Last night there was a DUI checkpoint in Manchester, NH. Some activists caught wind about the event and created signs to warn drivers to divert their paths. Dozens of activists participated, and probably hundreds of drivers were saved from unwanted interactions with police. Some people handed out “Know Your Rights” cards to passers-by on the street. I took video throughout the night to document this effective activism. One of the highlights of my night was rolling through the traffic stop with James “Robin Hood” Cleaveland. The checkpoint begins 5 minutes into the video. Here’s how it went:
Another great moment happened when James came back to speak with the Captain on foot. Although the police wouldn’t interact with him, James preached like a pastor from the sidewalk: “What if this isn’t about safety? What if this is about control?” he asked the police, who stood in stunned silence.
Full playlist of all DerrickJ’s raw video from that night:
seems your going out of your way to get a negative reaction when you should strive for a positive interaction.
home, my reply
when is freekeene gona let me post img? voluntary service to kummunity begins here.
http://postimg.org/image/4jh7pnrw7/dfcfb49e/
It seems to me that Garret was going out of his way to reveal truth. If he were seeking a negative reaction, he could have taunted the man who tried to give orders and intimidate him. Instead, he attempted to engage in civil discourse.
if you knowingly do something (chalking in front of the court house in this instance) that you know will cause a negative reaction, then it is obvious he is seeking a negative reaction. even more evident is the cameras being at the ready.
Your reasoning is flawed. If I stand up to a bully and assert my rights, I’m not seeking a negative reaction. If I confront a friend who is an alcoholic and tell him there is a problem and he needs help, that does not mean I’m seeking a negative reaction. If a parent corrects their child from bad behavior, they are not seeking a negative reaction. In these cases for example, the negative reaction is an unintended byproduct of seeking a larger goal. And as for the camera, that actually backs up what I said, that Garret was going out… Read more »
so the court officer was correcting her bad behavior? i can see that
Freedom of speech is bad behavior now?
sometimes when it’s used with bad taste it can be, do you not agree? just because you can say something doesn’t always mean you should.
going to a black panther rally and yelling racial slurs, you can do it but does it make it right?
No one was chalking anything in bad taste at the court house.
You posting anti-free speech messages on the free keene blog is in bad taste, but no one is going to call the police on you.
can you say that the court officer didn’t stop it before something like the “fuck the dea” was chalked?
Are you advocating for preemptive arrests now? And from what I can tell, the court officer didn’t stop anything.
did i say anything about arrests or are you grasping?
No, but your “court officer” did. So you don’t agree with arresting people for chalking “fuck the dea”?
that would go back to the ” just because i can doesn’t always mean i should” idea. the level of maturity it takes to chalk “fuck the dea” shows a certain lack of class. taking free speech and using it also takes some responsibility to use it correctly.
Agreed. And the level of maturity to threaten to throw someone in a cage for writing “fuck the dea” in chalk indicates psychosis.
you call it a cage but i bet you would call it something different for a child molester or a murderer.
Nope, still a cage.
would it be ok then to have this “cage”
That is a good question, one I’m not prepared to get into an in-depth discussion about for now. I’ll just say that prisoners do have rights, even if guilty of heinous crimes where there is a real victim. It is unacceptable to violate those rights whatever the reason may be, be it overcrowding, etc. When we do, we lower ourselves to their level.
DId you watch the vid? Who did the correcting here? The man issuing threats went back into his hole, and Garret and Mariah continued what they were doing.
If she dresses in sexy clothes, then it’s obvious she is seeking to be raped. This is your basic argument.
not even close but thank you for trying the rape card and saying you have nothing intelligent to say.
Thank you for showing us you don’t understand basic human rights and seek to blame the victim. Have a nice day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming
again not even close but again showing the arrogance and naive ideals of your movement
So how is your argument different than blaming the victim? Show everyone in the “movement” why their ideals are naive because they don’t approve of blaming the victim.
where in any of my argument did i come close to blaming the victim? i was blaming the original aggressor. you have not shown how i have “blamed the victim”
this is a major failure with this movement. the people who support it can not actually prove what they say.
People who are chalking on a public side walk are now an aggressor when they practice free speech? How are they the aggressor?
if you do it with the sole purpose of causing a negative reaction then yes you are. if you go out of your way to piss someone off, you are an aggressor.
I don’t believe the sole purpose of chalking is to cause a negative reaction. I think it’s a fun way to express your 1st amendment rights.
You’re really arguing that they’re hurting your feelings with smiley faces drawn with chalk. I don’t think your doing a good job convincing anyone that they are an aggressor for drawing with chalk.
lol, i never said anything about my feelings getting hurt but nice try an fail. that was a pathetic attempt at an ad hom attack. the sole purpose of chalking may not be but doing right in front of a court house really have very few reasons behind it. trying to justify this act is only lowering any credibility you may have had once.
So you claim to know what people are thinking when they chalk and where they chalk? Have you tried pitching a chalk whisperer show to a cable network?
did i claim to know what they were thinking at all? no this is another case of you being dishonest. typical of FK supporters.
You said you knew what the sole purpose of their chalking was and called them an aggressor. You told Kris that they were wrong when they said garret was seeking the truth.
This is another lame attempt at backpedaling you were caught in a lie. Does calling other people dishonest when you’re caught lying help you sleep at night?
lol, did i state i knew what they were thinking or was it an observation of their actions? you really are having a hard time not grasping at straws here. you should probably stop while your ahead. if i see someone chalking “heil hitler” outside of a jewish temple i don’t need to know what he is thinking to see his actions are solely an attempt at a negative reaction. this taken with their history can lead you to a logical conclusion. im sorry if you have tunnel vision to this fact. supporters of FK need to learn to look… Read more »
So now you claim that you don’t know what they were thinking, but some how know the sole purpose of why they were doing it. That’s a funny contradiction.
No one was chalking anything about Hitler, blowing things out of proportion again I see.
Because you compare the courthouse to a religious temple it all makes sense.
The courthouse is your temple.
You want anyone that chalks messages against caging of peaceful people at your temple to be seen as an aggressor, even when the people in the courthouse/temple are the only ones being the actual aggressor.
wow LOL are you really reaching that far? you really can not actually believe the shit you just typed.
You’re the one that compared a courthouse to a religious temple.
how did i compare them? or is the truth that i used a temple in an example of something being done against someone that would bring a known negative reaction? really wish you could be a little bit more honest and stop trying the strawman attempts.
So you’re using an example that you say has nothing in common with each other and then complaining about strawman attempts?
Do people in your temple steal the homes of the people who refuse to pay them tribute like the tax parasites at the courthouse?
do you actually know what a strawman is?
Yes. Your distorted and exaggerated example of chalking about hitler at a temple is a perfect example of a strawman. When in reality people were not chalking racist remarks in front of a temple, but were chalking in front of a violent monopoly’s kangaroo court house.
so you actually don’t know what a strawman is. good to know. go google it and understand you just made an ass out of yourself
So explain it for everyone, how is your Hitler chalking tall tale not a strawman in this context?
I’ll tell you *again* why your hitler argument is a strawman and spell it out– Person 2 argues against a false but superficially similar proposition Y, as if that were an argument against Person 1’s position. (person 2 compares chalking pro hitler messages in front of a Jewish temple to people chalking nothing related to hitler in front of a courthouse in Keene, NH)
I’ll google it for you, because I am a nice guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
did i misrepresent your argument? no. you however did misrepresent mine. thanks for the google link showing that you actually did commit the strawman..
I never misrepresented your argument, I declared it bogus from the beginning, If you read the link you’ll see that your hitler comments about a jewish temple is a strawman plain and simple.
you really do not understand what a strawman is plain and simple
The only reason you’re here is to envoke a negative reaction, you’re doing the same thing as chalking heil hitler at a jewish temple. Which is a completely legitimate argument and not a straw-man according to you.
Tell us how your argument is different, since you do have intelligent things to say. I pointed out how your reasoning is flawed. Am I correct? If not, how am I not?
And it’s not a “rape card” unless thinkliberty is claiming he has been raped.
it’s the rape card when you try and insert it for emotional effect because everyone hates rape. by inserting it into this argument, that has nothing to do with forced sexual activities, he is trying to 1) draw attention away from the actual topic and 2) draw up support based solely on an emotional level.
That is not a “rape card” but it doesn’t matter.
I gave you three examples of how your statement “if you knowingly do something that you know will cause a negative reaction, then it is obvious you are seeking a negative reaction” isn’t true.
I was not 1) drawing attention away from the actual topic or 2) drawing up support based solely on an emotional issue. thinkliberty wasn’t either, but that’s fine if you think if he was.
So what is your response to my objection?
that the logic behind your objection is flawed and looks a lot like tunnel vision.
if i knowingly play my music too loud at my house in the middle of the day knowing you have to work at night, i am knowingly going to provoke a negative reaction from you.
My objection was not flawed, it was simply pointing out that your statement isn’t ALWAYS true. If you had included the word “Sometimes” before it, then I would have had no issue with it. My purpose was to get us both on the same page in the interest of discussion. Now that we can move past that, the question is whether Garret and Mariah were seeking a negative reaction, or was a negative reaction a byproduct of seeking a greater goal? I tend to believe people unless they give me reason not to. On this blog post, Garret concluded “One… Read more »
i won’t deny he could have handled it differently.
That is not a “rape card” but it doesn’t matter.
We have given you four examples demonstrating the falsehood of “if you knowingly do something that you know will cause a negative reaction, then it is obvious you are seeking a negative reaction.”
Do you need a fifth? How about a bank robber? He knows he will cause a negative reaction, but it’s the cash, not the negative reaction he is seeking.
if i go down to a black panthers rally and shout a bunch of racial slurs, what sort of reaction am i seeking? them to embrace me with open arms? if i chalk “heil hitler” infront of a jewish temple, do i expect them to offer me a cup of coffee?
Not sure if the state is in the business of striving for positive interactions with human beings.
–Alexander Haig
you do realize that bailiff is going to take to drinking ? his tidy world has been turned upside down in the last few years. he knows he is slowly being defeated. contrast his attitude in this video with some from 18 months ago.
Stfu you loser douchebag.
bane,
let me guess – you must be member of the parasitic sector of the economy.
I was thinking the same thing.
I guess you’re new here. Bane is Ian’s sock-puppet. Ian thinks that by creating this super-obnoxious character and associating it with the antis he can turn public opinion against the bad guys. It might have worked except Ian has no sense of proportion and he makes his Bane character act so retarded that it’s obvious the goal is to make the antis look bad, not to harm Free Keene. You can tell Bane apart from the real antis because they respond to what people say and make arguments against Free Keene, but the Bane just keeps repeating the same three… Read more »
Possible, but I have encountered other trolls as persistently immune to rationality and civility elsewhere on the internet where Ian has no access.
Exactly, that’s where Ian got the idea. But Ian didn’t notice those other trolls weren’t pretending to have an agenda so they had no reason to act slightly intelligent. If Bane were real he wouldn’t be so obviously retarded since that harms his alleged agenda and promotes Ian’s cause.
No I’m not! You can check my youtube channel, or stop by my dojo to see that I am a very real person.
“I am Spartacus!”
I can’t tell if you’re joking or being serious. Do you have any evidence to back that up or are you just speculating? What arguments against Free Keene do people make? All I recall reading are character attacks, not unlike those performed by Bane, albeit usually with a bit more… ahem.. sophistication.
I see what you’re getting at. You’re saying they’re all sock puppets. To be honest I never even considered that, but I think you may be correct.
I apologize. It’s my tourettes acting up again. I am incredibly ashamed of it, will you ever forgive me?
It never surprises me how little you actually know about the law, freetard – in regards to anything.
A law is either a rationally discovered universal truth about human nature, or an arbitrary decree enforced against peaceful people through aggression. It doesn’t surprise me to see your preference for equivocation and incapacity for rational discussion, though. Can you by any chance stop spewing insults and fallacies long enough to actually talk like a grown-up?
Bane went to public school…its not possible for him to act like a grown-up. He’s a victim in reality.
You understand me, and you complete me. Thank you for your welcoming shoulder!
I apologize. After reading your eloquent response, I have decided to take your suggestion seriously and will retire for the night to ruminate on the relationships of states and individuals. A quick google search has shown me that the state doesn’t hold up it’s end of the social contract (providing security in exchange for consent), as it has time and again ruled it has no obligation to protect its citizens. I clearly have a lot to think about. I might log in again in a few hours to comment more, but know that I am a sick man (tourettes) and… Read more »
Keep us updated. lol.
A law is something agreed to by the people’s representatives in our form of government. Now, you might try that whole phony-baloney “sovereign man” nonsense, but you and everyone else must abide by the laws of the land regardless if you agree with them or not. You’re obviously free to leave if you don’t agree with our system of government, but there it is.
Bane stop crying like a victim and do something about it if you don’t like these “Freetards.” Your fearless leaders cannot stop them so I guess its up to liberty cowards like you to try something else. .
homes, sry yo boi been absent. yo boi brin’ yo fresh meat, the choicest kind
http://postimg.org/gallery/2k3knloou/18be189e/
originals are $500 each all proceeds go to fk for giving yo boi a platform, unlike the other NH pickpocketer, gungrabber, gadfly site.
Quite silly and pointless. Grow up little boy.