Violence Is Always Unacceptable

February 20, 2012 by Bradley Jardis
Filed under: Court, Issues, National, News, Update

I was just reading the comment section on the Ridley Report regarding Keene Circuit Court-District Division Presiding Judge Edward Burke breaking the law and thus far getting away with it. I was very saddened to see the following comment:

I am sending this comment, and every one that is brought to my attention afterwards, to the Cheshire County Attorney and the Administrative Office of the Courts Security Director. Judge Burke may have broken the law, but he also deserves its protection… even if it can be proven that at times he doesn’t afford other people the same courtesy.

Please, if you’re a New Hampshire resident and this upsets you, reach out to your local state representatives and/or state senator. You can also contact the following:

Robert T. Mittelholzer, Esquire, Executive Secretary
Committee on Judicial Conduct
74 Exeter Road
Newmarket, NH 03857
Phone: (603) 292-1825
Fax: (603) 292-1827
rmittelholzer@nhjcc.com

If you see any threats of violence, please, notify the authorities immediately. These things need to be dealt with in a civilized manner.

UPDATE: Unless you’re the authorities, as you’ve already notified yourself (and the public you answer to) that you intend on being violent.

Shame on you.

Keih

It is almost certainly nothing. The majority of comments on youtube videos are troll comments.

BTW, it wasn't a threat. If you read it, you can tell that whichever troll wrote it, did not write it to be a threat. The troll was just trolling.
Anton Lee

agreed. The guy doesn't need to be shot and killed, he needs to stop his lying and naked aggression against others. He's simply too big for his britches, and should be looked at with disgust from the public until he makes right on the wrongs he is committing.

He calls his wrongs "justice". . .
Bradley Jardis

That absolutely is a threat, we're talking about a powerful public official who is now the center of public controversy.

You can't make jokes like that, they need to be taken seriously for the judge's safety.
http://FlamingFreedom.com Dale

Whether it's a serious threat or just someone venting, it looks really bad. When I see crap like that, I can't help but wonder if an agent provocateur posted it to make critics of the government seem violent. I don't know if I'd react as Bradley suggests, but It certainly doesn't help the cause of trying to achieve greater accountability from government officials and I wish people would think before they post threats.
david

It's a threat.The word "threat" in law is very subjective or hard to nail down etc etc Like a lot of words in LAW ..but trust me ..they would nail that one down just fine.lol

Thats probably a felony
http://FlamingFreedom.com Dale

I would just like to point out that anyone can comment on a Ridley Report and if someone were encouraging violence like that on any sort of Free Keene media, they would be banned and ostracized. It bears repeating that Free Keene is committed to strictly peaceful means for positive change.
david

Im just guessing of course
Mike Tiner

I don't know that I'd go to the cops with it just because he's a public official. If someone made the same comment about you Brad, I'd tell you about it then let you make the decision as to how to handle it.
MaineShark

I don't know about "strictly peaceful." I'm a believer in poetic justice, so I'd be amused to see Burke in one of his own beloved prisons. That's not "strictly peaceful," since it would probably involve cops dragging him there. But it wouldn't be poetic unless it came after an investigation and trial in the system to which he has sold his soul.

But vigilantes are not what NH needs.

Brad, much as I appreciate what you're trying to do by notifying the authorities, I do think it's less than ideal. My policy in such situations has always been to notify the intended victim of such threats. That way, he can choose whether he wants to handle it privately, or through the police, or by exposing the threatener to the media, or whatever. As the victim, he should have the choice in how to address it.
david

I think Brad and dale are 100% right.. In my humble non freestater opinion
david

Right On Brad!…
Sam A. Robrin

Looks like inept hyperbole to me.

There needs to be awareness of another danger (one observable in the behavior of police, though for different reasons): that of pretending that an obvious false statement is true, for purposes of exercising restraint over another. This is particularly problematic when anger is socially proscribed, and denied and repressed, as is often the case in pacifistic circles.
http://www.jraxis.com/ J’raxis 270145

The criminal threatening statute requires either “physical conduct” (RSA 631:4, I(a)) or that the “person threatens to commit” a criminal act (RSA 631:4, I(c), (d), (e)). Person A saying that B should have C done to him doesn’t make any concrete statement that A himself will commit C.

I suppose a contrived argument could be made that a statement on an online forum could fall under RSA 631:4, I(b), that the “person place[d] any object or graffiti on the property of another with a purpose to coerce or terrorize any person.”

Distasteful as it is, this just sounds like some online malcontent expressing his anger. It is, or at least ought to be, protected political speech—but we all know what the State thinks of constitutional and natural rights nowadays, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they prosecuted this.
http://www.jraxis.com/ J’raxis 270145

Oops, hit submit too soon.

I suppose a contrived argument could be made that a statement on an online forum could fall under RSA 631:4, I(b), that the “person place[d] any object or graffiti on the property of another with a purpose to coerce or terrorize any person.” But the State then has to prove that was the person’s purpose—not just an expression of anger or opinion—and I doubt that prosecuting stuff like this was the intent of this clause. That it talks of “graffiti” and “objects” means it was probably meant to be used against bigots spray-painting swastikas on people’s houses or erecting burning crosses in their front yard, not harassing online forum posters.
FK reader

Hurrah. You make a good point. This is a very important thing I think always needs more emphasizing. Violence is EVERYTHING I find abhorrent about our civilization.
FK reader

Sam A. Robrin,

The arguments that violent revolutionaries use is that there is not enough violence. That only violence will stop the much larger evils of war and so on. But what we advocate is not pacifism, but a power that is much stronger: that of non-violent action. Howard Zinn called it a power that cannot be suppressed.
david

We already know they dont have to go by those papers you cut and pasted above
FK reader

J’raxis 270145, I agree with you. It does sound like some "online malcontent expressing his anger." It is probably nothing more than that. But it serves as a good example of what we are not representative of. Violence is the problem, not the solution.
Bradley Jardis

Blog updated.
matt

Okay Dale….so I guess unless someone comes right out and says something crystal clear it is bad, but if it is inferred it is okay…? Because "jasper" in the blog dated February 16, 2012 – titled Police ‘Tank’ Purchase Riles New Hampshire Town by Radley Balko – he infers a desire/wish/thought that the Keene Police use the Bearcat for ice rescues – meaning it's weight is such that they will go through the ice and perish. Peaceful? Not even close.
david

EXACTLY MATT………..you've out lines EXACTLY how the strictures go.wow….lol

(thats my new word to use "strictures")
david

Did anyone ever tell you you were a very astute observer matt?……………No I suppose they wouldn't
matt

I have no idea what You're talking about. I am raising a legitimate point.
http://dailyanarchist.com Seth

I disagree that a statement like that is a threat.

For example, people often say things like "Anthony Casey should be killed." But saying that does not necessarily preclude the so-called rule of law. Perhaps what they mean is, "I believe she is guilty and if found as such, she should get the death penalty."

If a person says "I'm going to kill Casey Anthony," then that would be a threat. Yet even then, it is my understanding that saying or writing those things are unlikely to get one in trouble with the so-called authorities unless there is credible intent to act upon said threats.

Even people that say or write death threats to the President are rarely acted upon and often only entail temporary arrest and interrogation.

I understand Bradley's desire to be copacetic, but running to a criminal organization to alert them of perceived infractions of the non-aggression principle is horribly misguided.
Sam A. Robrin

Oh, it's beyond "horribly misguided"–it's ten times the very infraction Brad says this anonymous hack committed. To take such an iffy statement and turn it over to the very people you are rightly opposing is to betray every principle he's evinced. Brad is deliberately placing someone in jeopardy of having his life destroyed over an offhand remark–and destroyed by people whose respect for justice and law is made clear by their adherence to it. Criticize the guy, ostracize him, disassociate yourself from him, caution others not to do as he did–but to turn him over to the State is the equivalent of treason.

I often write in a hyperbolic style. When I do, I try to phrase my words in such a way that no one could possibly take them seriously–but it's easy to underestimate the canny ingenuity of human stupidity. Henceforth, I won't be able to write anything more here without fearing that I may get the midnight knock on the door, due to some misapprehension Brad found worthy of snitching upon.
Trollstomper

Oh the irony. Bradley, you're suggesting to use The State as a means of strong-arming and example making. If you think jumping through the hoops is going to get any form of justice, they've already won.
theKINGofKEENE

I, too, think Burke should be shot and killed.

No, that is NOT a threat.

A simple, even if stupidly, crudely, and rudely expressed

statement of general contempt,

is not a threat.

I believe that you have all jumped the gun.

You've shot your wad.

Who will get killed in the election?

Did you see the Patriots slaughters the Bills?

It's all rhetoric, and food for idea-starved

hissy-fitters, and drama queens,

like all you schmucks…

And I sure as shit know my DRAMA QUEENS
http://FlamingFreedom.com Dale

No, Matt. Inferring violence isn't okay either. Who is Jasper? Just as I pointed out about the Ridley Reports, anyone can comment on a Blog post here. That doesn't mean they're involved with Free Keene or at all representative of people who are. In fact, many of the people who post comments here are quite oppositional.
matt

Dale – then what is the point of a moderator? This entire blog is about zero tolerance for violence, yet someone thinks it is a good idea for KPD to sink in a lake. So what is it – it's not okay when it can be used as evidence against someone at FK (as Bradley Jardis suggests) – or is it okay when the comment is stated against state officials when it isn't likely to be used.?. Personally, in regard to the youtube comment – eh – it's youtube,,,,if you go to the kids page, he is just that – a kid. Now, I am always always always called a troll – and I never suggest violence (whether real or wished) on ANYONE. I have no idea who jasper is btw.
david

i think my comment got deleted…wow… thats new
david

my bad…i got this thread mixed up with another thread…they r similar and matt i was just busting you whatevers
N.H. Sup. Ct.

We will kill Burke. Please address your comments to the NH Supreme Court.
Aless

If violence is always wrong, why report the comment to an organisation which can only provide more violence as a remedy?

If you disagree with the comment (as I do, I do not think Judge Burk should be killed), why not just write that as your post?

Surely the only purpose of contacting law enforcement is so that the person who wrote that might get beaten up or dragged from his home.

There are a lot of people who think some people should be killed. If you're reporting this guy to cops then why not report Newt Gingrich? In his presidential campaign he stated that people who bring 2oz of marijuana into the US should be killed. Any difference?

Mr Jardis, I thought you believed in peace, but what you are doing here is combating talking about violence with actual violence. That makes you the most violent guy in the room
Freedom_Fighter

I think your posting priveleges should be removed from this site Jardis. You are obviously an anti-liberty sympathizer. You seek to use terrorists to strong arm those whom you disagree with and you have lost all credibility and are no longer trust worthy. You actually bring discredit and disrepute to freekeene.com Someone says something that you don't like or disagree with and you go to the police. Only serves to show that you are here to do nothing but spy for the police and quite frankly, for all we know, you could have wrote that comment yourself so you can make this group look bad. Are you an agent provocetuer Bradly Jardis? Sure seems to me like you are.
Alex

That NOT a threat by any measure or definition that has ever existed in the history of the philosophy of law or ethics. It is categorically and unequivocally considered an expression of what one thinks somebody deserves, which is entirely different than an actual threat. One has to be either intentionally obtuse, or a legal and philisophical ignoramus of the highest order, to be incapable of differentiating such a trivial substantive distinction.

Oh, that is beside the fact that that comment is soundly protected free speech under the Brandenburg litmus test. But then you apparently already knew that (see your other comment where you recognized this legal fact), but decided to report the person anyway, making it pretty damn clear that you did that for no other reason than to be a vindictive douchebag, thinking you can cause trouble for this person.
Couch Serf

FreeKeene won't cut ties with their token ex-cop. How could they legitimize themselves if they did?
Dale

"I think Brad and dale are 100% right." -David

I just wanted to point out that it was just a YouTube comment and I wasn't agreeing with Brad's actions in response to the comment. I just thought it was worth saying that it wasn't representative of Free Keene. I'm sure I never would have heard about it if Brad hadn't brought so much attention to it with this over-reaction and I doubt anyone would have.

As for moderators, I'm not a moderator here, only on the Shire Society forum. I'm speaking toward the policies I follow there. I don't think these comments are as moderated. It would be a much bigger job since there is much more activity here and anonymous people can post. But I would imagine there is a similar policy here to the extent that they are able to ban people (who will just come back and post with a new account or anonymously).
david-keene

brad HAD to "over react" .. or react "over the top" to make it clear that isn't condoned.. because he has a case going and crap like that can SINK a case he's working like a motherfucker on….. so it had to be "zero tolerance". anyway thats my take. And I agree with him because I want him to win that case too.

As I would think all liberty folk would want him to win this case .

And hence be on board with the zero tolerance for that stupid crap .

Who needs stupid assed Achilles heel shit like some fucking dope threatening a judge to sink a VERY important case .

That is why I AM TOTALLY 100% PERCENT in agreement with his actions in that regard . With all that said threatening a judge is stupid besides those reasons
Kager

"If you see any threats of violence, please, notify the authorities immediately. These things need to be dealt with in a civilized manner."

The 'authorities' seem like strange people to go to if you want things dealt with civilly.