Raw Video – Jim Johnson in Court for “Disorderly Conduct” & Cop Block

July 16, 2010 by Ian
Filed under: Laugh at the Aggressors, Noncooperation, Video

Jim Johnson has fun in court with the bureaucrats who are aggressing against him. This is the trial over him standing in front of a cop car as they attempted to kidnap a young man. Jim was kidnapped weeks later at his home and charged with “Disorderly Conduct”. Following the trial, Pete from Liberty on Tour does some Cop Blocking.

Just Pete’s Cop Block:

http://jeremycouch.com Jeremy Couch

I've just started watching this video so I don't even know if the YouTube videos were allowed as evidence yet, but wanted to point out that it is against the YouTube terms of service to download or extract any video from YouTube. They have shut down websites and services for doing this. When you are on YouTube's property you need to obey YouTube's rules. Do you think the IT department had permission for that?
http://freetalklive.com/ Ian Freeman

Really? How does http://keepvid.com/ keep operating?
http://jeremycouch.com Jeremy Couch

lol… yes, I know there are services out there that do that and I have used them, but it is against their rules. For instance, they shut down both this http://techcrunch.com/get-youtube-movie/ years ago and very recently shut down a feature of the Dolphin HD browser for Android that allowed for downloading YouTube videos. I've heard of others too. I guess some of those survive the same way thepiratebay survives.

Another issue as I watch this video is that second officer taking the stand appeared to be in the court room the entire time the first guy was testifying. I thought it was normal procedure to have witnesses outside of the courtroom so they couldn't change and match stories while being questioned under oath. That's what I've always seen in my few times in court. At least for the defendants side but I thought both sides. No?
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

Personally, not a big fan of the way the defense questioning went down.

It's easy for me to say, since my skin's not on the line, but I wish these opportunities were used to make a more clear moral points, regarding the aggressively violent behavior of the police, simply because some politician told them to, against peaceful people who are harming nobody and nothing.

I would only stray into traditional legal questioning briefly, to make a clear point, and only if the goal really is a non-guilty verdict. The more time spent questioning within their paradigm, the more credibility is given to their ceremonies and behaviors.

Also, comparisons with nazis or the KKK just aren't productive, I don't think it really communicates anything useful, and just makes others less willing to listen.

I wonder if some form of accountability can be obtained for cop's behaviors, in busting down someone's door and pointing guns at people, for a minor misdemeanor charge resulting in a $200 fine.

Perhaps lance, or someone else could comment on this. What would be needed for a civil suit, for example, of excessive force? What would happen to a cop, say, who pulled his weapon and pointed at someone he'd pulled over for rolling though a stop sign?
http://ringingliberty.com Paul

Also, note how the cops quoted the very worst of what any activist had said — it makes it easier for them to discount the rest. I encourage activists, in these situations, to take a lot of care with what you say. Don't just throw stuff out — if you can't think of an effective way to say what you mean, just let others do the speaking. Don't just yell out, "you're like nazis" or something.
ampf mexcity

How does anyone have time, during the day, to watch a 45 minute long video of a so-boring-it's-like-watching-paint-dry court video? I survived all the way until 2:03. It's summer, you guys. If you're not working, go outside.
Paul

I skipped the testimony and just watched Jim's crosses.
TJ Lawrence

During the trial the second officer stated for the record that he had experience in smelling burning marijuanna, I was saying to myself as I watched .. after a few baseline questions ask him if he has ever personally burned marijuana. To try to catch him lieing about his own personal use of the substance, while on record.

His testimony could have been tossed out had he tripped up and admitted to personal use of a so called illegal substance.

Wish I could have been there in support, soon, hopefully soon.
Brodie

I agree with Paul. It is not about the law. It is about the fact that their law does not apply to anyone.
Judge Burkah

"Brodie" – you fool! The LAW applies to whoever *I* say it applies to, and whenever *I* say it applies! *I* *AM* *THE* *LAW*, got that, kiddo? Lemme repeat: *I* *AM* *THE* *LAW*, *I* *AM* *THE* *LAW* *I* *AM* *THE* *LAW*! Now, SIT DOWN! HAH! *I* didn't say, "Simon Says!" Go to jail! Bailiff, Bailiff, where's my moustache trimmer!? YO! Winky, did you steal my moustache trimmer again?.RYAN! Get yur butt in here, *I* need some clerking service! Clerk! Clerk! Clerk!…(The preceeding moment of light legal fiction has been brought to you by the John Broderick Childrens' Education Fund, and the NH Supreme Courts' Begging Bowls Project. Remember, they don't get paid, until *YOU LOSE*!.) Now, back to our regularly scheduled FREEKEENEBLOG: YO!, JARDIS!…
Dan

Even if activists want to remain silent or do a special kind of questioning at trial, Free Keene really needs to hire a lawyer to guide them through this process. Trust me, a lawyer can help you with your activism. There are plenty of public defense-oriented lawyers who have no love for "the system."
Zeus

My only suggestions would be to have followed up on the "hostile" claims and the "research" aspect. They used the former over and over.

"How was the crowd hostile? But at no time were you harmed by them?"
"You said you did research earlier. What did your research tell you about their philosophy as it pertains to violence?"
"You mean to tell me that the primary tenet of their belief system, non-violence, you didn't find that in your research?"
"If your research didn't uncover that basic fact, how can you be so certain anything else you uncovered is reliable like my identity?"
"Do you have any evidence that you are a competent researcher, a credential of some kind from a school or anything?"
"Weren't you and your partner armed?"
"In your training as a police officer, did they teach you how to kill and incapacitate people? Let me rephrase that: Are you are trained to shoot your weapon with great accuracy? Taught hand-to-hand combat? Take down maneuvers, pressure points, anything like that?"
"It sounds to me like you're formidable in combat and yet you testified that you felt threatened by the crowd even though you were armed and trained in deadly force… because they were shouting?
"Is it illegal to shout? How exactly do you measure that? You have some device to measure the decibel level or something? What's the cut off for that? 3 decibels louder than 0 and you're okay but 4 and we kidnap you?"

All in all I think Jim did the best he could under the circumstances but there's always new avenues to explore. Much of it on the fly.
DEADLY RESISTANCE

Less than 48 hours worth of comments…only 12 comments, since July, then NOTHING!, until now…No wonder they linked to this story!…It's still a boring video, but it's still a video…Can you guys get NH's new law school – Franklin Pierce Law school in Concord, interested in using these videos as legal training tools? Maybe edit down a portion that just covers questioning & cross-examination? I bet lots of folks might be interested in that.