Keene Police Overreact to Man with Gun – Helicopters, Staties, School Lockdowns

Police State KeeneIn the same vein as the Boston police locking down a swath of the city over LED promotional signage, and the locking down of Keene’s downtown over an abandoned backpack full of beer in a city parking garage, the Keene police are at it again with more fearmongering.

What’s the story? Why are multiple state police helicopters in the sky? K9s searching the woods? Cops locking down area schools? A dozen state police cars inbound from Concord?

Some guy stormed out of a domestic incident at five this morning with a rifle and walked into the woods of West Keene.

Yep. A domestic incident, which happens all the time. A guy with a gun – this is New Hampshire! People have guns all over the place, whether openly carried or not.

Once upon a time, kids were able to carry rifles TO school. Now, all it apparently takes is a domestic disagreement to fill the skies and streets with police. What a sad statement about the fear-based society in which we live.

Get a grip.

UPDATE: Here’s an excerpt WKBK’s Dan Mitchell spreading fear on the radio all morning long, including a call from an elderly man with some perspective.

UPDATE: The man has turned himself in at Keene police station “without incident”. Except of course, the incident of a crazy, fearmongering, overreacting police state descending upon West Keene. How much did they spend on helicopter fuel alone, when police admitted up front they had no threats from the man whatsoever?

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


55 Comments

  1. "That’s all the information they had…what would you want them to do? Lock the exterior doors and give them NO reason behind it? How would that be less ‘abusive’ by your standards?"

    Yes, locking the outer doors and telling them that there's some nutcase in the general area would be less of an issue than locking the interior doors and telling them nothing, which leads to the obvious conclusion that the nutcase is – or is likely to be – inside the school.

    "Oh please, capitalize? What gains are there in this?"

    Already covered. Abusers get off on winning the loyalty of their victims.

    "No, it’s not. The captain states there is turbulence and that it is cause for people to fasten their seatbelts, because that is all the information he has–he does not know the potential consequences of this turbulence, just as the staff did not know the potential consequences of an armed, violent man in the area."

    Locking down the interior doors and turning the lights off is obviously designed to hinder an attacker who is inside the school. Hence, it /is/ equivalent to claiming that something bad is imminent, because having an attacker already inside the school would be an imminent hazard.

    "And I assume you ignoring my comment about downplaying the ‘domestic incident’ means you agree with me?"

    I assume by the fact that I already addressed your claim, and you simply repeated it, means you cannot read. Must be the public school education.

    "What are you talking about man? Interior doors??? The dude had a high power rifle, he couldve blown the locks on the outer doors too. "

    Actually, that only works in the movies. Usually, if you shoot a lock, you render it permanently fixed in the "locked" position. Hence, why SWAT teams use special breaching shotguns, which are specially engineered to actually remove the locking mechanism, rather than jam it into position.

    In any case, if he was able to breach the outer doors, then clearly he could breach the flimsy, inner doors. So why lock them? And turn off the lights? That's purely for dramatic effect.

  2. MaineShark – both enslave and I…and possibly others on here, have kids at the schools. The classrooms had light in them; they were not in the dark – most rooms have windows anyways, and the students were informed of what was occurring. There was nothing scary or alarming about any of it. KPD upon arrival was informative, polite and reassuring upon their initial arrival. School staff did exactly what us parents want them to do, and they will continue doing what we want them to do. What they WON"T do, is whatever it is some random guy in Maine thinks should be done.

    But you keep giving a play by play from Maine for us, based on some bullshit letter one of Derrick's multiple personalities wrote.

  3. How many of you assholes who say the police and schools overreacted have kids at any of the affected school, as I do.

    If you don't, please Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

  4. /schools/

    Still, STFU.

  5. "Yes, locking the outer doors and telling them that there’s some nutcase in the general area would be less of an issue than locking the interior doors and telling them nothing, which leads to the obvious conclusion that the nutcase is – or is likely to be – inside the school."

    I am willing to bet that the children were informed that the intruder was, in fact, not IN the building. Anyone who has kids there able to back me up?

    Your assumption that they would try to deceive the children in this way is comically paranoid. As others have already stated, the atmosphere at the school was apparently much less doomsday-esque than your 'police state' brain thinks it was.

    "Already covered. Abusers get off on winning the loyalty of their victims."

    You can't use a non sequitur to make a point. Unless you can point to any sort of tangible evidence of one of the staff 'getting off on winning the loyalty' of the children (or, as any rational person would say: 'trying their best to avoid harm from coming to them') the presence of 'gains' in this situation does not exist. Please try again.

    "I assume by the fact that I already addressed your claim, and you simply repeated it, means you cannot read. Must be the public school education."

    Sorry, I guess I also I assumed you know what a conversation is. Here's how it usually goes: I say something, you address that something (in this case you countered it by simply saying something to the effect of 'no, you're wrong') and then I say something else to back up my original assertion (aka, pointing to the specific place in the post which downplays the 'domestic incident'). Generally, it would then be your turn to explain how that specific point does *not*, in fact, downplay the 'domestic incident'….unless, of course, you can't, which is apparently what happened.

  6. @matt: "MaineShark – both enslave and I…and possibly others on here, have kids at the schools. The classrooms had light in them; they were not in the dark – most rooms have windows anyways, and the students were informed of what was occurring. There was nothing scary or alarming about any of it. KPD upon arrival was informative, polite and reassuring upon their initial arrival. School staff did exactly what us parents want them to do, and they will continue doing what we want them to do. What they WON”T do, is whatever it is some random guy in Maine thinks should be done.

    But you keep giving a play by play from Maine for us, based on some bullshit letter one of Derrick’s multiple personalities wrote."

    I live in NH, not Maine. Since that's already been discussed, between the two of us, in the past, I will again point out how bad a job public schools do at education, since you clearly cannot recall even basic facts from things you've read.

    And no, I'm not going to believe your internally-conflicting claim, over one made by someone who doesn't spend all day lying, cheating, and stealing. Your credibility is far less than zero.

    @name: "How many of you assholes who say the police and schools overreacted have kids at any of the affected school, as I do.

    If you don’t, please Shut. The. Fuck. Up."

    Never have. Never would. Sending kids to such places is child abuse.

    @… "I am willing to bet that the children were informed that the intruder was, in fact, not IN the building. Anyone who has kids there able to back me up?

    Your assumption that they would try to deceive the children in this way is comically paranoid. As others have already stated, the atmosphere at the school was apparently much less doomsday-esque than your ‘police state’ brain thinks it was."

    No one said "doomsday-esque" or anything similar, except you. Indoctrination is done by subtlety, not blatant acts.

    "You can’t use a non sequitur to make a point. Unless you can point to any sort of tangible evidence of one of the staff ‘getting off on winning the loyalty’ of the children (or, as any rational person would say: ‘trying their best to avoid harm from coming to them’) the presence of ‘gains’ in this situation does not exist. Please try again."

    Someone needs to learn what "non-sequitur" means, before using the term.

    "Sorry, I guess I also I assumed you know what a conversation is. Here’s how it usually goes: I say something, you address that something (in this case you countered it by simply saying something to the effect of ‘no, you’re wrong’) and then I say something else to back up my original assertion (aka, pointing to the specific place in the post which downplays the ‘domestic incident’). Generally, it would then be your turn to explain how that specific point does *not*, in fact, downplay the ‘domestic incident’….unless, of course, you can’t, which is apparently what happened."

    You didn't point out any "specific place" that said anything other than what you already claimed. You merely repeated your claim. Since your claim had no merit, the first time, it had no merit, the second time.

Care to comment?