Keene Bullies Taunt, Grab at Camera

UPDATE: You never know who’s watching. Vigilant videographer Garret Ean captured the moment with his video camera. The video is so funny, I made it a GIF:

Justin Paquette Fail on Make A Gif

Today I used children’s sidewalk chalk to make art in the park. I drew pictures of a smiling anthropomorphic heart, a picture of the earth, and a picture of the park’s gazebo and fountain. You might call that kids’ stuff, a waste of time, immature, or stupid. I call it free expression, and I think it’s one of the most beautiful and indomitable parts of the human spirit.

I’ll tell you what’s immature: Bullying. Name-calling. Stealing.

Today, Tuesday, June 17th 2014, Pro-chalk and Anti-chalk people were interviewed by a national news crew about their ongoing “Chalk War” and “Robin Hooding”. They drew pictures for the cameras, but they were removed just minutes later by anti-chalk factions. They were replaced immediately after removal.

yankee_assault2014-06-03-23h18m27s2

VIOLENT: James Michael Phillips

While I was walking away from the event, one girl standing outside a Mexican restaurant, said, “We know your’e filming us right now.” I responded, “Actually, I’m not. Should I be?” I got out my camera and began recording. The girl who commented to me disappeared, as did another boy, James Michael Phillips. He’s the man who hospitalized another person for using chalk. They both weren’t brave enough to make their comments on camera. One boy however, who has since been identified as Justin Paquette, taunted, “Nice PURSE! And PINK shorts.”

When I began recording him, however, he wasn’t so courageous. He came up to my camera and twice tried to grab it from me, but he was too slow. I look forward to one day living in a world where adults can walk down the street without being harassed for the clothing they wear or the purses they carry. I will model adult behavior for those who missed the lesson during their upbringing. It starts with keeping your hands to yourself.

Please teach this young man some manners.

Justin Paquette: This boy struggles with keeping his hands to himself.

23 Comments

  1. Don’t these people have jobs? Do they have nothing better to do during a workweek afternoon than wash chalk away and antagonize people?

    • Don’t you people have jobs? Do you all have nothing better to do during a work week afternoon than write chalk graffitti all over the place and antagonize people?

    • I finding highly amusing and ironic that a FreeKeene loser would question if other people have jobs. Good one.

  2. No hitting, no stealing, no lying. Some people can’t comprehend the basics taught in kindergarten.

    • Respecting people’s personal space and privacy is something the FreeKeene douche squad doesn’t seem to comprehend as well.

    • NO HITTING!

  3. Actually you are provoking this guy. Your video is prima facie evidence aganist any claim you might have of assault. Run along, little boy. You keep it up and you’re going to get seriously hurt – and it will be entirely your fault.

    • How wil he get hurt? Are you going to hurt him?

    • If he keeps provoking people like that he will eventually get the beatdown he so richly deserves.

    • NO HITTING! -

    • I’m still trying to figure out the logic of a freekeene hater coming to the freekeene website and posting “run along.” Isn’t this blog where the freekeerers run along to? If you really want them to get away from you, then why are you following them here?

    • NO HITTING! THIS IS NOT DIFFICULT!

  4. Thank you Derrick J.

  5. Complaining about so-called “bullying” is un-libertarian. A true libertarian would defend the bully’s right to non-aggressive free speech, no matter how offensive.

    • err, um.. no. there is a line between non-aggressive free speech and intimidation/bullying. the latter is, in fact, aggression. a libertarian society is one that uses the freedom of decent people, via their own free activity, to punish the aggressors in society. this is well-demonstrated by the above video. if i am walking down the street minding my own business and an individual or a group begins to berate me and attempt to intimidate me, a wonderfully libertarian response is to capture that interaction on video and embarrass the individuals who “started it” (and by doing so, hopefully change their behavior) by forcing them to see themselves as others do, and to force them to be seen by others, as they have essentially relinquished their pre-existing right to be left alone by taking that right away from others.

      myob. live and let live. but when the inevitable conflict occurs, be the bigger person, the more mature person eschewing threats of violence, but by all means, stand up for yourself and get it on video.

    • if i am walking down the street minding my own business and an “individual or a group begins to berate me and attempt to intimidate me, a wonderfully libertarian response is to capture that interaction on video and embarrass the individuals who “started it”…by forcing them to see themselves as others do, and to force them to be seen by others, as they have essentially relinquished their pre-existing right to be left alone by taking that right away from others.

      You’re saying that “berating” justifies responding with force? Webster’s defines berating as to scold or condemn vehemently and at length. Rothbard tells us, “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Neither scolding nor condemning constitute using or threatening physical violence, and therefore to berate someone is no violation of the nonaggression axiom.

      Yet you say an appropriate response is (your words) to “forc[e] them to see themselves as others do,” and “to force them to be seen by others.” Although there has been no violation of the NAP, by your own admission you are advocating force. That makes you the aggressor, and no libertarian.

      As if that wasn’t bad enough, you’ve also alleged some non-existent “right to be left alone.” There’s no such thing, not while you’re walking down a public road. You have a right to be free from aggression, yes. But you have no right to be left alone; you have no right to be free from scolding, condemnation, nor berating.

      Here’s a test for you to see what you really believe. Please review this story by self-described “liberty activist” Ian Freeman, in which he writes:

      As I opened and held the door for him, he says, “Don’t open the door for me and don’t talk to me, you moron.”

      Clearly this is a case of a person attempting to assert a right to be left alone, which you claim to recognize. He didn’t hit Ian, he didn’t threaten to hit Ian, he didn’t infringe nor threaten to infringe on Ian’s private property. All he did was verbally to express his desire to be “left alone,” which according to you is his right.

      What did Ian do?

      I told him that wasn’t very nice…About a half-hour later, he came out and went to his car. As he did so, I snapped a couple of photos and asked him his name…

      So here we have someone asserting a right to be left alone by saying “don’t talk to me,” in response to which Ian ignores his request and continues to talk to him while following him.

      My question for you, Mr. McCarthy: you claim to recognize a “right to be left alone.” If a person A says “don’t talk to me” to person B, and person B continues to talk to him, then follows him to his car, continues to talk to him, and even takes his picture, are you consistent enough to admit that if that if person A has a right to be left alone, then person B has infringed that right? And, moreover, if, as you claim, that right is recognized by libertarians, then person B is no libertarian?

    • you’re getting caught up in semantics (legal aggression and force vs. contextual aggression and force). you are simply “forcing” the other person to -feel the same infringement of a “right” (as would be agreed upon by decent people, not by law, at least not initially) to be left alone and not intimidated/berated when going about one’s life without infringing upon others as they have “forced” upon you by violating your “common decency applied right to be left alone”.

      these are not involving the use of state “force” or the threat of violence. you could simply replace “force” with “cause” in this case and the meaning holds. in that sense, your argument is a semantic waste of time. it’s like saying you don’t have a “right” to be in an elevator without having someone farting and wafting it in your face. or simply having someone berating you in the elevator. of course you do, and decency should prevail. if it doesn’t, and your “right” has been infringed, you then have the “right” to “force” the other individual to suffer embarrassment for his actions by videotaping him and broadcasting his actions. it’s about non-violent escalation of infringement of common decency rules of conduct as a countermeasure to the innate tendency of certain individuals to attempt to dominate and intimidate others who are themselves not infringing upon anyone else.

      so yes, of course the individual has the “legal right” to make comments about someone in a public space (up to the point where it constitutes legal harassment which generally requires a continuation of the behavior over a period of time).

      i don’t think anyone is arguing this but you. i doubt you will see this, even though it’s in bold, but perhaps if i make the paragraph excessively long it will force you to take notice.. maybe if i hum a tune….. da da daaaa da da da daaaaaa da da daaaa daaa daaa… i’ll repeat it one more time though – i don’t think anyone is arguing this but you – that should do it.

      but by doing so he has made the first infringement upon “common decency law”, and therefore opens himself up to infringement of a relatively similar degree.

      here’s a basic test for you, do you think a “true libertarian” would tend to spend time mocking and insulting the appearance or clothing of another individual going about their day simply in order to hurt that person’s feelings or to impress his peers? why or why not? he generally would not, because a true libertarian is attempting to find a peaceful coexistence with others wherein the least amount of state force is necessary to resolve conflict, by virtue of the individuals themselves attempting to behave in a manner conducive to peaceful cooperation.

      as to your example case, it’s not a very libertarian act that you have described, however, what was the original “infringement of decency”? the holding open of a door, or the name-calling? i would argue it was the name-calling, however, even so, since the first driver of the interaction was the holding of the door, the true libertarian thing to do, assuming the person involved was a private citizen just going about his day, would not be to follow him and take pictures and continue to harass (strike, replace with “bother”, as you’re very literal) the person. on the surface, it sounds like the libertarian thing to do would have been to accept that the person didn’t want the door held, accept that, and to walk away. does the action taken make the person “not a true libertarian”? well, no, it simply makes him a human being, because even Jesus Christ got angry at times.

      that’s it for me. have a great life and good luck fighting the good fight as it appears you are generally involved in fighting.

    • Several centuries ago, the word to describe what we now know as libertarian was “liberal.” When the opponents of freedom succeeded in corrupting that word, those erstwhile liberals then needed to qualify the term, giving us “classical liberal.”

      More recently, libertarians felt comfortable being identified as “convervative.” Then came the neo-conservatives, and with them the need to qualify the old meaning of the term as “paleo-conservative.”

      Now, with the word libertarian fairly conveying the meaning of one who supports the non-aggression axiom, it is those such as David McCarthy who perform the contemporary work of modifying its meaning, and emasculating it into uselessness.

      When I called McCarthy out on his misuse of words, his response was typical. He says:

      you’re getting caught up in semantics (legal aggression and force vs. contextual aggression and force).

      Of course I’m getting caught up in semantics. I’m conversing with someone who is actively violating the semantics of the key terms used to describe libertarianism: “force” and “right.” It is McCarthy who is attempting to bifurcate these unambiguous terms. Aggression is aggression. There is no such thing as “legal” as distinct from “contextual” aggression. Here he takes steps down the path to undermining the clear, established meaning of words, and so to render the word “libertarian” useless for anything other than deception.

      He even admits his own misuse of words, when he says,

      you could simply replace “force” with “cause” in this case and the meaning holds.

      If McCarthy meant “cause” then why did he not write what he meant? Obviously because that would not serve his agenda.

      McCarthy is attempting to redifine the word “right,” from its proper denotation of something whose infringement is recognized–be it by a State actor or private arbitrator–as giving rise to legal action. McCarthy would redefine “right” to mean “desire.”

      it’s like saying you don’t have a “right” to be in an elevator without having someone farting and wafting it in your face. or simply having someone berating you in the elevator. of course you do…

      McCarthy says “of course,” but gives no support, no evidence, no authority why “of course.” In fact what says is false: there is no such right to be free of offensive behavior in an elevator, and I defy McCarthy to provide any support for his claim that such a right exists. His abuse of language is plausible in his mind because, as I observed, when he says right, he really means desire.

      He also redefines “force:”

      if..your “right” has been infringed, you then have the “right” to “force” the other individual to suffer embarrassment for his actions by videotaping him and broadcasting his actions.

      Note the use of quotation marks are McCarthy’s, indicating his consiousness of guilt. Here, he is saying that when your meaningless “right” is violated, you are justified is using meaningless “force.” The strategy McCarthy is using to render the term “libertarian” meaningless is to render meaningless the words used in defining it. But “force” as used to define aggression is a matter of physical reality, the contact of two physical bodies. And a “right” is something expressly recognized by a legal authority. McCarthy’s own use of quotes show that he knows he is being deceptive.

      To his credit, McCarthy, aware of the implausibility of what he’s saying, feels compelled to admit his abuse of language:

      so yes, of course the individual has the “legal right” to make comments about someone in a public space (up to the point where it constitutes legal harassment which generally requires a continuation of the behavior over a period of time).

      But if he were sincere, that would have been his entire post. Because such honesty would undermine his agenda, he buries that admission of truth amidst a bounty of distracting rhetoric, including this fine example of nonsense:

      maybe if i hum a tune….. da da daaaa da da da daaaaaa da da daaaa daaa daaa… i’ll repeat it one more time though – i don’t think anyone is arguing this but you – that should do it.

      What he means by “that should do it” is “that should give me an excuse to claim I admitted the truth, while doing my best to obsfucate it in text designed to cause the reader’s eye to ignore it.

      McCarthy offers some other fine attempts to undermine the clarity of the libertarian philosophy with subjective vagarity. For example he introduces to us the term “common decency law.” He gives no citation, no source, no definition. Apparently he just thinks that whatever that is, it sounds good enough to use without any justification. But a moment’s thought will reveal this is exactly the sort of orwellian terminology used by censors, tyrants, and other opponents of free speech to justify their most anti-libertarian oppression of individual liberty. By basing “law” on something as subjective and undefinable as “common decency” rather than the observable physical reality of aggression, McCarthy would deprive the law, and consequently libertarianism, of all certainty, all predictability, all meaning.

      If you have any doubt in the truth of my analysis, you may easily relieve yourself of that doubt by reading McCarthy’s closing words:

      that’s it for me.

      That’s it for him. By pre-emptively bowing out of a discussion before being confronted with the rebuttal he knows is coming, he hopes to be able to claim that his failure to respond to that rebuttal will have been due to his prior decision to end the discussion, rather than the fact that there is no plausible response he can make to that rebuttal, other than the to abandon the anti-semantical position he has staked out.

      So, dear reader, I ask you this: how many libertarians do you know who shrink in fear from a debate, much less make excuses to avoid the debate in the first place?

    • i have a few succinct responses: one would be “the fastest way to doom libertarianism is to rely strictly upon state-enforceable rights as the only recourse for individuals in any given situation”.

      but before i go any further, i respect your intellect on a certain overly literal level. you’re obviously a smart guy, i’m sure smarter than me, and the funny thing is i *think* we’re on the same side on just about every issue. but because you’re so literal, and yes, you get caught up in semantics in situations where the semantics pale in comparison to the importance of the ideas, you fight unnecessary battles.

      to flesh out the original thought, society may, and almost certainly always will forever, enforce its own set of “rights” outside of those enforced via state force. it does this “contextually” by acting in ways that don’t constitute violations of another’s rights, but which tend to bring about changes in behavior.

      e.g. a boycott.

      is this a violation of one’s rights?

      no.

      does it “force” a business owner to shutter their business? well, in a sense, yes, but in reality it “causes” them to shutter the business more than “forcing” them in the sense of “use of force” because their rights were in no way violated.

      so that brings up the underlying question: does “force” which violates no rights defensible by the state constitute “force”? does that necessarily imply an unjust use of “force”?

      clearly the answer to the latter is no, which, to all but the most literal would kind of end this exercise.

      which is the reason why i would tend to abandon such exercises as a “semantic disagreement in term only”. online forums are generally not appropriate venues for these back and forths, because the set of incompatible terminologies and “semantics” tends to build up quickly, and the time spent dealing with such differences is generally wasted time.

      you “sound” young, so perhaps you still have the luxury of viewing such exercises as worthwhile. enjoy that.

      fyi, my goal is not to “win” such “debates”. i find the concept ridiculous, and petty, much in the same way that i view presidential debates. they don’t actually mean much of anything, except perhaps to the lowest common denominator.

      but since you have granted me the respect of a detailed rebuttal, i feel that your position is worthy of a thought-out response.

      going further on our original point of disagreement, the goal of a libertarian society is justified, perhaps not entirely, but certainly in large part, based on the “common decency” standard. the idea that i should have to reference something in this regard is not one i concern myself with (though i imagine a more educated individual could do so easily). whether there is or is not an available reference is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the point. if you disagree with the idea, i true you (certainly based on your statements in this previous post of yours) would be eager to express that disagreement.

      i certainly would not judge your opinion based on the number of references you’ve provided (except in the sense of unquoted references being regurgitated without notation). one’s own opinions don’t require references. in fact, in an impressive irony, the fewer available references for a good idea, the more impressive the idea, as evidenced by its apparent originality.

      all that said, and i do appreciate your thought-out comment, we can probably have more useful interactions by focusing on policies… policies which, again, i assume we are in near total agreement. but perhaps the first thing we would be required to do would be to come to agreement on the definition of the term “right”. you want to restrict it to “state-defensible rights only”. so, since this is semantics, i would be fine with that. but i would require a term to use for the cases where “common decency right” or “the rights dictated by common decency in a given society” is desired. if you believe no such term is necessary, particularly because no such situations/rights/common law exist, then we would be best served examining that specific question, as all the rest of our discussion would otherwise be based upon irreconcilable foundations, and therefore, a waste of time.

      assuming you are interested in a fruitful interaction, i invite you to narrow our focus in any way you deem helpful in order to be more efficiently productive.

    • While I regret time does not permit me (at least now) to give your post the full and considered response it deserves, I will take a moment to apologize for suggesting you were backing out of the discussion. Your comment “that’s it for me” was similar enough to the excuses others have made that I mistakenly thought you also lacked confidence in your beliefs. I hope you can forgive me for the incorrect assumption, and for denying you the rebuttal to your misguided views from which you would benefit had I not other more immediate priorities to attend to.

    • So how do you suggest one should attempt to record the incident as they are getting the absolute snot kicked out of themselves? That is what Derrick and people like him are setting themselves up for.

  6. It’s obvious that Derrick goes looking to incite an altercation with this individual, which would get Derrick arrested for disorderly conduct if it got out of hand. The fact that there was also someone else recording this from across the street shows a premeditated action, which would not bode well for Derrick. I think the KPD has had about enough of FreeKeene, and will start cracking down on them for the smallest of infractions to put them all on notice.

    Do you guys just like going to jail, because that’s how it is going to end for FreeKeene.

  7. The only people that need jobs are the imbeciles and trouble makers that plague our public areas and streets. New hobbies? Perhaps a girlfriend? I suggest you might join a club, ride a bike, fly a kite, do something other than antagonize people and reduce the quality of life in our area. Free speech? Sure…stage a sit in, a picket line, write an article, hold a sign. Stop defacing our city, harassing our citizens and destroying our community.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Neutralizing DUI Checkpoints | PNN Live #94 ‹ Peace News Now - […] http://freekeene.com/2014/06/17/how-to-act-like-an-adult/ […]
  2. Neutralizing DUI Checkpoints | PNN Live #94 | DerrickJ.me - […] http://freekeene.com/2014/06/17/how-to-act-like-an-adult/ […]
  3. Engel writes novel about bullying - […] Keene Bullies Taunt, Grab at Camera When I began recording him, however, he wasn't so courageous. He came up …

Submit a Comment