Copblocker Exits Vehicle During DUI Checkpoint – Don’t Try This At Home

Published On September 10, 2013 | By CopBlock | Articles

Ian Freeman shared this article via CopBlock.org’s submit page.

http://freekeene.com/2013/09/04/ensuring-safety-at-a-suspicionless-checkpoint/

Late into the evening of August 31, the New Hampshire state police established a suspicionless checkpoint on Route 12 in Walpole. The location seemed a strange choice, as the area is notably rural and does not see any heavy traffic. Presumably, this was also the first suspicionless checkpoint established in Cheshire county this year. A detail of about ten state police units and just under that amount of cruisers situated themselves in front of a large Citgo station and waited for drivers to ambush. For most, the checkpoint meant shuffling through one’s wallet to find their papers, drowning in a sea of backlighting for about two minutes, occasionally field-testing for sobriety, then being released upon their way.

2013_08_31_checkpointnhsp

While it is the position of the state that these sorts of rights-infringing checkpoints promote safety by increasing detection of impaired and possibly reckless drivers, individuals are detained at these checkpoints indiscriminately and during my time at the checkpoint itself, I observed only one car that was permitted to roll through with no detention. Since detentions were not based on suspicion of a driving offense, they essentially violate the fourth amendment of the US constitution as well as liberties enumerated in the New Hampshire constitution, but the framework of a supposedly free people is permitted to be violated so long as a person in a black robe authorizes the indiscriminate stops. Per NH law, the suspicionless checkpoint was announced in advance with a release published in the Keene Sentinel. Knowing that drivers needed additional notice of the checkpoint, activists set up signs warning of the checkpoint ahead and indicating where the final turnoff was to avoid the detention from either approach.

2013_08_31_fieldsobriety

At no time over the course of the evening did I observe any driving offenses or conduct that could be considered a physical threat to anyone’s person. The primary threat to safety was the threat of being thrown in a cage, which hung over all present near the police checkpoint, whether stopped in a vehicle or exercising the right to film from the right of way. When I first approached the checkpoint from the North side on foot, I kept about one hundred feet away from the nearest cruiser and did not walk alongside the checkpoint. After several 2013_09_03_akpfvestminutes in this position, I was approached by the commanding Lieutenant Jerome Maslan and asked not to enter the roadway. For my protection, in addition to rolling video, I was wearing a reflective AKPF safety vest and a headlamp which was pointed at my feet, to ensure that there could be no allegation that I was using my light to blind or distract others. The Lieutenant was cordial during our first encounters on the side of the road, but he would grow increasingly agitated as more activists and pedestrians arrived. For seemingly no reason at all, Jerome decided to close one side of the road’s right of way to pedestrian traffic, claiming the shoulder was private property and that we would have to cross the street in order to walk fifty feet up the road. This was a ludicrous and presumably illegal order, and it is unclear whether it was even an order at all. Throughout the night, troopers would often ask individuals to perform an action, and often there was active compliance. When Ian Freeman decided to exit a vehicle’s passenger side while I was driving and detained, Jerome asked 2013_08_31_nhsp_jeromehim several times to re-enter the vehicle. Though his repeated statement, “I’m asking you to get in the car” sounded more like a request than an order, the implication was that this question was legal threat and not complying with the question could result in an arrest. This was confirmed when Jerome stated, “This is your last chance to get back into the car. If you don’t get back into the car, then this officer will arrest you for disorderly conduct.” Ian complied under duress, and likely would have complied earlier if Jerome had been clear in his diction. A high ranking law enforcement officer should know the difference between asking a question and giving a legal order.

The reason for which Ian was asked to re-enter the vehicle was the dubiously vague appeal to safety. But not just anyone’s safety — “I’m asking you to get in the car for your safety.” Jerome was accurate that it was a threat to Ian’s safety to be outside of the vehicle. But the source of the threat to Ian’s safety was Jerome and his subordinates, who had the power to cage him for simply standing alongside a vehicle that he was attempting to travel freely in. There was a major threat to safety posed on Saturday evening and into Sunday morning, and it was the threat that peaceful people who may have violated any number of victimless statutes would be kidnapped and caged. Whether it be outdated paperwork, one’s open container, prohibited herbs, or being too slow to produce permits, the primary safety threat is the checkpoint itself, and the mentality that everyone passing through is a suspect until proven innocent.

My friend Eric made the mistake of driving through the checkpoint alone and without a camera rolling. When he asked two or three questions in response to being asked if he had a driver’s license, he was promptly arrested for Failure to Obey. While you are in a car in New Hampshire, police have additional privileged authority over you and the ability to place 2013_08_31_charlesnewtonobligations on yourself. Failure to comply with requests for paperwork is a charge specific to driving which does not threaten travellers utilizing only bipedal locomotion. It’s worth contrasting Eric’s arrest with my own drive-through of the checkpoint, featured in the opening of the video linked above. I produced neither a driver’s license nor vehicle registration, though I did state that my license was valid and identified myself verbally. Kudos to trooper Charles Newton for choosing not to cite myself, as he could have required I jump through an unnecessary hoop to prove I was licensed and the vehicle registered. After releasing drivers, police distributed a one-page survey about the checkpoint which encourages feedback from those detained.

Towards the end of the night, the resident of a home close to the road came out to speak to the Lieutenant. It was between one and two AM. Her home was between three to four times closer to the road than the home across the street, where we were told that walking on the shoulder was potentially trespassing. Instead, we had been diverted to the shoulder abutting her property, which had been illuminated with police lights since ten o’clock. 2013_08_31_checkpoint_cooperationJames was there to hear her conversation with Jerome, where she asked if the lights pointed at her house could be moved just several feet, as they had been shining into her bedroom window since the beginning of the whole ordeal. Jerome’s response was negative, the lights could not be moved several feet, and she returned to her home dissatisfied.

Want more from the scene? Check out the raw footage from Free Concord’s camera coverage of the evening organized into a playlist on Fr33manTVraw.

This article was originally published to FreeConcord.org.

FK_Large_Square

Like this Article? Share it!

About The Author

When you see "CopBlock" as the author it means it was submitted via our contact tab - see top of page. Anyone can share their police related story with CopBlock.org via this tab, we thank you in advance.
  • t

    Sounds like a well run checkpoint. He police doing it right again. Check

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    This is a load of ridiculousness. Lets start with no license. It’s illegal, every state I can think of, to not have your DL on you when you’re operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway. The driver got lucky that the officer didn’t cite him and dock a couple points from his license. Driving is privilege and not a right.

    Next, the brown bottle. The brown bottle alone doesn’t rouse suspicion. I’m willing to bet my salary that one of the first things the officer did was make note of the bottle and then try to detect the odor of alcohol. Since the officer didn’t detect the odor of alcohol, the officer ceased to care about the bottle’s presence. So this wasn’t a win for the two in this video.

    I’m not even gonna get started on the kid who thought exiting a vehicle during a traffic stop was a good idea. And the poor kid who refused to identify himself to an officer during a sobriety check? Well that’s a violation too.. NH has a “stop and ID” law that prohibits that sort of petulance.

  • JGriffin

    Well we all know that these idiots on cop block just need an ass kicking, since they are the ones going out to instigate confrontations with the police. They are the ones going out and looking to provoke the police, not the other way around. Also, way to to put a cops life who is working undercover in jeopardy by not only calling him out, but posting it on Youtube. That alone deserves an ass kicking.

  • RadicalDude

    Authoritarian aggression sucks, but you guys handled it pretty well.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    RD,

    There was no aggression by any of the officers whatsoever. Even you can see that…

  • Jason Free 123

    Love it. Keep the cameras rolling!

  • Jason Free 123

    Obviously dipshit Ian hasnt’ received as much attentipon as he wishes he did. Those two dumb fuckers are walking ignates. That fucking loser Ian is an admitted drug user with multiple arrests and now to avoid paying taxes he is pretending to be a minister. Unfortunately for his he isn’t ordained so he is a walking fraud case. There is no way New Hamspshire is going to buy his bullshit. Since those fucking cunts came to Keene we have had the FBI,CIA,ATF, and multiple police investigations. I’m sure the IRS will be next to through that faggot cunt Ian in jail. Another faggot cunt Garret is being sued by the city of Keene. He whines and cries that he is such a victim all the time but he isn’t. He creates victims just like that fucking loser Ian Bernard does. I’m sure they were heading back from butt fucking each other in the woods. I wonder who lead? They both look like catchers. I’m sure they were confused in the begining. Fucking asshole cunt freaks

    Ron Paul says, “All activisdts lie all the time everytime”.

  • RadicalDude

    “ThirtyOneBravo says:
    September 10, 2013 at 2:55 pm

    RD,

    There was no aggression by any of the officers whatsoever. Even you can see that…”

    The whole entire checkpoint is an act of aggression, so is the stop, so are the threats and the assault.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    Officer was very polite. Handled himself very well.

    Keep being smart asses and showing the general public how polite the police are to smart asses like you two.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    RD,

    If you think this is aggression, fine. But I’m all for aggressively enforcing laws like this. If my state allowed sobriety checks of this nature, I would work for free to make sure drivers remain sober and the people in the community I serve stay safe.

  • RadicalDude

    “EvilRadicalDude says:
    September 10, 2013 at 3:53 pm

    Officer was very polite. Handled himself very well.

    Keep being smart asses and showing the general public how polite the police are to smart asses like you two.”

    I agree the main cop was pretty professional and polite. The cop that rushed Ian(supervisor), maybe not so much. What do you mean “smart asses?” Are saying Ian or Garret were not also polite? If so, what did they say that you found inappropriate?

  • Common Sense

    And those in Keene wonder why they are being sued by the city.

  • Jason Free 123

    RadicalDude – The checkpoint is not an act of aggression. Those are your fucked up words. That Ian Bernard and that fuzz top piece of shit Garret are always doing stupid things that get them in trouble. Where was this fucking assault you are talking about? Oh, Wait, there wasn’t one. You just wanted to create a little more drama. Did you buy a new law book yet? or are you still buying out of date ones from garage sales?

    Ron Paul says, “All activists lie all the time everytime”.

  • simpleton

    First off, “driver dude” needs to find a new hair stylist, it ain’t working. The officer in charge, was an a-hole. He asked a few times then threatened to charge Ian with the crime of disorderly conduct if he didn’t get back in the car. It has nothing to do with officer safety. Christ, did he think Ian was gonna pull out an M-4 and start wasting everyone or that he had 5 lbs of C-4 him? No, because if he did, Ian would be dead.
    I will say this, if all officers conducted themselves in the manner the officer who initiated the stop did, the whole copblock movement would be dead (constitutional issues aside). He was professional, courteous and treated bad hair guy with complete respect.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    RD,

    Exiting the vehicle was not appropriate. Drinking out of a brown bottle in an attempt to bait the police into questioning if he was drinking alcohol was not appropriate. (That didn’t work though). Drivers hair as simpleton mentioned definitely isn’t appropriate.

    Their main goal was to drive through the check point to create problems for the police. I’ve saw some other videos on youtube posted by them. In each they are just complete ducks to everyone.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    *dicks to everyone

  • John Q Public

    Evil, you got it. Those guys are being dicks. All they do is try to harass and intimidate the police, which is funny because it’s the same thing they claim that the police do to them. I guess its easy being a hypocrite.

  • John Q Public

    Peaceful drug dealers? Really? You guys are just freaking stupid now. These are the idiots copblockers want to rally around? Good luck with that.

  • RadicalDude

    So, a peaceful person who is not a suspect in an alleged crime is “harass”ing and “intimidat”ing the police by wanting to walk around outside of the car? Where is the harm? Who is the injured party? How are they injured by Ian walking around? And enjoying a beverage is “harass”ing and “intimidat”ing? And trying to drive down the road minding their own business creates “problems” how? The only problems in this video are created by the cops. The only acts of aggression are those perpetrated by the costumed gangster criminals.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    RD,

    If you don’t know the answers to those questions then I don’t know what to tell you.

    Peaceful people do not intentionally drive through check points with the intentions of giving police a hard time. People looking for confrontation with the police do. Go watch some of his other videos.

  • Jason Free 123

    If the best thing these fuckign activists can come up with is, the police officer was an a-hole then it shows these fucking worthless activists were in the wrong. The officer was very nice to them and that fucking Ian Bernard continued to push it. The fucking checkpoints are not social events. That fucking Ian and Garret are not peaceful. That is a fucking lie. Those assholes gang up on meter maids and harass people and shove cameras in everyone’s faces. Anyone who calls them “peaceful” are as fucked up as they are. I can’t wait until they get their ass’s handed to them when they lose the city lawsuit. I hope they get their ass’s sued over and over until they have absolutely nothing left.

    Ron Paul says, “All activists lie all the time everytime”.

  • RadicalDude

    The police are the ones holding people against their will arbitrarily. No one is making them harass the motorists. If anyone is giving the cops a “hard time”, it’s the cops themselves.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    RD,

    You’re something else.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    RD,

    Do you think society is better off without police? Please state your reasoning for whatever answer you give.

  • Shawn

    Forcibly stopping people without cause is NOT polite behavior.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    RD & Shawn,

    It’s implied consent. When you get a driver’s license, you already consent to stops such as this. Don’t forget – driving is a privilege, not a right.

    This stop would have been over and done with very quickly (if not in a matter of seconds) but for the driver and passenger’s own behavior.

    And before anyone goes bellyaching about case law or the legality of sobriety checkpoints in NH…

    Checkpoints are not permitted in New Hampshire unless authorized by a judge. To justify stops without specific suspicion, officers must show the same end can not be achieved by less intrusive means. State v. Koppel, 499 A2d. 977 (1985).

    And in case you think checkpoints such as this are against your Fourth Amendment rights, United States Supreme Court held in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), that sobriety checkpoints did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.

  • RadicalDude

    “EvilRadicalDude says:
    September 11, 2013 at 12:16 pm

    RD,

    Do you think society is better off without police? Please state your reasoning for whatever answer you give.”

    The “police” as such have always been primarily a predatory institution. I get that there is a wide-spread perception that their purpose is to fight crime. The reality, however, is that the crime fighting they do is merely incidental to their true function: to shake people down for money.
    Further, most of the uses of force on the part of the police are initiatory force. In other words, violent attacks perpetrated against peaceful people. In a metro area with unsolved murders, rapes, robberies etc, you will have police who, instead of pursuing the actual criminals, instead are focusing their resources to shake down people for money with harmless alleged “code violations” such as not using a turn signal, not wearing a seatbelt, possession of “weed” or some such petty non-issue used as a pretext for their predatory acts of violence. The institution as it is structured creates the perverse incentives that drive these anti-social violent behaviors. There simply is no profit motive for them in catching a serial rapist like there is in writing someone a traffic ticket.

  • RadicalDude

    “ThirtyOneBravo says:
    September 11, 2013 at 1:36 pm

    RD & Shawn,

    It’s implied consent. When you get a driver’s license, you already consent to stops such as this. Don’t forget – driving is a privilege, not a right.”

    What is a driver license but a fee paid to a protection racket mafia to exempt oneself from gang violence?

  • John Q Public

    31B, you’re not going to get anywhere with these guys. It’d be easier to try to rationalize with a sovereign citizen than these hacks. I bet for all of radicaldude’s grandstanding on this site, he shows his ID when he gets pulled over. In Alabama its an arrestable offense if you don’t have your driver’s license. I guess that’s why you don’t really hear about Alabama copblock.

  • RadicalDude

    What do you mean grandstanding? Seems like you are trying to use a subtle ad hominem in place of an actual logical argument, because you don’t have one since your beliefs and your position are based on denialism. I’m stating the simple factual reality of the situation.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

  • EvilRadicalDude

    John,

    I’m starting to think Radical is a Sovereign.

    Radical,

    Proactive police work catches criminals. You call it fishing, harrassment, predatory etc. fact of the matter is its good police work. Everyone that gets stopped for the “code violations” doesn’t receive a citation. Sure some police departments promote based on “stats”. I’m guessing that’s where your coming up with “perversed incentives”.

    You do realize citizens phone in traffic complaints all the time right. So they complain when nothing’s being done, yet you complain when something is being done.

    You paint with too wide of a brush.

  • RadicalDude

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

    I got pulled over driving late last year. The cop demanded my ID, and I demanded his ID as I was getting mine. Of course I got my ID out and showed it to him. You think I’m gonna refuse given the reality that he’s prepared to use any manner of violence he thinks is necessary to enforce his arbitrary code? And that he is packing weapons, and can get about half a dozen other guys with guns on the scene to back him up in about 2 minutes?
    If someone sticks a gun to your head and demands money, I think you’re gonna just hand over your wallet, right? But if you’re gonna stick a gun to someone’s head and demand money based on violent intimidation at least have the intellectual honesty to admit what it is you’re doing.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    RD,

    Next time an officer initiates contact with you, call for your backup. What’s good for the goose, right?

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    And don’t forget the restraining orders.

  • RadicalDude

    No, I am not a sovereign citizen if that is what you are trying to imply by saying “sovereign”. Not only do you and Wow have similar writing styles, he actually said the same thing about me. And he stopped posting on here right about the time you started. If you think I am a sovereign citizen, then show me where I have ever on here advocated any kind of sovereign citizen type of beliefs such as strawman redemption, universal commercial code theories, fringe on a flag, ALL CAPITALS, etc.? Have I ever said anything advocating for this “I’m the authorized representative for that account” type thing the sovereigns try to do in court?

    Maybe there is some basis for some of their beliefs, but I would not go into court and argue that stuff because when you make those arguments the evidentiary burden shifts to you to back your argument, and that stuff is hard to prove, and I don’t necessarily believe in a lot of their beliefs anyway.

    “This court is not legit because the flag has no fringe.” “Oh yeah? Prove it.”

    My personal opinion of the sovereign citizens is that, while some of their ideas may have some merit, there is also a lot of superstition and tin-foil hattery mixed in there, too.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    RD,

    So the cop put a gun to your head and demanded money?

    It’s not his “arbitrary code”. It’s the states or municipality for which he or SHE works. Furthermore, it’s at his or her descretion to issue to enforce or issue a warning. Attitude plays a huge role in that.

    Violent intimidation? Unless he or she actually had the gun pointed at your head, what were you intimidated by?

  • EvilRadicalDude

    I don’t know what your infatuation is with this wow character, but I’m not be or she.

    Secondly, I didn’t call you a so sovereign I stated I was starting to believe you are one. Based on some of your “legal” advice.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    *he or she.

  • RadicalDude

    No, I didn’t file a restraining order on that cop. There simply were no grounds for a RO. There was no use of force or threat, he was over-all pretty good at being a cop even though he was only 27 years old at the time. He didn’t write me a ticket, and I think it was partly because he was so freaked out because of how confrontational I was. I did file a complaint, though. Thought about suing but the more I looked into it, the more my research was leading me to conclude it wasn’t a strong case, legally, so I just let it go. The cop said I was “hostile”. I really wasn’t hostile, though, just highly confrontational, which is the best way to be with cops, in my opinion. Actually, I try to be as confrontational as possible while at the same time as non-hostile as possible if cops ever try to bother me.

  • RadicalDude

    No verbal threat I mean. Of course the flashing lights are an implicit threat, but a judge realistically is not gonna issue a restraining order on those grounds.

  • RadicalDude

    “EvilRadicalDude says:
    September 11, 2013 at 3:34 pm

    RD,

    So the cop put a gun to your head and demanded money?”

    No, there was no ransom demanded that time. But when a ticket is issued, there is a threat in that if you don’t pay it or go to court, it goes to a “warrant” which is basically a “green light” for gang members with guns to go and kidnap you, and/or use whatever force they think is necessary to effectuate the kidnapping, up to and including killing you.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    RD,

    So overall you had a pretty decent guy that you helped turn into an ass hole?

    Why were you so confrontational? You didn’t agree with the PC for the stop?

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    RD

    You said “Actually, I try to be as confrontational as possible while at the same time as non-hostile as possible if cops ever try to bother me.”

    That’s an oxymoronic statement, don’t you think?

  • EvilRadicalDude

    31,

    Sounds like he’s the one trying to be intimidating.

    How hypocritical.

  • RadicalDude

    “ThirtyOneBravo says:
    September 11, 2013 at 3:52 pm

    RD

    You said “Actually, I try to be as confrontational as possible while at the same time as non-hostile as possible if cops ever try to bother me.”

    That’s an oxymoronic statement, don’t you think?”

    No, it’s not and here’s why:

    Confrontational means you confront the real issue. Hostility such as ad hominems, etc are “dodges” people use to AVOID confronting the real issues.
    If a wife accuses a cheating husband of cheating he might blow up at her to avoid the issue. If he were to actually CONFRONT the issue, he would admit to the cheating. Likewise, if someone confronts something, say in this case, a social problem and then someone else come back with “You’re just an idiot”, they are just attacking the person to AVOID the real issue, rather than CONFRONT it.

    When that cop pulled me over, I said “You pulled us over arbitrarily for no reason” which is confrontational. I didn’t say “FU Pig”, which would be hostile. There actually is a big difference.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    ERD,

    He can try. There’s very few things that intimidate a professional and responsible police officer. And when a person tries to intimidate an officer, it usually tosses all sympathy and any breaks or favors the officer might have cut the subject right out the window.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    RD,

    I see. And I counter that with your report of restraining orders and lawsuits against the authorities as an example of retaliation – which is hostility.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    I would take someone calling me incompetent I.E. “You pulled us over arbitrarily for no reason” as being hostile.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    ERD,

    I was just considering how I was to address is statement about him being pulled over. I would consider that to be hostile since it would be a false statement used to try to intimidate me into ceasing my contact with him. But I would confront that hostility by addressing the real issue which is the lawful reason for stopping him in the first place.

    I’d then wait for his hostile and retaliatory restraining orders and civil claims which of course would get tossed out. I’d then fire the same hostility and file civil claims back at him and make an example of someone trying to game the system.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    31,

    Don’t forget to include the complaint he would file against you through your department in your civil suit!!!!!

  • RadicalDude

    “ThirtyOneBravo says:
    September 11, 2013 at 4:09 pm

    RD,

    I see. And I counter that with your report of restraining orders and lawsuits against the authorities as an example of retaliation – which is hostility.”

    It is a use of “legal force”, using the violence inherent in the court system, however it is defensive force used against an aggressor.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiation_of_force

    I don’t just go around trying to make up fake excuses to sue cops. Everything I would advocate along the lines of using legal force back at the cops would be a direct response to aggression initiated by the police. t said he’s had false complaints filed on him, I guess it’s not exactly rare. I would never advocate that someone do such a thing just as an excuse to make money or for harassment for any other reason I didn’t think was legit. Any cop who does not use aggression against me has about zero chance of ever being sued by me. The border agents I’m suing initiated the conflict, I’m just responding by defending my rights, same with the other cops I sued.

  • RadicalDude

    I wouldn’t file a restraining order unless there was a credible verbal threat or a use of force. I wouldn’t just file one because I was pulled over nor would I suggest such a thing to any one else. But in a case such as this:

    http://www.copblock.org/37870/cop-threatens-to-smash-a-reporters-camera-into-his-face/

    which involves a criminal threat, I believe a restraining order is wholly appropriate. And it is quite common for cops to make criminal threats a la Shandy Cobain, and get away with it.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    RD,

    You said “Any cop who does not use aggression against me has about zero chance of ever being sued by me.”.

    By your own (multiple) claims, any stop initiated by law enforcement is aggression.

    I submit:

    “The only acts of aggression are those perpetrated by the costumed gangster criminals.” (http://www.copblock.org/37971/copblocker-exits-vehicle-during-dui-checkpoint-dont-try-this-at-home/#comment-293031 )

    “The whole entire checkpoint is an act of aggression, so is the stop, so are the threats and the assault.” (http://www.copblock.org/37971/copblocker-exits-vehicle-during-dui-checkpoint-dont-try-this-at-home/#comment-292992)

    And

    “Authoritarian aggression sucks, but you guys handled it pretty well.” (http://www.copblock.org/37971/copblocker-exits-vehicle-during-dui-checkpoint-dont-try-this-at-home/#comment-292985)

    By these statements (and I can go back into the other threads to continue to support your contradiction) you claim the lawful stop of these two jokers was an act of aggression. Thus, the lawful traffic stop against you was an act of aggression.

  • Jason Free 123

    RadicalDude – You again are fucking lying. You aren’t confrontational. If a police officer speaks to you you typically suck your thumb and go into the fetal position while pissing on yourself. YOu bullshit fucking lying legal advice is hilarious. You would file a restraining order on a police officer? YOu are truly a stupid fuck. I’d love to see that goat fucker.

    All activists lie all the time everytime.

  • John Q Public

    After all this grandstanding, RD still showed his license. The rest is just pure fiction.

  • RadicalDude

    Uh, no the fictions are by you and slappy. Everything I put on here is real.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    It appears I’m in censorious moderation purgatory…

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    I made a comment about RD contradictory statement on how it seems “aggressive” only applies to him. This was at 1631 EDT and it’s awaiting moderation. Admittedly, it had several links directly to his comments so I’ll remove those links and try again.

    ThirtyOneBravo says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    September 11, 2013 at 4:39 pm

    RD,

    You said “Any cop who does not use aggression against me has about zero chance of ever being sued by me.”.

    By your own (multiple) claims, any stop initiated by law enforcement is aggression.

    I submit:

    “The only acts of aggression are those perpetrated by the costumed gangster criminals.” (A link to his comment was here but it’s in this thread)

    “The whole entire checkpoint is an act of aggression, so is the stop, so are the threats and the assault.” (A link to his comment was here but it’s in this thread)

    And

    “Authoritarian aggression sucks, but you guys handled it pretty well.” (A link to his comment was here but it’s in this thread)

    By these statements (and I can go back into the other threads to continue to support your contradiction) you claim the lawful stop of these two jokers was an act of aggression. Thus, the lawful traffic stop against you was an act of aggression.

  • RadicalDude

    If a comment has multiple links, it has to clear mods before it goes up, I guess to prevent spam. Just break it up into smaller comments w/ one link in each comment to get around the anti-spam filters.

  • John Q Public

    RD, prove it.

  • RadicalDude

    “By these statements (and I can go back into the other threads to continue to support your contradiction) you claim the lawful stop of these two jokers was an act of aggression. Thus, the lawful traffic stop against you was an act of aggression.”

    Whether it was “lawful” or not is a matter of opinion, but ya, it was an act of aggression. Aggression exists on a continuum. A nuclear attack would be high up on the continuum. Calling someone names would be low on the continuum. Pulling someone over is obviously not always as violent as the Rodney King incident. But there is an implied threat of force when the flashing lights go on. The message is “stop or we’ll make you stop”, and it’s a credible threat because we know what happens if you don’t stop. Just like if a mugger pulls out a knife and demands money, it’s an act of aggression whether or not the knife is used to stab the victim. It’s possible to wholly effectuate an act of aggression without the use of actual physical force. Now, if the police go and arrest the mugger, that is defensive force because the mugger initiated the aggression. Or if the victim pepper sprays the mugger, that is defensive force. The mugger is still the aggressor even though the force was used on them rather than on the victim.

  • RadicalDude

    “John Q Public says:
    September 11, 2013 at 5:59 pm

    RD, prove it.”

    Prove what? You say what I wrote on here is fiction, you have no proof of that! You saying what I wrote is fiction is itself a fiction. What do you think is a fiction? What do you want me to prove?

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    RD,

    You’re skirting the issue I brought to you. You said “Any cop who does not use aggression against me has about zero chance of ever being sued by me.”.

    You just reinforced my point. Your double standard shows. Now… I expect to see lawsuits filed against everyone who attempts to stop you. From the receipt checker at Walmart, to a beggar on the street to an officer.

    If you don’t, you’re full of crap. After all, if you hold us officers to a higher standard, the common man shouldn’t have the ability to do the same.

  • RadicalDude

    Ya, the more aggression someone uses, the closer that possibility goes from near-zero to 100% gonna happen. I don’t really hold cops to a higher standard. Not saying I just go around suing everyone for everything I think they did wrong. Look at the Jason Free 123 thing. Like I pointed out, people have been sued for doing the type of cuber-harassment he does. Doesn’t mean I’m gonna sue him, I probably never will.

    I’m probably not gonna go after that cop. Not because it wasn’t an act of aggression when he stopped me, but because it is simply not a very strong case and I have better stuff to do. I would never file a lawsuit I thought wasn’t winnable. That is the main reason I decided to let it go, it simply has a low chance to hold up in court. I expect to win the case with the border agents, so that’s the difference.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    RD,

    There should be no double standard. Aggression is aggression regardless of the degree – at least in your opinion. So I expect to see news reports or a Guinness World Record topping the most litigious person hanging on your wall. Don’t forget those trick-or-treaters coming up next month. Of course there’s the Salvation Army bell ringers and while you’re at it, don’t forget those cute and adorable Girl Scouts holding you up at the grocery store during their aggressive fund raising campaign every Spring.

    Otherwise you’re full of hot air.

    As for Jason Free 123, his speech is protected by the First Amendment. I suggest you check out one of my favorite sites (popehat.com) for a breezy refresher course on that one.

  • RadicalDude

    I actually did work on two other lawsuits that didn’t involve police. One I was the plaintiff in which I was harassed(not by cops in that incident). The judge sent us into a conference room to talk about settling, and about an hour later, they gave me some cash and apologized. The other was for someone else and it was a discrimination/breech of contract case. I just did their paperwork, and about a week and half later, the defendants’ lawyer presented them a check.

  • RadicalDude
  • ThirtyOneBravo

    The terms “trolling” and “harassment” are as broad as “aggression” in your own sense.

    And you know as well as I do that you can sue anyone for any reason. It doesn’t mean the plaintiff would win.

  • RadicalDude

    I’m not really litigious toward people if they don’t attack me or others and if they operate on good faith. I was in a car accident, and the insurance offered me a lowball offer but I took it because the young lady that hit me apologized and invited me into her car out of the snow, and she apologized and admitted fault right away. She got a ticket and was found to be at fault and I probably could have gotten literally 10x or more what they offered if I had pressed the issue, but I’m not really litigious over petty stuff like that just to get money and take advantage of people.

  • RadicalDude
  • RadicalDude

    http://www.memetics.com/how-being-an-internet-troll-can-get-you-sued/

    “Harassment
    In case you had not known this, harassing another individual is illegal. It is one of the reasons restraining orders are around. Now harassment doesn’t have to be done in person. If a person frequently and continually harasses, or trolls, another person on a social media site, email, IM, or any other online form, this is illegal and actions can be taken. If it goes on for too long, the victim can actually sue you for decreasing their quality of life. And can you imagine what someone’s quality of life is worth? The answer is more than your comments were probably worth.”

    Defamation and Libel
    This is a specifically sticky situation that countless people often allow themselves to become involved in. Or rather perhaps its just a trolls intention to troll. But when you post on your Facebook, or Twitter, or any other social media, the intention is to allow any and everyone to view it. Now if your post was intended to slander another person, regardless of whether or not you actually know them, you can be sued for defamation and libel. There is a reason those laws exist, and it is so that venomous lies cannot be spread about you even though we are all protected by the freedom of speech. Apparently our forefathers didn’t think that should cover and protect trolls either.

    “So with all of this information now known, maybe a few trolls will cool down the false statements that they make, and the empty threats they offer. Chances are slim, because essentially they would have to go against their own grain. But so long as it’s understood, that while even being “anonymous” online, you don’t have the right to the epitome of evil. It may be easier to get away with nowadays, but everything eventually comes around, and trolls will no doubt get what’s due to them.”

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    All hail Saint Radical. You’re still back pedaling. Either stick to your own words or be seen a (again) as a coward and full of hot air. All this bumptiousness and armchair lawyering is becoming a bore.

    Put your money where your mouth is.

  • RadicalDude

    Don’t know what you even mean to be honest. You think I contradicted myself? How? Because I don’t sue everyone I possibly can, when did I ever say I would? I don’t sue every single time I think I possibly can, if that is what you got from what I said, then let me say, no, I do not operate that way.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Lee_Riches

  • RadicalDude

    I do not hold cops to a higher standard really, but I do believe they are a priority because:
    1. They hurt so many people
    2. The double standards are such that they are rarely held accountable.
    3. There are so many perverse incentives in place to encourage wrong-doing by the police.
    4. They are in a position of power that is all too easy for them to abuse.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    RD,

    1. They hurt so many people

    Citizen on citizen violent crime far outweighs any harm a cop can do.

    2. The double standards are such that they are rarely held accountable.

    Yes. I noticed that in this thread.

    3. There are so many perverse incentives in place to encourage wrong-doing by the police.

    And by citizens against each other.

    4. They are in a position of power that is all too easy for them to abuse.

    Citizens aren’t?

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    I should note that #2 is not in acquiescence to your point. It was sarcasm as I was holding a mirror up to the situation.

  • RadicalDude

    If some crackhead snatches a purse, the cops will be all over him, yet if a cop puts someone in a coma he gets a paid vacation. Being that society has a double standard, I feel there is an incumbency for citizens to be more vigilant toward police wrong-doing than common criminals, since there is generally an EXPECTATION among cops that they will get away with misconduct, even a sense of ENTITLEMENT to act aggressively. A common criminal doesn’t have that sense of entitlement, and the expectation to be able to get away with whatever crime he commits due to a perceived political status like exists with cops. Just my opinion obviously.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    That double standard doesn’t exist where I work. The chief and common council got rid of that years ago.

    Your opinion about common criminals is flawed. Criminals wouldn’t commit crimes such as robbery, burglary, criminal damage, identity theft, welfare fraud, credit fraud, drug distribution and so on if they didn’t think they could get away with it.

  • John Q Public

    Just as I thought. You are saying things you just can’t prove. 31B has been pretty much put you on the defensive. You just throw a bunch of babble around and totally avoid the simple statement. By the way, I climbed Mount Everest in my past. I also had a conference with the Dali Lama. Not only that, I got to drink Dos Equis with the most interesting man in the world. He sure can party!

  • John Q Public

    I think I discovered Radicaldude!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAYL5H46QnQ

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    JQP,

    You forgot that you vogued with Madonna, cured polio and invented Post-It Notes®.

  • John Q Public

    31B, were you there too? I was too drunk to remember that…

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    JQP,

    On advice of counsel, I am invoking my right under the Fifth Amendment so as not to incriminate myself.

  • John Q Public

    Roger that! LOL

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    JQP,

    That was specifically in response to the whole Madonna thing.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    Now… I shall fire up a well-eared cigar & enjoy my meal break.

  • John Q Public

    Way ahead of ya!

  • EvilRadicalDude

    RadicalDude says:
    September 11, 2013 at 6:56 pm

    “There is a reason those laws exist”

    There is also a reason why traffic laws exist. It’s to protect the safety of EVERYONE driving on the roadway. You find those laws arbitrary though. (Rolling my eyes)

    Like a said before, you’re something else.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    John Q Public says:
    September 11, 2013 at 7:36 pm
    I think I discovered Radicaldude!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAYL5H46QnQ

    LMFAO!!!!

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    ERD,

    That was my point in another thread. The laws are arbitrary and when someone applies them to RD, he considers them to be violent, illegal and an intrusion upon his rights. But when he uses arbitrary laws against someone else, it’s “justice”.

    He’s trying to have his cake and eat it too.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    31,

    I agree 100%.

  • RadicalDude

    Sorry, the quotes weren’t exactly where I wanted; I was quoting someone else. I wasn’t trying to assert that as my own statement.

  • RadicalDude

    I mean this:
    “There is a reason those laws exist”
    I was quoting someone else.

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    I should say that I’m not here to pick at RD and everything he said. There are occasions where he makes sense and I agree with him. But when his comments begin to dance on the line between reality and sovereign citizen BS (like this thread), I have to call him out on it.

    Serious thought: The bunch of us should get together sometime and have drinks, wings and a good debate. Slappy can sit at the bar and heckle us from a distance (for “atmosphere”).

  • John Q Public

    I’m in!

  • RadicalDude

    Would be a good reality tv show imo

  • ThirtyOneBravo

    RD,

    That’s not a bad idea! We can have a panel show with an attorney, a (retired) cop, a concerned citizen and a featured guest who would be the subject of some sort of controversial video.

    Cigars, beer, wings on the table… I’m all in.

  • EvilRadicalDude

    I’ll pass on the cigars but, I’m in for the wings and beer.

  • John Q Public

    As long as the beer is free!

  • Jason Free 123

    Radical Dude – You are a fucking liar. You say everything you put here is real yet you won’t use your real name. Why the fuck should I believe you? You are a fucking liar and a fraud. You have offered nothing to support your case except you just say it’s real. YOu are a fucking worthless piece of shit. You haven’t sued anyone. You continue to hand out bullshit legal advice with no merit or backing. You are a fuck up and you continue to prove it over and over again. You really need to get an updated law book. The one you have is all torn up with doodles in the corners.

    Ron Paul says, “Radical Dude lies all the time everytime”. Go sue Ron Paul you fucking cunt.

  • RadicalDude

    When slappy says you are wrong you know you are right.

  • steve

    The authoritarian minded will never understand that the people of our country are sick and tired of the invasive tactics used by your regime are very unwanted and uncalled for along with being a violation of our civil rights . no matter what is said or decision made by a supreme court judge it is wrong the writing in the constitution is plainly written.

  • Jason Free 123

    Annonypussy RadicalDude – It’s hilarious you spout off your bullshit legal advice yet you can’t prove you were ever in court suing someone. You brag about all of your so called “wins” in court but you can’t prove any of them. That makes you a fucking liar. Not just a liar but a fucking liar. There is a significant difference.

    steve – you fucking doorknob, why do you think your fucking interpretation of the constitution is the right one? Fuckers like you and all the other activists claim your versions of the contitution are the right ones and it’s such a sacred piece of paper. When you get busted by the police or the supreme court rules against you then it’s just a piece of paper with no meaning. How can anyone believe you when you have your mother in your closet at home.

    Ron Paul says, “All activists lie all the time everytime”.