Rich Paul’s Analysis of the Cantwell Incident

The Church of the Invisible Hand

This is my analysis of Cantwell’s self defense incident. In my capacity as Mad Monk of the Church of the Invisible Hand, I will present it based on the principles of the Church, which are Peace, Love, Balance and Harmony.

First, let us examine principle of Peace. The Church believes that the best rule of behavior to achieve Peace is the Non-Aggression Principle. We believe that the only legitimate use of violence is in defense of yourself, another human or the property of a person. It is the only principle we will impose on others … we will forcibly prevent others from doing us harm. Cantwell’s behavior was completely in line with the principle of Peace. He does have a natural right to videotape a public street — public being defined as unowned or owned by an illegitimate entity like Government. Not only did he not initiate force, but when a credible threat of force was brought to bear against him, and he legally and morally could have fired in self-defense, he still forbore from firing, and brought the incident to a conclusion where nobody was harmed. That is the best possible outcome of a self-defense situation.

Secondly, let us examine the principle of Love. The Church believes as our Estimated Prophet Robert A Heinlein wrote.that “Love is that state where the well-being of another becomes essential of our own”, An
expression of love is relieving suffering, and whenever possible, doing so in a way that will help the person helped to become healthy and whole and be in a position to help others. I believe that Cantwell approached this situation in the spirit of Love, and with the intention of relieving and preventing suffering. This is consistent with the principle of Love.

The principle of Harmony is where this video is somewhat lacking. It is hard to comment on this aspect, because none of us knows what the situation looked like before Cantwell turned on the Camera. The good side of filming is that it leaves a record for future comment. But the Principle of Harmony suggests that one should not borrow trouble. There exists a plurality of the population that reacts very badly to being filmed. This is frequently the case with a belligerent drunk who is looking for something to give him an excuse to do violence. Other people, for example drug dealers and prostitutes, have reason to fear being filmed. Filming such people can create problems. As I have noted above, Cantwell has a right to film people on a public street. However, I have a natural right to swim in Shark infested waters while carrying my lucky ham, but yet I choose not to do it, because the consequences could well be bad. I am very sympathetic to the situation of wanting to help someone in distress, but there are other ways to do it. I probably would have approached but not engaged, remained close enough to help if violence broke out but far enough away to avoid becoming part of their problem, and observed until I had a feeling of whether violence was imminent. Video taping Cops is vital, because the whole system is rigged to allow them to avoid prosecution, and their words are frequently accepted as fact by juries and not questioned. Also, they can be expected to respond rationally to being filmed, which is not the case with the general public all the time. These conditions do not apply to the general public.

One should keep in mind that filming unwilling civilians is at best rude, and avoid undertaking that action unless there is clear and present danger. Even when their is, ask yourself, is it better to film or just to stand by to help? As our Estimated Prophet Sun Tzu said, the best victory is to win without fighting. A situation that resolves itself is a victory for all.

I don’t mean to single Cantwell out for criticism, and I have seen other Free Keeners play “stupid camera tricks” in ways of which I disapproved. But since Cantwell publicly posted this video, he has no expectation of privacy, he must expect his public behavior to be noted and commented upon, and now, once again, it has been.

I would like to close by saying that I am extremely pleased that nobody was physically harmed in this encounter, and thanking the KPD for their very professional behavior. You guys looked like Peace Officers out there, not Law Enforcement Officers, and we at Free Keene do not acknowledge as frequently as we should that KPD is a different breed, and a much better breed, than any of the Big City police departments I have dealt with. This is not to say that I approve of all of their behavior: these guys are out there enforcing drug laws, for example, and harming peaceful people by doing so, but their behavior in this situation was exemplary, and I appreciate their not shooting my friend.

The Church of the Invisible Hand is an Agnostic form of Deism which teaches that one should base his behavior on the principles of Peace, Love, Balance and Harmony. The Estimated Prophets of the Church include Adam Smith, Charles Darwin, Steven Hawking, Sun Tzu, Laozi, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, Jerry Garcia, Murry Rothbard, Robert Malthus, Thomas Jefferson, Ayn Rand, Robert A. Heinlein, Samuel Konkin III, J Neil Schulman, Michael Z Williamson, Ron Paul, Martin Luther King and many others. All of these Prophets are Estimated … none were or are perfect people, nor is their entire corpus doctrine of the church, but all have produced works worth study.

Please check out http://richpaul.freekeene.com for links to my projects and fundraising information. It is the donations of Liberty Lovers like you that enable my activism.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


41 Comments

  1. Constructive criticism: You’ll be taken more seriously if you replace every instance of “principal” with “principle”.

  2. BrianDixon Constructive, indeed!  Thanks!

  3. I really love the article and the principles listed. Using this same method, how would you rate yourself and Ian during the recent Maggie Hassan confrontation?

  4. JeremyCouch Note that Ian is not a member of the Church of the Invisible Hand, and I cannot answer for him.

    The one “mandatory” principle of the Church is Peace.  This is the principle that forbids force and fraud against others.  It is enforceable in that one who uses force against another may be stopped by force.  That is, in fact, the only acceptable use of force … to defend against force.  Maggie Hassan, and her minions at her command, have initiated force against tens of thousands of peaceful drug users and sellers.  They have hostages that hey are holding against their will at this very moment. They intend future terrorist action against drug users, gun owners, prostitutes and others, and have publicly announced their intentions.  They will do real violence against these people.  They will kill some of them.  They will kidnap and imprison others.
    The Principle of Harmony is important.  One should try to get along with people, and not to be rude to them.  However, this weighs much less in the Balance than the principle of Peace.  One may justifiably interrupt a dinner party seeking protection against a gang of thugs, or to report an .  By the same token, five minutes of thinking will not damage young people who have ostensibly devoted several years to the practice. We intruded as little as possible to say the things we needed to say.

    Balancing the Principle of Peace and the Principal of Harmony, I chose to act as you saw.  I hope that it will impact the debate and contribute to saving the lives that will otherwise be destroyed or stolen through the Drug War.

  5. Approached the situation with the principle of love, continued it with the principle of getting YouTube views. If you walked in on a couple arguing and asked, “Is everything OK?” and BOTH parties say, “Yes, please leave us alone.” What do you think the appropriate action is? Leave and allow them to have their moment. I don’t care if you’re in public, in a situation like this where Chris could have easily continued on his way, he should have. Have a little respect for people’s privacy and allow them to hash things out. It was the middle of the night and an argument started on the street. They weren’t disturbing anyone, they weren’t in anyone’s way, and it’s clear no one was in danger. Nor did that WANT Chris’ protection. So bug off.

  6. eglove I don’t think that’s the entire story though. My understanding is that the female who was being yelled at and crying never told Chris to go away. So all parties were not telling him to stop recording and leave. Let’s say the men were beating this other female, and the men told Chris to go away. You wouldn’t want him to then, would you? This particular situation is not as cut and dry as that, and I pretty much agree with the Harmony part of the article like you are saying.
    In retrospect maybe Chris or anyone of us in that situation could do things differently, but they were the ones yelling in public, apparently drunk, and then violent. People are responsible for their own feelings and actions even if they see recording as rude.

  7. RichPaul JeremyCouch I remember a lot of talk a few years ago about killing them with kindness is why I asked. I’m in no position to criticize as I sit on the sidelines. It’s an interesting discussion and one I’m sure you guys have had. When dealing with the high level gang I doubt kindness or rudeness will work, but I would think (maybe incorrectly) that kindness would make lower level gang members and regular folks more receptive to the message. It’s easy to dismiss someone’s message if you see them as rude. Although confrontation gets more attention and may bring in more people who are already liberty minded to help. I don’t know what’s best. Just wondered if the killing with kindness (whatever that might look like) was ever really tried.

  8. Hey look, you CAN fix stupid. Well, sort of.

  9. You guys sure have a lot of Estimated Prophets.

  10. What Cantwell did was not appropriate. First off, it was only one woman walking towards him. Second, if he had shot someone, he would be sitting in jail for a very long time. He ended up throwing the gun away per police orders. He was interfering where he shouldn’t have. He should have just called the police right away instead of trying to take things into his own hands.

  11. “he…..brought the incident to a conclusion” – actually Chris did not bring the incident to a conclusion, the arrival of the KPD did. Chris almost escalated the incident unnecessarily.

  12. Jumping Jacks Um pretty sure the video shows the whole group chasing after him all because he was recording in a public place.

  13. eglove Doesn’t matter, its a public place people, this cry baby nation needs to grow up.  So these people pitch a bitch fit over there privacy when a citizen in public place is using a camera but then they  bend over and take it when its with its the NSA….right.   Can the little tax cattle say give me more masta.

  14. i have a query:What was the estimated Profit of the grateful dead song Estimated Prophet ?

  15. Nick Cash You can’t fix the kind of stupid that an ex-convict has.  That’s a lifetime affliction.

  16. “Church of the Invisible Hand Job”.  That’s what these assclowns do with each other all day at their flop house in Keene.

  17. DavidCrawford4 I have no idea how much money they made off that, but the phrase “Estimated Prophet” was chosen because I appreaciated the pun, and because of the song.  Jerry Garcia is also an Estimated Prophet of the Church, because of the wonderful capitalist society which followed the Dead around.  Everybody was selling something, with no central planning, no taxes, no regulation and yet we all managed to stay on the tour.

  18. Jumping Jacks You should really watch the video or stop lying here.  A pattern of veracity is very important, if you want to be believed.  If you watch the video, you will see one woman, running and at least one man running behind her.  Two or three people of various genders, running are not equal to one woman walking.  You are a liar.

  19. eglove I would not put nearly that much blame on Cantwell.  It is rude to fart in public.  It is criminal to physically attack somebody who farts in public.  Cantwell was rude.  They were violent.  Big diff.

  20. JeremyCouch RichPaul I try to be kind and establish rapport, most of the time.  You cannot do that with a silent person.  I am also a real person.  I was and am genuinely angry, and that anger came through to some extent.  Having one’s life stolen does not generally cause affection for the thieves.  Jail is an attempt to create Stockholm Syndrome, where the victim comes to identify with his captors.  I did not work on me.

  21. Nick Cash One can fix wrong.  Stupid, not so much.  I’ve got a 146 IQ, before and after, so just the wrong was fixed.  I’m just as stupid as I was before.  🙂

  22. Man on the Street Nick Cash Would you include Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King in your list of “ex-convicts”?  Both were convicted of crimes.  And don’t forget that ALL of the founding fathers would have gone down in history as criminals, had they not won the war?

  23. JeremyCouch eglove You are right.  Three people screamed “go away” IIRC, and one stayed silent.  Just what you would expect if you came across three people beating the crap out of one person … just saying.

  24. @richpaul, please don’t be such as ass, comparing yourself to MLK & Nelson Mandela. It makes you look arrogant and, well, stupid. As does proclaiming your supposed146 IQ. Stupid is as stupid does. And I see you doing a lot of stupid. It shows you for what you is.

  25. RichPaul Jumping Jacks I have watched the video. The one man behind the woman was trying to stop her from approaching Cantwell, or did you not see that too? I made a statement. If you don’t like it, that is fine. But looking at the several responses you have posted on different articles, I would tend to say you are the liar.

  26. TaxCattleKiller Jumping Jacks He was adding to the confrontation.

  27. Nick Cash I agree – Paul should not compare himself to a terrorist like Mandela.

  28. RichPaul That doesn’t mean rudeness can’t instigate as it did in this case. I didn’t say, “Put the man in jail for this!” He’s got plenty of victims that deserve actual restitution that he’s refused to recognize. This is just not something I’m going to fawn over and I’m not going to say he did everything right as many others have. It’s typical behavior for him and when he finally does get beat down for acting like an ass, as he does to most people he encounters, I won’t have a lot of sympathy.

  29. Jumping Jacks RichPaul  You claim to have watched the video? You didn’t watch it very carefully then. Neither of the men tried to stop the woman (Alicia) from advancing. It was Alicia’s female companion that tried to restrain her. Not the two men.
    Here are the details describing the chain of events.
    At the start of the video, you can see a small SUV in the parking lot. There is one man behind the vehicle who is obscured from the camera’s view. To the left of the Subway restaurant are two women and a man in a red jacket. One of the women (Alicia) breaks away from the duo and joins the man behind the car. Alicia’s tone (and the tone of her female companion) indicate an argument has unfolded.
    Alicia’s female companion then speaks briefly with Chris. While she’s speaking, the man in the red jacket walks behind the car and out of plain view. Alicia’s female companion’s last statement to Chris is “I want to get out of this.” She then joins the trio behind the car.
    One of the men behind the car (it’s unclear in the recording as to which one) demands that Chris “put the camera away, now.” Chris declines the demand. Alicia then emerges from around the left side of the car, and advances towards Chris, with the man in the red jacket following. A man in a white shirt (or possibly shirtless as the pixelated recording makes it hard to tell) emerges from around the right side of the car. Alicia’s female companion appears shortly after from around the right side of the car, following the shirted/ shirtless man.
    Alicia becomes more agitated and yells “Are you recording me!?” She then runs towards Chris. Alicia’s female companion then pursues Alicia. The two men do NOTHING to stop Alicia. Instead they continue to advance slowly.
    Chris then points his camera down, turns, and retreats across the street.
    After his brief retreat, Chris stops and points the camera back at Alicia. We see that Alicia’s female companion is now restraining Alicia. Alicia is still yelling at Chris. Alicia then breaks away from her female companion and once again runs towards Chris. The shirted/shirtless man can be seen running towards Chris off to Alicia’s left. This man’s direction of travel indicates that he’s vectoring towards Chris’s position of retreat and is NOT trying to interfere with Alicia. The position of the man in the red jacket is unknown and he’s not readily visible in the camera’s rapidly changing field of view. It’s at this point Chris drops his camera and draws his sidearm.
    Note that I choose the term “vectoring” because the angle indicates the man is trying to cut off Chris’s retreat and is not trying to interfere with Alicia’s advancement towards Chris. While you could also argue that the angle may have been chosen to avoid the tree in his path, that’s doubtful because he could have simply vectored towards Alicia from the start. He didn’t. I wonder why?

  30. RichPaul Man on the Street Nick Cash You’re comparing yourself with Nelson Mandela and MLK, not to mention the founding fathers of a nation you despise?

    Big talk for an unemployed loser who smokes weed all the time.  The weed has obviously affected that tiny brain of yours.

  31. eglove RichPaul Rudeness is not an excuse for violence.

  32. Nick Cash All three of us are people who did time and became felons working for human rights.  They have been more successful than I, so far.  But I’m just getting started.

  33. Man on the Street The Church does not yet have Temple Prostitutes, and thus the Invisible Hand Job is not yet available.

  34. RichPaul Duh. XD Nor is YouTube an excuse for rudeness.

  35. RichPaul Nick Cash No, you became a felon for using and selling drugs. You comparing yourself to real heroes in history is a slap in the face to those who suffered for civil rights.  Smoking pot is not a civil right nor is it mentioned in the bill of rights or the constitution. Your behaviors may just put you back in prison. That I’m sure of.

  36. Jumping Jacks RichPaul Nick Cash  I hate to say it jumping jax but saying smoking pot isnt in the constitution  is pretty stupid thing to say….. the constitution doesnt say anything about driving a car or…using a computer…isnt it wrtten on hemp paper which is horribly illegal now…so jumping jax plz stop sayin dumb things please..

  37. RichPaul Nick Cash LoL … you’re just another unemployed, overweight loser that smokes weed all the time and certainly does not have a 146 IQ.
    I guarantee you’ll be back in jail before the year is out.  Idiots like yourself cannot help themselves.

  38. RichPaul Jail is for losers who refuse to abide by society’s laws – period.  Half-brained imbeciles like yourself never really catch on to that fact, and therefore continue to be convicted and sentenced to jail.  Like I stated previously: I fully expect you to be bounced back into jail and/or prison before the year is out, because idiots like yourself simply cannot help themselves.

  39. DavidCrawford4 Jumping Jacks RichPaul Nick Cash You said, ” I hate to say it jumping jax but saying smoking pot isnt in the constitution  is pretty stupid thing to say”  Smoking pot isn’t in the constitution.  

    You said, “the constitution doesnt say anything about driving a car or…using a computer”. You are correct it doesn’t but you cannot have those things if you can’t afford them. Second, if you are going to drive a vehicle on public roads, you have to have a valid drivers license and insurance. Driving is a privilege not a right. You can also have your cable turned off ect… So making the comparisons you did is very dumb. 

    You said, “.isnt it wrtten on hemp paper which is horribly illegal now” No it wasn’t

    The Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are currently housed in the National Archives. All three are written on parchment, not hemp paper. Parchment is treated animal skin, typically sheepskin. The Declaration was inked with iron gall ink.

  40. Jumping Jacks DavidCrawford4 RichPaul Nick Cash No, actually, since we live in New Hampshire, we do not have to have insurance.  So, where do you live, that you imagine insurance is required?

    Your claim about being able to afford things makes no sense.  Having a right to something means that someone else cannot prevent you from freely obtaining it, not that they are required to supply it.

Care to comment?