My Apology to James Callaway

August 20, 2010 by Sam Dodson
Filed under: Uncategorized

James,

I apologize for invading your personal space yesterday outside city hall. I should have worked to deescalate the situation, and instead my actions contributed to exactly the opposite. I certainly could have responded differently, and I have learned from this experience. I apologize for my aggressive behavior towards you.

I do not feel I owe you a new cup, as it was a closed container that was put in my face, and I truly felt threatened. However, I would invite you to sit down and talk about the issues related to Free Keene and the Liberty Activism going on. If you want to do this on camera, I think this would make great footage, and would be happy to film this in front of your coffee shop. Of course your videographer would be welcome to set up as well. This would be great advertising to the people that agree with and support your viewpoint, and I’ll even buy the drinks.

I think this would go a long way to help you understand some of the changes that are happening in Keene and around the state. There is a tremendous amount of mis-information about the liberty activists, our views, and activism. I would like to explain what we are all about, and how the freedom message naturally works to bring people together.

So James if you would like to set that up on camera or off, please let me know with a private message to me in the forum. I’m glad you joined, and look forward to speaking with you about this.

Sam Dodson

Paul

I edited my comment after you replied, HC, sorry about that.

What do you think of my proposal? Let's stop all being drawn into and wasting our time on the Sam/James thing, and lets talk about what kinds of activism, for the future, would be positive and effective.

I think it sometimes comes to a point where third-parties…such as you and myself…need to realize that this is an issue between two adults (as childish as they may act at times) and it is up to them to work things out, if they want to.

Excellent, I agree wholeheartedly. Let's leave them to it, and lets work to create something positive.

And, btw, I absolutely do think your behavior has been that of a peace-keeper. I think your attitude makes real improvement far more possible here, if we can keep the haters from both sides from tearing each others arms off.
david

This is to all you "free staters" that are giving Sam a hard time: Sam is doing the work …he is putting his money where his mouth is.

I can see there is a lot of mouths here but are they doing the foot work for LIBERTY like Sam is DOING!?

Or

Are you all just sniping at someone,like sam, who IS putting his ass on the f^%$#ing line………. for liberty

you all should have his god damned back

Instead of tearing down someone who has the cahones to DO STUFF .
holy_canole

Paul,

I agree…that's why the facebook group "Free Keene From the Free-Keene Stigma" was created.

Unfortunately, this incident was kind of the catalyst for a lot of things that have been happening, and will hopefully continue to happen in the future. I think a lot of the focus *has* shifted off of the initial hype of the situation, and onto the more important issues. However, Ian decided it was prudent to mention some things that James wished to remain private (so as to *not* perpetuate this situation publicly) and I think it is important to make sure both sides are being represented equally, which is why I have returned to this forum.

Believe me, I would certainly rather they deal with this privately, but if it is going to be public, then I want to make sure everyone's side gets heard.
Paul

Fair enough.

I can't keep chatting here at the moment, I've got responsibilities, but I really want to move on, to create a discussion about nuts and bolts of positive, effective activism.

I want to come up with activism ideas that many people in your group, and many people here, can both support. I think this could be hugely beneficial, to everyone.
holy_canole

I forget if you said you live in the Keene area or not, but if you do, come to the City Committee Meeting today! There will be people from the facebook group there willing and hoping to start up some of these discussion!
james

"Perhaps James would be more understanding of our positions if he were investigated and prosecuted for the potential crime he is committing by making these demands?"

So, Bradley, would that be considered compounding as well? And I never made demands, nor threats. Perhaps the suggestion of community service wasn't the best choice, but it was never a demand. Glad to see you guys keep confidential conversations confidential. Good to know you can be taken at your word.
Paul

Gah, I'm from Keene originally, but not in the area now. I'm hoping to be back in NH asap (before next summer).

I really wish I could be there. I hope the will of people genuinely looking for common ground prevails over the angry folks.

Actually, I'll probably be in Keene area for a short period of time (just a few days) in early December. Also, if there's a conference call, I could participate.

Let me know if there's anything else I can do to support these efforts.
Marty

Canole, as sad as it is, You may be right. We, and especially those of us who preach peace, can't force them to do what's right. We can only step back and hope they do it willingly. There is one option available to us Peace-mongers, though:

Economic and peer pressure. If I stand outside of his shop (Which I can't, considering I'm in Texas at the moment) and tell each person who looks to be going in for a cup of coffee that it might be a bad idea, since he won't even enter arbitration if he's the victim, that's gonna hurt his profits. If every time you go in for a cup of coffee, you ask him if he's settled his differences with Sam yet, eventually, he may do it just to shut you up. Particularly if you turn around and walk out (without buying the coffee) when he says no.

James, Please don't judge the group by a single individual. I've done nothing to wrong you, but you are lumping me in as "bad people" because other people who have signed the same document as I (the FSP statement of intent) have done you wrong.
Lpviper

It was a cup, dude. You had a 'confidential conversation' over a cup? Really?

I hate this thread

Get a hobby, James
Paul

Economic and peer pressure. If I stand outside of his shop (Which I can’t, considering I’m in Texas at the moment) and tell each person who looks to be going in for a cup of coffee that it might be a bad idea, since he won’t even enter arbitration if he’s the victim, that’s gonna hurt his profits. If every time you go in for a cup of coffee, you ask him if he’s settled his differences with Sam yet, eventually, he may do it just to shut you up. Particularly if you turn around and walk out (without buying the coffee) when he says no.

While I know you're well intentioned, I think that'd probably just make it worse. Better to try to let it go.

Ok, I really have to get to work now.
holy_canole

Paul,

If you haven't done so already, you should definitely join the facebook group! There will be updates sent from there whenever anything is planned!
holy_canole

Marty,

I agree with Paul. Passive aggressive acts such as that, while they may get you what they want, won't be doing much good. If James is forced to sit down with Sam, even if he doesn't want to, just so he can stop people from annoying his customers and staff–who have no personal involvements with the situation–he won't be having the conversation for the right reasons, will he?
Lpviper

Brad, please post a gaggle of bad cop stories or a link to old French porn, or something, anything, that somebody can comment on that is not cup related!

Thanks
holy_canole

Lpviper,

The 'confidential conversation' was not regarding the cup, specifically. Again, I think it is unfortunate that Ian brought up something James spoke about with him in private, and I think it is extremely unfortunate that he did so in a way that did not inform everyone of what the entire conversation was.

I have a feeling that Ian, and Sam, don't really want the contents of the entire conversation to be made public, but by bringing it up publicly and neglecting to relay the entirety of the situation, they may have to do just that.

Again, it is unfortunate for both parties.
Marty

It might, indeed start more trouble. But again, It's a free country (for now), and nobody can force anybody to buy coffee from a particular merchant. (and don't think I'm picking on James, If I knew what Sam did in the community besides filming stuff, I'd be advocating the same tactics with him).

If he uses violence or aggression to try and make me stop informing people of the kind of person they'd be supporting, he's simply proving my point.

And I don't think it's passive-aggressive. It's assertive, if anything. I don't want to support someone who hates me simply because I love Liberty, and someone else who also loves Liberty made a bad decision on how to handle a situation.
bil

And the Kaiser thought the Treaty of 1839 was just 'a scrap of paper', and we got WW I. It is not just a cup, it is what the unwanted destruction of the cup represents that is the issue. I have a cup for Brewbakers behind the seat of my truck, if I wash it out and bring it back, is that the same as restitution? There is a principle involved, be it about a cup, a toothpick, or a scrap of paper. As an object, is each worth fighting about? As a principle,they all could be. —bil
Lpviper

If mine were crushed, I'd turn the other cup.

Bring on the French Porn!
david

maybe the "Kaiser" did think etc etc etc

but this aint ww 3

tho the way some talk they would like to make it that

ya the pricipal is : Mr Callaway don't start trouble anymore

simple as that .Sam said it in the video and that was all

Im done w this dumb thread

laters

I will ask you to refer to my previous blurb for all your answers
holy_canole

Marty,

My point is, this is a personal situation between Sam and James. If Sam wants to stand outside the shop and inform people that he thinks wrong was done to him, fine.

Obviously anyone else is allowed to do so as well if they wish, but is it really in the interest of 'liberty' to get involved with a situation that is between two individual adults?

I think it would be passive aggressive to do what you suggested because it is not really confronting the situation. Telling customers that James may or may not be a bad person, in the interest of hurting his profits (which is what you said) is involving people in a situation which doesn't really effect them in any significant way. The purpose of these actions would be to try force James to do something he doesn't want to do, but without actually talking to him directly (this is obviously just referring to the first part of your suggestion, not the part where you said people should ask him if he resolved the issues every time they go in).
david

PEACE
Marty

You make a fine point.

I never said I wouldn't go in and ask him myself, and Honestly, I've got better things to do than to stand outside of a coffee shop and annoy people all day. It was an option, but I'll agree, not the best one.

The purpose of either action would not be to force him to do anything, but to help him see that doing so would be in his best interest.
Lpviper

Two words: FRENCH PORN

Two more: ARMPIT HAIR

Need I say more?
holy_canole

But would those actions actually show that it would be in his best interest *for the right reasons*?

Sure, if people stood outside his coffee shop, or constantly berated him with questions it might *then* be in his best interest to have a conversation. But in this case the 'interest' he would be trying to protect would be to not have himself, or his customers annoyed with questions.

He would not be having the conversation because he suddenly decided that Sam and himself could truly benefit from it, rather he would be having it to stop people from hurting his business—something which really has nothing to do with the actual issue.

Do you see what I mean? I feel like that was a very confusing post haha.
Marty

But *why* is his business suffering? Not because I am standing out there annoying people… though certainly I'm not helping. It's suffering because he's shown himself to be untrustworthy by refusing arbitration. (Keep in mind that this is a tactic usually reserved for aggressors. That a victim would refuse restitution boggles my mind.)

I'm a little sleep-deprived, so I can't explain it as well as I'd like… I could point you to some resources that more fully explain my theory of free-market justice, if you'd like.

(I should clarify… it's not MY theory… it's the one I use.)
holy_canole

No, I think his business would be suffering because people would not be respecting his choice to not engage in a conversation which he thinks is unnecessary, or would cause greater harm than good.
http://freetalklive.com/ Ian Freeman

Don't worry, a full blog post is forthcoming that shall enlighten you all regarding what James has been up to that he wanted kept secret. You will get to determine whether I was right or wrong for bringing you this information.
Marty

They would respect his choice not to do that, (I hope, anyway), But they would be making another choice not to associate with someone who refuses to use the voluntary justice system of arbitration. There would certainly be people who weighed a delicious cup of coffee more significant than the fact that he decided not to pursue damages… and some might find that noble. That he did it out of pure cussedness might never enter their minds.

There's danger, too… Hoodlums, seeing that he can be bullied into submission – or at least silence – will likely come into his store and attempt to either cause damage or intimidate him. If He's the type of person he seems to be, I would not relish being those hoodlums.

Arbitration really is the simplest way to prevent any of that. It also has the benefit of getting his cup back and maybe a few hours community service (50 seems excessive, though), for the aggression.

Ian – That really sounded Like L. Neil there for a second. Let's hope your post has more content and less vitriol than his.
http://freetalklive.com/ Ian Freeman

Here you go, including the audio of the James' threatening voicemail he left me this morning.

http://freekeene.com/2010/08/25/integrity-in-a-th…
holy_canole

Ian,

I think you should seriously consider that. James didn't want the conversation to be a secret, he was just hoping he could trust you, and Sam, to be capable of resolving issues in private. He told you things in confidence which he could have easily just gone public with without even warning you. I think it would be a disservice to yourself, and disrespectful to James to betray his confidence by making private conversations public.
http://freetalklive.com/ Ian Freeman

He did want the conversation to be secret, and I kept it that way until he showed no interested in resolving issues privately when Sam made a reasonable offer to fulfill his original demands for the replaced cup, provided a sit-down could be had.

I dishonored the agreement of privacy because at that point it was only to protect his veiled threats from being public.

His voicemail is very revealing.
holy_canole

Ian,

As I said on the other board: Sam damaged James' property, He doesn't get to set conditions on how, when, or where he will replace it.

How did you protect his veiled threats from being public, exactly?
http://freetalklive.com/ Ian Freeman

I respected his privacy until he rejected Sam's reasonable offer of restitution and came back with another threat. It was clear he wasn't interested in acting like an adult, so I though everyone should know what he was up to. Now they do.
holy_canole

I still don't see the reasoning behind this.

James has no obligation to sit down and talk with Sam. Sam has an obligation to replace the property he damaged.

Even if you don't think James is acting like an adult, do you think acting childish yourself by betraying his trust is going to make him act anymore like an adult?

If you ask me, it will probably just give him more of a reason to file charges.
http://freetalklive.com/ Ian Freeman

James is not interested in deescalating the situation as he has been given the opportunity to do.

The purpose in outing him is to show people his anti-social behavior. Also, we can't exactly tell people about Sam's offer of restitution without explaining why it was rejected by James.

Also, a former police officer was talking about filing charges against James, which I recommended against as that is escalation.

Outing his threatening, skulking methods is just providing information to those who are observing this situation, so they can be fully informed.
smeg

i know i said i wouldn't comment here anymore, but i just thought of a great title for this whole episode:

2 guys 1 cup.
holy_canole

"James is not interested in deescalating the situation as he has been given the opportunity to do."

Neither is Sam, either, apparently because James has given him the opportunity to replace his property and he hasn't. Just because *you* or Sam thinks that a conversation would deescelate the situation, does not mean that that is true. It could make things worse.

If I egg your car, do I get to say "ok, I'll replace your paint job, but only if you sit down with me and talk to me about why I egged it"? Absolutely not.

However, as of tonight, Sam and James have had a discussion. I don't know how it went or how either feel it went, but as of now it is absolutely Sam's responsibility to replace the cup, seeing as his 'demands' have been met.

I don't see how bringing any of this into the public spotlight can be seen as anything *but* escalating the situation. It is completely hypocritical, in my opinion.
Marty

Glad to hear that cooler heads have prevailed.

FWIW, I hope that James got his cup, and a sincere, heartfelt apology. I also hope that Sam got a sincere apology as well, since Sam was not wholly to blame for the incident, and certainly not for the continued drama.

Given Sam's recent history, which, as a distant spectator, I feel compelled to admit I do not have a clear picture of, Some community service or perhaps anger management counseling may be in order. I'm in no position to judge whether or not it is, however, and I hope that those close to Sam come to the right conclusion.
MC_Cals

Good input Marty and from being a Keene resident I would say I have seen enough to agree with you. I feel the same way
Mitch

"David and PaulO, are you even serious? Was Sam conducting the interview on public or private property? Did Heika hit my hand away? Does free speech only apply to you? Were my methods so much more obnoxious than what they have done in the past? Perhaps I should have stayed out of the shot and used a bullhorn from 2 feet away. That would have stopped the interview. I was peaceful. Obnoxious but peaceful. I showed restraint. They showed their true selves. Violent, unstable, and unable to allow others to voice their opinion. They deserve no respect from peaceful people who desire change."

James you clearly show your intent here to disrupt the interview. Your rights end where other's rights begin. In the video I saw you say something like "I'm going to hold this up here" referring to your cup. Sam and his interviewee say "sure go for it", Then you proceed to wrap your arm around the interviewee and and put the cup in his face.

Do you see the difference between than and making your views be know over a bullhorn?