Activists with Cameras Pursue, Question Nashua Undercover

May 3, 2011 by Ian
Filed under: Copblock, Copwatch, Corruption, Hypocrisy, Personal Freedom, Police, Video

Jason Talley of Talley.TV and the Civil Disobedience Evolution Fund and I follow an undercover officer from Nashua PD with our cameras as he leaves his hiding spot in the police-friendly “Courthouse Pizza” (across the street from the court building). We pepper him with questions before he can escape in his buddy’s police cruiser. This is an excellent example of how more activists with cameras can make a huge difference – we were able to chase after this cop and others stayed behind at the pizza place to keep an eye on the rest of the cops:

NGDGT

I think the young officer handled himself exceptionally well.
Highline

I think the young officer handled himself exceptionally well.

I completely agree with you NGDGT, he did.

More officers should use this as an example of how not to come off like an idiot. He was polite, courteous, and didn't overreact to being filmed. Aside from his enforcing a law which is rather bogus, he seems like a decent guy.
NGDGT

I'm glad we agree on this. Do you also agree with me that the 2 freestatists that were hounding him were being ineffective and a total embarrassment to the FSP?
NGDGT

And what bogus law did he enforce? I'm not sure of the particular incident that caused the freestatists in the video to go after him like that.
Highline

Hmmmmmmm…….

Well, I know Ian and Jason personally, and they are pretty reasonable and friendly guys. I am willing to say with absolute certainty that if this officer had simply stopped and had been friendly with them, there would have been no hounding. (Hounding is a fair word to use, btw.) I think that Ian and Jason were only acting that way they because he wouldn't stop to talk to them.

I am not a FSP member, so I can't really speak with authority regarding what a Free-Stater would find embarrassing. As a born-and-raised-native-new-hampshire-ite I will say that from my vantage point, I don't think Ian and Jason are embarrassments to the FSP. I think they are both very effective and brave activists. They're also very decent people.

I would have loved to hear the officer simply say what he was thinking. No one could fault him for expressing his personal opinion. (Public employees: please see RSA 98-E)

The great thing that is coming from encounters like this is these officers are coming to these websites to see what is being said about them. While they're here, they're reading about freedom. That is a good thing

They're not bad people…. they're just enforcing bad laws. I did it for 11 years, and I'd like to think I'm an okay guy.

The law he enforced was the marijuana law. Arresting someone for possessing a plant is a bogus thing to do, in my humble opinion. Especially since most police officers I know/knew have used marijuana (and harder more illegal drugs) in their lifetime. They were just lucky in that they never got caught.
mackler

I'd like to get an official FSP comment on this. Can anyone here speak for FSP?
NGDGT

I do not believe the freestatists would have had a dignified conversation had he stopped and decided to talk with them. it is clear they had no respect for him. Every time he said something they tried to turn it back on him. For example he says it's a beautiful day, and immediately one of the freestatists goes 'it's not beautiful when people like you put peaceful people in cages'. And in the beginning he asks if they would stop recording and immediately they jump back saying it doesn't matter what he wants.

This behavior makes it very hard to believe that they only wanted to have a conversation. It's more in line with the common 'name and shame' tactic that I've seen freestatists from this blog use many times over the months.

And just because you've thought about drug laws and have decided that they're bad laws, that does not mean that they are. You cannot assume that this officer has not given it any serious thought just because he hasn't decided to take the same position that you did.

You're essentially saying that you've settled the drug law debate and anyone that hasn't arrived at the same conclusion either got it wrong, or did not consider it.
mauiguy

Hey troll,

Beliefs are the chains that bind free mens' souls.

(I stopped reading at "I believe")

Might want to check how previous interviews were handled.
Highline

I do not believe the freestatists would have had a dignified conversation had he stopped and decided to talk with them. it is clear they had no respect for him.

Every time he said something they tried to turn it back on him. For example he says it’s a beautiful day, and immediately one of the freestatists goes ‘it’s not beautiful when people like you put peaceful people in cages’. And in the beginning he asks if they would stop recording and immediately they jump back saying it doesn’t matter what he wants.

You know, you make a really good point. They might have missed a good opportunity to have a civil conversation with the officer about what happened. It was definitely a very confrontational situation… and it happened as court let out. Ian and Jason were amped up, clearly. Ian was like that once at a thing in Keene when dealing with a police officer and afterwards he was very critical of his temperment. If someone is hurting a friend of yours, it is hard to be nice.

It is easy to critique people after-the-fact, but in the moment it seemed like things were happening pretty quickly.

Maybe they should have been more diplomatic about it. Maybe the things you're bringing up here will help them to be better next time. As this blog belongs to Ian, I'm sure he follows the commentary.

I think if they had been more diplomatic and were able to have a good conversation with this chap, it would have been far more productive than this YouTube video.

This behavior makes it very hard to believe that they only wanted to have a conversation. It’s more in line with the common ‘name and shame’ tactic that I’ve seen freestatists from this blog use many times over the months.

I see exactly where you're coming from. I'm unsure if you're a Free Talk Live listener, but I've heard Ian say several times on the air that he finds himself having to replace the angry emotions which naturally occur when dealing with aggressive state agents with compassion and understanding. Both Ian and Jason just left court where one of their friends was prosecuted for a "crime" which is victimless. I think it is understandable why they were upset.

And just because you’ve thought about drug laws and have decided that they’re bad laws, that does not mean that they are.

I feel pretty safe with my asserting that a law which authorizes people to be violent to the non-aggressive is a bad law. Violence shouldn't be used as a solution to non-violent, non-aggressive problems. No?

Beyond the libertarian/force argument, even from a statist analysis, drug prohibition is bad public policy. It does nothing to accomplish any of its stated goals (the reverse is actually true) and has unintended consequences that are terrible.

You cannot assume that this officer has not given it any serious thought just because he hasn’t decided to take the same position that you did.

Sure I can. I was a police officer for eleven years… I made the change from someone who just "enforced the law" to someone who questioned the wisdom of institutionalized violence. I know how the average cop thinks, cause, well, I was one once.

You’re essentially saying that you’ve settled the drug law debate and anyone that hasn’t arrived at the same conclusion either got it wrong, or did not consider it.

What I'm saying is most cops don't consider it. The ones that do are either too afraid to question it (I had many tell me that they agree with me but are too afraid to say so) or question it and become targets of retribution.

Cops aren't supposed to think about the morality of what they're doing. "Enforcing the law" means blindly following the changes in word syntax on various pieces of paper.

Don't you agree that this blind following has been responsible for some serious suffering throughout time? This realization is what changed everything for me.
http://freetalklive.com/ Ian Freeman

Please search for Keene Police Ride-Along to see how things are handled when a cop will take time to speak to us.
david

if being evasive is "handling him self well " than yea he did .

I guess i have a higher standard of "handling himself well"

But i guess the public is use to a low bar and when we get anything above that low bar that is set we eat it up like so many crumbs being thrown us.
david

He wasn't abusive .He didnt arrest anyone FOR NOTHING.

etc.

THANKS mr officer.
david

sorry….I dont want this view of the police… when they change I will change
Highline

if being evasive is “handling him self well ” than yea he did .
I guess i have a higher standard of “handling himself well”
But i guess the public is use to a low bar and when we get anything above that low bar that is set we eat it up like so many crumbs being thrown us.

David,

What I meant was that he behaved, didn't assault anyone, and didn't act like an idiot when confronted by cameras. I would have much preferred he not be evasive… and as Ian mentioned, check out the video of the cordial interactions between activists and police when the police are willing to have a discussion.
david

W4BN
Peace Xtremist

Wow, great job! Thanks.
NGDGT

"What I’m saying is most cops don’t consider it. The ones that do are either too afraid to question it (I had many tell me that they agree with me but are too afraid to say so) or question it and become targets of retribution. "

You're still ignoring the possibility that he considered it and agreed with it.

"Don’t you agree that this blind following has been responsible for some serious suffering throughout time?"

Sure, hindsight is always 20/20. Maybe 100 years from now when the drug debate is settled they may be able to look back and say they were bad laws that caused more suffering than good. But until then how can you claim to know? Because it seems to me like you think you already know.
Highline

You’re still ignoring the possibility that he considered it and agreed with it.

I concede that could be true.

Sure, hindsight is always 20/20.

But there were people *at the time* (as there are now) who knew what was happening was wrong. I am one of them.

Maybe 100 years from now when the drug debate is settled they may be able to look back and say they were bad laws that caused more suffering than good. But until then how can you claim to know? Because it seems to me like you think you already know.

I do.
NGDGT

There's always going to be people against all sorts of laws. There are people against same-sex civil union laws, people against free speech laws, people against private property laws.. It's just a matter of time before they get one right.

People being opposed to, or for laws does not say anything about the nature of the law.

"I do."

Thanks for admitting it.
Highline

People being opposed to, or for laws does not say anything about the nature of the law.

I agree…. but I think that even you might agree that all these laws of the past that caused insurmountable harm have all been laws which criminalize conduct which does not cause direct harm to another person.

If back in the early 1800's people had operated under the philosophy that I advocate, that being that the law should only be used to prevent direct harm (force, aggression, fraud) against others or their property, none of the harmful laws which have (and presently do) existed would have been valid. That would knock out slavery, Jim Crow, nazi-ism…. etc.

The only laws I am against are ones that *create* victims in the first place.

Thanks for admitting it.

You're welcome.

For the record, I think you're one of the best commenter's here on the FK blog. I appreciate your critique and interaction. Your image which represents you to be a troll is rather inaccurate as you offer legitimate discussion.

Just FYI… on the "wordpress" blog, to quote someone like

this

all you gotta do is this:

< blockquote >

blah blah blah

< / blockquote >

minus the spaces
NGDGT

I only use a troll avatar now because the freestatists always call me a troll. So I make it easier for them, it used to be that every time they responded to something I said they would spend about a paragraph explaining why I was a troll. Now that I have a troll avatar it has reduced to about a sentence.