Getting Away With Murder
On New Year’s Day 2009 the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Police in Oakland, CA summarily executed made a mistake and accidentally shot Oscar Grant while he was laying face down on the ground during his arrest. The trial for the police officer who blasted his brains out came to a close yesterday.
I predict that the officer will be found not-guilty of everything… and this is why: “Mehserle, 28, testified last week that he shot Grant after he mistakenly drew his handgun instead of an electric Taser gun on his belt.“ (article here) I predict that the prosecution was unable to prove criminal intent on the officer’s part. I also predict some racially charged riots in the greater San Fransisco, CA area to follow.
The actual footage of the murder mistake is below. Your predictions?
(ps— film the police. you never know when someone may have their brains blasted out.)
Comments
55 Comments on Getting Away With Murder
What is the weakest charge for murder, the third degree? Is that what you think he should have gotten? Is that what the prosecutors went for, or did they get greedy and stupid and try and go for first degree murder?
Involuntary manslaughter.
Seth,
I think they charged first degree murder and something less… so the jury can make a choice.
Can the jury give him 3rd degree despite the prosecutor going for 1st degree?
I hope this leads to a violent revolution in Am*rica. Fuck Am*rica.
I hate america,
It is understandable that you are upset at this tragic story, but it is important to remember that violence begets violence. Violence is what the state does… we’re better than that. 
This should be interesting.I have been following this since it happened-I was in SF when he was shot,and am in LA,following the local reporting on the trial.lots of controversy in the papers. —bil
Bil,
What do you think will happen? What do you think should?
He’ll probably get 3rd, but he should get 2nd.
I know people would expect 1st, but if isn’t 1st it isn’t 1st. I don’t agree with the methodology or the ideology of the scenario, but that’s beside the point.
I don’t think the officer did what he did on purpose. It simply doesn’t make sense.
Summarily executing someone intentionally in front of hundreds of witnesses?
It’s still possible to do it in front of people if he knows his “homeboys” would back him up. Aka the Thin Blue Line.
That’s true… I just don’t think in this situation that is the case.
I really think the guy thought he was grabbing his taser… and his error turned into an execution.
I agree, I don’t think so either. I’m just saying I wouldn’t put it past them and it’s something to look into.
Ultimately, he pulled out a violent weapon (whichever he thought it was) and killed a man.
Ultimately, he pulled out a violent weapon (whichever he thought it was) and killed a man.
A man who appeared to be behaving peacefully and not harming anyone else.
The real harm happened when the police decided to get involved.
The “I was reaching for my taser” defense is bull shit. A taser is a deadly weapon and was supposedly introduced so the blue gang could kidnap their victims and extract money instead of just killing them. Any gang member(cop) that pulls a taser should by tried for attempted murder. All Cops are criminals (fact). They steal, rape, kidnap on a daily basis (fact).
But I think what ever the charge is in this case the man will be convicted. Video is a powerful tool and images of execution style murder are hard to remove from the brain.
I will follow up my previous comment with the fact that locking a man is a cage does not however resolve any issues. Is this man dangerous? Yes. Is this man mentally stable? No. Will locking him in a cage make him peaceful and mentally stable? No. A system of true justice would demand reparations be made and serious counseling attended. Nothing will bring back the young man to his previous state, but anger and vengeance only pollutes the world further.
If reparations are not possible, jail is better than nothing IMO. At least this man will not harm others, and others will not be deluded into believing this behavior is acceptable.
Besides, I wager this man certainly constitutes an ongoing threat.
I agree it’s not murder 1 though. If you assault someone without intent to kill them, but they do in fact die as a result of your attack, what charge is that? That’s what this should be.
Yeah, that’d be second degree murder.
In California-actually almost anywhere now-it is impossible to predict how a jury will vote.There is an actual business of jury selection,both sides using professionals to select those they feel will favor them,especially in this type of case.From other videos shot from other points,and accounts from the trial,it seem this officer had received little training in the Tazer use,came into this action after it had started,and was not wearing the Tazer in his usual position.He said he was going to Taze the subject,then shot him.He was in disbelief also.From what I have seen and heard,it was an accidental shooting,in the confusion he thought he had his Tazer.With all the confusion,both sides and passerby yelling,and things moving fast,I can see how something like this could happen.
I think police are given too much disgression to use various weapons,just having them can escalate a situation.The crowd yelling intensifies it also.
I really don’t know what should or will happen,it is tragic for all involved.
The big cities are much different than what we are used to in the rural areas,and this kind of thing happens much more than we realise. —bil
From what I have seen and heard,it was an accidental shooting,in the confusion he thought he had his Tazer.
I completely agree with you.
I think police are given too much disgression to use various weapons,just having them can escalate a situation.The crowd yelling intensifies it also.
That’s a good observation also. I think the fact that this happened is a direct result of the nature of what the police have come to be.
I live in Oakland, I grew up here, and everyone in Oakland is holding their collective breaths as the holiday weekend comes to a close. The jury goes back to work on Tuesday, and I expect a same-day verdict.
I do think he will be found guilty of something, perhaps negligent homicide, and I think it will be a compromise verdict. As far as anything like 2nd-degree, I can’t see it either. The defense got the critical ruling – change of venue. And I don’t believe the prosecution got anywhere close to meeting the reasonable doubt standard. Although – this is a SoCal jury, so nothing will surprise me too much (except a 2nd-degree murder conviction).
If he’s aquitted outright, yes, they will riot, there’s no question. Oakland rioted during the Rodney King affair, and that was 400 miles away. We rioted after Oscar Grant’s murder. We’ve had plenty of time to tweet and text, so I expect an organized response with a capital T, even with a negligent homicide conviction.
Finally, thanks for taking up this important case.
I am white(just for the record…). However, I am curious as to why I can not ( off the top of my head) think of one White teenage male who has been shot; while handcuffed and/or on the ground……BUT I seem to hear about this sh!t concerning Black youth AT least once a year……mostly more. Just saying……
I think it was accidental. From the expression on the cop’s face, it looks like he realized in that instant that he’d just made the biggest mistake of his life. As for what an appropriate punishment should be, I’m not sure what I think in this case.
The question I do have however, is why it would ever be acceptable to taze someone who’s lying on the ground with their hand cuffed behind their back. Supposedly, the original purpose of the tazer was to have a less lethal alternative to use in a the event that a cop would otherwise have to shoot someone. But as we’ve seen time and time again, it’s instead become a routine tool used to gain compliance or inflict punishment.
Finally, thanks for taking up this important case.
I thank you for reading/participating here @ FK
I am white(just for the record…). However, I am curious as to why I can not ( off the top of my head) think of one White teenage male who has been shot; while handcuffed and/or on the ground……BUT I seem to hear about this sh!t concerning Black youth AT least once a year……mostly more. Just saying……
I think it is an absolute fact that black men have been victimized by cruel government agents (who are white) at a much higher percentage than white men.
I feel terrible for the black community in Oakland. They have every right to be furious.
In lieu of violent rioting, I wish the black community could turn their anger into motivation to peacefully disable the apparatus that is the cause of so much of their mistreatment. Peaceful evolution
Just so you know, this blogger has the facts
wrong on a number of things. The biggest one is that they keep saying the cop “blew his brains out”. Oscar Frant was not shot in the head. He was shot in the bak and died later from complications from internal bleeding.
Just so you know, this blogger has the facts
wrong on a number of things. The biggest one is that they keep saying the cop “blew his brains out”.
You summed it up. I’m a blogger, not a professional journalist. I only said “blew his brains out” once.
I used the term “blew his brains out” not as a matter-of-fact, but as a general account for what happened.
Perhaps I should have said “blew his spine out.”. Would that have met your standards?
Whoops. At least it didn’t happen in Boston. If it had, Mehserle would have been awarded a medal for bravery and the government’s lawyers would have sued the Taser manufacturer for a making a defective product. And then the police would have shared the settlement with Grant’s family. (Something like that actually happened. Google “Victoria Snelgrove.”)
antric on Mon, 5th Jul 2010:
“I think it was accidental. From the expression on the cop’s face, it looks like he realized in that instant that he’d just made the biggest mistake of his life.”
I’m reminded of the old, ah, teaching story:
“Why did you kick him in the groin?”
“It was his own fault. He turned around.”
You’re not just a blogger, you’re a blogger from New Hampshire who’s field of expertise appears to be ice cream.
So yeah, I guess you’re entitled to your opinion, but for those of us who actually live IN oakland, there certainly are better sources of facts.
You’re not just a blogger, you’re a blogger from New Hampshire who’s field of expertise appears to be ice cream.
Actually, my field of expertise is the violence the government will use against someone who sells ice cream without its blessing.
So yeah, I guess you’re entitled to your opinion, but for those of us who actually live IN oakland, there certainly are better sources of facts.
My blog about the murder in Oakland was not meant to be a source of facts. In fact, I quoted a newspaper article.
Have you ever heard someone use the term “blow their brains out” referring to the murder of someone else?
And further more.. what the hell difference does it make if the officer shot an unarmed and prone black man in the head or the spine?
Ed,
Speaking of my expertise… I have a question for you.
Do you think it is appropriate to use violence against someone who decides to use their own property in a way that the government hasn’t approved of?
Sorry dude, spin it any way you want. Mr. IceCreamMan from New Hampshire knows precisely zilch about the following:
1. Oakland racial politics.
2. BART’s rampant institutional dysfunction.
3. BART’s long standing low standards of training for it’s police force.
4. The legal distinctions between different kinds of homicide.
I suggest you go back to selling Popsicles at outlet malls, living free, dying, or whatever the hell else it is you do over there 3000 miles from people who have a real, imediate and personal understanding of this issue.
Uh, “Ed”, Brad is a former cop. Where you got “ice cream man” I have no idea. Even if he were, however, he would still be entitled to have an opinion, and express it.
And you didn’t answer his question.
I suggest you go back to selling Popsicles at outlet malls, living free, dying, or whatever the hell else it is you do over there 3000 miles from people who have a real, imediate and personal understanding of this issue.
Having been a police officer for far longer than the cop in this video, I’ve tasered, pepper sprayed, fought with, and pulled my gun on dozens of individuals… I’d say I have a pretty good understanding of police uses of force.
I also have a pretty good understanding of what I see in that video: Some asshole cop pulls his gun and blows a guys BACK out….. causing him to die. Murder.
I don’t want to hear whining about training… As I probably had the same brief 4 hour class on the X26 just like every other cop has. I knew the difference between pulling my gun and pulling the taser… and I never killed someone when deciding which one to use.
That being said, again, I don’t think this officer did what he did on purpose. He still did it… and there still needs to be serious consequences.
Ahem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter#Voluntary_manslaughter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter#Involuntary_manslaughter
If he didn’t do it on purpose, it isn’t murder.
And it might not even be manslaughter.
Cops deserve a different standard than civilians for a couple reasons. But here’s the simplest reason: If a civilian had done what Mehserle did, the civilian would have committed a number of felonies before the gun even went off.
In Alameda county, civilians basically can’t get carry permits, and they sure as hell can’t get open carry permits. So you’d have unlawful possession of a loaded firearm in public, and brandishing a weapon if he was a civilian. And assault. And battery. And false imprisonment, because civilians aren’t empowered to arrest people in the same way cops are.
So already there’s a double standard. And there needs to be. If a cop misses a perp in a legit firefight, hits a bystander and they die, it isn’t murder. If a civilian does the same thing, it might be.
That’s a huge part of why this is so tricky. Murder 2 requires that we know that Mehserle INTENDED to kill Grant. Knowing his intentions is virtually impossible. He also totally freaked out immediately after the shot went off, and seemed horrified and shocked at what had happened.
IF he’s guilty of manslaughter, it’s because he drew his sidearm in a hasty and poor decision, and then fired it in an equally poor decision or by accident.
If anybody really messed up here more than anybody else, it’s BART for having low training standards (OPD insiders knew long ago that BART cops were a ticking time bomb of incompetence.)
The other person who really messed up was Alameda County DA Tom Orloff, who should have known better than to charge murder one for an on-duty sworn officer. It’s literally impossible for it to be murder one. Orloff did it as political pandering because of the first riots, and if he’d looked a little into the future, he’d have realized that a murder one conviction was impossible, and that an acquittal would cause more riots.
Sorry for the grouchy shit earlier. I’m just a little impatient with all the national armchair quarterbacking I’ve seen on this topic. I know OPD officers. I know Oakland politicians personally. We’ve talked this out over and over again at great length and it’s frustrating to see the same simplistic first-impression reactions over and over again. This is some complicated shit. Please treat it as such.
I think Ed has some very valid points,especially about the intricate political situation in Oakland,recent history there,and as he said,the major problems throughout the BART system.As I said before,I was up there when this happened,just left there,and am now in LA,watching what happens with the trial.This is not peaceful little Keene,or even Nashua.Oakland is a city trying to deal with some major problems.As Ed said,it is some complicated shit.I would suggest some reading on what has been going on up there,not just this situation,but the whole picture.Note that I did NOT say whether or not I thought I thought the cop is guilty. —bil
It seems to me that under California’s felony murder rule, this can be considered second degree murder, despite it being unintentional.
The California felony-murder rule makes a defendant liable for murder if he or an accomplice kills another person, even accidentally, during the commission of certain felonies.
In general, before a defendant can be convicted of either first or second degree murder, the prosecutor must prove that he/she acted with malice (an intent to kill, or a reckless disregard for human life).1
However, the California felony-murder rule is an alternative basis on which a person may be charged with murder. It applies even in the absence of malice. In fact, it imputes malice to someone who kills another person during the commission of another crime, regardless of whether the death was intentional or accidental.2 When imposed, it elevates a potential manslaughter charge to murder.
California’s felony-murder rule creates murder liability for individuals who kill another human being during the commission of a dangerous felony. California courts have long relied on this rule, holding that someone who engages in reckless behavior shouldn’t be excused from killing someone just because it wasn’t part of their original plan.
The rule has two stated purposes. First is to deter people from killing others during the commission of another felony. Second is to deter the commission of the underlying felony itself.4 It doesn’t matter whether the killings were intentional, accidental, or negligent…if someone was killed during the commission of a felony, the felony-murder rule attaches.5
I consider shooting someone with a taser in that circumstance to be felony assault.
Edit: Actually, my mistake — there’s an exception to this rule for assault:
Since its inception in 1872, the second degree felony-murder rule has received much criticism for being unduly harsh. One of the ways that the courts limited its scope was by applying the merger doctrine. Although the merger doctrine once applied to first degree felony-murder as well, that is no longer the case.24
The merger doctrine prohibits application of the second degree felony-murder rule when the underlying felony is assaultive in nature…that is, when it involves an immediate threat of violent injury. This is the case even though an “assaultive” felony clearly constitutes an inherent danger.25
The courts adopted this limitation because the purposes of the felony-murder rule…to deter accidental or negligent killings and to deter the inherently dangerous crime itself…are not served under these types of circumstances.
When this is the case, the underlying felony “merges” into the homicide and does not subject the defendant to the felony-murder rule.26
Since shooting someone with a tazer is assaultive in nature, the merger rule would apply, and it would be involuntary manslaughter.
It’d be very different in other states, however, like Washington:
(1) A person is guilty of murder in the second degree when:
(b) He or she commits or attempts to commit any felony, including assault, other than those enumerated in RCW 9A.32.030(1)(c), and, in the course of and in furtherance of such crime or in immediate flight therefrom, he or she, or another participant, causes the death of a person other than one of the participants
So, in washington (and many other states), this would clearly have been second degree murder.
Ed, I think you’ll find most here believe the same standards should be applied to police, as to anyone else. That if they accidentally hit someone in a firefight, it should be dealt with the same way as if a civilian did it.
In Alameda county, civilians basically can’t get carry permits, and they sure as hell can’t get open carry permits. So you’d have unlawful possession of a loaded firearm in public, and brandishing a weapon if he was a civilian.
I think people have a right to bear arms, so I’d consider these laws immoral.
And assault. And battery.
I consider the cop guilty of both of these crimes, even, as you say, before the gun went off.
And false imprisonment, because civilians aren’t empowered to arrest people in the same way cops are.
I think it should depend on the individual being “arrested”. If the individual has attacked others or their property, and is a continuing danger to others, either a cop or a civilian should be allowed to detain them. If they have not attacked or harmed others or their property, they should not be detained, either by a civilian or a cop.
I know this is not conventional wisdom, but what’s right and wrong behavior does not magically change because you get a job for the state and put on a costume.
Your impatience is understandable btw . I appreciate your thoughtful and well considered post.
…if you walk 5 miles into the woods, it’s a 5-mile walk back out…Oakland didn’t get so pathetic & barbaric overnight, or on it’s own…We ALL have a 5-mile walk back out of the woods we’re all in…wanna borrow my compass? My *MORAL* compass???…seems some of you are experiencing some sort of geo-magnetic anomaly…I agree, I don’t think the cop intended to kill the guy. His intent was to inflict severe, non-lethal pain upon the guy. That way, the guy could always have come back and gotten revenge…That’s why NH is the “Live Free, or Die Trying” State of the Union…gotta love it. Look up the stats…over 150 American citizens have been killed by Tazers since cops began deploying that weapons system…Thank God Keene doesn’t (officially, at least…) have Tazers…*ALL COPS* are POORLY TRAINED. Their training is specifically designed to be poor. Too many cops, though, are in fact severely OVER-trained. That’s the case with some/most Military/Combat veterans…Society has evolved faster than our ability to control it (and, ourselves)…YO, Bradley! Now, do a piece on Mr. Turcotte, and the suicide aftermath…Violence breeds violence, kiddies…Yes, I knew Turcottes’ father, Roger. Decent guy, after he got sober…Too bad about his kid…Well, this is the world YOU PEOPLE have made for us…
I know this is not conventional wisdom, but what’s right and wrong behavior does not magically change because you get a job for the state and put on a costume.<-Worth repeating. Thanks. Lesson learned. By me, at least….
Russ –
I’m somewhat familiar with the Snelgrove case. Can you please help me understand where it says the government sued the manufacturer? I can’t find it in any of the relevant documentation that I know of:
http://www.mass.gov/da/suffolk/docs/091205.html
http://www.mass.gov/da/suffolk/docs/091205a.html
http://www.cityofboston.gov/police/pdfs/report.pdf
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/22/fan.death/
Thanks.
Ok. On the felony murder law: that’s for any killing (not necessarily a murder) committed during the commission of a felony. Mehserle wasn’t in the midst of committing a felony when ge klled grant, so it doesn’t count.
As for whether or not any of the laws I mentioned are just or constitutional, that’s a tangential topic. What matters for a jury determining Mehserle’s guilt or innocence is the law that is currently in force in Alameda county.
I encourage everyone readnthe wikipedia’s entries on murder and manslaughter. They’re very complex distinctions, and the bar for a murder conviction is much higher than most folks might presume. We have multiple tiers of distinction in the legal
system for various kinds of killings, because there really are multiple tiers of moral transgression that can happen when people kill eachother.
Sorry for the grouchy shit earlier. I’m just a little impatient with all the national armchair quarterbacking I’ve seen on this topic. I know OPD officers. I know Oakland politicians personally. We’ve talked this out over and over again at great length and it’s frustrating to see the same simplistic first-impression reactions over and over again. This is some complicated shit. Please treat it as such.
Thank you very much Ed. I appreciate it
I completely agree that it is complicated shit…. and that it should be treated as such.
I’d like to think that my blog, although not %100 factually correct, was written in the spirit of my understanding of it being complicated. I did say that I predicted that he will be found not guilty of everything.
I do stand by my belief, however, that these things happen because protection services are monopolized by the least efficient entity ever known to exist: the government.
When you have least efficient, you have shitty training and lacking accountability. When you have shitty training and lacking accountability… people get killed.
Your participation in our blog here at FreeKeene is much appreciated
So I’ve heard a lot about this case, but the actual facts in the case seem to be the least of your concerns.
Do the administrators of this site believe that the police are never allowed to use force? I agree that the police had no real need to use force in this case, since the guy was already, apparently, trussed up… but this is simply a part of a larger problem.
We can say that this is the inevitable conclusion of allowing the police to use force, but that intimates that police should never be allowed to use force. How, then, is crime to be fought? Should I go all OK Corral on people?
I carry for when the police aren’t around. I don’t carry so that I can be Dirty Harry. The only defense against force is the threat of superior force.
By the way, great site.
Guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
I guess I was wrong… I expected the jury to find him not guilty of everything.
Hopefully, this verdict will stop riots where only more people will get hurt.
Do the administrators of this site believe that the police are never allowed to use force?
I can only speak for myself, but I am ok with police using force, if necessary, to stop those who are harming, or have harmed others, or their property.
Basically, I believe the same standards as would apply to any individual for the use of force, apply to police. You have a right to self defense, and defense of innocents. You don’t have a right to initiate force/violence against a peaceful person, over a victimless crime.
Of course, even if force is necessary to stop, say, a thief, it should be the minimum necessary — not excessively brutal.
There’s also the issue that police effectively have a monopoly — if you don’t pay them, they steal your house out from under you. I believe that you should have the right to select an alternative agency to provide you protection, if you believe the police are acting immorally, ineffectively, or inefficiently — free choice is necessary for any real accountability.
So far the violence has been held to a minimum,although the cause of justice WAS served by the looting of a Footlocker and a jewelry store’somehow they were to blame for something.I had thought that there would be some sort of conviction,most likely this one.The political dangers of complete exhonoration or,conversely,a conviction of 1st degree murder,would have made either one likely.A thought to ponder-as we read and write here in this forum,many times we see the idea of a society where a miscreant pays damages to the victim or family,and is not locked up.And yet we are seeing the greiving family wanting more,as if somehow making the officer or city suffer,their son would somehow come back.The ideas often expressed here would be hard to translate to the world out there.Keep thinking,but remember that the application of these ideas is much harder than we may think.Heres hoping for a more peaceful day for Oakland tomorrow. —bil PS-just got back from South Central,pretty quiet where I was.
In response to Pauls post (he has heard this,we talked the other day),the history of an organised city or town police department is fairly short.Many cities had watchmen,some for certain neighborhoods,and some hired by companies.Organised Police forces are less than 200 years old,previously there was a watch or a night patrol,or you were on your own.Many of the original fire departments in big cities were paid for and run by insurance companies,hired to protect insured clients property only,too bad for the neighbors.Pay or burn.Interesting histories as to how it got to where it is today. —bil
A thought to ponder-as we read and write here in this forum,many times we see the idea of a society where a miscreant pays damages to the victim or family,and is not locked up.And yet we are seeing the greiving family wanting more,as if somehow making the officer or city suffer,their son would somehow come back.The ideas often expressed here would be hard to translate to the world out there.Keep thinking,but remember that the application of these ideas is much harder than we may think.
Good observation, it’s good to keep that in mind. Often, it’s easy to consider ideas in an abstract sense, when their implementation can be very challenging.
And while developing ideas can be beneficial, implementing them is far more important. Better to have feet on the ground than head in the clouds 
.
I wonder if the grieving family would have been more satisfied, or less, if the perpetrator, say, were banned from being a cop for the rest of his life, there was a large lump settlement from both him and the city, and also his wages above room and board were garnished and sent to the victim’s family, for the rest of his life.
I think most of that will be happening anyway,even with this verdict.This is just the beginning-now comes the civil case,where the burden of proof is easier to reach.This will go on for years.It is sad how much damage can be done in a split second. —bil
Bil,
I’d wager that the US Attorney will be prosecuting this former officer for deprivation of civil rights under the color of law.
I hadn’t thought of that one.They need the aspect of persecution,not prosecution,to appease the anger.Whether they feel like going further or not.These things are full of hidden political nuances.Soon it is not really even about the event itself,it is what outcome can be produced.The victim,shooter,and victims families all become pawns in this game.The legal system is indeed a game,played by the insiders,and woe to those chosen as pieces on the board.The only protection is to realize it for what it is,and act accordingly. —bil
Black people make streets unsafe. That’s why, apartment managers are not allowed to answer the question, if the neighborhood is safe – it means if many black people live there. Black youth behave in provoking way on the streets. If the officer shot him by mistake, we know what kind of behavior forced him to do it. Black youth should learn how to behave in human society, first of all. If they keep spreading voilence and violent attitude around, such unfortunate accidents may happen, and those accidents may happen not even for the reason, that white policeman intends to kill black youth. Read what happened several years in Paris France, we don’t want it happen here. I’ve been to Oakland once, and I don’t miss it. It looked like part of South Africa, after Mandela’s vistory, or Haiiti.
Alex,
I think you could have said all of the above without having to come off as a bigot.
There are plenty of “white” young adults who behave in a less than civilized manner. The color, or lack of color, in their skin is irrelevant.
Individuals are individuals.
I wish young adults would act more civilized… skin pigments notwithstanding.
Post your comment below. Login in the far right column to get rid of CAPTCHA. If you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
Want to discuss rather than just comment? Visit the Free Keene Forum.
Supporters of FK
Recent Forum Topics- Keene City Council Contact Info February 8, 2012
- Pledged Free-stater heading to "The Shire" later this year February 8, 2012
- FBI is watching February 7, 2012
- New February 7, 2012
- Free Minds Radio 02/05/2012 February 5, 2012
- HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012
- Marijuana decrim bills up for vote February 5, 2012
- Episode 35 - Anarch-Elitism February 5, 2012
- HB 1533 -- fines for hurting legislators' feelings February 4, 2012
- HB 1494 -- "Your papers, please" February 4, 2012
- Recent Forum Posts
- Re: Unlawful Arrest Question February 8, 2012
- Re: Pete and Ademo February 8, 2012
- Re: NHNovella.com........writers, take heed!! February 8, 2012
- Re: Victimless Crime bill February 8, 2012
- Re: FBI is watching February 8, 2012
- Re: Avoiding Federal Cell Phone Tax February 8, 2012
- Re: Avoiding Federal Cell Phone Tax February 8, 2012
- Keene City Council Contact Info February 8, 2012
- Re: FBI is watching February 8, 2012
- Re: Avoiding Federal Cell Phone Tax February 8, 2012