Video: Ridley vs Confused Cop

September 7, 2010 by
Filed under: Personal Freedom, Police, Video 

Cop fails at intimidating Dave Ridley into stopping recording:
YouTube Preview Image

  • Paul

    Other than the bit about audio recording, which was pretty silly, the cop seemed nice enough.

    I mean, while perhaps unnecessary, he was acting as a peace officer — just making sure that traffic wasn't impeded, and everyone stayed safe.

  • david

    ehy!

    thats the girl that use to be in keene :shes nice

    her and her hubby use to protest taxes ……..(that was before i knew about free staters…nice to know they didnt get in trouble

    or arested or in jail

  • http://www.shirephotography.com Anton Lee

    You're right Paul, for the most part of course. They knew pretty much from the beginning that there was no spray paint being used, but needed to "inform" some of us of how to cross the street and not impede traffic. I would go so far as to say I wonder why he didn't ask this of any pedestrian in the area.

    I allowed him time to feel important enough to remind me of how to cross the street without being hit, since that is not one of my goals. I then told him that I "hope he has a nice day" to which he replied in the same fashion.

    I'm not sure if it's a personal thing, but the officer had a very hard time looking me in the eye. After all I was not threatening him. I'm not sure why. I just found it interesting.

  • Patrick

    That officer did nothing to intimidate. You need to learn to choose your battles more carefully. It's also perfectly legitimate for the authorities to check and make sure the message is written in chalk and not something more permanant and damaging like some tagger punk would do. All I see from you is a lot of self-agrandizing to gain a little bit of notoriety.

    I am also a firm believer in true freedom and following the Constitution as the framers intended I also rrealize that we live in the real world and will not go out of my way to be a pain in the ass of good police officers who are simply performing their duties. Why don't you go after some real enemies of freedom and take on some genuine enemies of the Constitution? That would actually be a little harder and wouldn't afford you the opportunity to be smarmy little jerks though, would it?

  • Lpviper

    Shut up Patrick, Dave Ridley is like, famous or something. Besides, what was so smarmy about it anyway? These cops engage in professional silliness every day, expect us all to eat it up like it's the most serious shit ever because THEY happened to utter it, and you're uptight because somebody made fun of the guy?

    LOL

  • Jefferson

    Patrick, you don't think the following statements were meant to intimidate?

    "You can't record audio, I can arrest you for that."

    "I don't consent but I'm not going to arrest you for it… today."

    "While I could arrest you, I won't."

    They are threats and reminders that he can kidnap and cage you whenever he stops feeling like "being nice today".

  • david

    patric,

    so

    the cop says you cant record legally

    and the activist says you can record legally

    This "record or not to record"

    seems to be a weird gray area

    The cop should,to my mind,know absolutely whether one can record or not..

    So if the activist is right about recording then the cop is being dishonest and authoritarian. or the cop does not know the law in either case it is bad.

    and if the cop is being dishonest and authoritarian than

    It is right to take issue with him on that point

    Patric do you think the cop was being authoritarian in that area?

  • Paul

    That officer did nothing to intimidate.

    I agree, mostly.

    You need to learn to choose your battles more carefully.

    What battle? This seemed like a civil, positive conversation, not a battle. I am glad that ridley didn't turn the mic off — that is an issue worth standing up for.

    It’s also perfectly legitimate for the authorities to check and make sure the message is written in chalk and not something more permanant and damaging like some tagger punk would do.

    I agree. I don't think anyone was objecting to this.

    All I see from you is a lot of self-agrandizing to gain a little bit of notoriety.

    What self-aggrandizing? Do you mean the chalk, ridley taping it, or his choice to walk away rather than turn off the mic?

    It seemed like a fine, peaceful event to me, and the cop behaved well.

    I am also a firm believer in true freedom and following the Constitution as the framers intended I also rrealize that we live in the real world and will not go out of my way to be a pain in the ass of good police officers who are simply performing their duties.

    What of what ridley did was "being a pain in the ass"? He seemed polite to me.

    He has a right to record in public — it's important that interactions with police be on the record. Was that what you objected to?

    Why don’t you go after some real enemies of freedom and take on some genuine enemies of the Constitution?

    Sounds great, lead the way! What do you suggest?

    While chalk messages might not be exactly a devastating blow for liberty, the feds certainly seem like a real enemy of freedom to me.

    It sounds like you think people were "taking on" this cop. I'm not sure why you see it this way. The cop initiated the contact, and as I say, it seemed like a polite, civil conversation.

    That would actually be a little harder and wouldn’t afford you the opportunity to be smarmy little jerks though, would it?

    What on earth about the way ridley behaved was "smarmy"?!

  • david

    one thing "ridley" did that im not sure was quite necessary

    was referring to the cop as "crazy"

    a couple times ………

    Maybe that was unnecessarily inflammatory

  • david

    although……my "restraint of tongue and pen"

    is way worse than his……. he did great actually

    way better than i would have im sure

  • Paul

    He said it's crazy to say people can't record in public, and I agree with him on that.

    I just also noticed that the cop didn't demand they cross only at the crosswalk, despite a crosswalk existing, but just wanted them to behave safely. Big kudos to him for that.

  • Gabe
  • Wes Sayville

    I think the cop was pretty good and that is why more freedom lovers need to move to Concord NH to appreciate what is here!

  • http://propagandalalaland.blogspot.com/ Julia

    I don't trust the police either, as they are there to protect the property of the rich and powerful. But I have to ask if chalking a federal building is really going to be a stepping stone towards the goal of NH secession. The video made it look like another dumb stunt. If I were going to be arrested I would do something a lot more meaningful.

    I highly doubt NH will have the ability to secede. For one thing, do most of the people residing in NH want to secede? It seems a big totalitarian of the free staters to move into NH and then try to enforce some goal that's against the will of those they have chosen to live around. I think there are much better ways of achieving autonomy (such as building institutions that emphasize people having a say over matters that affect them to the point where state and for-profit institutions become obsolete).

  • Paul

    I think as the federal government becomes more abusive and more bankrupt the motivation to secede will grow.

    Honestly, can you think of one thing the federal government does that's actually useful? Local governments do provide real services. I can't think of anything the federal government does that's useful at all … besides maybe the interstate system … yet they suck up more wealth than all other governments.

    It's a bunch of giant wasteful corrupt bureacracies,handouts to corrupt corporate buddies, and a colossal military industrial complex that has far more to do with enforcing hegemony and running everyone else's business (while making money), than defense.

    I suggest Julia, that your opposition to "for-profit" institutions is misplaced. It makes sense for people to trade with each other, and money is just a means to facilitate trade. It's when we get these giant corrupt corporations, shielded from accountability and in bed with government, that we have a problem.

  • yeahwhatsthat

    The interstate system

    The Armed forces

    NASA back when it was about space.

  • Paul

    NASA's ridiculously wasteful, and as you say, less and less about space. Private folks are already doing some of the same things as nasa for a tiny, tiny fraction of the cost.

    The military hasn't been involved in a defensive war in over 60 years, and is now has 700 bases in 130 different countries. It causes far more problems than it solves, and also is ridiculously wasteful.

    The interstates are useful, but they could be easily handled by the states.

  • http://propagandalalaland.blogspot.com/ Julia

    Again, I don't see NH secession as a real solution to the lack of autonomy. Regardless of what kind of government the Free State Project wants to prop up (against the desires of most current New Hampshire residents nonetheless) the bureaucratic hierarchy remains the same. Replacing all government-run institutions with for-profit ones (such as closing all the state-run schools and replacing them with private schools that cost money or creating conditions that force NH parents to resort to homeschooling their kids regardless as to whether or not they have the resources to do so) is going to result in the same kind of authoritarianism that free staters say they're running from.

    Every time people have tried to reform the system they live in they only end up replacing their old oppressors with new ones. History shows us that. Yes the FSP wants to do away with all the government control, but in the kind of society they want to shape NH into we'd still have illegitimate authorities such as bosses, landlords/proprietors, and the like. Bosses and landlords steal more from us in a month than the government does in a year through taxation.

    And let's be honest here: authoritarian economic systems lead to authoritarian states. The very fact that the FSP wants a society based on private property (look at most of their reasons for moving to NH; control of their property is always on top of their lists) makes me certain that the kind of system NH would be morphed into would be just as oppressive as the one it currently has, if not more. Why? Because private property itself entails coercion. I have to ask, what's the difference between the Concord police telling Ridley to stop recording them by threat of arrest and some capitalist boss's hired thug telling a wage laborer that he cannot have control over the workplace he works in? If the goal of the FSP is to eliminate coercion, why don't they take the same stand against capitalist bosses and capitalist property owners that they do against the government?

    The only kind of system that could truly give people their autonomy is one based on 1) socialized means of production (so no bosses, landlords, or the like) 2) gift economy (meaning no market and no money) 3) no exploitative or private property (meaning the only property you're entitled to is stuff for your active personal use, like a house, a computer, a bed, a toothbrush, and so on) 4) workers' councils (meaning no state) and 5) democratically-run institutions that allow people to make decisions to the proportion in which they are affected by those decisions.

  • http://freetalklive.com/ Ian Freeman

    Julia, please call Free Talk Live from 7-10pm eastern at 800-259-9231 – I'd love for you to explain how I am stealing from my tenants, and there's so much more to cover.

  • http://libertyontour.com Pete Eyre

    Hilarious. Thanks for demonstration a new tactic on how to handle such situations.

  • Paul

    Again, I don’t see NH secession as a real solution to the lack of autonomy.

    You can't seriously think the federal government is a net benefit.

    Regardless of what kind of government the Free State Project wants to prop up

    I just want people to interact with each other on a voluntary basis, and stop using aggressive violence.

    Replacing all government-run institutions with for-profit ones (such as closing all the state-run schools and replacing them with private schools that cost money

    The state-run schools cost money – far, far more money than private schools do. The difference is, people are forced to pay for it, at the point of a gun. They are prevented forcefully from choosing an alternative. Do you think that's a moral arrangement?

    Every time people have tried to reform the system they live in they only end up replacing their old oppressors with new ones.

    Yes, because they continue to try to rule over their fellow man with aggressive violence.

    Yes the FSP wants to do away with all the government control, but in the kind of society they want to shape NH into we’d still have illegitimate authorities such as bosses, landlords/proprietors, and the like

    Those are not illegitimate authorities.

    If a man puts his labor and time into building a house, do you think you have a right to steal it from him? Doesn't he have a right to sell or rent it to whomever he chooses?

    If a man puts his labor and time into building a business, do you think you have a right to steal it from him? Doesn't he have a right to offer to trade goods for services, with his neighbors? If you don't want to make such a trade, don't do it.

    Bosses and landlords steal more from us in a month than the government does in a year through taxation.

    Landlords aren't stealing anything. They've put the fruit of their labor into creating a home, and you're paying them for the privilege of using it. If you don't think it's a good deal, don't make the trade.

    Bosses aren't stealing anything. They've offered to trade you goods for your services. If you don't think it's a good deal, don't make the trade.

    And let’s be honest here: authoritarian economic systems lead to authoritarian states

    Free people being able to trade goods and services with each other voluntarily is not an "authoritarian" economic system — quite the opposite.

    The very fact that the FSP wants a society based on private property (look at most of their reasons for moving to NH; control of their property is always on top of their lists) makes me certain that the kind of system NH would be morphed into would be just as oppressive as the one it currently has, if not more.

    The fact that you're not allowed to steal what someone else has produced does not constitute "oppression".

    Because private property itself entails coercion.

    If you mean that people will defend what they have produced from people trying to steal it, yes, they will, as they should.

    Again, the fact that you can't steal from your neighbor does not mean you were "coerced". Your theft is the initiation of force. They're acting in defense.

    I have to ask, what’s the difference between the Concord police telling Ridley to stop recording them by threat of arrest and some capitalist boss’s hired thug telling a wage laborer that he cannot have control over the workplace he works in?

    What's the difference between the cops telling ridley he can't record in public, on the sidewalk he's been forced to pay for, and an owner who used his time and money to create a business telling his employees they can't steal his stuff? Gee, just can't think of any difference there. :rollseyes:

    If the goal of the FSP is to eliminate coercion, why don’t they take the same stand against capitalist bosses and capitalist property owners that they do against the government?

    Stealing is coercion. You have no right to take your neighbor's stuff by force.

    The only kind of system that could truly give people their autonomy is one based on 1) socialized means of production

    What does this mean, precisely? A person spends years of time and labor working to build a business, and then a mob comes and steals it from him the minute he tries to hire someone else?

    2) gift economy (meaning no market and no money)

    If I work hard as a farmer to grow corn, and you work hard as a cobbler to make shoes, why should we not trade corn and shoes? More importantly, what if my neighbor and I decide to make such a trade? What will you do? Come along with a gun and stop us?

    I definitely support giving as well, but there's nothing wrong with trading.

    3) no exploitative or private property (meaning the only property you’re entitled to is stuff for your active personal use, like a house, a computer, a bed, a toothbrush, and so on)

    So again, I'm good at building houses, and I enjoy it. My friend wants to move out of his parent's place, but doesn't have enough goods to be able to trade for a house right away. I agree to build the house, and he can stay there, in exchange for a monthy rent. This arrangement is agreeable to both of us.

    Then what? Julia comes in with a gun and steals the house from us? Julia advocates that my friend renig on our agreement, and simply steal the house outright without compensating me for my labor?

    What if I build computers, or toothbrushes? Should I not be able to create extra ones, for my neighbors to use, and trade them for the things my neighbors produce, like shoes or corn?

    4) workers’ councils (meaning no state)

    You're going to have to unpack that more, but I smell more theft and aggression against persons and property.

    5) democratically-run institutions that allow people to make decisions to the proportion in which they are affected by those decisions.

    Feel free to get together with others and voluntarily create such institutions if you want. Just don't force me to be a part of them.

  • Paul

    Look, Julia, if you want to create such a society, I encourage you to get together with your neighbors, and do so. Just sign an agreement stating the rules for your society, and you're off and running (again, just don't force others into your society).

    I think it'd be disastrous. I think people who are lazy will run around stealing everything everyone else has produced. I think there will be no motivation to produce, because theft is inevitable. I think it would destroy specialization, which is the key to prosperity, by prohibiting people from producing an excess of a particular good, and trading it for the other things they need.

    But, the great thing about freedom is that it affords us the opportunity to try different things.

    That's not possible at this point, because the feds are going to steal your stuff anyway, and hand it to goldman sachs or a military contractor, or arrest you from growing food in a different way than they proscribe. They jam everyone into their one size fits all solution.

    If we achieve a free society, however, I really would love to see folks like you get adjoining land (make sure you can grow food on it of course) and give this a try. If it's a success, I have no doubt that more people will join you.

  • http://propagandalalaland.blogspot.com/ Julia

    Regardless, NH secession is not going to happen. For every "free stater" moving to NH there's probably twice as many left-wing "statists" from Vermont, New York, and greater Boston. If you're set on accomplishing this secession through top-down means (i.e. free staters being elected into public office and passing more "liberty legislation") all you will be faced with is more resistance from the rest of the NH population. If you want to build participatory institutions and accomplish your movement through bottom-up means, then you will see a much better result, trust me.

  • Paul

    I definitely support bottom up means … the question is, how do we get the state, and/or the feds, to leave us alone? It's not like we have the opportunity to start from the ground up, because the state and the feds will not tolerate the formation of a small independent community — they'll demand obedience, and they'll demand an enormous cut of everyone's labor, regardless.

    Of course, a lot can be done with underground economies, agorism, etc — but barring some fundamental shift in the way government works, that's not going to achieve independence in itself.

    I do disagree with the notion that the rest of NH would be anti-freedom. I think most NHers in general, do support freedom.

  • Anton Lee

    if you don't like the activism, come and do what you think is right. Then you can have your own peanut gallery and you can say to them: "if you don't like the activism, come and do what you think is right."

    Then they can come.

  • thinkliberty

    @julia,

    "If you want to build participatory institutions and accomplish your movement through bottom-up means, then you will see a much better result, trust me."

    If you think participatory institutions are the way to go, why don't you prove it? Why do you want me to "trust" you? If your ideas are any good, prove to me that they are, by starting a successful participatory institution and changing the world for the better.

    If you do that, I will trust you. If you don't do it, we'll both know that you are full of shit.

    When do you plan on proving your theory to be correct?

  • Paul

    Whoever's posting bad songs under other people's names needs to grow up.

  • bil

    They aren't ALL bad songs… well,mostof them are.It is annoying,but I guess that is the point.At least have balls enough to use your own name,or wits enough to make one up. —bil

  • Paul

    Lol, yep.

    I think when you've started posting britney spears songs under your political opponents' names, you've officially run out of ideas.

  • http://nhunderground.com Russell Kanning

    I almost started laughing when the cop started lecturing Ridley about street crossing and recording

    but the threats of force kinda bring you back to the reality of the police state we live under

    we didn't ask the cops to come

    they were intruding on our good time :)

Want to discuss rather than just commenting here? Visit the Shire Society Forum.


Send your news tips to: News at FreeKeene.com