Man Who Erased Homeless Awareness Chalkings Identified!

The Chalk Warrior

Matthew “Boston Strong” Schmidt, Chalk Warrior

The Chalk Warrior doesn’t discriminate. It doesn’t matter who creates the chalkings, be it an activist or a child, you can count on Matthew “Boston Strong” Schmidt to come along with a scowl on his face and destroy the artwork. (All the while claiming that everyone loves what he’s doing.)

Last weekend, he struck again. This time against a peaceful homeless-awareness chalking event on Central Square. Members of the Unitarian Universalist church had come out and traced outlines of their bodies to bring awareness to the 42 deaths of homeless people in New Hampshire in 2014. According to a report by the Keene Sentinel’s Martha Shanahan and Alyssa Dandrea, shortly after the event an unidentified man came out of a local business and attacked the chalkings with a brush and water. Despite being confronted by witnesses who asked him to stop, he continued his destruction.

Homeless Awareness Chalking: Pre-Attack

Homeless Awareness Chalking: Pre-Attack Photo by Susan MacNeil

I reached out to witnesses in the case and showed them a picture and video of local chalk hater Matthew Schmidt in action and they confirmed that yes, it was him. I wasn’t surprised, of course, but I wanted to wait until I’d confirmed it with the witnesses rather than post an article speculating it was him.  So, consider it confirmed.

Does Schmidt hate homeless people?  Does he hate artwork?  Does he hate children?  He sure seems to have plenty of hate, for whatever reason.  I hope someday he finds peace.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


55 Comments

  1. The ignorant and fearful people are often the most violent.

  2. The dude just hates everything not under his control, doesn’t he. I’ve never seen such control issues. I’m gonna have fun putting him through his paces when it gets warm. So much more fun to chalk than to destroy.

  3. It’s unfortunate that this blog promotes the socialists goal of claiming the right to treat government property as one’s own, instead of teaching the libertarian principle that if you want your chalk-art to be unmolested then you should put it on private property. It’s also unfortunate the author of this article uses the typical lefty tactic of libelously describing as ‘hate speech” a completely nonviolent expression of disagreement, namely that of a person applying water to a sidewalk funded by tax dollars involuntarily extracted from him.

    The only hate I see here is this article, which by dishonestly implying that homelessness is caused by a lack of sidewalk chalk reveals a disregard for the homeless no lesser than that imputed to the target of the author’s hate.

  4. Wow, this guy must be a scumbag on the level of his very DNA. What an incredible piece of shit. Who does this?

  5. Is he the same guy that brandished his concealed pistol at central square? I’m still blown away that he didn’t AT LEAST lose his CCL for that. Brandishing a firearm for the purpose of terrorizing non-threatening people is usually a major fucking deal that results in felonies.

  6. It’s unfortunate that you seek your “fun” in making others suffer (“putting him through his paces” as you say). Perhaps if you sought to affect others through love rather than vengeance, you might find company in the joy of shared achievement rather than the misery of shared frustration.

  7. Get over yourself Roger. Chalk art is a temporary but creative way to communicate an issue. If someone destroys this artwork, they deserve to be outed and shamed for this ignorance. Puritanical libertarians like yourself are among the most annoying of the entire political spectrum.

  8. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say regarding “outing” and “ignorance.” I’m pretty sure “outing” someone requires that person be trying to conceal some secret. According to the story, the eraser was acting in the open so if anyone outed him, he outed himself. As far as “ignorance” goes, I see ignorance on the part of people who ignore the economic and psychological causes of homelessness and try to blame it on a lack of street chalk; I see ignorance on the part of people who ignore the man’s obviously differing preferences regarding street chalk for what it is and dishonestly attempt to impute some ill-will toward the homeless; I see ignorance on the part of you and your fellow-travelers who believe your right to use public property takes precedence over anyone else’s.

    What I fail to see is any ignorance on the part of the guy washing the sidewalk. He seems to be completely aware of what you lefties are missing: that he has as much (and as little) right to pour water on the public sidewalk to the exclusion of the artists as they have to chalk the sidewalk to the exclusion of his water. He didn’t interrupt the artists; he let them do their thing and politely waited until they were finished. They, in contrast, tried to interfere with him doing his thing. Who is the intolerant one?

    You commies are so obsessed with your entitlement mentality you can’t even see that the problem has nothing to do with “communicating an issue” as you imagine; it’s a simple matter of property rights. Libertarians call this the tragedy of the commons, and perhaps if a libertarian ever happens to pass through Keene he can teach you and your socialist buddies that there are more appropriate solutions to conflicts over scarce resources than attacking your opponents with hate-speech.

  9. He sounds like a real Grinch, maybe you should invite him to a chalking event. I net his heart may grow.

  10. So, still silent on the Matt Phillips/Centurion/Philpiano/whomever he’s claiming to be today story? Sure, performing completely legal acts by cleaning public property is the devil’s work and “hate” but repeated fraud is AOK in libertard land apparently. Keep up with the glaring hypocrisy!

  11. Sounds like a real peaceful, non-aggressive plan resin-head.

  12. Libertarian principles are malleable and can be turned on and off as they suit your needs, got it! I didn’t realize it’s the responsibility of libertards to “out and shame” private citizens for completely legal acts and then slander them as “haters” all because you disagree with them. Must be a new strain of libertopia.
    The rationalizations that you morons come up with each week for your behavior is priceless. Like 6-year olds explaining why you’re covered in paint.

  13. Awesome comment Roger!

    Free Keene tactics 101:
    “ignore the man’s obviously differing preferences regarding street chalk for what it is and dishonestly attempt to impute some ill-will toward the homeless”

    Ian the molester and Afro-moron have perfected this tactic.

  14. No, that was another guy.

  15. This censoring fool reminds me of the bluenoses of Boston who made that city so bleak for so many years….

  16. It’s still a little stretch to say beyond doubt his intent was to intimidate or that he absolutely intend to show the gun. I’m inclined to say he did it on purpose, but I don’t think anyone has real proof of intent.

  17. When you’re CC’ing, you make every effort NOT to show your gun. There are no accidents, period. It isn’t as if he was bending over and his shirt crept up; he intentionally lifted the tail of his shirt high enough, for a long enough period of time, to show basically what make and model he carried from more than 15 feet away, in average-quality video. As a person who carries every day, it’s blatantly clear to me what he was trying to do. I don’t know any pro-gun people that wouldn’t admonish him if they saw the video. In light of our current anti-gun climate and the work we all do to maintain those rights un-infringed, this asshole was a setback, and no one that we would want to associate with.

  18. Would you say walking on the sidewalk is also treating government property as one’s own?

    Isn’t teaching the libertarian principle of free speech also of value?

    To me, the article was asking questions more than implying. What motivates Matthew Schmidt, if not hate? I think that is a legitimate question. Some are seriously trying to understand him and give him the benefit of doubt before dismissing him as a complete whackjob.

  19. “obviously differing preferences regarding street chalk” … I think there’s a bit more than that going on there.

    How did anyone try to interfere with Boston “doing his thing”?

    I, a libertarian, have passed through Keene. I don’t think I taught anyone anything but I was taught a lot during my short stay there.

  20. Oh it’s not just because of a disagreement. It’s because of the pattern of erratic behaviors exhibited by Mr. Boston, otherwise unexplained.

    No new strain of libertopia here. Libertopia has always consisted of a reputation-based system where haters, while not imprisoned, are identified for who they are.

  21. How did anyone try to interfere with Boston “doing his thing”?

    Did you even read this article? It says he was “confronted by witnesses who asked him to stop.” If you confront someone with the aim of stopping him from doing what he’s doing then you’re interfering.

    Would you say walking on the sidewalk is also treating government property as one’s own?

    Obviously not, since walking on other people’s property is commonly accepted as is proven by the fact that people put doorbells on their houses where they can only be reached by walking across their property. Are you going to suggest that the UPS man and door-to-door salesmen should be prosecuted for trespassing? I hope not. But if the UPS guy starts washing the hopscotch court from your driveway then he’s acting like he owns it.

    Isn’t teaching the libertarian principle of free speech also of value?

    I don’t know what’s your idea of the libertarian principle of free speech, but is says your right to free speech ends at the border of your private property. Otherwise your permission to speak is limited by the terms you’ve been granted by the owner of the property you’re standing on.

    To me, the article was asking questions more than implying.

    Then you would obviously miss the meaning of the question “have you stopped beating your wife?” Asking the question “Does Schmidt hate homeless people?” is an insult to the intelligence of anyone reading this article.

    What motivates Matthew Schmidt, if not hate? I think that is a legitimate question.

    It is not a legitimate question. It’s illegitimate because it’s a red herring that no libertarian would ever put. Why does it matter whether he’s motivated by hate or love or boredom or money or anything else? Libertarians care about actions, not one’s state of mind. It’s self-appointed thought-police like you who have facilitated the Orwellian legal-system we have now where two people can commit the exact same act and yet one gets locked in a cage for five years because it’s a so-called “hate-crime.”

    Your question is illegitimate because in a free society there’s nothing wrong with hate. If some guy wants to sit in his living room and envision torturing me and my puppy there’s nothing wrong with that as long as he doesn’t physically aggress against my property. It’s self-appointed thought-police like you who want to impose your value preferences on the mental processes of others, and in doing so you make the world that much less free.

    Mostly it’s an illegitimate question since you obviously are not interested in the answer, which could be any one an infinity of possibilities. Maybe he’s motivated by dislike. Did you ever think of that? Maybe he’s motivated by a taste for blank surfaces. Maybe he’s motivated by a thousand other things you would have considered if you hadn’t already decided there’s only one answer to your obviously rhetorical question.

    So no, it’s not a legitimate question; it’s a distraction away from any resolution to the situation and insincere encouragement to further conflict.

    Some are seriously trying to understand him and give him the benefit of doubt before dismissing him as a complete whackjob.

    What exactly do you mean by “whackjob?” Are you suggesting he’s mentally ill? If so, I’m interested in your medical qualifications and the evidentiary basis upon which your suspected diagnosis rests. But if by “whackjob” you mean simply someone who chooses to have an opinion different from your own then all I can say is that I’d rather live in a world of whackjobs and enjoy the benefits of diversity than live the homogeneous utopia of conformity that you progressives get so hard over.

    I, a libertarian, have passed through Keene. I don’t think I taught anyone anything but I was taught a lot during my short stay there.

    I can only imagine what you were taught. Apparently it had nothing to do with actual liberty-based solutions to this problem that is providing so much content for this website. If you ever make it back there perhaps you will reconsider your decision to refrain from benefitting the socialists of Keene with some libertarian instruction, such as the wisdom of placing your chalk-work on private property where you can prevent the people you hate from touching it.

  22. this guy is the monkey….its unfortunate sidewalk chalk is what makes him dance…..him stopping would be great..

  23. did it ever occur to you that if SFK were not such liars… then people might find them worthy of any kind of acknowledgement.. or response.. if no one answers you it probably means your a idiot

  24. SFK is put in the position of having to defend a guy whos wife is getting a restraining order from a 10 year old… her hasband got a restraining order because of repeated harrasment … wanting to make children live ” a living hell”… so hes being prosecuted for that… and SFK ppl are like “yea hes with us and your bad and hes good”………

  25. Reputation-based system? Wow, bang up job so far by the boys of Keene. So, you’re alleging Mr. Schmidt has committed illegal acts? If not, what do you care what a private citizen does on his own time on public property?

  26. I have,unlike you roger, been around this guy…he’s not polite as you put it…are restraining orders being slapped on him and his wife…(from two total different incidents but around the same poor behaviors)… are those rstraining orders happening because he is so polite… educate yourself you ignoranimus… then speak…

  27. roger… you type A LOT but SAY very little…do you hav too much time on your hands…… BS…is a wacjjob asshole…. now go break that down with you analysis

  28. LoL … ignorant douchebag. It’s going to be fun watching you go to jail again in 2015.

  29. I tried running your post through Google translate, but it was unable to detect the language.

  30. For anyone who missed that, the philosopher known as “davidinkeene” just called me an “ignoranimus.”

    Folks, you can’t make this stuff up.

  31. > > So, you’re alleging Mr. Schmidt has committed illegal acts?

    No.

    > > If not, what do you care what a private citizen does on his own time on public property?

    Perhaps to make an informed decision on whether to associate with or avoid this person?

  32. Did you even read this article? It says he was “confronted by witnesses who asked him to stop.” If you confront someone with the aim of stopping him from doing what he’s doing then you’re interfering.

    I did read this article. I asked that question for clarification. I otherwise would have interpeted “interfere” differently. I would not consider confronting to be intolerant.

    Obviously not, since walking on other people’s property is commonly accepted as is proven by the fact that people put doorbells on their houses where they can only be reached by walking across their property. Are you going to suggest that the UPS man and door-to-door salesmen should be prosecuted for trespassing? I hope not. But if the UPS guy starts washing the hopscotch court from your driveway then he’s acting like he owns it.

    If the property owner told the UPS guy that he can wash the chalk if he likes, and then he does, then the UPS guy is not acting like he owns it.

    I don’t know what’s your idea of the libertarian principle of free speech, but is says your right to free speech ends at the border of your private property. Otherwise your permission to speak is limited by the terms you’ve been granted by the owner of the property you’re standing on.

    And the permission to chalk on the sidewalk there has not been limited by the terms I’ve been granted by its owner, the government.

    Then you would obviously miss the meaning of the question “have you stopped beating your wife?” Asking the question “Does Schmidt hate homeless people?” is an insult to the intelligence of anyone reading this article.

    I would not miss the meaning of the question “have you stopped beating your wife?” a loaded question which implies that you had been beating your wife previously. “Does Schmidt hate homeless people?” makes no such implication. I don’t know which is more believable: Schmidt has such a high degree of disdain for chalk drawings, or a high degree of disdain for the homeless. Either way, his actions are alarming.

    It is not a legitimate question. It’s illegitimate because it’s a red herring that no libertarian would ever put. Why does it matter whether he’s motivated by hate or love or boredom or money or anything else? Libertarians care about actions, not one’s state of mind. It’s self-appointed thought-police like you who have facilitated the Orwellian legal-system we have now where two people can commit the exact same act and yet one gets locked in a cage for five years because it’s a so-called “hate-crime.”

    It is not a legitimate question for the state. But it is legitimate to you and me, who associate with others and have interests other than imprisoning people. Is Boston someone we want to do business with? To befriend? To trust? To avoid? To guard against? etc.

    Your question is illegitimate because in a free society there’s nothing wrong with hate. If some guy wants to sit in his living room and envision torturing me and my puppy there’s nothing wrong with that as long as he doesn’t physically aggress against my property. It’s self-appointed thought-police like you who want to impose your value preferences on the mental processes of others, and in doing so you make the world that much less free.

    Mostly it’s an illegitimate question since you obviously are not interested in the answer, which could be any one an infinity of possibilities. Maybe he’s motivated by dislike. Did you ever think of that? Maybe he’s motivated by a taste for blank surfaces. Maybe he’s motivated by a thousand other things you would have considered if you hadn’t already decided there’s only one answer to your obviously rhetorical question.

    So no, it’s not a legitimate question; it’s a distraction away from any resolution to the situation and insincere encouragement to further conflict.

    There is something wrong with hate in a free society and every society. But indeed as a libertarian I believe no one should be imprisoned or have anything imposed on them for hate, nor is anyone here calling for imprisonment or imposition for hate that I know of.

    I am interested in the answer. And I believe Ian, Rich, and Ean, who have sought answers from Boston directly, are all also genuinely interested in the answer. I’m sorry you don’t believe that.

    I believe you previously argued that just by calling something hate or someone a hater, one promotes a system that initiates violence. I still disagree. To me, that is too wide of a stretch.

    What exactly do you mean by “whackjob?” Are you suggesting he’s mentally ill? If so, I’m interested in your medical qualifications and the evidentiary basis upon which your suspected diagnosis rests. But if by “whackjob” you mean simply someone who chooses to have an opinion different from your own then all I can say is that I’d rather live in a world of whackjobs and enjoy the benefits of diversity than live the homogeneous utopia of conformity that you progressives get so hard over.

    Individuals dismissing him as a complete whackjob doesn’t mean its correct. It’s just the best anyone can do given personal bias, limited information and abilities, etc. Blogs like this help with the limited information problem by informing.

    I can only imagine what you were taught. Apparently it had nothing to do with actual liberty-based solutions to this problem that is providing so much content for this website. If you ever make it back there perhaps you will reconsider your decision to refrain from benefitting the socialists of Keene with some libertarian instruction, such as the wisdom of placing your chalk-work on private property where you can prevent the people you hate from touching it.

    One thing I learned is that one liberty-based solution, as you say, is standing up to tyrants and making it more difficult for them to rule over you. This is but one of many liberty-based solutions. I’d love for you to share what you’re doing where you live, how successful its been, how others have responded, and what you did if you’ve ever passed through Keene yourself. If you haven’t, you may be in for a surprise if you do.

  33. Nice

  34. wow you have so much hate

  35. David, just because you don’t understand the concepts in Roger’s comment doesn’t mean he said very little. Take a few days to read it again. For many of us, it doesn’t take that long to write a few paragraphs given that we use the English language daily. Give it a try!

  36. I thought it was an act for a while, you know, a way to stand out in the comments crowd. Nope, he really is dumb as a box of rocks.
    What else would you expect from a man who sits in his van across the street from people and films them in their homes. Seriously fucking creepy and an activity that would get you special attention in my neighborhood.

  37. Love it. Almost as absurd as labeling others commies and socialists meanwhile calling for their censorship. Sounds like someone’s drank the kool-aid.

  38. davidinkeene made a valid point. What have you done here other than name-call and make baseless accusations?

  39. Getting your “awareness” from sidewalk chalkings explains your ignorance. I see Boston’s removal of the graffiti as a public service.

  40. I would not consider confronting to be intolerant.

    Then you don’t know what the word “intolerant” means. It means unwilling to accept something. The chalkers were obviously unwilling to accept someone washing away their work otherwise there would have been no need to confront. Therefore you’re wrong to say they were tolerant.

    If the property owner told the UPS guy that he can wash the chalk if he likes, and then he does, then the UPS guy is not acting like he owns it.

    What are you talking about? No property owner gave anyone permission either to use chalk or to wash away chalk? Did you even read this article? The chalkers had no permit from the City to write on the pavement. The eraser had no license to wash the pavement. The property owner didn’t tell anyone they could do anything and if you think otherwise then you obviously don’t understand the situation this article is about.

    And the permission to chalk on the sidewalk there has not been limited by the terms I’ve been granted by its owner, the government.

    Neither has permission to wash the sidewalk been limited. So clearly if one person wants to chalk and another want to wash there’s a conflict. If you public-property-mongering lefties could set aside your bias in favor of one party against the other and looked at the situation objectively then you might be able to see the cause of the problem.

    I don’t know which is more believable: Schmidt has such a high degree of disdain for chalk drawings, or a high degree of disdain for the homeless.

    If you honestly believe that then you are an effing retard. If his disdain was for the homeless then he would not erase chalkings that are unrelated to the homeless. But according to this article and every other article about him he erases chalk regardless of its content, and there’s no evidence Schmidt even knew what he was erasing here. Please prove me wrong by showing a single instance where Schmidt refrained from erasing chalk due to the content of its message. If you can’t do that then you are dishonest for claiming you think this might be about homelessness.

    Is Boston someone we want to do business with? To befriend? To trust? To avoid? To guard against? etc.

    I don’t see a single thing in this article about the benefits or disadvantages of doing business with Schmidt, nor about whether or not he’s trustworthy nor dangerous, nor friendly nor loyal. All I see is a defamatory accusation claiming he hates the homeless supported by zero evidence. If you honestly thought those were the issues, then you would be saying so to the author of this article. But you’re not, which shows that what you’re really interested in is supporting the author’s dishonesty.

    There is something wrong with hate in a free society and every society.

    You are incorrect; there is nothing wrong with hate properly directed. Hate is a healthy natural human emotion. You anti-nature lefties are so hell-bent on socially re-engineering humanity that you just won’t rest until you’ve stripped society of every inborn instinct. Of course, deep down you know that’s true, otherwise you’d be complaining to the proprietor of this website about all the hate-posts on this blog, including this article we’re discussing. But you’re willing to look the other way as long the hate is coming from one of your comrades, further proof of your hypocrisy.

    One thing I learned is that one liberty-based solution, as you say, is standing up to tyrants and making it more difficult for them to rule over you.

    What does that have to do with this situation? Again, did you read this article? It’s about private citizens conflicting over public property. There’s no tyranny here; if there were then perhaps this conflict would already have been resolved if not justly.

  41. lots of words means bullcrap…you can quote me on that..

  42. im glad you admit it :thats the first step

  43. Ignore doucheinkeene. He has all sorts of problems, with stupid being at the top of the list. When he’s not busy licking Bernard’s boots or ass, he posts messages here.

  44. You mean the “non-threatening” people who stalk, taunt and provoke public employees and private citizens? Those people?

    Jeez … you’re such a douche. Get a life and a clue, loser.

  45. davidinkeene you’re the same “whackjob” that spent Christmas day parked two doors down from Schmidt’s house with both your van and your video camera pointed in the direction of Schmidt’s house. You’re the LAST person that get’s to talk to us about stalking, restraining orders and being polite.

  46. The property owner didn’t tell anyone they could do anything and if you think otherwise then you obviously don’t understand the situation this article is about.

    Sure it did. See the US Constitution and the NH Constitution Re: free speech.

    Please prove me wrong by showing a single instance where Schmidt refrained from erasing chalk due to the content of its message. If you can’t do that then you are dishonest for claiming you think this might be about homelessness.

    I don’t need to. Someone who hates homeless people would likely have a long list of things they hate, including individuality and self-expression.

    So clearly if one person wants to chalk and another want to wash there’s a conflict.

    What’s the conflict?

  47. You may not believe me, but I’ve actually been struggling to give you the benefit of the doubt, to assume that you are merely expressing yourself ineptly, and I’ve desperately been searching for something in your writing from which I can learn.

    I give up. As near as I can tell, you are either (1) so dull as to be unable to assemble a logically consistent thought from available evidence, (2) a dishonest person who says things he knows are not true, or (3) a troll who has been entertaining himself by seeing how long he can keep me going.

    I don’t know which it is, but this is the end of this thread for me. Perhaps my final comments will help someone else from wasting their time in the future trying to make sense of your confused postings.

    Sure it did. See the US Constitution and the NH Constitution Re: free speech.

    That is the stupidest thing you’re said so far, and if it were true then you would be posting quotes instead of making this false statement. Those documents are not permission from the City of Keene to anyone, they are hundreds of years old and predate the incorporation of Keene by a century and the birth of anyone in this situation by two centuries.

    I don’t need to. Someone who hates homeless people would likely have a long list of things they hate…

    This is even stupider than the last thing you wrote. When you say “I don’t need to” you really mean “I cannot because it’s not true.” And yet you will use that assumption for which you have no evidence as a premise to support a conclusion that you in turn wish to use as a premise in support of your original baseless assumption. Did I mention how stupid what you wrote is?

    What’s the conflict?

    But this takes the biscuit. This just might be the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard anyone say ever in my entire life. If you honestly cannot see why two people cannot use the same limited resource for mutually exclusive purposes and why if they attempt to do so there will be a conflict, then please kill yourself now, there is no hope for you. If you refuse to do the world’s gene pool so much benefit, please at least consider having the common decency to refrain from calling yourself a libertarian. Not only are you anything other than a libertarian, but the fact you wrote this clearly shows that you lack the capacity to understand what the word even means.

Care to comment?