Cop Blocking Better Cops

Josh Paulette, Cheshire County Sheriff's Deputy

Josh Paulette, Cheshire County Sheriff’s Deputy

Josh Paulette is a Cheshire county sheriff’s deputy. We first met when I was being transported to the jail for my first act of noncooperation close to a decade ago. He was as courteous as someone could be who is tasked with transporting people in shackles. Like many police in New Hampshire, Josh is easy-going, affable, and is generally pleasant to encounter, even when depriving you of your liberty. Like all of us humans, he’s not perfect. There was one time that James Cleaveland witnessed (and video recorded) Josh tackle a young college-age male after he drunkenly ran from an open container arrest, but aside from that adrenaline-fueled incident, I have nothing but praise for my experiences with Josh.

Earlier this month, Josh pulled me over for allegedly cutting through a parking lot to avoid a red light on West St, which is apparently illegal in NH, despite the common practice’s positive effect on traffic flow. One of the general principles of Cop Blocking is not talking to the police, but when you have a cordial relationship with them, as many activists in Keene do, a different approach is necessary.

When interacting with police you know, consider the following options along with the standard Cop Block suggesstions: (I don’t employ all of them in the video – this stuff takes practice, and I’m not perfect.)

  • Be polite, yet assertive of your rights. – Asserting your rights actually helps keep polite police as well-behaved as possible. Police would prefer to deal with people who don’t know their rights. Even though an officer’s demeanor may be cordial, he *is* conducting an investigation and has the ability to deprive you of your liberty with near-zero consequences to himself. Don’t let them fool you into a false sense of safety. Despite Josh’s friendly demeanor, this is an adversarial encounter and you can hear the adrenaline in my voice when I say “I don’t know.” I’ve had lots of experience with police, but it’s still common for me to be nervous when pulled over, especially at first. Practice helps, but you still never really know what will happen.
  • Anything you say can be used against you. – It’s highly risky to speak with the police in general. If you want to politely decline to interact with an officer you know, you could say something like, “Josh, I don’t want to appear rude, but I’m more comfortable if we don’t speak during this encounter.” If you feel inclined to talk to the officer, don’t answer questions. Pause and think before you speak. My responses here were not optimal – it’s usually better to ask questions rather than be the subject of questions.
  • Give them feedback. – If they are doing something you don’t like, let them know. I do a better job of this when talking to KPD’s Jason Short during the DEA raid of Phat Stuff last year, where, without being mean, I inform Jason that I don’t appreciate them assisting the DEA in destroying a man’s business. More average folks should give negative feedback to the police when they do the wrong thing and positive feedback when they do the right thing, like I did in this video.
  • Refuse any request to search. – If the officer and you have a history and you are known as a rights-asserting activist, odds are good you’ll not be asked for a search, but if you are, just say no. Whichever officer asking that is not being cordial at all at that point and is escalating the stop. If you’ve been chatty, that’s a really good time to zip it.
  • Record the scene. – Always record interactions with police. It helps keep them honest and creates an objective record of the event. Ideally, you should also stream it live if possible. Plus it helps to go back later and review your performance. What can you do better next time?

After our short initial interaction, Josh walks off with the car’s registration after handing me back my insurance info (not required by the state) and moments later Jennifer Schmidt drives by.

Jennifer_Schmidt

Alleged Child Stalker Jennifer Schmidt

Recent readers of Free Keene may recall that Jen Schmidt is a local business owner and active member of a local hate group that has a temporary no-stalking order against her for allegedly harassing and stalking a ten-year-old boy. That case is still pending a full hearing. Stay tuned here to Free Keene for the latest on that. Within two minutes of me being pulled over and starting my live stream via Bambuser.com she drives by holding up her cell phone, presumably recording or photographing the scene.

After one more minute passes, Josh gives me a warning and I drive the remainder of the block down to my home, Jen Schmidt passes BACK by on River Street, going back to her house. She didn’t have enough time to do anything else besides go around the block, so it’s pretty clear she left her house for the purpose of coming to record the scene – it was no coincidence. Presumably she saw me go live on Bambuser and came out to do whatever the opposite of Cop Blocking is. Kudos to her for the super-fast response time. Plus, if she’s creeping on me she can’t be stalking any children at the same time.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


39 Comments

  1. ” Josh pulled me over for allegedly cutting through a parking lot to avoid a red light on West St, which is apparently illegal in NH, despite the common practice’s positive effect on traffic flow.

    Bernard, you are an incredible fucking loser. You really need to be locked up and have your license to drive revoked.

  2. Being ticketed for cutting through a business parking lot is very libertarian on two counts: property rights and common law. Regarding property rights – the property owner paid for the parking lot in order to meet his needs and the needs of his customers. He didn’t put the parking lot in to allow just anyone to use his property. The ticket penalizes you for doing that. Now in a perfect world, the fine would go to the property owner.

    The issue of common law is even more significant. Common law recognizes established customers and behaviors. If a property owner allows the general public to use part of his property as a right of way, then overtime common law will declare the property owner as having given up his property rights to that area. So most people will be sensitive to that happening. The ticket is meant to keep people from using the parking lot as a right of way.

  3. * customs

  4. What’s with the projection Ian?

    Jennifer Schmidt should have gotten out of her car and taped the whole encounter just like you tell all Cop Blockers to do.

    How come it’s only stalking when other people do it?

  5. What you say would be true if the fine money went to the property owner rather than to the State. Of course, then we wouldn’t call it a fine, we would call it a toll. In this case, the property owner was not consulted, and in fact if the property owner wanted to allow passage accoss its lot the State would be violating its property rights by issuing tickets against its will.

  6. It’s illegal in every state in the union, Ian. My gosh – I just can’t believe how much of a deceitful and disingenuous individual you truly are. You’re a driving disaster just waiting to happen. It really is just a matter of time before you do something illegal that will seriously affect someone else’s life, isn’t it?

    And regarding your off-topic diatribe regarding Jen Schmidt: why is it when you or one of your band of pathetic groupies does the exact same thing, it’s not considered stalking in your mind? Do you really believe that people cannot see through your hypocritical double-talk?

    You call yourself an “activist”, but all I see is an individual with a full-blown case of narcissistic personality disorder and other emotional issues.

  7. Pretzel logic nonsense. The business owner is paying taxes to insure the police enforce the law and preserve his/her rights. The fines go toward continuing these actions as well. In the same vein, the property owner cannot unilaterally define traffic laws on his/her own.

    Ian thinks he can ignore laws and just do whatever the heck he wants. There is a reckoning coming for him and I hope it’s soon.

  8. I acknowledged that she was doing the opposite of cop blocking, whatever that is, and even complimented her response time. Just observing.

  9. I’m not surprised it seems to be nonsense to you, since you are ignorant of the most basic facts of the situation, for example that it is the property owner, not the business owner who is paying the taxes, and the reason that property owner pays taxes is to prevent the property from being confiscated, not for some imaginary rights that you could no more define than any cop could “protect.”

    Businesses pay big money to increase traffic, and cops issuing tickets lessens traffic, so obviously no business has any financial interest in cops issuing traffic tickets on its property. That’s not pretzel-logic but simple common sense.

    As for Ian thinking he can ignore the laws, I’m in agreement with you on that point.

  10. Ian the pot calling the kettle black with “stalking children”. We all know who the stalkers of children are in Keene and New Hampshire, Ian Freeman and the rest of the Free State Project cult who believe sex with minors is no problem! Here is the core of libertarian/anarchist philosophy, I should be able to fuck children, because…liberty?

  11. The age of consent is 16 in New Hampshire… so your beloved government apparently thinks sex with minors is no problem.

  12. So you like to bang16 year old girls? I know Ian does. And what is it with you oxygen thieves and “beloved government” comments? Just because we take a position that is antithetical to yours does not mean we love or worship the state anymore than we do a philip’s head screw-driver, shovel or any other tool that is used to pursue an end. Stop hitting the bong so hard dude, your argumentation and logic is suffering!

  13. Your “question” makes no sense, since your beloved government made that law, not I. Maybe you should be asking the NH legislature whether then have a thing for 16-year-olds.

    And yes, if you take a position that’s “antithetical” to mine, that would necessarily mean that you love and worship the State.

  14. Driving through a parking lot does not make one “deceitful and disingenuous” nor does it make one a “driving disaster”. What type of drama queen says this crap? Are you able to leave your bedroom without breaking down in tears?

  15. You just might be a sociopath.

    If that’s your standard for locking someone up and taking away their license then I expect you would support executing speeders. In your ideal form of government the entire populace is in a cage or dead.

  16. Chad, c’mon: don’t confuse these people with the facts. It gets them all wound up and agitated. It also probably causes spittle to start flying from their lips as they bang out a response on their keyboards.

  17. You first: how often do you venture from your parents basement? You probably don’t have a job, so I’m guessing it’s not too often.

    And no: following people around harassing and video recording them is not a “job” so let me stop you right there.

  18. I’m self employed and payed in full cash for my current house last year. I don’t do much activism but am thankful for those that do.

  19. Um, yes, for those between 13 and 16. Once someone hits 16, they are free to consent, regardless of how much older their partner might be.

    Which, of course, is exactly what I said.

  20. Might want to actually read, before talking about “facts” – all Chad did was demonstrate that I was right. The age difference sections only apply to those even younger than 16.

  21. which is exactly why you are wrong because it is not regardless of age

  22. b) When the actor subjects another person, other than the actor’s legal
    spouse, who is 13 years of age or older and under 16 years of age to
    sexual contact where the age difference between the actor and the other
    person is 5 years or more.

    dumbass

  23. Could you show me where I said “regardless” of anything?

  24. Did you have a point? “George” made a claim that Ian and other Freestaters believe that sex with minors is acceptable. I pointed out that his beloved laws make that claim, because 16 is, last time I checked, under 18.

    You are correct that those as young as 13 are legally permitted to consent to sexual contact with those who are within five years of their age (and to penetrative sex with those who are within four years of their age). But that’s irrelevant, as the claim was “minors,” and someone who is 16 is free to consent to sex with no such restrictions, and is also a minor.

    Not sure what you’re even attempting to prove, other than that, in addition to 90-year-olds having sex with 16-year-olds, the State also accepts sexual contact between 13-year-olds and 18-year-olds…

  25. 632-A:3 Felonious Sexual Assault. –

    A person is guilty of a class B felony if such person:

    I. Subjects a person to sexual contact and causes serious personal
    injury to the victim under any of the circumstances named in RSA
    632-A:2; or

    II. Engages in sexual penetration with a person, other than his legal
    spouse, who is 13 years of age or older and under 16 years of age where
    the age difference between the actor and the other person is 4 years or
    more;

  26. you really should read the entire law and not just certain points. while i provided a small portion of it to refute your “regardless of age” comment, you continue to make a fool of yourself. you may want to gracefully step away now.

  27. I have read thethe entire law. Actually, the entire criminal code. Part of law school, dontchaknow.

    Nothing you’re providing supports your claim. The four- and five-year age difference standards apply only in the 13-16 range. Once 16 is reached, age is no longer applicable, regardless of the gap.

  28. you made a claim and i destroyed it, now your trying to shift the goal post. for someone who went to law school, i would go get my money back.

  29. No, I made a claim (that NH law allows adults to have sex with those who are 16 or older), and all you’ve done is to point out that NH law also allows some very young adults to have sexual contact with some who are even younger than 16.

    I stated that: “The age of consent is 16 in New Hampshire… so your beloved government apparently thinks sex with minors is no problem.”

    Please show me where you “destroyed” that claim.

  30. “the State also accepts sexual contact between 13-year-olds and 18-year-olds…” i shown that it actually don’t.

  31. also it is 18 for someone in a position of authority.

  32. That was after, so you still haven’t explained which claim you imagined you were “destroying” by posting statutes that support what I said.

    And, last I checked, 13 plus 5 is… 18.

  33. What is 18?

  34. you really did NOT in fact read all the law

  35. last i checked 13+4 (where it is stated in other parts) is 17

  36. LMAO … oh, so now you’re a lawyer – right. I’m a nuclear weapons designer, myself … or is it an astronaut? Maybe I’m a lawyer too.

  37. Sure you did. Run along, little boy – the adults are having a conversation here.

  38. Name calling and avoiding the subject is for children and that is all you have done so far. Accusing me of not having a job and of being a child has not solved the problem of you being an over-reactive drama queen. Instead it has continued to add support to that claim.

Care to comment?