Local Snitch, Alexander Short of Swanzey
According to police, the then-unknown motorcycle operator ditched the bike and ran into the woods before police were able to catch up. Fortunately for the cops, a local snitch, Alexander Short – the owner of Short’s Detailing at 58 Forest Ave in Swanzey – approached them and told officers he knew who the operator of the motorcycle was, as the two had been hanging out in the Target parking lot the same night. The snitch placed a phone call to Mikey’s cell phone and officers were then able to locate and take him into custody, ultimately returning him home to his parents’ house.
Months later, Mikey was subsequently charged with two misdemeanor counts: “disobeying an officer” and “operating without valid license”. The first count was charged as “class A”, which could result in up to a year in jail and the second count charged as “class B” which could be a large fine. The Keene Police prosecutor offered a plea deal which would have dropped the class A charge in return for his guilty plea on the class B with the punishment being a 30 day loss of license and $620 fine plus $720 suspended on condition of good behavior. Now-seventeen-year-old Mikey heroically refused the plea deal and took the charges to trial earlier this month:
After the state presented its case, Keene district court judge Patrick W Ryan took the case “under advisement” and complimented Mikey, telling him, “you did a good job”. It was Mikey’s first time in court and he appeared pro-se, defending himself without the help of an attorney.
Normally, when a robed man takes a case under advisement it is a good sign that the verdict will not be “guilty”, because usually they are hesitant to deliver a not-guilty verdict in front of an audience and cameras. Judges are likely to issue more favorable verdicts when the cameras are off and no one is around, and that is exactly what happened in this case. Actually, the charges were “dismissed” according to the case file, which means Mikey wasn’t found “not guilty”. Dismissing charges after the trial has finished is an unusual result, but it’s still a solid win for the teenage Cop Block activist.
Observers reported that the snitch Alexander Short laughed and told Mikey outside of the courtroom to “have fun in jail”. Who is laughing now? One benefit of taking charges to trial is the police have to put snitches – or any undercover agents – on the witness stand to make their case, whereas if the defendant takes a plea deal the snitch is protected from public view. So now everyone knows that Alexander Short of Swanzey New Hampshire is happy to throw his friends under the bus and rat them out to the police for victimless crimes.
Congratulations to Mikey for his victory!
Go Mikey! I can only imagine where you are going to lead us with your in the face activism and confidence. I only wish I had the balls you had at 15. If anybody missed the first link in the article of mikey undermining speed traps at 11 !!! you just have to go back and watch that video too. It’s got to be the best copblocking video ever. https://freekeene.com/2016/06/04/alstead-boy-11-shuts-down-state-troopers-speed-trap/
I bet he’s related to jason short … he looks alittle like him
Mikey? At least he didn’t kill himself or anyone else during the high speed chase. It looks like “Mikey” is trying to get into the big league of the freekeeners. He got off this time but we will see next time.
Uh huh. Ya know Jacks, it’s even more fortunate that the cops didn’t kill themselves or anyone else during that chase. Because we all know how difficult it is to hold armed government workers accountable once it’s discovered that they’re the ones who fucked things up, am I right?
I disagree with the writers view on why judges take things under advisement. My view is that they take it under advising because they want to do a guilty verdict without dealing with the response that would happen in the courtroom AKA they are too chicken to say it to people’s face and they want to say it by a letter
He took a risk, taking it to court.
If the cops chased him, and there’s no doubt if that, then he’d be found guilty of *something*.
He lucked out.
He took a gamble and got lucky.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to root on 11 year olds running from the cops.. Not publicly anyway
So who should we be rooting for, Dave?
So who should we be rooting for, Dave?
Mikey wasn’t 11 years old at the time of the accusatory chase. He was 15 and if anything it’s the cops who may or may not have put lives in danger. The chase supposedly didn’t start off with Mikey speeding if I recall correctly. The bigger problem is that government created this situation in the first place through licensing of motor vehicle operators and putting arbitrary restrictions on obviously capable drivers. This discrimination against young people is morally repulsive. More people need to stand up and fight cases involving driving without a license. It’s not an issue of safety and… Read more »
ok…i agree with the less licensing..
as it is; there is licensing and I don’t think younger people should be running from the cops, not that older people should be running the cops.
But younger people shouldn’t learn or get affirmations that running from the cops is a good way to go, so early in life.
Older people should already have that clue.
Like some of the commentors here who’s are going “hooray for running from the cops!”..
Meanwhile while they’d stop immediately.
Mikey’s examination of the officer begins around 17:45, if anyone wants to skip ahead like I did.
It’s not that running from the cops is a good idea, but the accusation existed true or not, happened or didn’t happen, and fighting the beast that is was an important and worthwhile effort regardless of whether or not an individual made the best decision for himself at the time. You can make an unwise decision and still be morally justified as may have been the case here. It’s the police that are part of the problem, on top of politicians, and government run educational institutions that have brainwashed our population into a belief that law enforcement is for our… Read more »
Mikey’s examination of officer Richmond begins at 30:30. Alex’s testimony starts at 32:50. Mikey’s legal arguments begin at 43:00.
Obviously he gets major props for going to court and fighting it and winning that’s very liable eminently laudable
It was a big gamble though… Like I already mentioned.. And he got lucky..
I’ll have to watch the video though.
Uh huh. But what if those cops were trying to get him just so they could drop some digits in him and stuff? Then what, Dave? Cuz running away from them definitely seems like a pretty good idea to me in that case. Then again I’m no expert in these matters – you know, like you and Jacks clearly are.
listening to the video: at 12 minutes in, a *guilty* verdict seems assured. At 23 minutes now, the kid is doing a super job, but, at this point, i don’t see how he’s going to win. im surprised that the prosecution didn’t say something, to one of the officers, to the effect of: “Did that helmet of the individual coming out of the woods match the helmet of the guy you were chasing” neuadowski has elephant ears Anyone in the world would know full and well and it’s plain in clear that the kid was Maybe the judge thinks …… Read more »
I hate that freekeene doesn’t let you edit out misspells etc
It’s plain in clear that he was guilty guilty guilty.
But he prevailed in court
Uh huh. Thing is, the very fact that Mikey prevailed in court means that he wasn’t guilty, Dave. You can go ahead and file that under the section labeled “Words Mean Things.”
Courts don’t always get things right. There is guilty in the legal sense- which he’s obviously not. There is guilty in the practical sense (did he do it or not, which is independent of whether or not they could prove it). I’m glad Mikey won, but whether or not he committed a crime or I should say could prove it is likely dependent on them proving knowledge of some kind. It would appear from the trial and according to I believe the one cop he was immediately cooperative with the police once they could reasonably evidence through testimony that he… Read more »
Well done by a respectable young man that didn’t let the state start the process of ruining his life forever by trying desperately to drag him, like us all, into their system of abuse for profit at the cost of freedom… who was hurt here? Mikey was. He stood up at cost to him. Thank you again for your service to your fellow humans, Mikey.
“^”
The libertarian idea that : “so he drove 100 mph down a side street full of kids playing! : No victim no crime”
“And so what if he keeps doing it?!; No one got hit!”
That is the no victim no crime.
Idea.
That doesn’t stand up to simple logical thinking. And common sense.
No victim no crime could be said about some scenarios.
That’s not a problem with no victim no crime, David.
That’s a problem created by having state-managed public roads… along with the convenience of your antiquated system to initiate violence against people what could easily be handled by private ownership and contracts. In your system of violence, if you have to forbid anything you have to make it a crime. But that isn’t the way of the future my friend…
Oh, I see.
How will the private ownership enforce the rules on their privately owned roads?
Same way as with any privately owned property, Dave. With security forces that look suspiciously like police forces. Like at the mall. LoL. It depends if the person is trespassing on said road, which last I checked is still a crime in libertopia. The victim in this case would be the property/road owner. Or if they are in breach of contract, then the contract is enforced by the relevant authorities. So you see kids are still safe. Contrary to popular belief, libertarians do care about kids Dave. We really do:( And yet if someone wants to have a road where… Read more »
“we libertarians care about kids”
You aren’t a libertarian.
There is no ifs ands or buts about that.
You’re a right wing partisan.
You should stop defiling the word libertarian.
You are in no way shape or form a libertarian. I know what a libertarian is.
And you are not one!
That’s not up for debate that’s a simple unequivocal, undebatable fact.
You are a liar and you’re perpetuating a misconception about libertarians by claiming it but acting as a partisan Republican.
You’re a liar who does a disservice to libertarianism.
Lol