 'resisting', whereas going limp cannot.
http://libertyactivism.info bile

I agree. A ball is fine if you've collapsed to the floor and they've yet to try to pick you up but once they touch you any positive movement will be used against you.
http://mike.barskey.net Mike

I think, LPViper, that the govt will interpret anything in any way it pleases. If they want to arrest you, they will claim that going limp is disorderly conduct or resisting arrest or disobeying an officer, etc. Same with curling into a ball.

My opinion about curling into a ball is that it *could* save you from injury if they carry you out in a ball, but more likely it will result in cops forcefully extracting you from the ball and thus causing you even more injury.

I'm guessing, though.
Lpviper

I see what you're saying, Mike, but I'm not talking about governmental interpretation. I'm talking about common sense, and how the general public will interpret it. Limp = not resisting. Curling into a ball = resisting. The larger part of the (non-violent) battle we are waging is the war to capture the hearts of the general public. A jury of my peers would have a hard time thinking that simply going limp is resisting. Curling into a ball, however, could easily be interpreted as resisting, especially if they try to uncurl you. Then you are forced into the choice of RESISTING or going limp, like you should have done in the first place. Does that clarify?
Lpviper

Also, if my local law enforcer wants obedience he can go buy himself a dog.
http://mike.barskey.net Mike

Yup, that makes sense, Viper. It's the difference between English and legalese; between humans and tyrants.
http://libertyactivism.info bile

I have no doubt many would consider being limp resisting in a generic way since you are not helping them arrest you. However what is more important is not showing any sort of retaliation. You must be neutral or appear aggressed against. Going limp is probably usually seen as neutral. If someone takes a swing at you… you shouldn't swing back. Deflect and subdue or get out of the area. Don't egg anyone on. CD is about being the victim and one should position themselves to get the maximum victim perception.
Lpviper

I heard a story somewhere (probably FTL) about a guy who would say over and over during his kidnapping, 'I will not resist, and I will not assist.' Verbalizing this during your kidnapping could be of some use in the public debate over your capture, and during a trial when the video is (hopefully) played for a jury. Now, this may not be possible if you are being tortured like Sam was, but it's another concept to kick around.
dub

you know i'm all about civil disobedience and the idea that government is not our friend but really? screaming in pain and not cooperating? what else do you expect?

from what i understand he was arrested for videotaping in court, and apparently not stopping videotaping. it's a courtroom, they tell you to stop you do it. you wanna make a statement? find another way to do it.

there are right and wrong ways to fight a battle and screaming like a girl while being dragged out and forced into a police car isn't going to get you any points and it isn't any way to solve a major problem
http://libertyactivism.info bile

I think you are simplifying or simply ignorant of the specifics. Everything is spelled out at http://sam.jailedactivist.info but to the points you made. It wasn't in the court room but the lobby and in regards to what apparently is an illegitimate flier. Also he claims to have been screaming because they didn't lock the handcuffs and was wearing a large bracelet which was being forced into his wrist bone due to how the cuffs were on and the ratcheting effect. There is audio available of the arrest at the site proved too.

I would agree with your assertions to an extent if there were multiple cameras present and a few were asked to be removed or if the order was clearly legitimate, and if the law and court cases didn't favor the press over the judge. Or if he was screaming for attention. However those don't appear to be the case… and I'm not going to second guess the pain someone may be in when being dragged around with their arms behind their back and cuffed over some bulky jewelry.
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

Dub,

His bracelet underneath the tightening handcuffs, which had not been locked, was apparently cutting into his wrist very badly. I'm sure the pain was very real.

If you support civil disobedience, why do you say, "if they tell you to stop you do it", and that you disagree with "not cooperating". Under what circumstances, then, do you support civil disobedience?

Regards,

Paul
dub

He could have walked. If it hurt that bad then why didn't he just walk?

Plus it says on the JailedActivist site, in the timeline, that on Friday April 17th that he started cooperating because "Mainly that it wasn’t worth wasting away in jail to keep his anonymousness." If he was really dedicated to the cause then wouldn't he have continued to not cooperate?

Look I understand the ideas and beliefs and have many of the same myself but there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. Clearly this was the wrong way to do things and I can't exactly have sympathy for the situation as much as I understand the reasons for the actions
dub

Paul,

The key term is "civil". Now who decides when the disobedience turns from civil to uncivil? The people who enforce the laws. Whether or not they are right, they have the final say in the current situation and when they feel as though as a situation may be getting out of control then they make the decision to detain someone.

Now I would assume that a bunch of free staters gathered at a courthouse for someone's arraignment is a situation where the police are already on edge. They are surrounded by people who basically disagree with what they do and rightfully so.
Gold Oil Diamond

People who enforce the laws are responsible for their actions as any other humans, this has been well establish during the Nuremberg trials. They should stop enforcing the laws and orders, they are at wrong in all moments demonstrated.
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

Dub,

Sam was completely civil. He simply peacefully refused to turn his camera off. Others were arrested for simply sitting quietly in the lobby.

The people who enforce the laws do not define civility, any more than they can define morality, justice, or virtue.

You are partially right when you say "whether or not they are right, they have the final say. I might put it this way: "Whether or not they are right, they have the guns, so they make the rules." This power, however, is not the same as legitimacy. If a government employee acts immoraly, or unjustly, their action is still immoral, or unjust. The fact that they happen to have power does not magically legitimize their actions.

They certainly have the "final say" in that they are big and strong enough to detain someone. They don't have the final say over your moral beliefs, however, or your stamp of legitimacy, unless you give it to them. Each of us has the responsibility to weigh the morality of each action, ourselves.

The reason he did not walk, Dub, despite the fact that it was painful, was because he wanted to make it clear that he did not consent, or give his stamp of legitimacy to their actions, and that he would not assist them. It is always more convenient to obey unjust laws and men — they maintain their power by making it so. The point of civil disobedience is to endure incovenience or worse, so that the injustice might end.

Regards,

Paul
dub

I would argue that there is a right and wrong way to go about ending injustices and although sometimes you gotta take drastic measures for what you know is right (Malcolm X comes to mind), this was not the right way to go about things.

And from what I read in the bio section of JailedActivist, this is not some punk college kid, this is a wealthy individual who doesn't need to be committing actions like this. Between money and white privilege he's set for life, why cause problems?
http://libertyactivism.info bile

I don't believe he's wealthy… he claims to have had a good job.

Either way… what does wealth or skin color have to do with beliefs and acting on those belief in an attempt to make the world a more voluntary place. Criticize the tactics or the message. Criticizing the man is petty.
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

Dub,

Actually, if he is well off, I would say this makes his actions more admirable, because he has more to lose, and because he is willing to stand up for what's right, dispite the fact that he might be able to live comfortably by just blending in.

"I'm set for life, why cause problems" is exactly the wrong attitude. According to this attitude a rich guy in the segrigationist south should ignore the injustice, because he's personally well off.

Instead, each of us should stand up for what's right, regardless of whether it would benefit us personally or not.

I don't know why you bring up race, I think judging people based on race is wrong.

Regards,

Paul
dub

Paul,

First of all I admire your response and ability to explain yourself better than most (that's not a dig at anyone else on here cause everyone is good, you've just responded the most since I started).

I didn't judge anyone on race, I merely stated the fact that white privilege is involved in the situation just like it is in most others. Believe me when I say he wouldn't be getting computer access damn near every day if he wasn't white.

Also being well off only means he doesn't have anything to worry about. If he's got money spread out then he can afford to get arrested and spend time locked up because everything will still be there when he gets out. Young minds might look at this and start resisting arrest (without the knowledge that Sam obviously has regarding laws) and without thinking how it could hurt them in the long run.
jzacker

I take it Sam is not getting out of jail anytime soon?

By the way, I think the judge is holding Sam under a 'contempt of court' charge, which has a time limit on it before Sam must be brought before a jury. Usually one can be held under contempt for 179 days before he must be tried by a jury for the contempt.

Sam will be tried for the original charges in a separate action.

Not to sound too rude, but has anyone contacted a real lawyer? I read Marc Stevens' Habeus Corpus petition. It was missing some important elements. I doubt it will move the superior courts to intervene.
cyberdoo78

I don't know Sam well, I'd like to say I know him enough. You're facts are quite incorrect if you think he is personally posting his stuff on line. In fact they are being posted by a friend who is taking the written letters he rights and posting them to the boards. So being white has nothing to do with it.

Further, being white myself, I am offended that you think race has anything to do with what privileges he does or doesn't have in prison. From your previous statements I believe you to be a bigot.

It matter's not that he is white, nor that he is better off then I, what matters to me is what he is trying to show the world. That it is wrong to put human beings into cages when they have not harmed another's life, liberty, or property.

To those who say, 'he's going about it wrong way', I say, you are lacking of knowledge and/or ignorant of how things actually work. In the end, when you have jumped through all their hoops like a good slave, you are still considered a slave.

The right way in my opinion is not to get elected, not to petition for new policies, not to talk to your 'representative', but to stand your ground, take back your rights, and be assertive.

'Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.'
dub

You can spend your time in prison, I'll spend my time exploiting the system. We're both doing the same thing but at least I ain't getting locked up.

And the only ignorant statement I saw was regarding the difference between not only white and non-white treatment in prison, but the way with which whites and non-whites are arrested and imprisoned, and the way they are treated through the entire process.

Point though is that you can fight back your whole life or you can move up on the inside and cut corners all day while exploiting the system that only suppresses those that don't know how to work it

Isn't that the true civil disobedience? The defiance of obedience but masked with a smile and a handshake?
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

Dub,

Thanks for your kind words, Dub, and thanks for the good conversation. I would not bring race up in this context, were I you, but I do agree that some racism still exists, most especially in the "justice" system. That said, to think that because someone is white means they have it made is very wrong, in my view. I think it's best to not make race based assumptions whenever possible. Sam certainly does not have it made, by any stretch of the imagination.

To exploit a system that supresses some is immoral. The system is run by people who willingly exploit it, as well as by those who simply do not know better. To exploit such a system is to contribute to its perpetuation.

If the system is stealing from those who "don't know how to work it" and giving the money to those who do, the moral person tries to end that abusive system, not participate in the theft. If anything, those who knowingly perpetuate such a system for personal gain are worse than those who simply don't know better.

Good men, finding themselves under the thumb of a mob, for example, do not try to lead it, or participate in the theft, they try to bring it down.

I agree with inside the system activism, but not if the purpose is personal benefit. The purpose needs to be to reduce and elimiate the abuses of the state.
dub

Let's take the personal element out of the inside-the-system-workings then. I believe you can accomplish more in a boardroom than in a protest walk.

Not to downplay the efforts made by some with regard to protests and other sort of "damn the man" actions but I think the best way to take the system down is to do it right to the faces of the people in it.

Just to pick a current debated topic, gay marriage has a better chance of passing if people are trying to come together behind closed doors and negotiate some sort of deal rather than walking down the street screaming "we're here, we're queer".

I also think that morality is subjective and to borrow a very tired phrase, "born alone, die alone".

I also sometimes find myself thinking that were it not for the extreme activism of some outside the system then perhaps the work being down to bring down the system from the inside wouldn't be as easy.