Audio of the Arrest and Torture of Peaceful Activist, Sam.

SamYesterday, our friend and co-blogger here at Free Keene, Sam from the Obscured Truth Network was arrested and from the sound of it, tortured. He was attempting to record with his video camera in the allegedly public lobby of the Keene District Court. His attempt at videoing was in response to the arrest of Dave Ridley from the Ridley Report a month earlier for videoing in the same place. Sam’s fellow liberty activists, including Dave Ridley were all present to see and hear the tyranny in action. Since no video footage exists to my knowledge except what is inside Sam’s HD camera (now in the Keene PD’s possession), you’ll have to experience the event through the ears of my audio recorder.

Download the .mp3.

According to Keene District Court, Sam has been charged with “Disorderly Conduct”, “Resisting Arrest”, and “Refusal to Process”. He is being held until he requests an arraignment. This means he’s either in a holding cell or in solitary, from what I have gathered.

If you’d like to contact Sam’s captors and those responsible for what happened, here are the numbers:

* Cheshire County Jail
(603) 399-7794
* Keene District Court
(603) 352-2559
* Keene Police Department
(603) 357-9815

More discussion here on the Free Keene Forum.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


21 Comments

  1. Thanks for this — although it's a shame there's no video. This is what qik is for! Then again, it's easy to talk big when you don't have a bureaucrat thug threatening to attack you.

    The audio is very revealing.

  2. http://jailedactivist.info/activists/sam-dodson/

    I'll be updating it further as I have time.

    Does anyone have any information on the bureaucrats directly involved so I may put their info up on the JailedActivist.info bureaucrats page?

  3. Elizer Rivera, KPD prosecutor ordered the arrests

  4. The City of Keene breaks the law by not allowing Citizens to Video tape in the courthouse, on the Public Property.

    The City of Keene arrests a man and throws him in jail for video taping. In other words, The City broke the law, then threw someone in jail, for Not breaking the law.

    Sams' Refusal to Cooperate is the Best way to peacefully put pressure on his captors, the ones who broke the law in this case.

    On one hand, I understand why he would NEVER speak to those holding him in a cage.

    I think the Government will try to quietly realize him soon when they realize this and see the situation escalating.

    Most people would speak, cooperate so they could be released. But Sam is not like most people and so I think Cop/Prosecutor Rivera Bullying tactics are going to backfire this time, against this extreme Liberty Lover.

  5. So what happens to Rivera next? Pickets and taunts in front of his house, freaking out whatever family he has? Floods of anonymous e-mails and phone calls filled with ranting rhetoric? Groups of people accosting him on the street? According to the construct you've created, it's all good, and even necessary, since all you would be doing is defending what you perceive as liberty. It's one of the grandest and oldest excuses: "I'm doing this for a higher cause". But the cause in this case is so trivially represented that very few people would be convinced. Although I really don't get the impression that that's the point, as the tactics and behavior seem like something out of "adolescent playtime". The point? Attention, fun, drama and self-reassurance.

  6. What behavior seems like "adolescent playtime"? The part where Sam lawfully attempts to video tape? The part where people were standing around and sitting on benches in a public/government lobby?

    It's the government people who are acting like little bullies. They don't like a certain group of people and so they throw all of their own laws and rules out the window. They only know violence.

  7. Exactly what's the problem with providing another source of public information for a person who has been in the least has been primarily involved in arresting people who did nothing to him? All information provided is unbiased, factual, and sourced.

    The newspaper puts the names of those who are accused of crimes. I'm doing the same. The point is attention. To draw attention to those who perhaps are out of line in their official capacity.

  8. AnAmazedReader,

    I certainly hope that no one freaks out his family, but you can be sure that any action taken against him will never escalate to the point of kidnapping him and throwing him in a cage. The fact that you seem so upset that a violent man might have his inbox "flooded" with emails, and yet so unconcerned that a non-violent man in locked in a cage is puzzling to me.

  9. So what happens to Rivera next? Pickets and taunts in front of his house, freaking out whatever family he has?

    In front of his house? Since we respect private property (unlike your idols in government), I highly doubt it.

    But, if it were determined the patch of land being stood upon outside his house was "public" or provided by the owner of said property, then that might be a possibility for some activists.

    And none of these cops, bureaucrats or anyone else has anything to fear from liberty activists. We're not the ones who advocate violence and coercion. You seem to keep missing the point that we're a peaceful movement. Perhaps you're just projecting the nasty, snarling traits of violent government enforcers onto activists because you can't comprehend anyone not resorting to the usurpation of another's will? Hint: Gandhi and MLK.

    Floods of anonymous e-mails and phone calls filled with ranting rhetoric?

    Email is certainly one way to express one's anger with his immoral actions, yes. I'm sure most would sign their names or known pseudonyms, however. And I doubt any of us would waste our time explaining the philosophy of liberty to him (our "rhetoric" as you so lovingly refer to it), primarily because he's a lost cause. Again, I point to Cool Hand Luke: "Some men, ya just cain't reach…".

    Groups of people accosting him on the street?

    What part of non-violent and peaceful don't you get? Will people walking freely in public areas who spot him speak their mind out to him? That's certainly probable. Will they tackle him, clamp a pair of shackles on his wrists, drag him away to another room and do something to make him scream out "AAAAAAAAAAAAAH! WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO MY HANDS!?" followed by a few more cries of pain at various intervals?

    No. That's just one of the things that separates us from them.

    According to the construct you’ve created, it’s all good, and even necessary, since all you would be doing is defending what you perceive as liberty.

    You keep claiming to thoroughly understand us but you show that you know so little about us and our shared philosophy. Maybe it makes you feel better to take this incomprehensible, unknown quantity and slap on characteristics from what you do know.

    It’s one of the grandest and oldest excuses: “I’m doing this for a higher cause”.

    What, you mean like "The Law!"? Or "For God and America!"? Or maybe the other angle, "The Poor Children!"?

    But the cause in this case is so trivially represented that very few people would be convinced. Although I really don’t get the impression that that’s the point, as the tactics and behavior seem like something out of “adolescent playtime”. The point? Attention, fun, drama and self-reassurance.

    And here you go back to calling us children. Again, liberty activists follow "the Golden Rule", something most people learn in kindergarten. What does that say about the maturity of your precious government idols?

  10. "And none of these cops, bureaucrats or anyone else has anything to fear from liberty activists. We’re not the ones who advocate violence and coercion. You seem to keep missing the point that we’re a peaceful movement. Perhaps you’re just projecting the nasty, snarling traits of violent government enforcers onto activists because you can’t comprehend anyone not resorting to the usurpation of another’s will? Hint: Gandhi and MLK."

    Wrong. Liberty "activists", as you like to call yourselves, invoke violence and anger and disguise it as your "cause" via passive aggressive behavior. Ghandi and MLK didn't tote guns around just because they could, like you folks do. You guys are cowards. And Sam is a pansy with too much time on his hands. Hope he likes his new home.

  11. Actually Gandhi couldn't tote a gun. The British had rather strict gun laws and in his autobiography wrote:

    Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.

    As for MLK:

    Finally, I contended that the debate over the question of self-defense was unnecessary since few people suggested that Negroes should not defend themselves as individuals when attacked. The question was not whether one should use his gun when his home was attacked, but whether it was tactically wise to use a gun while participating in an organized demonstration.

    and related to why one carries a gun

    As we have seen, the first public expression of disenchantment with nonviolence arose around the question of "self-defense." In a sense this is a false issue, for the right to defend one's home and one's person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law.

    The right to own and carry a gun, to defend oneself, is being systematically infringed upon. The reason to carry a firearm is to both protect yourself and those around you but also to exercise one's right to self defense. To push back against those who feel we should not do so and wish to keep us from doing so through the threat of violence.

  12. Well "Pansy", you have yet to prove any link (have fun trying though) between "invoking violence" and "passive resistance" concerning the Sam or anyone else involved on the side of Liberty.

    Your message(s) carry the foul stink of sock puppetry and you appear to be using the tired old tactic of using multiple accounts to give the appearance of you actually being more than one person. You haven't even been honest enough to actually say what your stake in the system actually is.

    Personally, I find it sickening and an obvious sign of evidence of possible mental illness, by getting all gushy over men in funny costumes with guns strapped to their hip, thinking they may do no wrong, simply because they are cops.

    I suppose there are still some folks out there that can gain some measure of delight in the pain of others and can sleep just fine at night in spite of what they are.

    Dan

  13. Wrong. Liberty “activists”, as you like to call yourselves,

    Oh, it's not just us, Pansy.

    Here's what Wikipedia says about activism:

    <cite>Activism, in a general sense, can be described as intentional action to bring about social change, political change, economic justice, or environmental wellbeing." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activist</cite&gt

    Wiktionary says:

    <cite>"one who is politically active in the role of a citizen; especially, one who campaigns for change"</cite>
    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/activist

    Dictionary.com says:

    <cite>"an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause, esp. a political cause."</cite>

    invoke violence and anger and disguise it as your “cause” via passive aggressive behavior.

    And here you reveal just how insane and illogical statism is. Because we're "passive-aggressive" (which is a ludicrous oxymoron) about seeking an end to involuntary servitude and being violated by the gang called government, we're somehow invoking (your word) violence and anger?

    Dude, that's like saying it's the rape victim's fault for pointing at the rapist and shouting "Rapist!" and that it's okay for the rapist to then violate her again for "causing a scene".

    Ghandi and MLK didn’t tote guns around just because they could, like you folks do.

    Those of us who carry firearms do so because a) we have a natural right to defend ourselves, b) it is enumerated as a protected right in the Constitution's Bill of Rights and c) it apparently (according to your statements) prevents some raging nutzoids from trying to violate our persons.

    I can only imagine what you'd do if you thought we were all defenseless. Hanging? Drowning? Burned at the stake? Or maybe you like to get hands-on and strangulation is your thing?

    You guys are cowards.

    Apparently, you're the coward if you're only willing to assault people you disagree with when they're defenseless. You're sick in the head.

    And Sam is a pansy with too much time on his hands.

    Sam is more brave and principled that you could ever hope to be in your wildest murder spree-filled dreams.

    Hope he likes his new home.

    Hope you like the idea of dozens and dozens more activists moving to Keene because of the immoral and violent actions taken against him.

  14. Zeus,

    I have a question- who are you protecting yourselves from by carrying guns to public meetings where there are no other armed people or police? Isn't that simply intimidation?

    You should respect the people at these meetings trying to do their jobs, as well as the public that attend. Please fight your battles with words and not intimidations that could become violent. Save the guns for interactions with police, who are equally armed.

    I might have had an enlightening conversation with anarchojesse about his garden, but the gun was certainly off-putting. If you want to win over the residents of Keene, you should leave the guns at home. Perhaps Jesse didn't want a conversation? Perhaps guns are used as some sort of gardening tool unknown to me?

  15. Those activists who carry firearms often do so to remind others that they have a right to self-defense. Also, the more often people see non-violent people wearing firearms, the less likely they are to freak out at the sight of one (and eventually, perhaps even feel more secure).

    Decades of propaganda and brainwashing have convinced many people (especially those of the liberal persuasion) to assume that anyone who carries a weapon is up to no good.

    Ask anyone who lived during the early part of the 20th century or before whether it was unusual to see someone "packing heat" and you get a different story.

    More people were armed, often to hunt but also to defend themselves as well. Watch the films of the 30's and 40's and examine their social statements on guns. People didn't run screaming from Phillip Marlowe or Sam Spade because "OH MY GOD HE'S GOT A GUN!". They didn't assume that someone who was armed was some kind of madman with wicked intentions.

    Cowboys often went armed but the townsfolk, both in reality and in TV-land, didn't freak out when a newcomer rode into town armed with his six-shooter.

    Mass shootings didn't erupt left and right because people were armed either. That's more a product of the modern era, because today's violent criminals and whackjobs can prey on a populace that has allowed themselves to become defenseless sheep. People that have been made to feel so afraid of firearms that they deem them and anyone with one as "evil". And yet those same terrified "holophobes" (fear of weaponry) are just fine and dandy if that armed person carries a shiny badge and a fine hat (or crew cut).

    I'm sure most of the onlookers in the California BART murder thought they'd be safe until that cop went schizo, took out his gun and shot that kid in the back. There are many other such incidents (like the 92-year old woman who was shot to death by 3 cops) so it's pretty obvious that having a badge doesn't determine whether or not an armed person is "safe" or "good". Only a person's words and deeds can determine that. Having or not having a firearm makes no difference whether one is moral or immoral, sane or insane, violent or peaceful. Just ask Jeffrey Dahmer. His choice of murder instruments was bludgeoning and power drills.

    How often do you see people freaking out at the sight of a power drill?

    If more people stopped solely relying on the cops (government) to defend them (which they have no obligation to do according to several court rulings), then maybe those 13 people in New York wouldn't have been defenseless when that nut shot them up. Maybe a fine upstanding person exercising their right to defend themselves would have taken him out and less people would have died as a result.

    After all, in most cases, police are often relegated to the clean-up crew. They show up after you're already dead. Sure, they might eventually nab the guy but a lot of good that does you or your loved ones.

    So, back to your concerns… if someone comes onto your property armed and you have a no-guns policy, then you (the property owner) have every right to tell them to remove their guns or leave.

    If they come to a *public* gathering exercising their 2nd Amendment right, that's not your decision to make. You can certainly voice your opinion and kindly ask them not to bring their weapon in but the choice is theirs to make.

    I believe some establishments (saloons, whorehouses, etc) in the Old West and the early 20th (speakeasies) had such a policy where you'd check your gun in at the door and get it back when you left.

  16. So consider my opinion voiced- I do not think there is any need for weapons at a public meeting where no one else is armed. It only brings on a situation of "my gun is bigger than your gun" to a place where previously words and debate won arguments. Plus (be it right or wrong) the public will view the FSP as violent and intimidating.

  17. Defense,

    Suppose a heavily armed violent madman enters the public meeting, and proceeds to start shooting people, as certainly has happened a number of times in this country.

    Would you be glad then that these people have the ability to defend themselves, and others at the meeting, so the death toll is more like one or two, rather than something like 12? I sure would.

    Don't be intimidated — these people would not use their weapon except in self defense. Words and debates still win arguments, the fact that people are armed does not change that.

    Also, I think part of the reason to open carry is so people get used to peaceful people doing it, and do not view it as violent or intimidating. We'd be safer if we got back to that old way of thinking, where carrying a gun is normal and expected self defense. We'd all be a lot safer from violent people, who will get a gun anyway, as well as from the possibility of a truly totalitarian government.

  18. Because there has never been a shooting at a town council meeting or at church during service or in strip malls or in schools? Especially one's where there were unarmed victims who were slaughtered en masse.

  19. So consider my opinion voiced- I do not think there is any need for weapons at a public meeting where no one else is armed.

    Fair enough (but see the two responses prior to this one).

    It only brings on a situation of “my gun is bigger than your gun” to a place where previously words and debate won arguments.

    That's a subjective, situational determination requiring all sorts of assumptions.

    Part of wearing firearms openly and more often is to help cure people of their gun phobia, the idea being the more they see them being worn by average, non-violent persons, the less they will fear the very existence of firearms let alone some non-menacing person armed with one.

    Plus (be it right or wrong) the public will view the FSP as violent and intimidating.

    And that's why activists need to reach out to "the public" and re-educate them on these issues so that they no longer fear guns simply because guns exist or because someone is armed with one.

  20. "Defense"–

    If you've watched the news lately, there was a shooting in Binghamton, NY. Prior to that, there had been sporadic shootings all across the nation. Additional to these things, according to rainn.org, someone is sexually assaulted every two minutes. The United States murder per capita is 0.042802 per 1,000 people.

    Last I had checked, none of these real criminals ever made appointments with their victims. It never hurts to prepare for the worst in a moderate way.

Care to comment?