The police state is getting worse – join the Free State Project, escape to New Hampshire (here are some reasons to move to Keene) and help us all get free from those who would control peaceful people.

Thanks to FreeGrafton.com for the coverage. Here’s more of what you’ll find at Free Grafton – the chalking spreads to the Concord fed building!

I think this because at one time I vehemently disagreed with Ian Freeman’s (the owner of this website) view of how a society can function without institutionalized violence.  Not only do I now agree with him, I volunteer to help him by writing for his blog.

I am a native New Hampshire-ite.  I am also a former NH law enforcement officer with eleven years of  service.

Why am I here?

Why did I quit a decent paying job and walk away from an excellent retirement plan that people in the private sector could only dream of?

Why do I voluntarily subject myself to the vitriolic comments which this and my previous blogs attract?

Why did a girl who grew up in the Keene community decide to voluntarily swan dive her reputation in a similar fashion?

It’s simple.  Our slowly increasing numbers don’t think violence is an appropriate solution to solving non-violent problems….  and we have the gonads to say it.

Every ordinance (no matter how trivial) that the Keene City Council enacts is a threat of violence or violence itself as a solution to a largely non-violent problem.

The alcohol ordinance is the hot topic.  You think that people peacefully drinking alcohol in public is a problem?  Okay, solve the problem without authorizing, threatening, and using violence and I guarantee you the Free-Keene-movement-minded people (like me, Heika, Ian, and Sam) will shut up about it.

The current non-violent “problem” of open alcohol containers is currently “fixed” by a police baton, a can of pepper spray, a taser, a cage, and ultimately a gun.  Don’t you get it?  I’ll tell you stories about how I turned to “legal” violence against people who did non-violent things if it better helps you understand.

We’re loud, persistent, and to some of you annoying BECAUSE we are hell bent on eliminating institutionalized violence as a solution to solving peaceful problems.  It is amazing that being opposed to the **initiation** of violence is such a controversial position to take.

Is violence REALLY such a good thing that people who don’t want it to be socially acceptable deserve to be insulted, attacked, and opposed?

Do you believe that violence should be used to solve non-violent problems?  I would have answered “NO!” seven years ago as I pushed around a Crown Victoria.  My answer would have been “NO!” because I didn’t know any better.  Once I knew better… I had to quit.  I never want to be violent to the non-violent.  But I was…  40+ hours a week.

Imagine how differently history would read if violence were never an acceptable solution to solving non-violent problems.

Imagine how different and peaceful the future could be if violence stops being an acceptable solution to solving non-violent problems.

The Earth doesn’t have to stay flat.

Par for the course around here: Advocate a society without institutionalized violence against peaceful people = get toasted in the comment section

Grab the Archive here to get my perspective on this video:

Here’s an Update based on the comments:

I’m currently editing the video for the event.  The full footage from this incident is shown in the beginning.  This version seems to have cut two previous occasions where he was disrupting my interview by holding the cup in front of the camera. He was repeatedly asked to stop interfering.

He then went over to Puke, and said I think I’ll just stand here. I asked him what his cup said, and what it meant. He read the cup and said he wants to “get you morons out of here.”

That was fine with me, and I started the interview. When he saw that he was unable to prevent me from interviewing Puke, he then again started putting the cup in front of Pukes face. This is Disorderly conduct. That’s when I walked over to him (and this video starts) to again ask him to stop interfering with my business.

He did hit me in the face with the cup; He was obviously hostile and engaging in name calling. I didn’t know what was in the cup, and he had a lid on it. When he hit me with it, that was assault, and I honestly didn’t know if he was planning to throw something on me or hit me in the face while I can’t see past the cup.

I felt threatened by his actions and took steps necessary to ensure my personal safety.

That said, I was also frustrated that there were no Keene Policeman around to inform him that his behavior was disorderly and causing alarm. I was also under a time crunch to get the interview before the meeting started.

The second time when he hit my camera I again grabbed his arm because the camera is very expensive, and he has already shown hostility towards me.  He apologized, and unfortunately because of  his attitude and demeanor, I did not believe  it was sincere.

James was warned about his behavior, and told that he attacked me and my camera with the cup. I informed him that if he touched me again that I would take him down. Meaning remove him from my space because he was threatening me and my equipment with unwanted physical contact while interrupting my interview.

He then went and stood behind Puke (after I repositioned him elsewhere), and as the video will show,the interview was completed, while James was acting irrationally in the background causing a scene. (but not interfering with my interview)

I do agree that in the situation I was angry and did move in close to James after he was warned to stop. I certainly could have responded differently, and apologize for my aggressive behavior. I also apologize for escalating the situation, as I could have handled it better.

I do not feel I owe you a new cup, as it was a closed container you shoved in my face, the writing shows you planned this, and I truly felt threatened.

However, I would invite you to sit down and talk about real issues related to Free Keene, and the Liberty Activists here in Keene. If you want to do this on camera, I think this would make great footage, and would be happy to film this in front of your coffee shop. This would be great advertising or the people that support your viewpoint. I’ll even buy the drinks.

I think this would go a long way to help you understand some of the changes that are happening in Keene and around the state. You seem to be suffering from the rumor mill which has fed you a lot of  mis-information.

You reference a girl stealing my sign at the middle school outreach event. Did you know it was a parent who first stood in front of my sign? I had no problem with this, and simply held it over his head. It was another parent who then came up and attacked me knocking the sign down. Cody (a boy) who was encouraged by the juvenile behavior of the adults, then ran up to rip the sign from my other hand, run off, and destroy it.

So James if you would like to set that up on camera or off, please let me know.

Sam

After reviewing their city council rules, city ordinances, and state laws; Dale Pregent seems to have made up the rules barring alcoholic beverage containers (not containing alcohol) in order to target free speech. When the Police Chief Ken Meola is unable to determine what is in the closed containers held by Ian  Freeman and Sam Dodson, they were arrested for refusing to consent to search. The video clearly shows, Heika – who consented to the search – being told “your fine”  as she remained in the meeting drinking from her bottle.

Let’s not forget they did all of this on live TV with the community watching.  Plans are in the works for the next City Council Drinking game, Aug. 19th, 7pm. Mark your calendar, it’s going to be a special event.

Two nights ago two of Free Keene’s contributors had their constitutional rights violated by government employees that they both are forced to fund.  The argument of whether Ian Freeman and Sam Dodson were looking for a confrontation is irrelevant and no excuse for the behavior of government officials that was initiated by government officials.  In this state and country the government is prohibited from interfering with peaceful free speech and protest.  The onus is on government employees to comply with the entirety of the state and federal constitutions, at all times…  even when confronted by people peacefully expressing their displeasure at the continued enforcement of a government policy.

Especially when confronted by people peacefully expressing their displeasure at the continued enforcement of a government policy.

It was well publicized here on the blog that there would be a gathering of people at the Keene City Council meeting and that those people would be drinking from containers that could have alcohol in them.  From all accounts I’ve read, witnessed through video, and learned from speaking to the individuals involved, not a single disruption was caused at this particular meeting by the protesters.  The disruption ensued when the government employees and officials felt that the protesters were deflating their ego’s by mocking the way they choose to wield violence to control other people’s lives.

Facts:

1. The mayor, city manager, and police chief were aware that individuals may be consuming alcohol at the particular meeting they were attending on Thursday night.

2. Once at the meeting the mayor, city manager, and police chief identified several individuals who were quietly drinking out of bottles that might contain alcohol.

3. Drinking of non-alcoholic beverages from containers that appear to contain alcohol is not against state law or Keene ordinance.

4. The police chief embarked on an investigation to determine what was within the bottles in the possession of the protesters.

5. One protester waived her Part I, Article 19 and US Amendment 4 rights and consented to a search of the contents of her bottle.  The contents of the bottle revealed that she was only drinking water.  She was allowed to remain.

6. Ian Freeman and Sam Dodson invoked their rights under Part I, Article 19 and US Amendment 4 and refused the police chief’s request to search in the contents of their bottle.

7. As a result of the police chief’s inability to develop probable cause that Ian and Sam were breaking the law (or not breaking the law) they were ordered to leave.

8. Ian and Sam refused to comply with the order to leave.

The culmination of #1 and #2 would give the police reasonable suspicion that anyone present with a bottle mimicking a bottle for an alcoholic beverage was violating the town’s open container ordinance.  Reasonable suspicion only authorizes the police to conduct a brief detention and interrogation for the purpose of determining if probable cause exists to take enforcement action.  No citation can be issued, no property seized, and no arrest can be made absent probable cause.

The police chief’s actions in #5 have a direct nexus with his enforcement action taken against Ian and Sam in #7 and #8.  This clearly shows that if Ian and Sam had waived their constitutional rights that they too would have been allowed to remain present in a public meeting.  The issue with this though is that it flips the entire constitutional system upside down: you must waive two constitutional rights when “asked” by the police chief if you want to enjoy a third.

The New Hampshire Constitution in Part I, Article 8 states the following:

[Art.] 8. [Accountability of Magistrates and Officers; Public’s Right to Know.] All power residing originally in, and being derived from, the people, all the magistrates and officers of government are their substitutes and agents, and at all times accountable to them. Government, therefore, should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive. To that end, the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted.

I’d be interested if anyone can make an argument supporting the notion that the police being unable to make a case that someone is violating the law, because the police are hampered by an individual choosing to assert their constitutional rights of privacy, constitutes a “reasonable” restriction and justification on stripping Ian and Sam of their clearly codified right to be present at the public meeting.

The law Ian and Sam were charged with violating states the following:

644:2 Disorderly Conduct. – A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if:

II. He or she:

(b) Disrupting the orderly conduct of business in any public or governmental facility;

Going on the facts as we know them…  can someone please tell me the difference in what Ian and Sam did versus the protester I mentioned in #5, OTHER than the fact that they refused to waive constitutional rights?

See where I’m going with this?

The police chief had absolutely no evidence that Ian or Sam were breaking the open container law.  In fact, they were not breaking the open container law.  Their invoking their rights pissed off the police chief and he retaliated by ordering them to leave.  Whether or not you agree with how Ian and Sam chose to protest this victimless law…  hopefully the patently unconstitutional way that the government officials in Keene conducted themselves causes you concern.