After the Civil Seven were arrested in Keene, NH the local police stopped by a few of the Night Caps which take place every night at 11pm. Some of us took the time to engage the officers about police conduct, victimless crimes and more. I am currently working on a video of this to publish, but during one of these conversations Shane Maxfield a Keene Police Officer, asked about my shirt which just so happened to be a CopBlock.org shirt. I told him what the site was about and that he should check it out and email me if he had any questions.
A few days later Shane emailed me (his text is in bold and block quoted) and I replied (in regular text) to his statements. I’m not publishing this to make Shane look bad but to show others that engaging police in conversation can be productive. Please feel free to make suggestions to me or to email Shane yourself at: [email protected]
Shane,
Thanks for the email and I appreciate you taking the time to do so. My responses are in Green. (regular text on line)
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Shane Maxfield <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Adam (forgive me if I mis-remembered your name, several people introduced themselves the other night), I mentioned the “personally liable” part of the emergency vehicle driving thing, the RSA is here, look down to section V. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/265/265-8.htmLike I said, if I’m going to something, even with lights and sirens, and I mash someone in a crosswalk or at an intersection, I will be held personally liable (probably the city too).
I don’t know. This states that you could be held personally liable, but in most cases the city (government), like you stated, settles with the victim. In a settlement it normally states you can’t sue the officer personally and that the case/issue is over with. In some cases, officers are held ‘accountable’ but not to the same extent as others.
Take this Pensacola officer who ran over a 17 yr old he was chasing because he spotted him near a construction zone. This officer was put on desk duty for months and then given an 80 hr suspension. Do you think I would get a suspension for running over a kid in the street? I bet the city will get sued for this and not the cop who actually ran the kid over.
Here’s a link to that NH cop arrested in Mass. http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=E.+Kingston+officer+arrested+for+off-duty+fight+outside+strip+club&articleId=9d8c235e-a503-459f-835f-d5165d04bde1
This officer was off duty which is a big difference than someone who is on active duty. Police can shoot people and get an internal investigation; if I were to commit the same act, I’d get a jail cell.
Other articles about cops being held responsible: http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2010/05/20/off_duty_nh_police_officer_convicted_of_assault/
Again, OFF DUTY.
http://7thspace.com/headlines/351991/former_georgia_police_officer_convicted_of_witness_tampering_obstructing_justice__.html
This is closer, but, again, lets see what he gets sentenced to. Will it be anywhere close to what another person would get? We’ll see.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/former-memphis-police-officer-convicted-of-excessive-force-73736992.html
This was a clear-cut case of excessive force. It would have been a public relations disaster to not go after this guy. I doubt it would be the same if that video went missing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030201691.html
OFF DUTY.
Obviously, you can parade dozens of instances where cops “got off,” just as I could parade even more instances where non-cops “got off.”
Yes, we could go back and forth for a while on the matter, though I feel the lack of accountability for officers prevails in the matter for the fact that even when officers are held accountable, they rarely face the same sentences as others.
In any large group there can be bad people. Certainly, as I said the other night, there are bad cops. Plenty of them. They should be held accountable. We’ve had cops locally be found doing bad things not even related to dealings with arrestees, things that aren’t even “crimes” in the criminal code…they don’t work here any more, most of them aren’t cops any more, nor should they be.
But I said “any large group.” In the group you’re presently associating with, for example, has been an individual with recent convictions for burglary, breaking into cars, domestic violence and a few others. Crimes which, by anyone’s definitions, have victims. He apparently likes the anti-cop, anti-law, anti-government bent the group advocates. He’s found nothing but open arms within the group, even after he trumpeted his activities. He’s tried to be the best “juggalo” he could be, rather than a good son (still living with Mom at twenty-something), boyfriend/husband or father. But that’s OK with the group, I guess.
Who is this person? Because I’d like to ask him about these crimes and make my decision then. I know the state has a way with labeling people with charges. I myself am a victim of the drug war and therefore labeled by the state. Furthermore, I’m not perfect. I’ve done wrong to people, though I’ve done my best to make right by those who I’ve harmed. But just because you mess up doesn’t mean you’re a bad person for life. How that person handles the situation after realizing they’ve wronged someone is just as important when describing their character. Maybe this was a case of troubled times and this man has made right with those he’s harmed. I don’t know.
What I do know is if you tell me this persons name, I’d be happy to ask. If this person is what you claim, I would not only cut my association with him. I’d also inform others of his character. There will always be dishonest people in this world. It’s how you deal with them that matters. The current system or way of dealing with such people is to drag them into a court that rarely provides real victims the justice they want while, at the same time, forcing others to pay for that process even though they had no involvement or connection to said crime.
Now, think of how bad that is when there is no victim. Would people really pay to lock up someone who made a decision to smoke or drink in public? Even if some would, it wouldn’t be enough to cage the number of people we do now.
I broke this next paragraph up because I wanted to separate the issues:
The citizens of this community, long ago, wanted to concentrate drinking and related activities to certain localized places (i.e. bars and restaurants, who would, coincidentally, profit from it).
Coincidentally, really? The citizens, as in all of them, wanted this to happen? Or was it a select few businesses (and/or people) that decided to lobby (or vote into office) some local politician(s) to make this rule? I can see why businesses would want or advocate for open container laws and I can understand why the state grants them. The business owners know it would increase their business if people couldn’t drink in the park but only at their establishment or home. The politicians know they can raise money off the issue to campaign on and the increase in business sales for such places also means increased tax revenue; not to mention the profits to the state for demanding folks have licenses.
Reason being is that with everyone free to booze it up wherever they wanted, there was no place, no park, no public place in the city where people could go with their family and be certain to not bump into an obnoxious (and sometimes assaultive) drinking or drunk asshole. There were threats and fights and disturbances all over the place, not to mention vandalism and litter everywhere.
Having laws for OC or drunk/drinking in public do not keep people from doing so nor do they relieve any of the concerns you stated above. With the laws the way they are, people still can’t be ‘certain to not bump into an obnoxious (and sometimes assaultive) drinking or drunk asshole.’
What would solve all these issues, as well as some financial troubles for the state, is to sell the property. Then people like yourself who have a skill in protection services can be employed by the park owner. They can make rules (or laws if you want to call them that) that would allow people to be CERTAIN of the type of environment they would be entering. They would clearly state what would or wouldn’t be acceptable behavior and what they’d do to enforce those rules. Some would have security forces on patrol, others could search people or take a peak in bags to make sure unwanted products aren’t brought in. Just like the lines at Disney Land. All this would reflect on the price of admission to the park and, with this competition, the park industry would flourish due to people finding innovative ways to make park ownership profitable.
By confining this particular activity to either people’s own property or bars and restaurants (where staff could either deal with over-consumption and its effects or call the Police to) they restored a general atmosphere of orderliness to the public spaces, where they could now bring their kids without exposing them to bad behavior or broken beer bottles.
Again, I’ve seen broken beer bottles in the parks in Keene, so this behavior isn’t controlled, or confined in your terms, by these laws. And for the record I’ve never seen someone at the Night Cap do this. Some people just don’t have proper manners, but these people would be dealt with by business owners or other patrons like myself, peacefully, by not allowing them on the property and if they cause damage they would have to pay restitution. Instead, the state does this by using force and demanding (issuing) money. At times the state also cages (or jails) the person who committed the offense which just so happens to keep that person who committed the crime against someone from repaying them. Is that justice?
Also, police take time to arrive on scene when things happen. If protection were privatized, then these bars and other businesses would have police-like people on their payroll that could be on hand and respond almost immediately to an issue.
I know, I know…”we’re peaceful, we just want to hang out and tip back a few Zimas.” Great, then get the ordinance changed, as I said the other night. When you folks drink it up in the square, no one ever drinks too much and starts swinging their piece around. Until the first time it happens. Just like drunk drivers usually don’t cause problems…until they cross the double-yellow line and kill someone’s family.
I don’t want to sound like a broken record but again, this issue would be solved by private property owners. Most people know mixing drugs and alcohol with guns is dangerous. Insurance companies would have high premiums for businesses that would allow such activities and therefore most wouldn’t allow these two to be together on their business.
And if someone, including those who are the security for such business, go off and kill someone, then they will be held accountable. If the business failed to do what they stated, like searching bags or relieving everyone of their firearms before entering their property, then they too could be held responsible just as the shooter would be.
To me one of the biggest mistakes government–well, people as well–makes is overreacting to worst case or rare situations. It’s not logical or rational to make a law, like banning drinking in public, because someone does something that happens .001% of the time. If a truck drove through the square and hit 3 people, would it make sense to then route or ban trucks from driving around the square?
With a couple of native exceptions, “the group” has chosen to come here, to THIS community. This community has chosen a city-council form of government and city ordinances to be the framework for the orderly operation of their society. Occasionally, citizens want to add, change or repeal ordinances. Often times they are successful, but there is a process to go through. The open container ordinance could be repealed, if there is enough support for that change from the community.
You are correct here to a certain extent. People do choose what level or which process they like to spend their time on. Some like to work within the rules you listed here while others do civil disobedience and non cooperation. Just because you feel using the system is the proper way to change things doesn’t mean everyone does. Some feel that route has been tried and that it failed. After all, it’s the same system that cages people for putting things willing into their bodies.
The way “the group” has behaved has clearly demonstrated they have no desire to actually join “the community,” because to join it would mean to operate within the system the community has set up and supports, to actually show a little respect for the families that have lived here long before “the group” chose Keene.
Again, to you the way to join a community is to operate within the system. For me it’s about contributing in a positive way to those who live around you. Myself and other movers to this area do that in many ways like volunteering at Project Graduation, Robin Hooding parking meters (which saves people from parking tickets which cost them more time and money), soup kitchen volunteering and more. I also know several who have feed, put up and assisted other in so many forms. To me that’s what a community is about.
Instead, this community gets pre-planned, staged “dramas” designed to irritate and shock the community, to force the police into confrontations. I know of a few families, just within my own sphere of existence, who shun downtown (a few shun the whole city now) because of the jackassery that happens here. Businesses downtown suffer, but “the group” doesn’t care.
Some events are planned of course but the choice to use force is solely on you and your fellow officers. I would rather be left alone and things would go about their usual (or unusual for some) way in the downtown area. If people would come out and talk, actually talk, with us, they might not see the outreach as jackassery. People might agree with the message, see a value in it and find their own way to support the idea.
Would it be safe to say that government often doesn’t care about the side affects of its decisions? They make laws all the time that put millions at risk, out of work or that brands them criminals, but the people don’t seem to care.
No one would regularly come into the center of the city to just hang out and drink, there are better places to do that without traffic driving 360 degrees around you.
You might be right if the park were privately owned and those owners didn’t allow such activities. Also, this is your view on drinking in the square/public, it’s not what the people as a whole think. How do you know what others would prefer to regularly do with their lives? Why would it bother you that people were drinking or smoking in the square if they weren’t bothering anyone?
The girls don’t really care about walking around with their “jumblies” showing because of the “equality” of it, otherwise they’d do it constantly.
I can’t speak for the ‘girls’ because I don’t know their views or why they did so.
The best place to light a massive blunt is in your living room, with your plasma screen and X-Box, in close proximity to your kitchen and your munchies. It’s all just stunts. Stunts designed to say “Fuck You, Keene, we’re moving in and we’ll do what we want.”
Again, this is what you think a person who smokes marijuana would do. I feel that people engaging in a peaceful activity with friends is a personal choice and what right do you have to use force to stop them? The negative stereotype of cannabis users wouldn’t exist if people were allowed to operate cannabis businesses in the free market instead of the violent black market.
Who could benefit from these stunts? I don’t know, maybe people who get their income from websites or radio stations depending on traffic and advertisers. So, controversy and drama sells. So let’s make some, and Keene is a safe place to do that because, among other things, “the cops are pretty decent.” That’s a pretty close quote from FreeKeene’s “however many great reasons to move to Keene.”
There is a positive aspect to those who use mediums as you claim when the state, or its agents, act in the exact manner in which we advocate against. But there is also an educational value and that is what most of us are trying to do. I don’t want you to make a big deal out of me drinking beer in a park. I’d rather you use discretion and go about working on crimes that actually have victims.
Why are we the ones who are in the wrong? Why is the problem us and not those who choose to use force to get people to comply with their rules? No victim, no crime; it’s pretty simple to understand. People are supposed to have a chance to face their accuser and, if possible, make right for their wrongdoings. All too often, government either claims itself to be the victim or decides what justice is despite what the actual victim wants.
You’re going around trying to expose police crime and corruption? Great, I support that and wish you success. As I said, I am all for close oversight of the police, that has to happen in a free society or we’ll rapidly become un-free. Some of the media on your site is pretty good, some of the cops behaved idiotically. But you’ll notice at these staged events in Keene, that the “rage” is turned on and off like a switch. The whole thing is contrived and is dishonorable, especially in Keene where, by “the groups” own admission in several places on several occasions, the police department is pretty decent compared to their experiences with other agencies.
Thank you for the compliments toward CopBlock.org. There are several people there that work very hard to create the content you see there. I also agree with your comment about how rapidly un-free we can become which is another reason why I do what I do. Today you’re not allowed to have a beer in the park, tomorrow it’s outside at all or only in certain locations and the next thing you know, it’s outlawed completely. I wonder what you enjoy doing in your life that, if all of a sudden, government made illegal you’d still say fuck’em and do it anyways? Would you then grab a sign and stand in Central Square to let others know of what you’ve lost? Or how would you feel if you were locked in a cage for such a thing? Let’s say it was fishing? Just because some people put words on paper saying fishing is bad doesn’t mean you have to agree. It also means you would stop. So even though you don’t agree with some (or all) of our tactics, you should appreciate that we’re keeping the man from going further into your lives. At some point they could be coming for your fishing poles.
Even you would have to admit, if you’re being honest, that the majority of “clashes” between the police and “the group” have been planned and staged by the group. Anyone who reads the forums or social-site postings would come to that conclusion.
I’m not an extremely active member on the forums, though I wish I had more time to be, and I’ve only been in Keene a few months. But for things I’ve planned or have ideas for are always planned. It’s a good idea to be prepared, especially when you’re trying to help people think outside the box. I try to have my activism focus on education, helping people realize that voluntary interactions are better solutions to the issues than government’s use of force. If people with badges and guns show up and decide–because it is your choice whether to arrest someone or not–to arrest me, then so be it. Sometimes people have to see the gun in the room to believe it exists.
So, convince the actual residents of this city to change or repeal the ordinances you don’t like. When you’re successful, I’ll just wave as you chug down your ice-cold 40oz malt beverage (or whatever your alcoholic beverage of choice). Or, if you can get the drug laws repealed (there are some people in NH actually TRYING to get them repealed, and as I’ve said publically before, I support the total legalization of drugs) then go ahead and break out your six-foot-tall “uber bong” and see if you can kill a fresh bowl in one breath (it’ll be a BIG bowl). Maybe I’ll even buy you a big bag of Dorrito’s if you’ll let me watch.
I don’t like Dorrito’s, but thanks for the offer. The question I have for you is why do I have to convince others to allow me to put what I want in my body? Why can’t I do whatever it is to assume wealth, buy my own place (like a home, business or park) and do what I like there? I respect property rights and therefore would only do such things at places that allow it. The ones that don’t wouldn’t get my business.
I’m assuming your support for the legalization of drugs is because you see one, or all, of these things, that people should be allowed to put what they want in their bodies. No victim, no crime. Or that you realize its a dangerous thing for people in your position to chase around people who will continue, no matter what effort LEO’s put forth, to do drugs. So my question is why not take a front line stance on that issue? Come out publicly and say you will no longer arrest people for harming themselves. The topic is hot, millions of other officers might stand up with you. I’ve talked to many that feel the same way you do. You could help that movement progress because what a powerful message that would send to people. Cops refusing to arrest drug offenders who haven’t harmed anyone. I’m not talking about the ones that steal or cause harm to others while under the influence; I hope you get them all and let them make right to their victims.
Perhaps a more useful (albeit less profitable) use of the groups energy would be to try to work from within the system and pare down stupid laws, to pare down the number of legislators etc. etc. With stuff on the federal level going like an out-of-control roller coaster, it’d be nice to see you guys educating Keene about what’s happening there rather than saying “Fuck you, citizens who’ve lived here your whole life and support these ordinances, we’re not even from Keene but we’re going to rock your boat!” Maybe you guys could start making people open their eyes to some of these new federal “Acts” that have been foisted upon us so they’d start putting pressure on their reps to not support them.
Or maybe you could do that? Seems you have a passion and desire to work within the system. For the record, I’ve never said “fuck you, citizens” or that I’m here to take anything over. I have an open door policy and am more than wiling to engage in constructive conversation at anytime with people. I’d also question how many people know of these ordinances let alone support them. Just like most people in Keene have no idea about FreeKeene.com or the FreeStateProject.org.
I liken what “the group” is doing now to being a passenger on a ship, complaining about not being able to play his radio lout all night, when in reality the whole ship is actually sinking. Maybe we should pay attention to the sinking ship?
Maybe we should just let that ship sink. It’s going to anyway and I’m not responsible for it.
Good to have a conversation with you the other night, I’m sure we’ll see each other around. Don’t be afraid to flag me down if you’ve got a question.
Cheers, Shane
I appreciate the dialog as well. I don’t expect us to agree on everything. Heck, I don’t agree with the people in ‘the group’ on everything. But being different is a good thing, the world would be a boring place if we all agreed.
Now I’d like to leave you with a few links if you’d be so inclined to check them out.
Most of us in the group, as you refer to it, call ourselves Voluntaryists. If you go to http://voluntaryist.com/fundamentals/introduction.php you’ll find a great foundation on Voluntaryism. Feel free to poke around that site as it’s one of the best out there.
Also, though I’m not a huge fan of this organization because of what they did to Brad Jardis, you should check out Law Enforcement Against Prohibition : http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
Here is a great site about the lack of accountability within LEO’s: http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/
Also you might find Barry Cooper’s story interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Cooper_(lecturer)
In Liberty,
Adam
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments
to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and
may contain confidential, privileged or exempt information in accordance with
NH RSA 91-A and other applicable laws or regulations. If you are not the
intended recipient, please reply to the City of Keene sender or notify the
City of Keene immediately at (603) 357-9802 and delete or destroy all copies
of this message and any attachments. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, or
distribution of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. Thank
you for your assistance.
Shane please note that I did not agree to your confidentiality notice as I didn’t get to see it until you emailed me. That’s not an agreement, that’s an assumption. Anything that is sent to [email protected] is considered public knowledge and could be used at CopBlock.org. My intentions aren’t to make anyone look bad but to highlight the conversation between the two perspectives. Thanks again.
