Evening News Update

  • A Franklin, NH mom and her ten year old son got a taste of what a terrorist attack feels like when the police mistakenly busted into their house and pointed guns at them.  “”They just walked away like it was OK for them to make a mistake, and when I asked them how do I explain to my 10-year-old why there was a gun in his face — what do I tell him — all they could say was, ‘Oh well. It’s not our fault. This is the address we were given.‘””  Well, mam, I’m not so sure how to put it, but………..  Working for the government means you never need be sorry…  or apologize.  If protection services were privatized (and made efficient), you’d bet your ass that this stuff wouldn’t fly.  If a private policing force were to do this: they’d be fired.
  • A prison warden was killed and dismembered down in Mexico City.  The harder the government fights the “War on Drugs,” the more this brutality happens.  The harder the government fights the “War on Drugs,” the more innocent people victimized by prohibition violence we will see.   The real question is when are the government people going to realize this and stop the madness.
  • The NH Attorney Genital is trying hard to get kids to not drink alcohol.  Guess what?  Kids don’t care what you say.  They will drink it.  Lets teach them to drink responsibly, not slap handcuffs on them when they do decided to do what all kids do.
  • In Laconia, NH there is a good example of what the proper function of the police should be… to protect people.  If the police only did things like this I’d wager there would never have been a Free State Project.  Do you agree with me on that?

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


  1. "Attorney Genital"?

    Stay classy Free Keene.

  2. You go Bradley… you have a lot of fans out here.

  3. I think that's a fair point Rachel — the "Attorney Genital" catchphrase seems to have become somewhat popular in various places, but I wouldn't be sorry to see it go.

    Great stuff overall, though, as usual. I certainly agree that if the police, and government in general, rather than sticking their fingers into anything and everything, spent their time stopping people like Ms. Bredahl, and others who actually harm people, there would be little need for a liberty movement.

  4. Pfft, what's wrong with "Attorney Genital"? I always thought it was funny.

  5. Rachel,

    Come now. It's just a joke aimed at a group of people who consistently appear in front of the NH General Court to oppose law changes which would enhance liberty.

    I can't take them seriously.

    Allan, thank you.

  6. I hope the woman in the first story sues.

    Lance? Do you see this?

  7. Unless they were incompetent or malicious, it is impossible to successfully sue.

    I'm guessing it was an "error" that will be shown to be a simple mistake. The potential plaintiff being unable to prove that the error was incompetence or maliciously carried out… the court will grant the police "qualified immunity" in the federal system or "absolute immunity" in the state system..

  8. Wait, why would it have to be malice or incompetence? What about simple compensation for damages? I thought malice and incompetence only had to be present for punitive damages?

    I took "the city attorney has advised them not to talk about it" to mean they must be concerned about liability … right?

    How pathetic is this, by the way, that they can't even apologize. I mean, great customer relations they have there. If I busted into the wrong person's apartment, when say, looking for an escaped carjacker or something, I'd be apologizing so profusely my lips would fall off, and I'd probably be offering some sort of compensation on the spot.

  9. You cannot sue the state, or individual state actors EVEN if they violate your rights…. Absent incompetence or malicious intent.

    Well that's just great … they have quite the racket going don't they. They'll award compensation for damages … unless it was they themselves who caused the damage.

    Here's what the wikipedia article says:

    A government agent's liability in a federal civil rights lawsuit now no longer turns upon whether the defendant acted with "malice," but on whether a hypothetical reasonable person in the defendant's position would have known that his actions violated clearly established law.

    So I guess if it's an "honest mistake", government employees can cause massive amounts of damage and not be liable for their actions at all.

    Funny … when it's us, it's "ignorance of the law is no excuse" — a hypothetical "reasonable person" has nothing to do with it. If I were to say I broke the law because of an "honest mistake", (I misread my speedometer … my wife misplaced my registration paperwork), I doubt it would fly as a defense.

  10. I love these news reports, Bradley. Have you considered a career as newspaper editor? Your publication would be my homepage.

  11. Mackler,

    I've never considered such a venture…. but I am glad you and others like my commentary on the news.

    Thanks for the kind words 🙂

Care to comment?