WOW. Copblock and Liberty on Tour‘s Pete and Ademo went to trial today on felony “wiretapping” charges and “resisting arrest” in Greenfield, MA. (Click for extensive background info.) Over fifty supporters turned out! The courtroom was literally full with liberty-loving friends and associates of Pete and Ademo. Before trial, the “trespassing” charges were dropped, which was the original reason for arrest, but as we have seen, that never stops them from continuing prosecution.
Unfortunately, electronic devices were forbidden from the courtroom, with the exception of Jason Talley, who was the anointed one allowed in with a video camera. He was also allowed to bring in his tablet computer, which they decided that he can not bring in for the final day of trial, tomorrow. Why? Probably because he did an awesome job of videoblogging the trial, including classic moments showing what the atmosphere in court was like. Here’s a quick video showing one of SEVERAL instances of the audience erupting into applause for Pete and Ademo.
Besides that, the audience also laughed multiple times, and the court security and robed man did nothing. In addition, multiple hats were worn in court, and nothing was done. Nothing was also done about the applause, even though the prosecutor asked the robed man to stop it.
Now it’s happening again. This time in Concord. I discovered an unwanted envelope had been littered on my car. It was a parking ticket from the people calling themselves the “City of Concord”.
I sent them in response a Shire Society Peace Ticket to inform them that if they don’t dismiss this matter that I will cost them as much money as possible. They ignored the Peace Ticket and sent me another threat, saying I now owe them $40 instead of $10.
So, I gave them a call to see if they received my Peace Ticket. (more…)
I can’t speak for Pete, but for me, the outcome of our trial on Monday doesn’t matter – we’ve succeed at making our point. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to go to jail (who does?) but my conscious is clear. I know without a doubt that Pete and I didn’t harm anyone (though one officer claims he was ‘scratched’ when arresting us – yep, a scratch – lock us up now!) nor did we damage anyone’s property.
To me, we’ve already “won” (for lack of a better word) by making an impact. We’ve personally met 100?s of people here and brought the issues of police accountability to the streets of Greenfield without the local paper, city officials or other major forms of distributing information. Instead, we’ve – with on the ground activism and outreach – distributed thousands of fliers, DVD’s, business cards and shown people how effective (and scared) a camera is when interacting with police, especially when they’re doing (or have done) wrong.
Folks in the downtown area of Greenfield are consistently stopping Pete, Beau and myself to thank us for highlighting the our issue here. Several have gotten, or are talking about getting, cameras of their own, with plans of using them for police encounters in the future. Others have continued the Robing Hooding that we introduced them to on our last visit to the area. Even a current Greenfield Police Officer bought one of our shirts and said, “You’re doing valuable work.”
With the memorial to Thomas Ball in mind, a man chewed up and spit out by the family court system, I wanted to share a lawsuit against a police officer who illustrates the unintended consequences of using state violence to address thee non-violent problems of someone not paying their obligated child support.
The case is Henry v. Purnell, No. 08-7433 and it is from the 4th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The case is another instance of a police officer “accidently” using a gun to shoot someone running away in lieu of a Taser.
From Findlaw.com:
In a Section 1983 action arising from the fatal shooting of a suspect wanted for misdemeanor failure to pay child support, summary judgment in favor of defendant-police officer is reversed because: 1) although defendant intended to use his Taser rather than his gun to stop fleeing suspect, Tennessee v. Garner prohibits shooting suspects who pose no significant threat of death or serious physical threat; and 2) defendant’s use of force could be viewed by a jury as objectively unreasonable.
Yeah, I’d say that blasting a non-violent person with lead “could be” construed as “objectively unreasonable.” When you use state violence to solve non-violent problems, this is what happens. People get shot. Over owed child support.
If you think these cases are rare, you’d be incorrect. This particular case came out yesterday. I only chose to share it with you now in reflection of Mr. Ball’s memorial.
CORRECTION: Findlaw was incorrect in their syllabus stating that the man in this case was murdered. The man thankfully lived through this encounter, but it clearly could have turned out far worse.
WOW. Copblock and Liberty on Tour‘s Pete and Ademo went to trial today on felony “wiretapping” charges and “resisting arrest” in Greenfield, MA. (Click for extensive background info.) Over fifty supporters turned out! The courtroom was literally full with liberty-loving friends and associates of Pete and Ademo. Before trial, the “trespassing” charges were dropped, which was the original reason for arrest, but as we have seen, that never stops them from continuing prosecution.
Ademo 
