So it would seem that the most aggressive, unprofessional, and rude Court Security Officer I’ve (ever) seen in the Cheshire County Superior Court has accused my Keene-based liberty activist friends of “stalking” him by trying to film him on public property when he leaves the courthouse. I’ve also heard that a deputy sheriff has even echoed the threat to arrest them if they do it again.
They must want to be sued for a slew of things.
Stalking (without an issued stalking order) (RSA 633:3-a) is one of the most difficult criminal charges to prove in New Hampshire. To be guilty of the crime, one must engage in a course of conduct involving two instances (over any period of time) of doing the following:
(1) Threatening the safety of the targeted person or an immediate family member.
(2) Following, approaching, or confronting that person, or a member of that person’s immediate family.
(3) Appearing in close proximity to, or entering the person’s residence, place of employment, school, or other place where the person can be found, or the residence, place of employment or school of a member of that person’s immediate family.
(4) Causing damage to the person’s residence or property or that of a member of the person’s immediate family.
(5) Placing an object on the person’s property, either directly or through a third person, or that of an immediate family member.
(6) Causing injury to that person’s pet, or to a pet belonging to a member of that person’s immediate family.
The combination of any of the two things above have to be done in one of two ways:
1. Purposely, knowingly, or recklessly engages in a course of conduct targeted at a specific person which would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her personal safety or the safety of a member of that person’s immediate family, and the person is actually placed in such fear; or
2. Purposely or knowingly engages in a course of conduct targeted at a specific individual, which the actor knows will place that individual in fear for his or her personal safety or the safety of a member of that individual’s immediate family(.)
Leaving the press related constitutional arguments aside… to say that provably peaceful members of the media are “caus(ing) a reasonable person to fear for his or her personal safety or the safety” or “target(ing) … a specific individual, which the actor knows will place that individual in fear for his or her personal safety” is downright ridiculous. I’d say they have two of the “course of conduct” prongs met (2 & 3), but I’d love to hear them argue how they placed this violent little man in fear of his personal safety.
Nice try CSO Tebo and Cheshire County Sheriffs.
Oh wait… the law refers to “a reasonable person.” I guess Tebo doesn’t qualify, considering he is proven to be quite sadistic.
Maybe they’ll have a case after-all.
