Tag Archive | "Brad Jardis"

VYPER: Be Blunt

When I read new Cop Block contributor VYPER’s blog titled “Why I am different from the rest of the LEO’s,” I was quite pleased to see that I am no longer the only current or former law enforcement officer who is a participant here seeking greater police oversight and accountability. 

I would like to offer some thoughts on points he made about discretion and accountability.  Essentially, I’m sure VYPER is in fact different, but I want you to understand that his personal difference only exists because he is either extremely discreet or whatever he does differently is tolerated by his superiors.  A police officer or federal agent cannot simply just get hired and adhere to their own set of principles. 

In support of this, I offer the following select quotes from VYPER’s blog with my responses:

Police Officers are tasked with enforcing the laws put in place by our elected officials. it’s easy to say that if we don’t like the laws we have then we need to change them but those that are elected to make such changes are often times elected because they ” Purchased” that position. That is a shame.

Police agents are in theory tasked with enforcing “the laws,” but this really isn’t what happens practically.  Sure, you enforce the law…  but you first and foremost follow orders and kiss the proverbial ring of those who are above you in the chain-of-command.  If you enforce laws that your superiors do not want you to enforce, or if you don’t enforce laws that your superiors do want you to enforce, you are going to be quickly placed under the microscope by your administration.

That means you had better do everything perfect…  or find a new job.

Is it legal to possess weed without a medical Marijuana card (if your state allows that)?. No it’s not legal. Is an arrestable offense? Yes it is. Is it MANDATORY to arrest someone in possession of weed? Well It depends, is it a joint or 500lbs.  In the case of having a joint it’s not mandatory and is an Officer Discretion situation.

Lets guess for a minute that VYPER is a Federal Protective Service police officer (the federal uniformed police wing of the Department of Homeland Security).  One day at work he receives a memorandum from his supervisor who received a memorandum from Washington that states the new policy of the agency is to have zero-tolerance policy for possession of marijuana.  Discretion = gone.  Just like that.

Sure, VYPER could find someone who has marijuana and let them go without arresting them contrary to his new marching orders…  but if he gets caught he would stand to be disciplined which means a suspension, written warning, verbal warning, letter of concern, or termination.  He also could face the possibility of being charged for destruction of or mishandling of evidence or not fulfilling the obligations of his office.  That isn’t discretion… that is breaking an order and the law and hoping not to get caught.

Few, if any, law enforcement officers I know would take that risk.  This all comes down to following orders or breaking them and risking one’s livelihood.  It should be readily apparent to you why only a minuscule amount of individuals would take that risk: government pay-checks and benefits are pretty good.

Marginalizing your morality is easy when you are rewarded so well for it.

I believe that the Discretion is often times abused because it allows an officers personal emotions to be considered when making his or her decisions which I believe goes beyond the scope.

If VYPER believes himself to be “different” from other law enforcement officers, and I believe it to be true, I think it is reasonable to assume that he is different because of how he feels about the application of certain laws to certain people in certain situations.  It is impossible for a law enforcement officer to do anything without human emotion playing a part.

I had a debate with two superior officers once about the enforcement of New Hampshire’s adultery law.  The superior officers told me flatly that they would never enforce the law.  I asked them what authority they had to completely disregard a law because they disagreed with it, and they didn’t have a response.  A similar debate happened between myself and other officers over the gambling law here in New Hampshire.  The gambling debate began because another officer got in hot water for hosting poker nights at his house for money, a crime.  When I asked how is it okay to disregard some misdemeanors (like gambling) for some people (law enforcement agents) and not some misdemeanors (like possession of innocuous chemical substances) for other people (non-law enforcement agents) once again, I received no answer.

It all comes down to the whims of your chain-of-command when you work in a paramilitary law enforcement setting.  They decide what laws get enforced and who gets to break them.

Now, I mention discretion for several reasons. It’s a small example if why I disagree when people say we are political robots that do what we are told whether we agree with it or not. That’s just not the case in my opinion.

If you don’t do what you are told, you will be screwed with and eventually will be fired.  This is the case, and it isn’t an opinion.

When a Judge says ” Officer I order you to arrest Ademo Freeman because he called me an asshole in the parking lot”. it’s an order from a Judge but aside from the question of whether it’s a lawful order or not, I still have both a choice and discretion.

If a judge orders you to arrest someone you have no choice but to comply with the judges order.  If you don’t, you’ll probably be guilty of direct or indirect criminal contempt and charged with a crime.  The same superior officer who said to me that he would never enforce the adultry law said to me once that if a judge ordered him to give someone a few “licks” that he would comply with the order.  I tried pointing out to him that a judge couldn’t order him to break the law.  He responded by shaking his head.

This is the mentality in the police world.  Do.  As.  Your.  Told.

Saying you still have both a choice and discretion in this situation is like saying you don’t have to pay federal income taxes.  Sure, you don’t have to do it…  but you are going to face severe consequences.  Police officers and federal agents blindly follow the whims of politically appointed lawyers who wear black robes.

This is a fact.

I can choose to KNOWINGLY violate Ademo’s Civil Rights by carrying out the order OR use my Discretion and say” Your Honor I am not permitted to violate civil rights and I don’t see a crime so I am refusing to carry out your order and expose myself to criminal and civil litigation” which would be my response if in that situation. Even though I am Police Officer I still have the choice of how and when to use the powers I have been granted.

On paper and in the press you’re not allowed to violate civil rights, but in practice you do as your told.  The government courts have gone so far as to create the almost sadistic concept of “qualified immunity” to make sure individuals are never held accountable for things they do wrong.  Essentially, if you act on good faith doing something (ie: a judge/superior officer ordering you to arrest someone), and even if you violate the person’s constitutional rights, any attempt to sue you will be dismissed because of the fact that you acted pursuant to orders.  You cannot sue a maliciously acting judge either as they get even better protection called “absolute immunity.”

All-in-all no one is really ever held accountable for the abuse of peaceful people…  and the system is cleverly designed to perpetuate a lack of accountability.

Actually, one person could be held accountable in all of this, VYPER himself, should he disobey the bad order given by a judge in the hypothetical situation of Ademo being arrested by him.  He just wouldn’t be held accountable if he violated Ademo’s civil rights.

Back asswards, I know, but strict adherence to morality, statutory law, and the Constitution will get any police officer or federal agent fired.  I’d love for someone to try and prove me wrong on that.

When I am driving to the grocery store and see a car speeding do I pull him over or call it in? The answer is neither. I speed too, not because I am a cop but because its nearly impossible to stay UNDER the limit at all times. COP doesn’t mean BETTER or Above the law.

Police officers routinely break the law and routinely get away with it.  There are dozens of tickets that I didn’t write because someone identified themselves to me as a police officer.  “Professional courtesy” is an open secret that the entire world is aware of.

I hope to have a good public debate with VYPER where we can shed some public light on the problems inherent in the system.

 

Posted in Allies, EducationalComments (7)

Keene PD Illegally Denies Pistol License

Keene PD Illegally Denies Pistol License

Via FreeKeene.com by Derrick J.

Last week I applied for a concealed carry license because winter clothes make it nearly impossible to open carry and driving with a loaded gun is a crime in NH. New Hampshire is a shall-issue state, which means that if a person qualifies, he must be given a license.

I qualify, however “Detective Michael” Goodchild at the Keene Police Department denied my application stating that it is against my bail conditions to possess a firearm or ammunition. This is untrue.

I went to the Keene Police Department to give Michael copies of my bail conditions and to correct this error. Michael wasn’t in, and it took several requests before I was given the slightest suggestion of “service” by one of Michael’s supervisors.

The Keene Police Department ought to be ashamed of itself–making up lies in order to deny a vulnerable young man the natural right to defend himself.

I filed for appeal, and the appeal hearing has been scheduled for Dec. 21 at Keene District Court at 8:29 AM.

Escape Banner 03 Keene PD Illegally Denies Pistol License

Posted in Articles, Guest PostsComments (7)

Oxford-Style Debate Challenge to Colonel Creig W. Doyle of Plymouth State University Police

Oxford-Style Debate Challenge to Colonel Creig W. Doyle of Plymouth State University Police

As the entire nation is now aware, Tommy Mozingo and I are presently litigating the illegal restrictions on self-defense that the University System of New Hampshire has enacted on students, parents, alumni, and public members. In the Grafton County Superior Court on 12/13/11 USNH argued that it has authority to enact “policies” that are not “regulations” and therefore they are exempt from the State of New Hampshire’s firearm preemption law and perhaps even the New Hampshire Constitution.

I vehemently disagree… and so do members of the New Hampshire General Court.

Under Plymouth State University “policy” there is one man who can allow non-criminalsto possess firearms for self-defensive purposes, and that man is Colonel Creig W. Doyle, PSU’s Police Chief. I hereby publicly challenge Colonel Doyle to an Oxford-style debate on the following motion: “Firearms and knives should be allowed on campus for self-defensive purposes.

I propose using the Intelligence² US Debates modified Oxford rules format and that Colonel Doyle and I both choose two additional people to join our team in debating the motion.

This is a public policy debate worth having… and I would encourage the Colonel to step up and publicly defend the position he enforces.

Oh… and don’t forget to read New Hampshire’s largest newspaper’s response to USNH/PSU’s massive overreaction to our self-defense rights protest.
 Oxford Style Debate Challenge to Colonel Creig W. Doyle of Plymouth State University Police

FinalCB.orgBanner1 Oxford Style Debate Challenge to Colonel Creig W. Doyle of Plymouth State University Police

Posted in Articles, FeaturedComments (2)

CopBlockers Question Police and Expose an Undercover Officer at Gun Protest

CopBlockers Question Police and Expose an Undercover Officer at Gun Protest

Last week I interviewed Brad Jardis about an event he planned for December 9th at Plymouth State University in New Hampshire. To quickly recap, Brad wanted to carry a gun on campus with his friend – Tommy Mozingo – in direct violation to University “law(s)” but was kept from doing so by restraining order. Brad claims the University’s rules are illegal because New Hampshire law states that political sub-divisions canNOT enact laws restricting gun rights of individuals – again see this interview.  Today Brad and Tommy will be in court pleading to a judge for their natural right to protect themselves.

The video above is from the event, including several clips that weren’t seen in the mainstream media coverage . Like outing another undercover police officer, who was conceal carrying (and helps cage peaceful marijuana smokers), and the obvious police state. Pete and I went around asking officers to comment on the double standard being presented that day. While Brad and Tommy (along with anyone associating with them) were banned from conducting their protest by the government, via court order. That same government also sent atleast 30+ officers (from all over the state) to protect the campus with FIREARMS. Once again proving that the rules are subjective and rarely apply to those working for big brother. While police will be the first to tell you, “to fight more crime you need more cops.” Yet, they reject the idea that an armed society is a safe society.

And to those that just don’t like guns and fail to see their value in preventing crime – something police claim to do yet fail miserably at – look at this issue from a property rights perspective. Plymouth State University is subsidized by the government, via taxpayers, and therefore is considered “public property.” There’s no way 300 million people would ever agree on a single set of rules for such property. Not to mention the irony in making someone pay for something but limiting their ability to protect themselves – like they can on all other NH public property. Which is why public property must be ended.

If Plymouth State was funding itself by providing the best possible higher learning atmosphere, then the owner(s) of the school could make the decision as to who can carry guns there. Until then, the government will do what’s in its best interest – gain more control of the people by claiming to act in the public’s best interest while slowing stripping you of any means to protecting yourself.

What do you think? Is an armed society a safe society? Why?

FinalCB.orgBanner1 CopBlockers Question Police and Expose an Undercover Officer at Gun Protest

Posted in Articles, VideosComments (11)

Plymouth State University Asks Big Brother to Stop Demonstration

Plymouth State University Asks Big Brother to Stop Demonstration

In another example of government protecting itself, the Grafton County Superior Court has granted a temporary restraining stopping former police officer -Brad Jardis – and his former Army friend – Tommy – from carrying loaded firearms onto campus tomorrow morning. According to Christopher Burbank (who stated this came from PSU e0mail service), via Facebook:

Bradley Jardis wrote us earlier this week that he and Tommy Mozingo intend to be on campus tomorrow morning to distribute materials about guns and, in opposition to a PSU and University System of New Hampshire policy banning weapons, to bring loaded, slung rifles with them. We had hoped that they would have an unarmed distribution of materials and create a forum for opinions while respecting our policy. Late this morning Bradley Jardis and Tommy Mozingo made clear they will not accept a less potentially dangerous path. Instead they are set on violating the policy by coming to campus with rifles, albeit unloaded and with trigger locks. (See their site at freekeene.com, and http://freekeene.com/2011/12/05/press-release-re-plymouth-state-university-information-distribution-on-120911/ ).

It appears from the related traffic on web pages, blogs, and social media sites that substantial interest in this event has been created. We expect there will be a number of sympathizers in attendance, some of whom have announced they will be armed. Potential gun violence is serious. We have received numerous statements of concern from students, parents, staff, and faculty, many of whom are frightened.

We have received a temporary restraining order from the Grafton County Superior Court to stop tomorrow’s event. The restraining order temporarily prohibits Mr. Jardis and Mr. Mozingo and anyone acting in concert with them from violating the policy banning firearms from the campus. It requires them to post the restraining order on the web sites they have used to publicize their intentions. Such an order may not, however, prevent them or others from coming to campus. If anyone violates campus policy, it will be enforced.

Students, faculty, and staff have expressed concern about feeling unsafe; some of you have written of previous experiences with gun violence. If you are uncomfortable, please make the best decision for yourself about being on campus. Faculty will make alternate arrangements to work with students who choose not to be here, without penalty. Please do not confront anyone if an event occurs. If something does occur, we have a text alert system for instructions. A siren means stay indoors until an all-clear is sent. For more information on the siren system, seehttps://www.plymouth.edu/emergency/communications/alert-siren/ To sign up for the text alert, go to http://www.plymouth.edu/emergency/alert/ and click on the text alert system at the left.

It seems Plymouth State University is looking to it’s financial supporter – the state – to be it’s protector as well. School officials are not only taking your money to subsidize their grounds, building and factuality but their now wasting your tax dollars on restraining order for those who wish to invoke their rights. No one knows what will happen tomorrow but we’ll be there to find out. Stay tuned or read the links below for more.

Phone number of those involved:
Campus Police: (603)535-2330
Public Relations at the University: (603)535-2276

Related Links:
- Video: Brad explains protest – Campus police hand up on CopBlock
- Blog: Brad and Tommy decide to unload and lock guns

CB Cafepress Plymouth State University Asks Big Brother to Stop Demonstration

 

 

 

 

Posted in Allies, Quick HitsComments (9)

Former Cop to Test University Gun Rules

Former Cop to Test University Gun Rules

Two individuals are planning to carry firearms onto a Plymouth State University this Friday – December 9th, 2011 – which may be illegal. One of those individuals is Brad Jardis, a former NH police officer, and the other is Tommy, former military. Brad and I met a few years ago, he even blogged at CopBlock for a short time (come back Brad!), so I was excited to sit down with him and get the scoop on this story.

As you’ll see (or seen) in the video above, Brad states that universities have been telling students, guest and parents that it’s against the Universities rules for people to carry firearms on university property. Yet, New Hampshire law states that no political sub party can make such a regulations in regards to certain things, including guns (read more at FreeKeene.com)

So this Friday Brad and Tommy will be walking around Plymouth State University handing out educational material with rifles strapped to their backs. Brad hopes they’ll educate people about their right to bear arms and no one will be arrested. Though he’s not only willing to go to jail over this, Brad has vowed to take the case as far as he can go if arrested Friday. CopBlock.org cameras – myself included – will be on hand.

***REPORT*** Brad reports that classes are being cancelled due to domestic threats****

Plymouth Campus Police (603)535-2330 OR Public Relations at the University (603)535-2276

STUDENT RESPONDS TO BRAD’S DEMONSTRATION:

UPDATE: Brad and Tommy decide to unload and lock guns durning demonstration.

Concord Monitor covers demonstration as well, see here.

FinalCB.orgBanner1 Former Cop to Test University Gun Rules

Posted in Articles, VideosComments (10)

Obsession with law and order

While members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) generally support legalization of marijuana, former Copblock writer Brad Jardis took this idea a step further.  Jardis encouraged police officers to cease enforcement of marijuana laws when he was a part of LEAP.  As a result, LEAP  removed him from the organization (more here).

In this video, LEAP Chairman Jack Cole, who e-mailed Jardis to inform him of his removal from the organization,  discusses his views on this matter.   Cole says, “One honorable thing we do is we raise our right hands and we swear that we are going to uphold the law.  We don’t swear we are going to uphold the laws that we agree with….So we never ask anybody to stop doing what they swore they do.  It’s an oath.”

Cole’s explanation encompasses two major fallacies – he assumes, without justification, that the act of keeping an oath is ethical.  He further seems to imply that if police officers selectively chose which laws to enforce, the results would be arbitrary or unjust, and thus assumes, again without justification, and that order in and of itself is a desirable goal.

Although “keeping an oath” may sound honorable, it isn’t inherently so.  It may be  ethically correct to honor an oath to be faithful to your spouse or to do some good deed, but very few would argue one should be encouraged to honor an oath to the KKK or an oath to Hitler. Similarly, no one should care much if one violates an oath to pick one’s nose every Wednesday at 2pm.  An oath is a promise that otherwise simply has no bearing on ethics; it is the underlying action involved in a promise that determines whether keeping that oath or promise is ethical or not.

To hold the mere idea of a promise, which is an ethically neutral concept, above the actual freedoms, rights and dignity of fellow human beings, is truly disingenuous, if not comical.  Marijuana may be a particularly controversial subject, but other analogies quickly demonstrate the logical fault in this kind of reasoning.  If it was illegal to drink water, no one would look too highly upon police who claimed to be against water prohibition, but nonetheless encouraged officers to continue to fine, jail and incarcerate individuals engaged in hydrating themselves.

Next, Cole states that police should not pick and choose which laws to enforce because they swore to uphold them all. Many defend this idea on the grounds that encouraging police to do so would cause arbitrary results, and would eventually lead to anarchy.

Arguably, the results are already completely arbitrary.  One can be arrested for doing absolutely nothing, and minorities are disproportionately arrested for marijuana crimes compared to white people (not that if arrest was proportional, drug laws would be acceptable). Police can throw you in jail overnight for parking violations, as Adam Mueller personally experienced.  Police can arrest you for feeding the homeless.  In the name of following process and abiding by laws, society has in fact fallen into chaos, in my opinion.

But let’s assume this isn’t arbitrary.  Let’s assume, as Mr. Cole and other police sympathizers do, that this is all perfectly orderly, and abides by due process because police are upholding oaths and correctly doing their jobs, rather than encouraging disobedience to the law, as Mr. Jardis did.

How is it a good thing that police are perpetuating racist and arbitrary arrests and depriving homeless people of food, in an orderly fashion?  Due process shouldn’t make you feel better about starving homeless people, racism and unjustified incarceration of non-violent people.  If it does make you feel better, you might be a sociopath.  This kind of reasoning justifies legalized slavery, genocide, and a slew of other atrocities.  People like Cole and his followers would be the ones berating officers who helped smuggle slaves across borders in the the pre-Civil War era, because until the law is changed, it must be obeyed.

Yet he he alleges he is honorable because he is upholding some vague oath. It is certainly understandable if a police officer is not personally willing to openly disobey laws because he could face serious personal and legal consequences.  However, it makes no sense to claim to be against the systematic incarceration of non-violent offenders, but criticize someone who is taking immediate action against those very injustices.

Society’s obsession with due process is mind boggling. The fact that a process was followed is largely irrelevant to policy discourse.  A process was followed to allow for legalized slavery, segregation, marriage discrimination (race and sexual orientation), and to pass all kinds of other laws violating civil liberties. Although existence of due process may facilitate a fair resolution of a particular situation, clearly, due process does not always give rise to protection of civil liberties, and in fact is often instrumental in violating those freedoms.

Posted in ArticlesComments (31)

Brad Jardis engages NH state trooper

The footage in this video was taken on April 20th (“420″). It shows people using cannabis outside the New Hampshire State House in Concord to protest the drug war.

At around the 3:40 mark, the video cuts to former police officer Brad Jardis who asks a state trooper about his job. Brad also explains that he quit his job as a police officer largely because he now believes that many of the laws (specifically drug laws) he used to enforce are immoral.

The best part of the video is when, after the state trooper says that he would enforce any law if ordered to do so, Brad asks “What if it was the 1960′s and Jim Crow laws were in effect and your Colonel told you, ‘I order you to arrest that black man cause he was drinking out of a white water fountain’?” The idea of arresting and punishing someone over a victimless “crime” like drug possession makes about as much sense as subjecting a group of people to a different set of laws because of the color of their skin.

Brad is a former member of the Cop Block team, but he unfortunately no longer has to time to blog with us. We all wish him well.

Posted in ArticlesComments (11)

Help Keep Ademo out of a Cage
copblocknetworks4 Follow CopBlock on LiveLeak CopBlock on YouTube Subscribe to CopBlock's Feed Follow CopBlock on Twitter Like CopBlock on Facebook Contact Copblock Contact Copblock Contact Copblock Support CopBlock
Listen to Cop Block's Podcast: The Police Accountability Report
Download Cop Block mobile apps

Latest Tweets

Archives