The “State of MA” aka Todd M Dodge vs. Ademo & Pete Eyre

Thanks for all the support everyone, the trial concluded July 19th, 2011 – over a year after the arrest – with three NO GUILTY verdicts. All other charges were dropped before the trial started. All related content is posted below.

Background (both cover from arrest to just before trial):

All related posts/videos/documents by date

[Note that the this “” link used to display the text from the first post listed above, so comments made prior to the change (Feb. 14th, 2011) are associated with that post]


Pete Eyre

Pete Eyre is co-founder of As an advocate of peaceful, consensual interactions, he seeks to inject a message of complete liberty and self-government into the conversation of police accountability.

Eyre went to undergrad and grad school for law enforcement, then spent time in DC as an intern at the Cato Institute, a Koch Fellow at the Drug Policy Alliance, Directer of Campus Outreach at the Institute for Humane Studies, Crasher-in-Chief at Bureaucrash, and as a contractor for the Future of Freedom Foundation.

In 2009 he left the belly of the beast and hit the road with Motorhome Diaries and later co-founded Liberty On Tour. He spent time in New Hampshire home, and was involved with Free Keene, the Free State Project and The Daily Decrypt.

  • Pete Eyre

    FYI – Just sent the following to Dodge, the chief of police, the mayor, a couple local reporters and the Boston Globe:


    To Whom it May Concern,

    My name is Pete Eyre and on Thur., July 1st I, along with my friend Adam Mueller, was unjustly arrested by Todd M. Dodge of the Greenfield Police Department.

    Adam and I just published an overview of the incident which you can read here:

    I am interested in hearing your thoughts about the actions of Dodge and his colleagues as described by the write-up. Specifically – do they represent the Greenfield Police Department and the City of Greenfield?

    Thanks for your time, I look forward to hearing from you.


  • Pingback: On Celebrating Your Freedom… | The Agitator()

  • Radomysisky guys. I’ll be writing a letter to Greenfield tonight sharing my disgust.

  • moonbat

    So what is Adam’s criminal history. We might as well know the whole story.

  • Adam Mueller

    My ‘criminal’ history, if you call it that, consist of two felonies; both for possession of a plant (no victim or violence), I also have several other victimless ‘charges’ against me. For things like driving without a plastic card in my possession, disorderly conduct, speeding and a DUI. I might even have an underage drinking ticket and a possession of a pipe of some sort when I was a minor.

    Still not sure how my past ‘crimes’ have anything to do with what the Greenfield police did to me. They had no idea who I was until I was already assaulted and put in a cage. Do you know how many peaceful, non violent people are put into a cage each year? It’s alot and taxpayers pay for it… do you like paying for that?


    Couldnt ya’ll just have given officer [ i use that term lightly] Todd back his lunch money and called it even?? when and if you are able to sue them for false arrest and any other civil rights violations i hope you will consider making a donation to LEAP AND NORML in officer todd and the local DA’s names It would be nice to get a few people to start donating in the name of this towns police dept.. they could soon become one of the larger contributors to ending the war on drugs ..i wonder how well the cops from there would sleep at night knowing that they are soon to be one of the larger causes of donations to these fine org’s??

  • moonbat

    ‘do you like for that?’

    Now now, don’t get mad. You said you had felonies. How was I supposed to know they were victimless felonies?

    In any case, the wiretapping will likely be dropped because they knew you were filming. It was not ‘surreptitious’. The search of your vehicle was obviously unlawful, so the weapons charges will also likely be dropped. Trespass and resisting are likely to stick. Although you might be able to convince a judge to drop the trespass. I hope you’re going to get a local lawyer to handle these charges. Good luck in any case.

  • Pingback: Suspect charged in early-morning stabbing | Uncategorized | Information about Car Trading!()

  • Pingback: Suspect charged in early-morning stabbing | Uncategorized | Information about Car Trading!()

  • KBCraig


    I can see how they justified (in twisted Cop Logic) everything they did except for towing and searching MARV. The RV was legally parked, right? What possible justification could they come up with for towing and searching MARV, versus any other vehicle legally parked on a public street overnight? What if it had been in a campground, or a private driveway?

    I don’t see that any charges were added as a result of the search, other than the misdemeanor “VIN manipulation” charge. Still, you and anyone who represents you should be aware of Arizona v. Gant, a SCOTUS ruling from 2009. At the very least, that ruling declares such a search to be unconstitutional. That alone should get the VIN charge dismissed.

    Speaking of “VIN manipulation”, since MARV is an RV, I’m guessing that when they ran the VIN, it said “truck chassis”. I bought a used conversion van a few years ago, and ran into hell trying to secure a loan and insurance, because the VIN says it’s a cargo van. True, that’s how it left the GMC factory, but then the RV manufacturer added about $20k worth of goodies and made it look like the furthest thing from a plumber’s work truck.

    The VIN charge for MARV might have roots in a similar “misunderstanding”, even if they understand fully and chose to pile on charges.

    Good luck.

  • MG

    Speeding and DUI on public roadways are victimless crimes in your case only because of luck, not because they are inherently victimless actions.

  • Pingback: Local Search and Find()

  • Disgusting. The Greenfield, MA police should be ashamed of themselves.

  • @KBCraig – “What possible justification could they come up with for towing and searching MARV”

    Exactly. MARV was legally parked. There were no signs indicating that parking was not allowed or had any restrictions (time allowed, etc.). We took pictures of the location just in case the Greenfield PD ask their friends in the city to erect a sign that states otherwise after the incident. Neither of us ever admitted to owning/visiting/using the RV and we sure as hell did not give consent for them to tow/search/trash MARV. Their actions were not just immoral and illegal but childish.

  • Pete,

    The only “legal” reason I can think of for their searching MARV would be to search for previously “illegal” recordings you made of them.

    I bet you this is the justification they will use.

    I speak bureaucrat, remember :P

  • Pingback: InfowarsMA | Just another WordPress site()

  • TC Bell

    I’ve called the criminal organization calling itself the ‘Greenfield police department’ multiple times to report that a kidnapper is on the loose in their fair city. I reported that his name is Todd Dodge and that he is putting peaceful people in cages for arbitrary amounts of time.

  • Pingback: Learn To Conduct Florida Criminal Records Check Now | Personal Injury Lawyers Brisbane()

  • Wonderful work. Keep it up.

    I am currently recovering from police abuse after we called the police for help at our home only be be abused. We have a 1983 suit against the Cops. While that case was proceeding Las Vegas Cops violated my rights, again, and we are preparing an additional lawsuit against them. After you go through one suit we know how to do it ourselves now. It really is not very difficult.

    We just got a video camera and carry it with us at all times since we see Cops violating the law on a regular basis. We will be filing Internal Affairs complaints every time we see it happen and can film it.

    I will be bookmarking this page and will be back.

    You are so correct. We have to do something. The Cops are Fascists.

  • @Brad – it was clear that when arrested we had the same gear with that we had the entire time. They can even review their own tapes from inside the lobby of the Franklin Co. jail if they need to double-check. Or we could, to disprove such “justification” to illegally entering and trashing my home.

  • Pete,

    I know you’re telling the truth. All the cops have to say to have justified the search is that they were looking for evidence of your “crime.”

    “How did we know that they didn’t leave the illegal recordings of us in their motor home?”

  • Adam is the same type of “criminal” as George W. Bush and Barack Obama…. With respect to the violations of victimless crimes.

    George W. Bush and Barack Obama are massively larger criminals for their murder of innocent people throughout the world.

    Adam has never harmed another human being.

  • Adam Mueller

    I wouldn’t say never Brad, I’m human. Though I always try to make right from my mistakes and never harmed some one intentionally. Thanks for the support buddy.

  • Well, at the very least it is fair to say that *I’ve* done far more to hurt people who haven’t harmed anyone else than you ever will be capable of.

    But it was okay for me to do, as I was wearing a magical costume…… right?

  • Thanks for the aerial photo illustrating how far MARV was parked from the county jail/police station. It’s much further than understood before. Definitely far enough that it should not have been involved in the incident, much less broken and entered into and ransacked! Big head Todd Dodge most likely followed/watched you two go to, from and/or near MARV before he accosted you guys at the grocery store. That video of violated MARV is disturbing and sad, but indecent ransacking is standard operating procedure for pig searches and seizures. Just be glad it and you three got out and back to NH not only as intact and as soon as you did, but at all!! Armed and badged men are more often than not of the caliber and ilk of gangsters, mafia goons, thugs and terrorists!

  • Tim Sylvester

    You may as well argue with a brick wall, as argue ideology with a cop. Why bother? They WON’T listen and you WON’T change any minds.

  • Tim,

    I was a police officer for eleven years. I had the same indoctrinated ideology as all police do.

    I changed my mind when I was shown how I was hurting people.

  • Pingback: More Watching of the Watchers - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine()

  • MK

    If you guys are going to continue with this hobby you really need to get MARV an integrated video recording system. I realise you are selling him, but the parts can be moved into your next vehicles. Given your habits you need something that is inconspicuous, well secured, a pain to confiscate, or better yet that stores data off-site. You might stop by eBay and search for “Safety Vision”, “Karcorder”, “arbitrator 360”, “INDRV”, “Kustom Eyewitness”, “Roadhawk RH-1” or “Vehicle Event Data Recorder.” Those are all brands that are being used against you, no reason you can’t have parity.

  • Jihad Me At Hello

    Thanks to you guys there will be more awareness for these kinds of things that happen on a daily basis. I’ve been victim of the same type of behavior from the police. Everyone needs to know their rights and more importantly that it’s never a good idea to talk to the police unless you have your lawyer present and he/she tells you to. Fortunately it looks like this police department has fucked with the wrong people this time. I’m glad you guys weren’t hurt and wish the best.

  • @MK – thanks for the suggestions – we’ve been talking with some fellow Free Staters that have more knowledge in this area but ultimately it comes down to our budget. They took both our cameras and both our cell phones. We hope, after getting those things addressed, we’re able to outfit MARV a bit better.

  • Thanks MK,

    I will look into those. I want to start stings on Vegas Cops. It should be easy with the right video and sound equipment in the car.

    Storing off sight is what we already decided is best.

    Hopefully up and running by 2011!

  • Laith Sabri

    I am curious about something, do you any respect for the government/law? I am not asking specifically about this situation, but rather in general since you use qualifiers like “man-made” and call uniforms “costumes”.

    PS: I should point out that the police did go too far when they arrested you for filming- still, not really what i am interested in.

  • Pingback: Activists enraged, then engaged | Tea()

  • People shouldn’t have automatic respect for people in uniforms. A quick research on the foundation of uniforms should make one suspect of anyone wearing them. Respect is an admiration that is earned on an individual basis over time from the actions someone takes. The collective actions of government throughout history should make respect more difficult to earn for someone in uniform. Luckily for me, I live in a town that has a respectable Sargent, and that attitude filters down to his men. Greenfield seems to be the opposite of my town. Here is a relevant article proving misconduct in this area.

  • Laith,

    I have a sincere disrespect for people using violence against people who are peaceful. Wearing a uniform/costume does not make a person different or relieve them of individual moral responsibility as a human being.

    This sincere disrespect applies to myself… for the violence I’ve used against people who are peaceful.

  • Dear Laith Sabri,

    I have no respect for law enforcement.

    I have been in Federal Court in Ohio and watched a judge lie and change rulings to hurt defendants in IRS cases.

    I have seen IRS agents and employees lie, under oath, on the the stand.

    I have been given a criminal trial on a traffic offense WITHOUT a required Arraignment hearing by Judges with no required bond. I latter won the case on appeal. It took 5 years to get the appeal because they “lost” the paperwork.

    I have have sued Cops for civil rights violations and won.

    I helped get a Federal judge removed from a trial because he was so blatantly unfair and bias in helping the IRS.

    I was seriously injured by Cops AT MY HOME after we called them for help because we were attacked. We are suing them. In this case they LOST the most important document. One officers wife violated the HIPAA laws in helping her Cop husband cover his ass.

    In this case we discovered that the Cops are so ignorant of the laws and Constitution that it was shocking. They had no clue about Nevada guns laws. Not one of the 5 Cops we asked had ever read the Nevada Constitution they swore and oath to uphold. How can you uphold a document you have never read. None of the Cops had read the entire US Constitution either.

    That is a VERY short list.

    So no… I have NO RESPECT for the government, either local, state or federal. They are nothing but Fascists.

  • Christopher,

    Well said.

  • Thanks Bradley,

    This simple fact is that Cops are nothing but organized crime with badges.

    I like to ask Cops that say there are only a few bad apples if they know of any corrupt Cops. They always say “yes.” Then I ask them if they have arrested them or turned them into Internal Affairs. They always say that they cannot and have not. Then I say: Well that means you are a corrupt Cop. didn’t you realized that?” They always looked shocked.

    Most people believe traffic tickets are for public safety. They are not. They are for revenue collection.

    7 years ago I have a case that I won on appeal that had over 1000 pages of motions. I cost the government big time and them won on appeal. Have 100 pro se litigants a month and the system fails.

    If you get a non-drunk driving ticket in Las Vegas all you have to do to beat it now is to plead Not Guilty then wait for the system to miss the mandatory 60 day trial rule then file a Motion to dismiss for failure to meet the 60 day rule.

    It may be cheaper to pay the ticket than fight it but it cost the government a lot to prosecute and they open themselves up for more costs.

    The only problem is that the Las Vegas Clerks are told to not allow you to file such a motion. You have to call the judge’s clerk and they have to tell the Court Clerk to allow you to file it.

    I just one my case last month that way.

    But the key to stopping this garbage is to sue these pukes every time they make a mistake or intentionally violate your rights.

    We are suing the two Cops that gave me un-signed tickets, the DA for malicious prosecution and the judge that is not actually a judge but just a “judicial officer” so he has no immunity, for moving forward with the prosecution when the ticket was not signed as required by law.

    If 100 people would file cases in every county we could bankrupt these Fascist and force them to stop violating the law.

    There is a city in California that could no long afford to have a police department because they could not afford the costs of the lawsuits.

    We need to do this nation wide.

    We must LOOK for reasons to sue. I do.

  • “We need to do this nation wide.

    We must LOOK for reasons to sue. I do.”

    I’m a recovering costumed criminal. I couldn’t agree with you more about suing and jamming up the court system.

  • My email Address is

    I am the editor and one of the reporters for Independent American News.

    Stay in touch.

    I would love to have you write an article or as many as you would like to explaining your experiences and why you feel the way you do.

    We already have some articles by a former military Cop that was recently abused by Las Vegas METRO Cops.

    I want to put cameras in old cars and go trolling for Cops with a camera crew following behind the bait car. The Cops NEVER follow the Nevada laws of stops especially when no car is involved. NRS 171.123 and Frisks at NRS 171.1232.

    Naturally this stuff cannot be organized nationally or they will come after us like we are domestic terrorists instead of concerned Citizens. We must NEVER promote violence and work strictly within the system. 42 USC 1983 cases can bankrupt these Criminals with badges.

    Stay in touch!

  • Pingback: Thank You Thank You Thank You from Pete and Adam | Cop Block()

  • wtfo

    “We did chants of ‘no victim no crime,’ sang songs, preached libertarianism and even did a workout.”

    If all you’re going to do is get arrested, trampled on, and sing silly songs, then you might as well go home.

    If the cops have taken you in, they’ve won… a huge part of their job is knowing how to justify their actions after the fact. This sort of post-incident lawyering is simply not helping.

    What you need to do is not slap them on the wrists for doing these thing, but to make THEM not want to even do these things in the first place.

    Either work within the system with hard, irrefutable proof (preferrably shot by someone not being arrested, as noted above) and publish it widely, just plain FIGHT back, or go home.

    Whatever you do, get more help from freedom minded LEO’s/former LEO’s (they do exist) or you’ll wind up in jail for quite a long time. This is not a game, and most of you are in over your heads.

    Previous posters talk about “bankrupting these criminals with badges”. They don’t just have badges, they have weapons and far more legal protections than you do to USE them. You can’t threaten someone else with personal ruin (justly or not) and not expect them to use that sort of power against you to the fullest extent possible.

  • You people kill me. If we did not have laws we would have anarchy. I know I do not want my kids growing up in a land with no laws and no accountability. If we did not have “man made” laws, what would we do to the people who hurt our children and steal our property. Who would make the decision as to what to do then?
    We need laws and we need people that are accountable. The best ways to fight these ‘Laws” is to get out there and get you message out. Let people know you are trying to do the right thing. Don’t just look like a crack pot by “questioning the man”. You sound like fools. Let people hear you. Post messages, hand out fliers, have rallies and try not to sound nuts. You might get people on your side. Then you vote people out of of office. That is the only way to get something done. Otherwise you might as well stand on the highway and try and stop a tractor trailer truck. Your going to get the same outcome. Your going to get run over. Calling them costumes and comparing them to nazzis is just rediculous. They are not killing people for being jews, they are trying to keep social order. It sounds like you are doing it all wrong. Do it the right way and people might take you serious. Until then, see you in lock up guys!

  • mk

    Pete Eyre, Christopher Hansen, do yourselves a favor, go get a legal consultation from a real licensed professional who is up to snuff on the law in your areas before you go out hunting. For an example, there was a guy known as “The train rider” ~ who took a notion to ride on the OUTSIDE of bullet trains for the fark of it. Eventually the Eurorail people caught him, and you know they would have found something to put him away on. However, he had talked w/ a lawyer beforehand, the lawyer gave him some advice I never would of thought of, and he wound up not doing time because he had staked out a legally defensible position beforehand. No reason you can’t do the same thing.

  • Dear mk,

    Interestingly enough my brother is an attorney and is currently running for Attorney General in Nevada.’s-answers-to-gazette-questionnaire/

    It is nice to have several attorneys in the family but frankly I know more about the laws on these issues than the lawyers do. I beat Cops and DAs in court pro se and know how to prepare more than lawyers because lawyers come in after the fact.

    But it is indeed wise to learn before acting. This is a dangerous thing to do to go after organized crime with badges when you must do so unarmed and in a 100% peaceful manner.

  • wtfo,

    You are correct that most people are in over their heads. I am not. I have faced off with Cops for decades and most of the time I win. I have spent less than a week in jail and never for a conviction.

    You are right about the camera man. That is why we want cameras in the cars that send the video off while it is being filmed. We want another camera crew to follow along as we go trolling. Hopefully we will be able to do this by 2011 AD.

    Yes. This is dangerous but then doing nothing is more dangerous. Can we do less than Sophie Scholls?

    Can we risk less than the Founding Fathers?

    I have not filed an income tax return in over 32 years. I have letters from the IRS that I am not required to file a return. I don’t have a Social Security Number and I don’t have a State Issued Driver’s license. I have never been convicted of anything more than a minor traffic ticket and that was BEFORE I learned how to fight them. I refuse to go down into Fascism without my very best effort to stop it. To die or lose my liberty in such an effort are possible costs I am willing to pay.

    I will continue to do what is right and pray that God will continue to protect me.

    I fear God, not Cops. Do what is right and let the consequences follow is my motto.

  • Laith Sabri

    Okay, let me get this straight, you believe that police and judges are nothing more than criminals, underserving of respect dye to your negative experiences with them. You accuse of them of lying, cheating and being aggressive… and yet, though the police are “instruments of the law”, they are flawed ones since they are only people.

    Just like people, they can be petty, malicious or downright sadistic in their execution of their legal powers. Frankly, it would be weird if they weren’t, the problem I have with you guys is that by default, you assume that all police officers are criminals; I wonder how they feel about it.

    Also, believe me when i say that the police in America are far from being organised crime, I have come from a country where the police are essentially for hire; and you know what, they still kept the peace (what there was of it) by locking up drunks.

    Moreover, i wonder what you life would be like without the protection of the law.

  • Bentor Tazenda

    That one bit about the firearms charge for having some ammo in your mobile housing unit sounds unconstitutional to me. So is openly filming in public. The excuse to search your RV is pitiful. Motion to suppress. Is Massachusetts a communist or police state enclave? I’ts hearing things like this which will mean that neither my business nor tourist dollars will be spent that there.

  • Laith Sabri

    Why don’t you ask them? I certainly have. Ask them if they know any dirty Cops. They will say yes. Then ask them what they have done about it. If the answer is nothing (I have never received any other answer and I have asked over 30 Cops) then they are dirty Cops because they did nothing.

    Cops will lie, cheat, steal and harm people to protect the Thin Blue Line. It is organized crime.

    In Chicago they just convicted a former Cop for intimidating witnesses and getting confessions from innocent people by beating them.

    In New Orleans Cops are going to prison for murder during Katrina.

    And it is more than my experiences. I get emails from all over the Country about how corrupt Cops are. I keep up on Cop convictions and lawsuits against them. ANd they are never ending. Those Emails and news stories only confirm my own experiences. Las Vegas METRO Cops are criminals. I watch them commit crimes all the time. That is why I got a video camera so I could start filming them.

    The VEGAS DA is in with the Mob. So are several of the judges, not all, but some. Jackie Glass is one such mob judge. 4 Las Vegas politicians were convicted of taking bribed just a few years ago. The corruption in Nevada but especially Clark County is massive.

    Nevada Senator Ensign is under investigation for paying brides. Senator Reid is a millionaire and became so by being corrupt.

    Nevada Governor Gibbons has taken big $ bribes along with cheating on his wife. (But then he is a Republican so it must be expected)

    Cops took an oath to uphold the Constitutions and the law. Regular people did not. They have a higher standard to meet than the average guy.

    Police in Vegas are for hire. And I am not guessing about this. But that is minor compared to the Thin Blue Line protection racket they have to protect themselves and their crimes.

    Fascist States keep the peace right up until the people revolt because of never ending abuse of power.

  • And this is just in the last 8 hours.

    South Bend IN settles suit for $150k to 14yr-old jumped, repeatedly tasered & attacked by police dog over toy gun:
    about 1 hour ago via TwitterBar
    Martinsville IN cop suspended 45days w/o pay for tasering 10yr old after police capt, resignation pending, slapped kid:
    about 3 hours ago via TwitterBar
    Windber PA cop suspended w/pay after arrest for choking wife in front of daughter while saying he wished she would die:
    about 3 hours ago via TwitterBar
    Warrensville Heights OH cop pleads guilty to mail fraud & false filings for defrauding investors, many were fellow cops:
    about 4 hours ago via TwitterBar
    Hackensack NJ police officer demoted & suspended w/o pay for 60days for hitting parked car then fleeing the scene:
    about 4 hours ago via TwitterBar
    Bartlett TN police officer accused of escalating traffic stop into excessive force incident by witness filing complaint:
    about 4 hours ago via TwitterBar
    Cape Coral FL police officer sentenced to 24mo prison for real estate fraud, ordered to pay back over $1mil to victims:
    about 6 hours ago via TwitterBar
    Seward NE police sergeant arrested while off duty during traffic stop by fellow Seward cop on drunk driving charges:
    about 6 hours ago via TwitterBar
    Moab UT police officer sentenced to 30days jail in plea deal for stealing $900 from police lieutenant’s office:
    about 7 hours ago via TwitterBar
    San Marcos TX arbitrator forced PD to rehire cop fired for beating woman then lying about it, gets 15 days off instead:
    about 8 hours ago via TwitterBar

  • Hey Chris Hansen,
    Looks like you used some good examples. All of them caught and punished. Kind of shoots your theory of corrupt cops and judges. They WERE PUNISHED. Shows the system works even on cops. Especially with the cop being arrested by the cop he works with for OUI. As with anything run by huimans there are going to be problems. These problems often get worked out, like you have just proven. I think that the cops that are dirty should be outed. They should be held to a higher standard. You guys just like to get in the face of people and push buttons and expect them to act a certain way. Which you get sometimes. They are human beings that have a boiling point just like anyone else. Just to let you know, I have seen Sgt. Dodge do some really nice and caring things when people have deserved it. He is trying to do a tough job in a tough town. You guys just keep trying to get people to go off so you can expose them. Sounds kind of childish to me. Do it the right way guy and bring some good attention. When you drive around trying to get pulled over and get people to go off, you are going to capture some “good stuff” that you can expose. How about you just act like people and if something happens then you expose it. You make yourself look like a bunch of crackpots when you try and incite this. So try and do it the right way and some people might just sit up and pay attention.

  • Laith Sabri


    Finally, a sensible man, what good are these recordings of “overreacting” cops if you got them that way by behaving in a out of the ordinary fashion? It turns out that ordinary people don’t go around pushing their buttons. Now if a cop got off on harassing random stragglers then fine, by all means flame their asses. Otherwise, leave them alone so that they can deal with real criminals.

  • GreenfieldLEO,

    Thank you for coming here and participating in the discussion. Would you be willing to answer a few questions, please?

    1) Is a monopoly the best way to get the best product or service?

    2) You said “You guys just keep trying to get people to go off so you can expose them.” Do you think that Rosa Parks was trying to get the officers who arrested her to go off? Was she behaving childish when she captured some “good stuff” to expose?

    3) Notwithstanding Todd Dodge being upset for being filmed or whatever, does it justify placing two human beings in cages? Did they actually harm anyone?

    4) How would you feel if someone went through your home the way that Todd Dodge did to Adam and Pete?

    5) Do you think that police should be held to a “higher standard?” If so, judging by the numerous examples of police only being held to said standard due to video footage, how can you justify arresting someone for filming the police?

    Thank you again for being willing to discuss these things here. I will point out that I did your job for eleven years. I quit when I realized that I was hurting and using violence against peaceful people who had not harmed another soul. Sure, words on paper said it was okay… but words on paper said it was okay to arrest people who harbored “fugitive slaves” who dared hide from the cruelty of chattel slavery. Yes, I understand the differences between the injustices today and the horrors of chattel slavery…. but do you understand their implementation is essentially the same?

    Words on paper authorizing the attack on those who have harmed no one else.

  • Laith,

    “Finally, a sensible man, what good are these recordings of “overreacting” cops if you got them that way by behaving in a out of the ordinary fashion? It turns out that ordinary people don’t go around pushing their buttons. Now if a cop got off on harassing random stragglers then fine, by all means flame their asses. Otherwise, leave them alone so that they can deal with real criminals.”

    Police are not entitled to get upset at citizens for exercising their RIGHT of freedom of the press. Adam and Pete are citizen journalists… who are covering a specific topic: police.

    The US Supreme Court has ruled that disorderly conduct charges cannot be applied to people who have used profanity towards police. This is because police must be able to withstand the criticism and negative opinions of the people…. as they represent the government.

    If a law enforcement officer cannot handle being confronted by individuals who are exercising their express and specific right to freedom of the press without getting upset, violent, or losing their cool: they’re in the wrong line of work. They’re held to a higher standard, remember?

  • Laith Sabri

    Bradley Jardis

    You can’t have it both ways Bradley, if you choose to hold individuals to a higher standard, then you must also respect them.

  • Laith,

    I’m sorry that I don’t precisely understand what you’re saying.

    The police are (allegedly) our servants. They work for us. They need to be the ones held to the higher standard… even if we don’t respect them.

    I personally don’t have a disrespect for the police. I have an understanding of where they’re coming from, as I used to be right there. I’ve developed an understanding of how I used to (and they presently do) hurt people, who have hurt no others.

  • I should clarify: I have a disrespect for the *actions* of the police that hurt people… who have harmed no others.

  • Bradley,
    Again yopur heads and hearts are in the right place. But your actions of trying to incite people are going to give you the reactions you want. If you wind up a toy car, its going to go. Same type of situation.
    As for your questions.
    1. No a monopoly is not the best way. Are you comparing the police to a monopoly? How do you suggest that americans live safe and productive lives without these “man made” laws. Who would punish those who have done wrong to us?

    2. Rosa parks was a brave and dignified woman. She stoot up for what was wrong and did it in a peaceful manner. She never got in anyones face and compromised their safety. Nor did the cops beat her. What happened was wrong and sense then we have grown. Not to our full potential, but progress has been made.

    3. Knowing yourself how a secure facility works, you should know better than to try and film in a jail. You know it is against the rules. They knew the consequences, and they are paying the price. If everyone just went around doing what they wanted this place would be nuts. You can not have a civilized society when people can not be held accountable.

    4. If the RV was in a legal spot, it should not have been towed. If it was not they have to inventory any important items. Otherwise people would say the cops are stealing from them. *eople on here have even said they are looking for theings to sue them for. But I think that was mostly you being a pain in their ass and they were repaying you. You can not expect to annoy the sh*t out of someone and not have them do it back. They are cops but thay are also human. If anyone got in my face like that and kept trying to push buttons just for the sake of pushing buttons, I would give them exactly what they wanted.

    5. I have no problem with people video taping cops. I think they should be held to the higher standard. But when you go and incite them you may get the response your looking for. Not even close to all of those instances you listed were caught on tape. The cop arresting the cop probably was on a dash cam, but not all of them. You have to think of their situation of you are expecting them to think of yours. They have private lives and families that they have to go home to. When you “expose” them and their private lives, do you think it makes them better or more agitated and more apt to make mistakes.

    The main thing here is that most of the cops I have met and worked with want to make the place they live a better place to live. That mens taking the bad guys off the streets. I very rarely see them bothering people who do not harm anyone. They go after people who victimize society. They get the dealers, the bullys, the wife beaters, the child abusers. I cant tell you how many times I have seen a small stash just get thrown away. Thats not hurting anyone until they break into my house to steal my stuff so they can buy more. Then someone gets hurt, and hurt bad. I don’t even have a problem with the gang bangers killing them selves. They should, but when they hurt a non gang member they need to be dealt with swiftly.
    Thanks for not attacking me for my views. I know you guys are trying to do some positive things. Your just doing it in a real negative way.

  • GreenfieldLEO,

    Saying that we caught all the Cop criminals is like saying we caught all of the Mexican or Black Gang members in Los Angeles. It is a never ending supply of criminals in on going crimes. It is like saying that since we arrest and deport a few Illegal aliens that all of them have been caught and deported. It is like saying we have arrested all of the Mafia members. It is like saying that their are no more speeders or drunks on the highways. It is like saying that all of the corrupt politicians have been removed from office.

    Those few examples are just a tip of a huge iceberg of Cop corruption. That was only those problems reported in an 8 hour period.

    And several of the examples actually show the problem because it is just civil lawsuits against Cops that were not charged criminally. When a Cop is sued he does not even have to pay the settlement. Tax Payers pay those. The Cops continue to spread their corruption and pain on innocent people while being paid by We the People.

    People have the RIGHT to push Cops buttons without retaliation. People that act like creeps to Cops and call them names or flip them off right to their faces have a First Amendment right to say those things without threats of arrest or retaliation. The Federal Courts have made that clear in several rulings. Rights are not just for those that Cops determine deserve it. Cops are not authorized to determine who is worthy of their kindness or who deserves to have their right protected.

    Criticism of the police, profane or otherwise, is not a crime. Hill, 482 U.S. at 462-63, 107 S.Ct. 2502. Poocha’s yelling “f@ck you” at Ranger Lober was no more likely to provoke a violent response from the officer than Duran’s tirade of obscene comments and gestures. We have repeatedly emphasized that “while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment.
    U.S. v. Poocha 259 F.3d 1077, 1082 (C.A.9 (Cal.),2001)

    [W]hile police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment.
    Duran v. City of Douglas, Ariz. 904 F.2d 1372, 1378 (C.A.9 (Ariz.),1990)

    [T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers. “Speech is often provocative and challenging…. [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.”
    City of Houston, Tex. v. Hill 482 U.S. 451, 462, 107 S.Ct. 2502, 2510 (U.S.Tex.,1987)

    “[B]ecause a properly trained officer may reasonably be expected to exercise a higher degree of restraint than the average citizen, and thus be less likely to respond belligerently to ‘fighting words.’ ”
    U.S. v. Poocha 259 F.3d 1077, 1081 (C.A.9 (Cal.),2001)

    Do you honestly believe that the Cop that tasered that 14 year old boy and allowed his dog to mangle his leg and foot was arrested? There was a Police Chief that plead guilty to 8 felonies last month and he is to spend UP TO 365 days a jail; he will not even go to prison. If a non-Cop would have plead guilty to 8 felonies they would have gone to prison.

    It took decades to nail the torturer Cop in Chicago. He was the only one that was properly punished and yet many other Cops were involved that had nothing done to them except they retired and got their pensions.

    In Las Vegas the problem is getting so frightening that people are writing into the Las Vegas Review Journal, the State’s largest newspaper, warning Cops that if they do not stop shooting unarmed people that there will be open retaliation. I believe in peaceful means using the system. If it gets to the point people start shooting Cops we will have martial law or anarchy. I oppose both.

    Th Second Amendment protects the rights of people to be armed and yet Cops routinely take guns away from people that use those guns to defend themselves just because Cop are on the scene. Well Cops do not have the right to take away the guns of lawfully armed citizens. Being armed in many States, including Nevada, is not a crime. If Cops are armed around me then I have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to be armed arounds them.

    I got tired of Cops I was deposing coming to the depositions armed while I had to sit there unarmed. So I started bringing my loaded shotgun to the depositions. The Cops did not approve but they could do nothing in that setting. They had to follow the law. I told them that if they did not like the fact that I was armed then they could take off their weapons before being deposed. If I had not been in a legal setting they WOULD have illegally disarmed me.

    And do not tell me how dangerous their job is. More Cops are killed in Car Accidents, most of them their own fault, than by guns. We had a Cop that was killed this year. He was going 109 MPH without lights or sirens and hit a truck. The Cops arrested the truck driver for drunk driving. Only problem is their were too many witnesses to COVER UP the Cop’s crimes. The man charged was found to be sober and driving legally and that he had done NOTHING wrong. That was only one of several Las Vegas Cops that died in the last 12 months while violating the traffic laws in Las Vegas.

    Naturally these traffic criminals that died because they were committing misdemeanors were given HERO worship burial ceremonies as criminal Cops are still considered to be heroes. WHY?

    Being a Garbage man is more dangerous than being a Cop. We do not honor garbagemen killed on the job for being heroes. In fact there are a multitude of occupations from Construction to Fishing that are FAR more dangerous than being a Cop. So other people that do a hard job in a difficult situation still have to obey the laws. Why are Cops justified in their criminal activity because they “have a hard job?”

    Cops do not have the RIGHT to have a boiling point. If they have one they MUST quit or be punished just like any other THUG or Fisherman or Garbageman that reached his boiling point and beat a prostitute or tasered a guy that pissed him off.

    Nevada Cops violated NRS 171.123 and NRS 171.1232 EVERY DAY.

    A person that is stopped on the street is not required to give a Cop Identification yet Cops threaten to arrest people that refuse to give the Cops their identification cards. All that is REQUIRED by law is to give a Cop your name and NO OTHER QUESTIONs are required to be answered. Yet Cops threaten people with arrest for interfering with an investigation if they do not give the Cop their ID. That is a crime by the Cop. But they do it day in and ay out in Las Vegas.

    Cops routinely violate written police procedure when making traffic stops as they do not identify themselves and tell the person WHY they were stopped before demanding any information from the person stopped.

    Vegas Cops routinely frisk people that are not reasonably believed to be armed AND dangerous. Not just armed but armed AND dangerous. They even frisk people that are not reasonably believed to be armed. They frisk people to look for drugs without probable cause and that is a CRIME in Nevada. And being legally armed does not automatically make a person armed AND dangerous. The Federal Courts have been VERY clear on this subject. In a recent New Mexico Case the judge, in ruling against the Cops said:

    “Additionally, Defendants lacked any reasonable suspicion for believing that Mr. St. John was armed and dangerous, as required by Tenth Circuit jurisprudence. See Davis, 94 F.3d at 1468. Defendants ask the Court to ignore the conjunctive phrasing of the rule and find, in essence, that anyone who is armed is, by virtue of that fact, dangerous. In light of the extensive, controlling and compelling jurisprudence to the contrary, the Court declines to do so.”

    And yet Cops around the country routinely disarm people that are legally carrying firearms and often confiscate the weapon illegally. This MUST stop. Cops are not the only people allowed to have guns, even and especially WHEN Cops are present. Cops’ safety is not more important than the safety of any Citizen. If they do not approve of this LAW then they need to QUIT BEING COPS.

    Ask 50 Las Vegas Cops if the 2nd Amendment to the NEVADA Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms they will tell you it does. Only problem is there is no Second Amendment to the Nevada Constitution. You see Cops do not read the Nevada Constitution so they are ignorant of the law in Nevada.

    Ask 100 Las Vegas Cops if all pistols in Nevada have to be registered and 95 will tell you that all pistols have to be registered and 95 Cops would be WRONG. Even the Supervisors tell callers that all pistols purchased in Clark Count must be registered. That is WRONG. Only Clark County Residents that buy the pistol in Clark County have to register that pistol. There is no Nevada law that requires registration of pistols.There is only a Clark County ordinance that applies ONLY to Clark County residents and that is now in doubt with the new Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd Amendment. But Cops justify confiscating pistols from NON residents under the false pretense a that all pistols in Clark County must be registered. The idiot poorly trained Cops do not even understand what a Clark County Resident is and yet they arrest people or steal their guns without lawful authority.

    Cops MUST be held accountable. Sheriff and police departments must be held accountable for proper training on laws like search and seizure and residency and gun laws. But they are not because it is so hard to sue the Cops and because Cops lie and protect the other criminal Cops it makes the process long and VERY difficult and expensive.

    I am trying to make it easy to sue criminal Cops. It must be as easy to sue a Cop as it is for Cops to arrest me.

  • It sounds to me like you were the kid that poked the bees nest with a stick and then got upset with the bees when you got stung. EVERYONE has a boiling point. Cop, judge, nurse, rabbi, priest, you name it. They are PEOPLE. Police should not be allowed to infringe upon peoples rights. No doubt about it. When it comes to safety and police being around other people with guns, it makes us a little uneasy. All I am saying is that if try and try and try to get a cop to do something bad, your going to get it sooner or later. You absolutely do not have the right to infringe upon anyones right to peace and quiet. That is why there is disturbing the peace laws. If your just egging people on to make yourself feel better, your going to get arrested. Police do not do things to piss people off. They take guns away from people to secure a scene. They do not know all of the facts until an investigation is done. Do you think that the gang shitheads have the right to walk around with guns if they have not been convicted yet? Not a safe istuation. A normal every day person does not walk around with a gun in a civilized society. Who do you turn to when some has done something to you or your family? Just curious.

  • When people have a boiling point and they break the law they should be arrested. I do not care who they are or what job they have. I am not allowed to have a boiling point with Cops that break the law that would justify hurting the Cops. Why should Cops have more rights to a boiling point without punishment than me or any other Citizen?

    And if the bees are violating my rights or threatening my family I will poke them with poison, legally and from a safe distance.

    I do not think a gang of shitheads has the right illegally secure a scene. Shithead Cops have to obey the laws on how to secure a scene. If they do not then they are more dangerous than any OTHER shithead gang without badges. They do not have the right in Nevada to take a gun away from a lawfully armed Citizen and have to have a reasonable suspicion that the Citizen has committed a crime before they can even demand his/her name let alone confiscate his/her gun FOR ANY amount of time. That is the LAW in Nevada. If Cops do not like the laws then they should quit. And if the violate those laws they should be arrested like any other common criminal. Do you disagree? Just curious.

    Cops are not above the law and if they are then we are in a police State and should violently rebel like the Founding Fathers did. I want a peaceful solution and so I expose Cops’ corruption and film them committing crimes and file Internal Affairs Complaints and sue them in Court.

    I used to turn to the police, but no longer, since the last time I called for help the police sis more more damage to my family and myself than criminal that allowed his pitbull to attack my wife, nearly kill my dog and threatened me, my wife and son with bodily harm. The Cops responded to my wife’s desperate call for help and they proceeded to harm us while violating the Federal Constitution, the Nevada Constitution and Nevada laws. Then the Cop’s wife, who happened to treat me at the hospital by some odd happenstance, violated HIPAA laws and gave her Cop husband my private medical information to help the Cops in their attempted cover-up of their crimes against us. All this is well documented and Health and Human Services found that the HIPAA laws were indeed violated.

    Would you EVER turn for help to a group that had caused $250,000 in ACTUAL damages against you and your family and crippled you personally, for assistance? Just curious?

    I now arm myself with legal weapons that can penetrate body armor, keep my doors locked and barred so that police cannot easily break down the door with normal equipment they carry to give me time to properly prepare to meet them, have two guard dogs, have hidden video cameras on my property that are recorded off sight, have warning signs to inform officers they are being filmed and that we are WELL armed, post warning to call my attorney on my front door and carry my lawyers business card with me at all times to give to any Cop that attempts to ask me any question so they are required to stop questioning me and would NEVER open my door to a Cop that did not have a warrant.

    I do file Internal Affairs complaints against Cops. That is a must in any good federal lawsuit. I even have the Internal Affair complaint web site link on Independent American News so other people can readily file complaints against criminal Las Vegas Cops.

    But I no longer feel it is an option to talk to Cops about crimes other than Cop crimes since Cops are simply too dangerous to talk to according Civil Rights groups and the United States Supreme Court.

    Everyone must realize that Cops cannot help you in most cases but can most assuredly can harm you. For example anything you say can be used against you but not to help you. To call the Cops is to endanger your life, liberty and property.

  • Laith Sabri

    Christopher Hansen


    “The cure is worse than the disease” – this summarises what I think about your mentality. Living a life obsessed with possessing superior firepower than the people whose job it is to keep the peace, barricading my house and essentially acting as a sort of police tabloid reporter is not how i want to live my life.

    I should point out that I am in Australia, living a peaceful life with no interference at all from Police, and i live down the road from a very active Police Station.

    I don’t begrudge the Police the power they wield, since this power is necessary in order for them to execute their duties, they are not passive defenders (like the people), but instead must actively pursue crime. I would imagine that to Policemen, any citizen with a gun is a threat (which they are) until otherwise confirmed- hell, not disarming individuals at the scene of a crime is a sure way to get killed. We also cannot afford to overly restrict their use of force since then they would become impotent.

    On that matter, is should be harder to sue cops; since just as the President can’t be sued, the entire police force could easily be disabled by a spree of lawsuits. It is a necessary compromise.

    Simply put, i would rather wield a weapon that hurts my enemies as much as it harms me than one that harms no one and lets my enemies free; for they will harm others and break the rule of law and justice.

    I do have a problem with you intending to deal with your own criminal problems, it is dangerously close to vigilanteism. The important part about being a policeman is that they as a whole are accountable and have the legal organs necessary to ensure safety: first for themselves, then the people they serve.

    With regards to the First Amendment, as a wise man once said, just because you can talk, doesn’t mean you should. While i don’t approve of them reacting with violence against mere words, a man would have to be cold as ice not to be a little liberal with force if things came to head (ie: if they ultimately had to restrain someone who was previously taunting them, I deem that it would be impossible for anyone to not go a little too far). Even your own behaviour confirms that, you have decided that an armed shotgun is ideal for speaking to armed policemen (carrying handguns). You have armour piercing rounds (cop killers) and have a fortress designed to kill/impede policemen.

    I suppose your situation is kinda sad, no one to turn to, no one to keep you safe; driven by your own passions, you have turned against the system that harmed you and now seek to destroy it. Have you considered what happens if you succeed? I wonder what would happen if the police decided to go on strike for say a week, not answer any calls nor respond to any emergencies. People are gonna die.

  • Can you fill me in on how the cops cost you 250.000? from what you said the cops came when called by your wife then beat and tortured you, burned your house, killed your dog? what did they do? I want to hear more specifics on how that scenario went down before I could even believe that.

  • Laith Sabri

    Then don’t live your life that way. I have a duty to protect my family. I have a duty to oppose tyranny.

    Just because you shrink from your responsibility does not mean that I will do so.
    Supreme Court Judge Justice Jackson, in America Communicators Association vs Douds, 339 U. S. 382, 442, said, “It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.”

    I work hard through peaceful and legal means to keep the government from falling into error. Don’t you? Why not?

    When the Cops are the Criminals you must defend yourself. Too bad the Jews in Germany did not arm themselves. But then they thought the Germans Cops were just there to Keep the Peace too. They believed there were laws that protected them. So they voluntarily got on the trains. I hope you enjoy your train ride someday.

    I begrudge the power the Cops do not legally have that they wield anyway. Don’t you?

    I have no objection to Cops that follow the Constitutions and the laws. Are you claiming that Cops have the right and authority to violate the laws and the Constitutions?

    Don’t you believe in the rule of law?

    If the Cops were not constantly violating the laws and the Constitutions then they would not be sued so often. Just because a person is poor does not mean that they should not be able to sue the Cops that harm them. And the President can be sued. Clinton was sued while in office. Presidents are nothing more than public servants. They are not above the law either.

    Obviously you do not know Nevada law. We have as much right to arrest a person we observe committing a crime as any Cop. It is called a private persons arrest and is found at NRS 171.126

    If that is vigilantism then the Nevada Legislature approves of it. The State of Nevada tried to keep me from using NRS 171.126 against a government elections employee. They filed in court to get a restraining order against me. They lost. The Court ruled that if I had seen the felony committed that I had the perfect right to arrest the government employee. So I guess the court was promoting vigilantes? Or was the court just following the law as they are required to do?

    Our homes are our castles and we have the 100% right to defend them with violence if necessary. The Supreme Court of the USA ruled that it is legal to shoot and kill a Cop that is trying to illegally arrest you if that is the only way to free yourself. You obviously do not understand American law. Maybe you should do some study on it as I have and stop thinking that just because American Cops may be better than the country where you came form does not mean they are acting legally.

    Cops have no more of a right or authority to go a little too far than any other criminal committing an assault or a battery. If they do either one of those things they are criminals.

    Why do you support such criminals?

    I have a home that police can enter without fear as long as they have a warrant. To enter it without a warrant is to violate the law and they become nothing more than felonious invaders into my castle. Would you not defend your home/castle against armed invaders?

    And the rounds are not Cops killers. They are just regular full metal jacket legal ammunition available at any local sporting goods store without a permit or registration.

    I seek to stop criminals with badges and regain a system where Cops follow the Constitutions they swore and oath to uphold and follow the laws that the Nevada Legislature passed and were signed by the governor into law that require police to act in specific way to ensure they do not act as thugs. The Cops are not following those laws. I see violation every month and hear about many more from reliable sources.

    Who do you think will enforce the laws on the Cops if we the people do not do so? We are the sovereignty. We have a duty to control our public servants.

    In Chisholm v. Georgia The Supreme Court ruled, “[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects. with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.”

    In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Sheriff, the Supreme Court ruled: “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to the law, for it is the author and source of law, but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts… For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life or the means of living or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.”

    In Scott v. Sandford, Mo. they ruled: “The words ‘sovereign people’ are those who form the sovereign, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. Every citizen is one of these people and a constituent member of this sovereignty.’”

    We the People are the very foundation of the law in the American system. Cops are nothing more than public servants. We are the kings and queens of America. Not the Cops.

    The Declaration of Independence is quite clear about your duty and mine: “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

    A Cop that falsely arrests you has placed you under absolute despotism.

    It is our duty to stop tyranny and when Cops violate the law and violate their Oath to uphold and defend the Constitutions of Nevada and the USA and the law of Nevada they are tyrants and we have a duty to provide new guards for our future security. I have done so and am doing so through 100% peaceful and legal means in courts and by what the law currently allows.

    As Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin said. Rebellion to tyranny is obedience to God.

    Do you disagree with these Founding Fathers?

  • Laith,
    You are obviously an educated person who makes some extremely valid points. I only wish I was able to put into words what you have done. Being in law enforcement for as long as I have, I have never gone out of my way to harm anyone. I try and do the right thing all of the time. Even when I feel pressure to do something different. I think that Christopher is so blinded by what may or may not have happened that his hatred and disgust make him sound like a crackpot. I really do believe that his heart is in the right place. He wants to end the corruption that gives us all a bad name. SO do I, its just that his mind will not allow him to do it the right way. Its one thing to bring attention, its another to antoganize someone until they snap. Even when police are held to a higher standard they should not have to deal with someone in their face all of the time rambling on and on about their rights. If someone infringes upon your rights, there is a course of action to be taken. When he just went on his rant about armour piercing bullets and re-enforced doors, he made him self out to be a nut and not a person looking for what is true and just. Do it the right way and I will stand with you. Act like a fool and you’re on your own.

  • GreenfieldLEO,

    My medical bills alone exceeded 100,000. An operation on my shoulder was nearly 65,000. Tack on the physical therapists and other doctors and the medical now is well over 100,000. I was forced to quit working for almost two years. What would that cost you? If you made just 50,000 a year it would be 100,000 and I made well over 50,000 a year. Not any more though and now I have to rebuild my businesses. And I still cannot even work full time. I still have to go to two doctors once a week. The medical costs keep going up! My loss of wages continues to rise.

    My wife’s medical bills exceed 20,000. She still lives in fear whenever she sees a Cop.

    The Cops did not hurt my dog. The Pitbull did.

    What the Cops did was to destroy my shoulder, elbow, neck and back by forcing my arms behind me after I told them I could not because of a previous back injury. The slammed them together and my shoulder exploded. Before that day I had no shoulder problems. Even after the operation and PT I am still in pain.

    They kept us from taking our dog to the Vet for well over an hour even though he was bleeding profusely. My dog almost died. They entered my home/curtilage without a warrant and without consent by anyone in my home. They frisked me without ever believing I had committed a crime and admitted that in depositions.

    And yes, We are suing them.

    They hurt my wife and unlawfully detained her for more than one hour in violation of NRS 171.123, without even a belief that she had ever done anything wrong or committed a crime:

    20 Taken on Thursday, January 8, 2009
    21 At 1:05 p.m.
    22 At 1835 Village Center Circle
    23 Las Vegas, Nevada
    25 Reported By: Lori M. Unruh, R.D.R., C.C.R. #389

    6 Q — with a strange dog in the
    7 backyard, a pit bull, attacking your dog and then you get
    8 into a situation where it’s attacking you too? Would that
    9 make you upset?
    10 A Yes.
    11 Q It would, wouldn’t it?
    12 So she had a right to be hysterical if that was
    13 the fact, right?
    14 A Correct.
    15 Q Okay. It’s not like you felt like she did
    16 anything wrong, did you?
    17 A No.
    18 Q Did you ever feel like Mrs. Hansen committed any
    19 kind of a crime?
    20 A No.

    11 Q And why were you going to pat Dawn down?
    12 A Because I did not know who had a firearm on the
    13 person. So we pat down pretty much everybody to ensure
    14 that our safety is first in order to conduct the
    15 investigation.
    16 Q Okay. You didn’t have any reason to suspect that
    17 Dawn had committed any crime, did you?
    18 A No.

    Read NRS 171.123. and NRS 171.1232.

    You cannot pat down a person that is not suspected of a crime and not also suspected of being armed AND dangerous. None of us Hansens were suspected of committing any crime. We had a gun BEFORE the police arrived and used it has a club to beat the Pitbull back away from my wife and dog. We used it legally.

    Jivapong Depo:

    8 Q I want to ask you a couple of lead-up questions.
    9 Is it your understanding that it’s okay to have a
    10 gun on your own property?
    11 A Yes.
    12 Q That’s not against the law, is it?
    13 MR. ANDERSON: Objection, calls for a legal
    14 conclusion.
    15 Go ahead and answer, your understanding.
    16 THE WITNESS: No.
    17 Q (BY MR. HANSEN) No, it’s not against the law.
    18 A Correct.
    19 Q So to have a gun on your own property is not a
    20 crime.
    21 A Correct.
    22 Q Okay. And is it your understanding that it’s
    23 okay to defend yourself?
    24 A Correct, yes.
    25 Q With a gun on your own property if somebody’s
    1 attacking you or your family?
    2 A Yes.
    3 Q All right. And would you agree that it’s okay
    4 to defend you and your family and your family dog if a
    5 pit bull comes in your yard and tries to kill your dog?
    6 A Yes.
    7 Q That’s okay too, right?
    8 A Yes.

    12 Q Okay. Now that’s — to be armed with those two
    13 guns is not a crime, is it?
    14 A No, it’s not.
    15 Q You can have that in your yard.
    16 A Correct.
    17 Q And you can use it to defend yourself if you have
    18 to, right?
    19 A Correct.
    20 Q Okay. And in fact later on in the evening wasn’t
    21 it mentioned to the Hansens that, you know, they had the
    22 right to — if this dog was in there doing that, that they
    23 could have shot it? Didn’t one of the officers say that
    24 to them?
    25 A

    1 Q You wouldn’t disagree with that, would you?
    2 A No, I would not.
    3 Q It would be okay — if a pit bull started killing
    4 your dog and attacking your wife, it would be okay to
    5 shoot it, wouldn’t it?
    6 A Yes.
    7 Q So at this point you don’t have any reason to
    8 believe that the Hansens had done anything wrong, do you,
    9 down to this point?
    10 A No, not — not at that point.

    Officer Ruiz Depo

    15 Q Okay. It says here, “Nieves further advised
    16 the subjects holding his dog were armed with a .357
    17 magnum pistol and a .22 caliber rifle,” correct?
    18 A Correct.
    19 Q It’s not a crime to be armed with those
    20 weapons, is it —
    21 A No.
    22 Q — in your own backyard?
    23 A No.

    22 Q Okay. Just holding a gun in your hand in
    23 your backyard when you’ve been attacked, or your dog
    24 has been attacked by a dog, that is not a crime, is
    25 it?

    1 A No.
    2 Q Did you receive any information that there
    3 was anything more than that, than they were just
    4 holding these guns in their hands? That’s all you
    5 knew, wasn’t it?
    6 A Right.

    This Cop (Jivapong) was a criminal because if you violate either or both of these statutes it is either a misdemeanor and/or a felony. He was taught to be a criminal because the Department taught him he could frisk people just because he believed they may have a weapon and for no other reason.

    2 Q Okay. What does it take before you can pat
    3 someone down?
    4 A Generally details of the call or —
    5 Q What’s that?
    6 A Details of the call. Or if a subject were to —
    7 Q Like what details? What do you mean?
    8 A Detail of the call, for instance if a gun was
    9 involved in a call, maybe a weapon —
    10 Q So —
    11 A — disturbance.
    12 Q — if there’s just a report of a gun, then you
    13 can pat a person down?
    14 A Correct, cause primarily it’s our safety as
    15 officers comes first. And in order to perform the proper
    16 investigation, we generally try to contain the scene and
    17 determine if it’s sterile and safe for officers to conduct
    18 the investigation, and we go about our investigation from
    19 there.
    20 Q Okay. So the rule as you understand it is if
    21 there’s a gun involved, then you’ve got the right to pat
    22 people down.
    23 A Correct.
    24 Q Just if there’s a gun present on the scene.
    25 A Correct.

    That is a blatant violation of Terry and NRS 171.123 and NRS 171.1232

    This false, illegal and unconstitutional instruction is what Officer Seed believed also:

    Officer Seed Depo p.0033
    14 Q Okay. Not just everyone that you know is
    15 just an innocent bystander, but the main characters
    16 that are there, you frisk them all and make sure there
    17 are no guns, right?
    18 A I would do that, yes.
    19 Q You would do that? That’s normally what’s
    20 done?
    21 A Normally, I would do that, yes.
    22 Q Okay. That’s just on account of the fact
    23 that there is a report of a gun, right?
    24 A Yes.
    25 Q Just, “Hey, if there is a report of a gun,
    1 we’re going to frisk people”?
    2 A Correct.
    3 Q What’s the reason for that?
    4 A Guns tend to kill people.
    5 Q Okay. For safety?
    6 A For safety reasons, yes. For officer
    7 safety, whether it be — whether the gun is being held
    8 in a lawful manner or not, whether they have a permit
    9 to carry the gun, whatnot — again, it would be
    10 standard practice not to allow someone to be holding a
    11 firearm while the police are there, just like it’s
    12 standard practice not to allow someone to hold any
    13 other dangerous weapon while the officers are there.
    14 Q So you’re not concerned about whether –
    15 when you pat somebody down, you’re not concerned about
    16 whether there is a crime involved? You’re just
    17 concerned — you want to make sure that nobody has a
    18 gun at the scene, right?
    19 A Well, correct. Patting someone down doesn’t
    20 have anything to do with whether or not there was a
    21 crime involved. It has to do with whether or not they
    22 may possess a weapon.
    They violated Joshua’s, my son, rights too by detaining him for more than one hour (NRS 171.123) and by frisking him without believing he was armed and dangerous and had committed a crime. (NRS 171.1232 and NRS 171.123.)

    Joshua also had his right violated although they did not hurt him physically.

    4 Q Okay. Now Joshua came outside too, right? He
    5 was out there during —
    6 A Yes.
    7 Q — all this?
    8 And did you approach him to pat him down?
    9 A Yes.
    10 Q Did you pat him down?
    11 A Yes.
    12 Q Why did you pat Joshua down?
    13 A Again, searching for weapons and ensure safety of
    14 the officers before we talked to subjects or people.
    15 Q Okay. Did you find anything on Josh?
    16 A No.
    17 Q Did you have any reason to believe that Josh had
    18 committed any crime?
    19 A No.

    And I was never suspected of a crime either and yet they broke my shoulder, hurt my elbow damaged my neck and hurt my back after unlawfully forcing me out of my home/curtilage.

    22 Q All right. I see here that a determination was
    23 made that Christopher did not commit any unlawful act,
    24 right?
    25 A Correct.
    1 Q In fact you don’t have any evidence at any time
    2 that he committed any unlawful act, do you?
    3 A Correct.
    4 Q Nothing ever indicated to you that he committed a
    5 crime, was there?
    6 A Not until that — at that point.
    7 Q Well, that’s what I mean. There was nothing
    8 ever.
    9 A Right.
    10 Q The whole evening there wasn’t anything —
    11 A Right.

    They had no right to touch me or demand I answer their questions or detain me. But they did and they hurt me and they were not arrested and they were not disciplined.

    They violated the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments, NRS 171.123, NRS 171.1232 and many other laws and Nevada Constitutional protections.

  • TDR

    You know, I am not nearly to the point that Christopher is. But I’ll tell you something — every time I hear a cop open his or her mouth — EVERY TIME, especially the ones that think they’re the good guys — I, too, become less likely to call the police. Why? Because even the good ones, the ones who are people with genuinely good intentions, are part of such a corrupt system and are so oblivious to ALL of the pain, suffering, damage and unecessary harm that has come from that system. Every time an LEO talks, I understand a little more how dangerous their ignorance really is.

    GreenfieldLEO, I have no doubt that you are a good person with good intentions. You shouldn’t be verbally punished for the sins of all your brothers by taking the initiative to reach out here. But your words — your own, personal words — break my heart because, believing you are a good person, I see that it is unlikely that there will ever be any sufficient pressure from within the system to reform it from inside.

    I submit two examples for your reflection. Take it or leave it. First, your reference to “gang shitheads” who haven’t been “convicted yet.” I understand the reality you refer to, but how are any of us to believe that there is a real rule of law, and that the rights of innocents are protected by you when we are questioned, detained, directed or “lawfully” disarmed, when you don’t even allow for the possibility of “innocent until proven guilty” in your personal speech? Second, your implication that Christopher would have no right to call the police for help because of his criticism of them. I find this to be the most heinous, unjust, contorted logic that statists ever invented. And it is repeated by your brother at all times and in all places to any who dare criticize your unbridled authority to do what YOU think is just. I know for a fact that it has been said, among other things, to families who have had their relations murdered at the hands of your brothers. This cute little idea is a staple in all of the propaganda that your brothers shit into the ears of their accomplices in the media, which they then shit into their newspapers. For the record, Christopher still reserves his right, as someone who undoubtedly pay taxes as we all do, to call upon police services. He has every right as a citizen (whether he wants to be one or not) to expect an adequate level of service for the protection he is forced to pay for. And if you convince his politicians to let him keep his taxes, I am sure he would be more than happy to pay for private security services and never think about an LEO ever again. But I’m sure you think it’s OK to keep extorting the taxes and then calling Christopher a hypocrite.

    As for the Ozzie earlier…no, you won’t understand until you come live in it.

  • GreenfieldLEO,

    Why should anyone accept that I am the one blinded and not you? You are the one that has been indoctrinated and brainwashed by police training to believe that what you do is legal when it probably is not.

    Have you read your entire States Constitution? I doubt it.

    Do you fully understand Terry? Do you fully understand your responsibilities under Miranda? I doubt it.

    The Cop that hurt me was not trying to hurt me. He hurt me while violating the law. It was not intentional but it was criminal and he is responsible just like the man robbing a bank and the teller dies of a heart attack is held responsible because it happened during a crime.

    When Cops try to get other criminals to do something bad and then they do something bad the Cops arrest them. That is all I want. For the Cops to be treated they way they treat others. You know…The Golden Rule. Or at least the rule of law.

    Police do do things to piss people off. I have seen the videos. I have lived through it many times like when they intentionally hassled us in 2004AD when we were legally gathering signatures for a petitions to abolish a huge tax increase. We had to get a Court Order to get them to stop harassing us. One of the Cops went too far and the County had to pay me 17 grand. The Nevada DMV had to pay the group 32 grand because they told the police to hassle us and the Cops were happy to assist their illegal harassment. Naturally no government employee was ever arrested because Cops don’t arrest Cops or other government employees that are committing election law felonies especially against people trying to lower taxes. That may hurt the Cops paycheck and they cannot have their paycheck reduced now, can they?

    If Cops take guns from people without lawful authority it is theft. Citizens can makes arrests too but they cannot take a person’s gun away just because they want to feel more secure. You see, you have been blinded into believing that Cops have that right. They do not and the courts have agreed time and again and the laws, at least in Nevada and New Mexico, are very clear when a Cop can take away a gun and it is ONLY AFTER the person is suspected of a crime.


    Cops MUST be able to have enough of the facts to reasonably articulate the specific crime and reasonable articulate that the person is BOTH armed and dangerous. As a Cop you SHOULD know that…but you do not. Why is that?

    Do you think that Thin Blue Line shitheads should know the law and follow it? Just curious.

    On a normal day shithead Cops walk around with guns in a civilized society because they want to protect themselves. Why is it that those same Cops seek to deny that same ability to protect themselves to We the People? After all, Cops are only public servants. We the People are the sovereignty. Why do shithead Cops think they have the right to disarm We the People just because they are on the scene?

    For my protection I turn to God, my guns, and my dogs to protect my family because when second counts the Cops are only minutes away or already there and are the criminals stealing your health and/or your rights. Then I turn to the Courts.

    Do you carry a gun in this civilized society? Just curious.

  • Laith Sabri

    Christopher Hansen

    Since you seem to know your laws so well:
    “The decision would seem to leave in place the notion that a President cannot be sued for actions taken as President, protecting Presidents from frivolous lawsuits designed to tie up an administration’s conduct of national business.”

    Moving on:

    You seem to be very attached to your weapon, and believe that police have no right to confiscate it when securing a scene. I am not from America and so I i trust you when you say it is unlawful for them to do so, the question not is whether its unreasonable. SImply put, the officers safety must come first, this should be obvious. If they were prohibited from securing a scene, them imagine the following:

    A crime boss needs the police out of his way, he gets his boy to kill a guy, waits for them to turn up and then simply stand around all innocent (since at this point the police have just arrived and so don’t know it was them. nor are they aware that they are armed) and wait for them to enter the scene. The police see them, and following the law, leave them be since they don’t even know what the crime is yet (the call was vague, with only a location) and so can’t know that the crime involved a gun. They pour inside and talk to each individual (so that the stories are fresh), after a while, they open fire on the Police whose guns are still holstered. Wash. rinse, repeat.

    Once more, i would like to reiterate that i live in Australia, here the police have somewhat increased powers; nonetheless, their jobs are also easier since we do not have guns and they do not have tasers (yet). As such, they can safely assume that we won’t open fire and so neither do they; one child has died recently as police were forced to open fire, leading to a discussion about tasers. You can follow their actions here:
    It a lot less hectic here as only 42 people have died in police shooting in the past decade.

    I refuse to believe that our cops are any more or less corrupt than yours, the world is a statistically average creature; we are both first world economies and so should have roughly similar social dynamics. Hell, we have a serious stabbing problem in the city and have gangs roaming certain neighbourhoods. I can be sure that some cops are bad apples. I remember that there was issues during the G20 summit, but that was the cops attacking the police; they were arrested. One police officer was convicted of excessive force. I know our police have issues especially when it comes to dealing with the many gangs.

    I suppose in America things are bad, I don’t really know why, but you seem to paint the picture of Police who have nothing better to do than to harass and injure innocents.

    You claim to want to reform it, when your descriptions (vague and scattered) seem to be of a ineffective police force, unable to intercede with their sovereigns.

  • Laith Sabri

    Right. His actions AS president. That means his official and legal acts. If he raped a woman while he was president he could still be sued. If he was out for a joy ride and ran over a pedestrian while he was driving drunk he could be sued because he was not acting as president. He could also be sued for acts he committed before he was president. Clinton was so sued.

    In Nevada, if a person is not reasonably suspected of a crime then the Cops cannot so much as touch him let alone pat him down or take his gun. They cannot, in Nevada, detain a person not reasonably suspected of a crime. This is not true in all states but in Nevada the law is VERY specific.

    To take his gun the person must be suspected of a crime AND be armed AND dangerous.
    The police have the right to obey THESE TWO laws in Nevada.

    NRS 171.123 Temporary detention by peace officer of person suspected of criminal behavior or of violating conditions of parole or probation: Limitations.
    1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.
    2. Any peace officer may detain any person the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has violated or is violating the conditions of the person’s parole or probation.
    3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain the person’s identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the person’s presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself or herself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.
    4. A person must not be detained longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of this section, and in no event longer than 60 minutes. The detention must not extend beyond the place or the immediate vicinity of the place where the detention was first effected, unless the person is arrested.

    NRS 171.1232 Search to ascertain presence of dangerous weapon; seizure of weapon or evidence.
    1. If any peace officer reasonably believes that any person whom the peace officer has detained or is about to detain pursuant to NRS 171.123 is armed with a dangerous weapon and is a threat to the safety of the peace officer or another, the peace officer may search such person to the extent reasonably necessary to ascertain the presence of such weapon. If the search discloses a weapon or any evidence of a crime, such weapon or evidence may be seized.
    2. Nothing seized by a peace officer in any such search is admissible in any proceeding unless the search which disclosed the existence of such evidence is authorized by and conducted in compliance with this section.

    In the New Mexico case, just a few years ago, the judge was quite clear about the need to suspect the person of a crime before detaining him:

    “”The undisputed facts establish that Mr. St. John’s seizure was unreasonable. Defendants lacked a justifiable suspicion that Mr. St. John had committed a crime, was committing a crime or was about to commit a crime. Indeed, Officer McColley conceded that he did not observe Mr. St. John committing any crimes and that he arrived at the theater with the suspicion that Mr. St. John was merely “showing a gun”, McColley Depo. 14:4, which is not illegal in the State of New Mexico. See N.M. Stat. § 30-7 et seq. Nor was there any reason to believe that a crime was afoot.”

    The Federal Court in New Mexico continued:

    “”Moreover, Mr. St. John’s lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention. For example, in United States v. Ubiles, 224 F.3d 213 (3rd Cir. 2000), the Third Circuit found that an individual’s lawful possession of a firearm in a crowded place did not justify a search or seizure. In Ubiles, officers seized Ubiles during a crowded celebration after they received a tip that he was carrying a gun. Id. at 214. Officers did so even though no applicable law prohibited Ubilesfrom carrying a firearm during the celebration. Id. at 218. Holding that the search violated Ubiles’ Fourth Amendment rights, the court noted that the situation was no different than if the informant had told officers “that Ubiles possessed a wallet . . . and the authorities had stopped him for that reason.”

    Got that? Having a legal gun in in the USA is no different that having a wallet. Cops cannot take your wallet without a warrant unless they arrest you first.

    Here is an image for you.

    A Vegas Cop wants a man dead. He has a snitch call in that the man the Cop wants dead is a drug dealer. The Cops get a warrant on the lie from the snitch and go to the man’s home. The man is found in his bathroom without a gun. The Cop shoots the man in the face then claims the unarmed man made a “furtive movement.” The police, of course, will help this officer get away with murder because that is what Cops do.

    Does that sound far fetched:–killed-man-friday-identified-96304914.html

    I hear that you Australians have more crime since your masters took your guns away. It must be awful to not be a free man, according to Thomas Jefferson. “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — Thomas Jefferson, June 1776.

    In America we free men still have the right to keep and bear arms and on June 28th, 2010 the United States Supreme Court just ruled this to be true:

    But you Brits and their non-American ilk do love to have unarmed subjects (not free men) so they can be easily subdued if the government chooses to send you off to the trains like the Germans did to the Jews, Poles and Gypsies. Even Mahatma Gandhi knew that.

    “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” — Mahatma Gandhi

    But in America our Founding Fathers that had the brains to throw off the tyrannical British understood the dangers of government and knew that free man needed to be armed.

    “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” — Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers.

    “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.” — Patrick Henry

    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” — Noah Webster, 1788

    “The twentieth century has been a tumultuous one. It has seen two world wars and countless regional ones; its has seen a third of the earth’s population enslaved by Communism; and political scientist R. J. Rummel estimated that during the first nine decades of the 20th century, at least 169,000,000 human beings were killed by their own governments.” — G. Vance Smith

    The truth is that “Common and political criminals prefer unarmed victims.” — Daniel McGavin Hansen

    I wonder if you combine all the murders committed by common criminals it would equal 169 million people? The reason to have guns, first and foremost, is to defend yourself against your own government. History bears this out. I wonder what you will fight with if your government comes for you and your family.

  • Laith Sabri

    Christopher Hansen

    You seem to love quotes, let me give you one:

    “He who live by the sword, dies by the sword”

    While I don’t deny that if the government wanted me gone, it would be trivial for them to do so; they could easily do the same to you if they wanted to. Do you really think that if the Jews were armed with guns they could have saved themselves from the Nazi? If they had actually fought back, the government would have been able to kill them all even faster by branding them as rebels instead of spinning it as being “relocation”.

    On the topic of guns, we have more crime in raw numbers since we have more people, however the percentage of crime has dropped, as has the percentage of deaths during violent encounters. Guns are deadly, encounters involving them are very likely to result in death, so their scarcity has help preserve life as well as reducing the number of fatalities during crime sprees.

    The issue is that guns are no longer the pre-eminent weapon of out time, money is. If the government could somehow coerce the army into killing its citizens, even if we were all armed, we would still be wiped out. For you Americans this is doubly true. This is because the force of arms has escalated so completely. Still, assuming they wanted to subjugate us, open resistance is useless, rather the tactics of asymmetric warfare would be far more suitable.

    Not, while I don’t mind arguing with you (discussion is the path to compromise), reading all your links/examples has cost me a pop tart. This is not a legal document, nor is it a dissertation. Fell free to paraphrase. I am satisfied with anecdotes, what i care about is a logical argument of the alternative, not he flaws with the status quo.

  • Jihad Me At Hello

    Laith Sabri,

    Why are you so mad that this site is confronting violations of American citizens?

    I’ve never been to Australia.

    I do however know that communities in America that have open carry laws are some of the safest in the country. Legal gun ownership of citizens creates a safe community. There is a very tiny percentage of crime in OUR country that is initiated from people that legally own firearms. My advice to you is don’t be such a cunt.

  • Laith Sabri

    Jihad Me At Hello

    Actually, thats not really what I am concerned about, rather, i am concerned about the general perception that Police officers are viewed. As in, the way this site seems to consider them all a threat.

    Besides, safe communities with open carry laws are a good example of correlation≠causation.

    And I am not “being a cunt” (whatever that means), this is something to which i have a logical contention.

  • Laith Sabri

    Do you view the German police in 1941 with concern that they were not respected or would you have opposed those people that opposed Nazi police acts? Or would you have just boarded the trains like so many others?

    America has decades of police abuse that is being exposed now especially because of easy access to video to catch these Cop criminal in the act. DNA is also proving how Cops have convicted innocent people. Illinois discovered that 50% of the men they had on death row were innocent using DNA evidence that was not previously available. Because we no longer consider the Cops to be our friends and make allowances, as you have done, for their crimes because they are allegedly only after the “bad guys” we are getting more and more people to wake up to the dangers of these Criminals with badges. But the main problem is the system in which Cops protect other Cops. That MUST end.

    And I love and support the quote about not living by the sword. I have continually supported peaceful and legal means to stop Cop abuse and corruption. I use the system America and Nevada has established for sovereign Citizens to fight back against corruption. I have followed the teachings found in our founding documents like the Declaration of Taking up Arms, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. I use federal laws that were established BECAUSE of police and State officers and employees that violate Constitutionally protected rights. But as President Teddy said: Walk softly but carry a big stick. An armed society is a polite society. AMerican are no longer properly armed in their daily lives and this has caused more and more crime.

    Free men know who important it is to be armed.

    The Jews in Warsaw wanted to fight back but they only had one pistol.

    I arm myself legally and peacefully so that I can lawfully defend my castle from common or uniformed criminals. Acting is self-defense is ALWAYS legal.

    Why do you object to any of these things? Why would you defend the illegal acts of the Cops? Why would you not want criminal Cops exposed?

    Why would you defend the lack of training of officers in the laws of Nevada and the US Constitution?

    Why would you support and/or justify violations of the 1st, 2nd, 4th 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution by Cops?

    Why do you not want criminal Cops punished?

    On crime in your country it seems that you disagree with others:,8599,1736501,00.html

    The men is Afghanistan fought against the USSR because they had guns. They continue to do so against the imperialistic United States. The US is certainly not winning even though we have planes and tanks etc. etc. The rag tag forces we are fighting are killing us with small arms.

    The US is having the same problem in Iraq. People armed with small arms can fight back very effectively against imperialism. This is the longest Undeclared and Unconstitutional War in American history and the US will never win it because the people in Iraq and Afghanistan are armed. They will bleed us like the Vietnamese did until we leave.

    The rag tag Americans kicked England’s butt because Americans were armed with small arms.

    The American Indians were defeated by the US government but they died fighting, instead of as slaves, against an overwhelming forces that far outnumbered them. Armed Americans are not outnumbered by our military. Plus the fact that our military is constantly involved in unconstitutional foreign wars. If the United States ever seeks to take away our guns it will be UN forces that try to carry out that illegal act. And Obama is indeed working with the UN to disarm Americans. We are aware and people are preparing. The local Sporting Goods stores can barely keep ammunition on their shelves since Obama was elected.

    In America there are millions of Americans that are armed with assault rifles, high powered hunting rifles and even 50 caliber rifles. And those are legal to own in the USA. There are reportedly many far more powerful weapons kept in hiding. I would never risk owning an illegal gun. My battles with the government make it impossible for me to risk doing anything illegal.

    I don’t need to paraphrase. I have those quotes and court cases easily accessible on my computer. Many of the quotes are in the book I wrote or in the research I have done for may cases against the police or public officials and the Internal Revenue Service. My experience are not vague thought or ideas or simple theories. I have over 40 years of personal frontline experience in fighting the criminals we allow in our governments.

    These battles are not new to me and I do not take a back seat in the battle for liberty and against government corruption. I am not all talk and no action. I fight back against tyranny on the political front, in courts and as a lobbyist and started when I was 10 years old.

    We have won 7 Nevada Supreme Court rulings, most were 7/0, against the government and have many lower court victories.

    I have no trust for the government because they lie and seek for power instead of seeking for the liberty of the people. The government uses Cops to enforce illegal acts. The Cops do not follow the Constitutions. Heck they don’t even read them. They follow orders, that are often illegal, and are, therefore dangerous to liberty. Americans MUST fight back peacefully against such tyranny or they will lose their liberty and we will become another tyrannical police state.

    Every American should buy and be prepared to use video cameras to expose the illegal acts of the government’s front line enforcement arm…Cops.

  • Jihad Me At Hello

    Pushing citizens to break laws consistently is threatening. Brutality on innocent people is threatening. Rarely are police officers held up to the same laws they enforce. That is a threat. I think for the most part that this site will be seen by people who have been victim to this. It is our duty as Americans to scrutinize authority. The people that run this site and others that are affiliated make it a point to express that there are good officers. You’ve gotten your panties in a wad because of name calling. Boo hoo. There is nothing wrong with informing people of actions that strip Americans of their rights. Go back under your bridge, troll.

  • Laith Sabri

    Christopher Hansen

    I am going to try one last time to get an answer to my original question:

    Would you show an officer due respect when they are carrying out their legal duties legally?

    Would you show a judge respect while court is in session?

    Do you respect the legal decisions made my your executive branch?

    By the way, I never contended with punishing “bad cops”, my issue was with the attitude you approached it. Don’t even get me started on Afganistan and Iraq, thats a whole other issue.

    Jihad Me At Hello
    Heh, first time I have ever been called a troll, and here I was trying to be polite.

  • I used to believe that if I were to comply, even with illegal orders that it would keep me form being injured or killed. I discovered that I was in error. As you can see from the officer’s own testimony, I complied with their orders (even though they were illegal). Because I did I am now crippled. Never again.

    I now give officers the respect they show me. If they are courteous and follow the law I will be courteous in kind. If they attempt to question me I decline to answer. If they get loud I get loud in return. I treat them as the servants they are. If your butler or maid yelled at you how would you treat them?

    I treat judges with the same respect they show me. I never call them “Your Honor” but do call them “judge” if they are a judge legally. If not I call them “sir” or “madame.”

    I respect executive branch decisions that are Constitutional. If they are not then I ignore them as they are not legally void. I do the same with unconstitutional laws.

    “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” –Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

    “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” –Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p.442

    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” –Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491

    “All acts of the legislature apparently contrary to natural rights and justice are, in our law and must be in the nature of things, considered void… We are in conscience bound to disobey.” –Robin vs. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, (Va., 1772)

    Deposition testimony of Officer jivapong.

    18 Q Chris is holding a pit bull in his hands, right?
    19 A Correct.
    20 Q Not a gun.
    21 A Correct.
    22 Q Okay. So then what did you guys tell him to do?
    23 Chris.
    24 A We told Christopher to exit the backyard and just
    25 release the dog and come out where we can see his hands.


    1 Q Now did you — did it occur to you that if he let
    2 go of the pit bull that he might get attacked?
    3 A Yes.
    4 Q But you told him to exit the yard anyway?
    5 A Right. Mr. Hansen at the time, I think he — he
    6 was able to open the gate and then maintain the dog within
    7 the backyard and slide his way through and was able to
    8 close the gate.
    9 Q So you kind of were able to watch him, he exited
    10 by escaping from the pit bull and closing the —
    11 A Correct.
    12 Q — gate in front of the pit bull’s face —
    13 A Correct.
    14 Q — correct?
    15 Okay. Now did you ever observe any violent
    16 behavior on the part of Mr. Hansen, Chris Hansen?
    17 A No. He — he was — we advised Mr. Hansen to
    18 come out with hands up. He was explaining to us what Josh
    19 had told us.
    20 Q Oh, he said look, this dog attacked my family —
    21 A Correct.
    22 Q — in the backyard?
    23 A Correct.
    24 Q And you knew that as he was coming out the gate.
    25 A Correct.


    1 So we asked Mr. Hansen to step — come towards us
    2 with his hands where we could see them.
    3 Q And did he comply with that?
    4 A Yes.
    5 Q How far up did he hold his hands?
    6 A Above his chest.
    7 Q Like shoulder height, like this? Like they do in
    8 the movies?
    9 A Yes.
    10 Q Okay. I give up type of thing?
    11 13 A Yes.
    14 Q So there’s nothing aggressive about Chris at that
    15 point.
    16 A Not at all.
    A Yes.
    12 Q Was the I give up type of behavior?
    17 Q Okay. Then when he got out in front, what did
    18 you do?
    19 A I told Mr. Hansen to come towards us and turn
    20 around and face the other way, spread your feet and go
    21 ahead and place your hands behind your back, palms
    22 together, spread your fingers.
    23 Q Okay.
    24 A At which point Chris complied.
    25 Q He complied?


    1 A He tried to comply.
    2 Q Now when he came out, didn’t he say, you know —
    3 or well, did you tell him to put his hands behind his
    4 back, or what did you tell him?
    5 A Yes. I told Mr. Hansen to go ahead and —
    6 Q Say Chris so we’ll know, cause there’s going to
    7 be another Mr. Hansen here.
    8 A Told Chris to go ahead and put his hands behind
    9 his back, palms together, spreading his fingers.
    10 Q And you meant to put them down behind his back —
    11 A Correct.

  • Chris said: “The government uses Cops to enforce illegal acts. The Cops do not follow the Constitutions.”

    I am a graduate of the New Hampshire part-time AND full-time police academies. Neither of them taught the United States Constitution nor the New Hampshire Constitution in its entirety.

    If individual officers are sworn to uphold these documents… how can that possibly be when they have no idea what the vast majority of them say?

    I bet you 90+ percent of cops don’t know how many amendments there are to the US Constitution……………………

  • Bradley Jardis

    Thank you for telling me this.

    One of the witnesses in our federal Case is a police psychologist. He does phsyc evals on local Cops. He told us that when most Cops that are rookies come in they test out like a regular person. After the AVERAGE Cop has been a Cop for five years they test out the same as the average violent convicted felon.

    Of the 7 Cops we deposed none of the them had ever read any of the Nevada Constitution. NONE of it. One One Single Officer!

    None of them had studied more than the 4th Amendment concerning police activities of the US Constitution. And Officer Jivapong had a BS degree from UNLV in criminal justice.

    We have Las Vegas METRO’s training manual. It has nothing on the 1st or 2nd Amendments or Nevada Constitution protections or what a State Secured Liberty interest is.

    The Cops could not understand that they are not allowed to tell people that are not suspects to shut up because that is a violation of the First Amendment. They have no clue how to follow the Constitutions. They are walking violators. This is why there are no good Cops. How can a Cop follow a law he does not know?

    How can a Nevada Cop uphold the following oath when they have never read the documents they are swearing to uphold?

    NRS 282.020 Form of official oath. Members of the Legislature and all officers, executive, judicial and ministerial, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe to the following oath:
    I, ……………………., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States, and the Constitution and government of the State of Nevada, against all enemies, whether domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, allegiance and loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution or law of any state notwithstanding, and that I will well and faithfully perform all the duties of the office of ……………., on which I am about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God; (if an affirmation) under the pains and penalties of perjury.

    Cops are not to follow or enforce laws that are not Constitutional. How can an Officer know if a law is unconstitutional if he has never read the Constitution? They commit perjury when they become police officers. That is why their are NO GOOD COPS.

    Not one of the 7 Cops we deposed knew the Guns laws of Nevada. NOT ONE. Not even the Internal Affairs Detective and the IA Sergeant. Neither did a 35 year Veteran and Sergeant that retired right after he violated our rights.

    Not one Cop could understand the difference between being a State Citizen and a Clark County resident. They could not understand that a person living in a different Nevada county or even a different State was not under the same laws that apply to ONLY Clark County residents; like the pistol registration laws.

    The level of ignorance was shocking to me. It made me fear them even more because they are nothing more than ignorant brutes. Mindless law enforcers. The Cops were nothing more than unthinking drones. They did not study the law on their own. They do not take continuing education classes on the Constitution. They don’t even have classes on new laws that affect how they must act. The Department sends out memos on SOME updated court rulings and laws that the officers, by their own admission, do not read.

    Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

    If you know your rights that does not mean that the Cops know your rights. In fact you can be 99% certain that they do not know what your rights are nor do they know their legal obligations.

  • “Just a few bad apples” wouldn’t make it in the news over and over and over multiple times each day.

    This is my favorite of the day:

    ‎​Houston TX police sergeant investigated for allegedly telling subordinates to “fuck up some fagots” before pride parade

  • Jmcc

    From a morality standpoint there is nothing worse than a dirty cop. Hey Shelia why don’t u take a look at the Oakland PO who shot a man to death after he was handcuffed and on the ground in a prone position and being controlled by 2 other officers. Then go STFU!


    I had forgotten that Greenfield was Penn Jillette’s hometown.

  • fourdoor


    Oh dear, I’m afraid you need to read this – – people busted in my home town for videoing police. about 1 hour ago via Twitterrific

    Got this on twitter about an hour ago…. Makes ya wonder just how close is Penn following TFSP

  • The fact, insistence and popular practice of cops disarming criminals and innocent citizens alike at every opportunity they get while adamantly persisting to be armed themselves as an elite and unquestionable part of their divine duty expresses their fear of the law-abiding public shooting or stabbing them due to cops’ arrogant guilt of acting above the law by getting away with breaking their oaths, killing, mistreating, raising revenue from, terrorizing, and much more, their employers and masters (the citizens/tax payers).

    Wow, this comment thread has grown into a board or forum. I appreciate the arguments and citations posted by Chris Hansen and others. Molon labe!

  • Sparky

    Just a quick comment here.

    those things that the cops did to you when they put you in the clink is the same thing they do to everyone who is placed in jail. they didn’t make any sort of exception for you because you video taped them.

  • Radie

    The great injustice here is that the people of Greenfield had to pay for your 12 hour “visit”. Not that you were arrested fro breaking the law (I am pretty sure the suporvisor that gave you the “okay” doesnt write the law). But by locking you up, they added (however slightly) to the city’s expense line. They should have just fined you a large amount of money.

    I am amazed that people can be so short-sighted..

    For starters, it’s pathetic that you cant see the security reasons for not filming there. I hope you are in a situation one day where you lose something valuable specifically due to a lapse in security.. Maybe then you would appreciate the effort made to keep people safe.

    Let’s recount the story…
    You walk in filming.. someone tells you to stop… you persist and he relents, maybe because he was cutting you a break, maybe because it was a bad call on his decision… but then instead of handling your business, you LEAVE. I know the reasons were legit, but you really cant see how suspicious that looks.. in a jailhouse, no less!

    I mean think about that… Think about a place that needs some security clearance… Think about getting that clearance.. then disappearing… only to return several minutes later. Even the biggest cop-hater in the world has to see the suspicion there. And it isnt like this was some random public place where a cop might not be on high alert… it’s a jailhouse.

    When people complain about being unjustly incarcerated in cases like these, they only consider one thing.. themselves. It illustrates, just how little they actually consider other people. I am ABSOLUTELY sure that your intentions were not harmful nor malicious, but to just assume that the world should take you at your word is comical. It shows that you cant reason or put yourself in someone else’s shoes…. YOU know you arent doing anything wrong, so YOU dont consider (or even worse.. care) what your actions are actually displaying to others about what your motives might be.

    The worst part is that you simply wont learn your lesson.. the next time you thing something is “right” or “harmless”, you are going to ignore the laws again and do what YOU want… what YOU feel is correct.

    And that is a damn shame.

  • @Christopher Hansen

    I just read this whole post and the ensuing thread and just wanted to chime in with my own two cents.

    First, in regards to what happened to your shoulder and your dog and everything else that went on during that particular incident… I hope you get proper compensation for your losses. That’s a pretty messed up situation to be in.

    And, although I don’t live in Las Vegas, it sounds like you know the laws of the land better than the police officers, which is pretty unfortunate.

    That being said, I think I see a pattern in the exchange taking place in the comments. I just wanted to give my viewpoint not because I think you are wrong, but because I wonder if maybe the desire to argue your own side is preventing you from having empathy for the other points of view.

    Imagine this hypothetical exchange:

    Wife: “That’s a pretty cloud up there, isn’t it?”

    Husband: “It’s technically not a cloud. It looks like it was just the contrail from a plane which passed by.”

    Wife: “Well, contrail *is* water vapor. Anyway, don’t you think it looks beautiful?”

    Husband: “While a plane’s contrail may very well be cirrus clouds, they are artificially produced, so I’d hardly call them clouds in the classical sense.”

    Wife: “Never mind, then.”

    The point of the theoretical conversation is to point out that two people can argue or disagree or end up in a circular discussion even if nobody is “wrong”. You don’t need one or both sides to be “wrong” to have a discussion that never ends.

    Given that background, I don’t think anything you are doing is “wrong”. We definitely do need to enforce the idea that the police are our public servants. Their paychecks come from our money. However, it appears to me that you focus so much on this aspect of life that you have blinded yourself to the other aspects. Should anyone be above the law? No. Is their nothing to life but law? No. There’s a whole lot more to life. The law doesn’t say I am required to be respectful to a police officer. There is also no law that says I should treat a police officer with respect who is blatantly breaking the law and violating my rights. However (and forgive me if you are not religious), Jesus said in regards to the people “just doing their jobs” as they crucified Him, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Instead, He could have pointed out to them how many laws they were breaking (both man’s laws and God’s laws), but instead He acted with grace.

    Looking at the situations you find yourself in, and applying tunnel vision, it would appear that every police officer in Las Vegas (and possibly the entire world) is corrupt and is out to destroy the world. I have no doubt, though, that there are plenty of citizens of Las Vegas who have never seen the inside of a jail cell and have had only respectful and peaceful dealings with police officers. If we looked at things from their point of view, it would seem as though police officers can do no harm and the right to bear arms is a thing of the past.

    I don’t believe either of these scenarios is the reality, though. Reality is somewhere in between, or is all over the place. The reality, I believe, is that you *can* live a more peaceful life and have better interactions with the police force, but you choose not to. Sure, the police are our servants. However, that doesn’t make it morally OK for you to treat them as slaves while you are the tyrannical slave owner. I think this is where the comment about poking a bee hive came from.

    The media have cameras and try to give people the news they want.
    The paparazzi have cameras and try to give people the news they want.

    Yet, there is a definite difference in the way the two are perceived. One is more structured and more respected. The other is more chaotic and considered more annoying and disrespectful. Both are performing duties for the same reason and both are working within the law, but working within man’s laws alone does not lead to a peaceful life. There are other ethical codes that one must respect in order to have a peaceful life. If you’re religious, this code may come from your religion. If you’re not religious, this may come from the Golden Rule or perhaps just from your upbringing.

    If I observed a police officer breaking the law and violating my rights, I wouldn’t bother arguing with him about it. It’s pointless. It’s just plain rude. Maybe mention it once… but throwing an adult-sized temper tantrum isn’t really becoming of civilized humans. I’d wait my turn in court.

    Likewise, I would expect the same respect while I was doing *my* job. If a customer approached me and started nagging me, telling me everything I was doing wrong, asking for my manager and saying that I should be fired for being so incompetent, then telling me that by charging the customer money for services that I am “stealing” his hard earned money from him, pointing out to me that the customer is always right, then I am certainly not going to have a smile on my face when dealing with the customer from that moment on. Even if the policy of my employer was “always have a smile on your face”, this would be a rule that would likely be broken in this particular scenario. And it is also likely that my employer would be understanding and would let this fact slide. There’s the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

    There are so many complex laws that we human beings have invented to try to live peaceful lives that we can no longer live peaceful lives if we focus solely on all of the laws that exist. Imagine if someone followed you around all day and implemented a citizen’s arrest every time you jay walked… every time you drove through a cross walk while a pedestrian was still in the cross walk, even though they were on the opposite side of the road as you and were many yards away from your car and only inches from the sidewalk… every time you picked up a quarter from the sidewalk, you get cited for not reporting the found property to the police or implementing due diligence to find the owner of the coin… etc, etc, etc… We would all be in hell if people treated each other in this way.

    So, again… you are completely right… you know your laws… you’re doing a fine job at keeping the system in check… but lighten up a bit. I’ll bet that even in Las Vegas there are some minor infractions of the law that are overlooked by the police department, not because they think citizens are above the law, and not because the police officers are failing to fulfill their duty using the “stolen” money from the citizens, but because you gotta pick and choose your battles and you need to have a little bit of grace in your life.

    Love your neighbors AND your enemies. We’re all just human beings. While constantly conflicting with public servants makes for interesting blog posts, it really doesn’t solve a problem, it just creates a skewed point of view that makes the cause appear to be a lost one. Then, it creates the job of being a public service an undesirable one. Then it makes the whole institution of even getting along with people a pointless one, because people are really just out to get one another on technicalities. The whole world appears to be full of the grumpy guys sitting on their porches yelling at each kid that walks by, “stay off my lawn!” While people *do* have a legal right to be grumpy and protect their boundaries every moment they get, this certainly wouldn’t be a pleasant world if everyone acted this way.

    People should pick and choose their battles… find the appropriate avenues to fight these battles… treat people with respect, even if the respect is not given… live with grace… and live with a humility where you are able to treat everyone else in the world as if you were inferior to them, or at least an equal, even if you sign their paychecks. Accept the faults of others in the hope that they may too accept your faults.

  • In an effort to be completely transparent:
    I sent the following emails to the Greenfield mayor, chief of police, Todd M. Dodge, two reporters at the local paper, the Greenfield Reporter and the general email at the Boston Globe.,,,,,


    This email was sent on Sun., July 4th:

    To Whom it May Concern,

    My name is Pete Eyre and on Thur., July 1st I, along with my friend Adam Mueller, was unjustly arrested by Todd M. Dodge of the Greenfield Police Department.

    Adam and I just published an overview of the incident which you can read here:

    I am interested in hearing your thoughts about the actions of Dodge and his colleagues as described by the write-up. Specifically – do they represent the Greenfield Police Department and the City of Greenfield?

    Thanks for your time, I look forward to hearing from you.



    This email was sent on Fri., July 7th:


    I wanted to touch base again as I have not-yet seen a response to the email I sent five days ago regarding the arrest of myself (Pete Eyre) and my friend Adam Mueller on July 1st in Greenfield, MA by Todd M. Dodge and his colleagues. Perhaps it was inadvertently sent to the incorrect email address? If you could respond to this email and address the question I outlined (do Dodge’s actions represent the Greenfield PD and the City of Greenfield) I’d be most-appreciative. Also, I’m curious to learn if you have had a conversation with Dodge about the write-up I pointed to and what steps are being taken to remedy the situation.

    Mr. Martin, I would hope that, per your being “responsible for supervision, direction, and efficient administration of all Town activities” that you would be concerned about the actions Todd M. Dodge and other Greenfield Police Department officers had toward myself and my friend Adam Mueller. Though I have not yet seen any mention of our July 1st arrest in the Greenfield Recorder you may be interested to know that many others have covered the story, including the popular Photography Is Not a Crime website and just today Greenfield’s own Penn Jillette (see attached – who has over 1.6million followers). Just thought you may want to keep this and future coverage in mind when the next election rolls around.

    Mr. Guilbault, not to put you on the spot, but after reviewing our write-up and speaking with Dodge and others present and watching the video surveillance in your facility, do you believe Dodge and those who report to you operated towards us with integrity, pride, respect, communication and professionalism as outlined on your mission statement? What would residents of Greenfield, MA state if they were made aware of the situation?

    I look forward to hearing from you,


  • Below is a response I just received from Chief Guilbault and my reply to him:

    Mr. Eyre,

    Lt. Gary Magnan will be in contact with you in the coming days to acknowledge receipt of your complaints and to inform you of our procedure.

    Chief David F. Guilbault
    Greenfield Police Department
    321 High Street
    Greenfield Massachusetts 01301


    Thanks for the information.

    Just wanted to ensure that Lt. Magnan knows that email is the best medium through which to contact me as my phone (and camera) is still being held by the Greenfield PD.


  • I exposed the Greenfield Recorder as an “Operation Mockingbird” propaganda outlet for the NWO a couple of years ago. I caught the Editor in chief in a string of lies with an email exchange with him. I also exposed our “Local Hero” farm marketing NGO founder as a top level Committee of 300 NWO operative on their rag. They then shut off the comments section under each story online. So even if you sent your letter to the right news paper, which I think you did not, it will never see print. , Just an FYI from

  • bile

    Penn Jillette now lives about a mile from me in Las Vegas

  • Radie,

    Good comments.

    There can indeed two or more correct points of view on a subject. Sam Adam incited the Boston Massacre and his cousin John Adams defended the English soldiers. Both were right.

    The Founding Fathers disagreed on many things. They had many divergent yet thoughtful positions. South Carolina had a State Religion as did most States following the 1776 AD revolution. Virginia and New York did not. I can find no fault in either position. So I agree that there can be different points of view. I call it the Strawberry Ice cream principle.

    Would it be unconstitutional to have a law that did not allow for people to purchase or eat strawberry ice cream? What if the majority of the people of a community were highly allergic to strawberry ice cream? We the People have the right to make laws to promote OUR Safety AND Happiness. At least that is what the Declaration of Independence proclaims. In fact it is our duty to do so.

    If Strawberry ice cream makes you happy but makes another person unhappy or even unsafe then you have a political controversy. Neither side is wrong. But the fact is this. If the side that is oppressed does nothing about the oppression then they will remain oppressed.

    In the Declaration of Taking Up Arm the Founding Fathers called it Voluntary Slavery.

    “The oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and raise disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them and all partial distinctions, exclusions and incapacitations are removed.” — Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776.

    “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it.” — Thomas Jefferson

    “I have a right to nothing, which another has a right to take away.” — Thomas Jefferson

    I am a Christian, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and of The First Christian Fellowship of Eternal Sovereignty.

    My father and brother were LDS bishops and I have held many positions in the church. I started the Fellowship to fight back against the Unconstitutional Civic Religion of Marxism that has been established by the United States. It has been a very effective weapon against the Tyranny of America’s Established Civic Religion of Marxism.

    As a member of both religious organizations I am required the the tenants of both religious organizations to work to protect and defend the Constitution.

    I am also required to disobey unconstitutional laws or laws that are morally repugnant just like the Founder of this nations said we must do.

    “All acts of the legislature apparently contrary to natural rights and justice are, in our law and must be in the nature of things, considered void… We are in conscience bound to disobey.” –Robin vs. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, (Va., 1772)

    I am not a Marxist and refuse to be one therefore I do not file income tax returns because they are voluntary Marxism and I do not volunteer. I do not have a Voluntary Socialist Security Number aka Mark of the Beast. Neither do my children. I do not have a State issued Driver’s license. I cannot get one without a Social Security Number as Per 42 USC Section 666. I am extremely politically active and have been for 45 years, since I was 10. I was State Chairman of the Independent AMerican Party in Nevada for 4 years and increase the voter registration of the party by 32,000 voters a 200% increase.

    I discovered, through many encounters with the police because of politics, that Cops that are upset, make mistakes in judgement because of extremely poor training. I learned that when judges are caught by surprise they make mistakes that can help you get them overturned on appeal. That just occurred in an encounter last year. So it can be tactically appropriate to be rude to Cops or to be nice to Cops depending on what you need to accomplish. As a reporter I often treat Cops like rats and servants that are to do what they are told. This normally gets the EXACT response I need to do my job because they leave me alone. The last time I was nice to Cops they nearly destroyed my life. I made a tactical error to place any faith in them that they would act like decent humans instead of enforcement thugs.

    I believe that God inspires men if they will but ask. Most of the time men forget to ask. Christ came not to bring peace but the sword and yet said he that lived by the sword would die by it. The Apostle Peter carried a sword and cut off the ear of a Roman soldier. Christ reattached it. But Christ also threw the money changers out of the temple. The prophet Moses had babies killed at the order of God. So did the prophet Joshua.

    Situational morality? You bet.

    Thou shall not kill? Unless of course the circumstances requires it.

  • Pingback: Police Violence Caught on Tape? Videographers Jailed()

  • Pete Eyre says:
    July 9, 2010 at 2:42 pm
    Below is a response I just received from Chief Guilbault and my reply to him:

    Good for you Pete!

  • jnickpuglia

    MG said… “Speeding and DUI on public roadways are victimless crimes in your case only because of luck, not because they are inherently victimless actions.”

    Driving 56 MPH in a 55 MPH zone is not inherently victimless??

  • @jnickpuglia

    Haha, you make a great argument!

    Of course, driving 120 MPH in a 55 MPH zone is not inherently victimless. It’s like throwing rocks toward someone, but missing by inches, and saying there are no victims because the rock hasn’t hit them yet.

    Now, easily, one could say, “120 MPH!? That’s preposterous!”

    To which I say, “OK, what about 119 MPH?”

    “That’s ridiculous!”

    “118 MPH?”

    Then, we can play that particular game for a little while until there is a number that we can both agree is not inherently victimless.

    Once we agree on a particular number, we can post that number on a sign and call it a “limit”. Let’s call that number “x”.

    Then, two other individuals can debate about whether or not x+1 MPH is a victimless crime, and the cycle can repeat.

    Aside from all of that, another possible solution is to say that the consequences of going over an agreed upon “limit” are minimal when only slightly over that limit, then continue to get more and more severe the more one goes over that limit, but that might sound a little too much like the laws that exist today. So, instead, we should just throw rocks dangerously close to people and remind them that it’s a victimless crime… well, until the rock strikes gold.

  • jnickpuglia

    I think there’s a very clear difference between victimless (which is pretty clear cut) and reckless or irresponsible. I honestly don’t see how even going 140 on a 45 MPH deserted highway and not hitting anything or causing someone to veer off the road and hit a tree is not victimless.

    Victimless = There was a victim. Pretty simple. Negligent and reckless? In most cases, absolutely.

    And what about a cop who tailgates me at 75 mph (happened to me many, many, times)? That’s less victimless (as I am, vaguely, at least) a victim in such a scenario as an argument can be made that he is putting my safety and my property at risk than my driving 140 on a deserted highway.

  • @jnickpuglia

    Absolutely. I’m not disagreeing with you, I’m just saying that there’s always two sides to the same coin. Previously, there was no mention of it being a deserted highway. Suddenly, it’s deserted. What will the next condition be? Maybe those should be written into the law:

    “The exception shall be if the highway is deserted. To determine that the highway is deserted, the individual must drive the full length of the highway both ways first, posting monitoring devices on both ends to determine the truly deserted nature of said highway. Once the coast is clear, the presumed speed limit of that stretch of verified deserted highway shall be limitless for that individual, until said time when one of the approved monitoring devices proves that this stretch of highway is no longer deserted.”

    I think laws were made to be adjusted in such ways. Of course, when this happens, eventually the whole reason anyone wanted to speed just has its fun stripped away. The world would be a perfect place if it weren’t for all of the people in it, eh?

    Aside from the fact that laws only suck because many people have a hand in writing them (i.e., “Hey, what about if the highway is deserted?”, “Well, then we need to determine how the deserted aspect of the highway can be known.”, “OK, let’s write that in there.”)… I completely agree with you. If a cop tailgates anyone at 75 MPH, there should definitely be a system which allows one to take that police officer to court. Of course, if the cop was tailgating at 75 MPH, then that person must have also been going 75 MPH, so there would be two different things to answer to. If a cop started tailgating me at 55 MPH, rather than speeding up to 75 MPH, I’d probably change lanes. If he changes lanes with me, I’d just pull over. If he pulled over with me, I’d tell him I pulled over because I was uncomfortable with the distance he was following me and felt that this tailgating was creating a hazardous condition on the road. If he ended up being a prick about it, I’d take my case to court.

    I was in a scenario once where I was following friends and they were speeding. We were both going to the same place and only my friends knew the way, so I was relying on following them to get to the destination. (This was before cell phones were ubiquitous, so I had no cell phone.) When two lanes merged into one, I got stuck behind a slow van, and my friends kept going. It was a real dick move of them, really. They just weren’t paying attention and leaving the following completely up to me. When things turned into multiple lanes again, I quickly got into the fast lane and tried catching up to them, but as soon as a merge happened, lo and behold a police officer was behind me.

    Now, I’d say the speed limit at the time was 55 MPH. The flow of traffic was about 65 MPH. As soon as I saw the cop behind me, I slowed down to about 60 MPH. Then, when I noticed all other traffic going faster than us, I figured “OK, let’s move this up to 65.” So, I did. The lane to the right of me was pretty full, so I had no room to move over. So, I figured I’d go a little faster to try to find a spot to move over. So, I started going about 70 MPH. The whole time I was thinking, “This cop is going to pull me over for speeding for sure.”

    After a little while of this cop following me while I went 70 MPH right in front of him (technically 15 MPH over the speed limit, but in actuality about 5 MPH faster than the flow of traffic)… he eventually turned on his lights and pulled me over.

    His reason for pulling me over was NOT that I was speeding. He never once mentioned anything about me going OVER the speed limit. His reasoning was that I was “driving” in the “passing lane”. In other words, since I was going roughly the same speed as the rest of traffic and was remaining in the fast lane / passing lane consistently, I was essentially blocking the path of anyone else who wants to pass someone else. I had no idea this was a law, but I looked it up afterward and lo and behold, it was. (At least in the state I was in and at the time this took place… haven’t checked recently.)

    He never actually gave me a ticket… he just told me to stay out of the left lane unless I’m passing someone, then he took off. It was annoying, though, because my friend was now long gone and I was now completely lost. I *eventually* found my way, but it was still an annoying experience.

    Nonetheless, it shows how people from both sides of the coin can make different rules to keep everyone happy… until the rules become so numerous that nobody can keep track of them all, or it’s nearly impossible not to break a rule or three every two seconds. In actuality, according to the letter of the law, the cop had his pick between pulling me over for speeding… or pulling me over for going too slow (ironically) or, rather, blocking the fast lane. Thankfully, he used his judgement and wasn’t a prick about it.

    So, yes… I agree… if you had a cop tailgating you at 75 MPH, I think you should be within your rights to complain appropriately about it in the courts. If done so in a respectful manner, I believe you should be able to win some damages. Maybe a few hundred dollars? The equivalent of a speeding perhaps? Or maybe the cost of a tailgating ticket? I’ve never gotten such a thing, so I have no idea how much such a ticket would run.

    Aside from that, I’m not sure the two are correlated. Going 140 MPH on a deserted highway and having a cop tailgate you at 75 MPH. Two completely different scenarios, unless you happened to have a cop tailgate you from a different space-time continuum where you could simultaneously drive 75 MPH *and* 140 MPH, but I can’t quite wrap my head around that.

    My question would be, how do you determine the deserted aspect of the highway? Is a “gut feeling” enough? Could the law perhaps state, “If the individual’s gut tells him/her that the highway was deserted or that his/her blood alcohol level was ‘pretty good’, all previous rules do not apply.” I’m just trying to figure out how that particular law would be interpreted in the one-in-a-million chance that the highway turned out *not* to be deserted and an accident took place. There was an incident once where two people were pulled over to the side of the road… a father and daughter. The daughter, I believe, was in the car and the father was just about to get back into the car. Another vehicle that was speeding and was too close to the shoulder hit the father’s head with its side view mirror (I believe it was a truck). The father ended up dying. I’m not saying that everyone should drive 3 MPH, or that the driver of that vehicle had intended on killing that man, but cars weren’t invented and roads weren’t built because people were bored one day and wanted to have some fun. It’s a transportation system which introduced many dangers. People have created laws to make sure this system isn’t made more dangerous by those who don’t like rules. I think it’s a pretty good system, but like any systems… it has its flaws. However, everyone deals with these flaws equally, so it’s a fair system and is probably the best that could exist when human’s are behind the pen and paper. There is definitely room for improvement, and I would suggest that anyone who has great ideas about how to improve the system should get into that system and change those laws and make this place better for everyone.

    On a side note, if there was a highway that was TRULY deserted, then I’d say someone could go 140 MPH without being pulled over… after all, if the highway really is deserted, there’d be nobody there to pull them over. Maybe the laws could be changed such that a cop that’s hiding out on a deserted highway waiting to pull someone over… needs to also be scanning for traffic… and if there is no evidence of a vehicle within X miles of the person speeding, that the person speeding should be exempt from the nature of the fact that nobody was really present (except for the cop, who should be making sure he’s not sitting in the roadway anyway). If that law ended up on the books, you just *know* that some cop would be sitting on the shoulder of the road in a spot where the road has a hill, where there’s an initial blind spot or a mirage from the heat. Then, as a speeding car zips past dangerously close to the cop in the shoulder, he’d pull them over.

    Of course, if a prick of a cop could be there… a citizen could be, too… and if a citizen could be there, then a heightened element of danger and risk is, in fact, being created by the decision to go 140 MPH. Maybe the law could also be against the individual who is pulled over. Maybe make it illegal to be pulled over on a stretch of otherwise deserted highway? But then you’ll have the people whose cars break down complaining about the system and how corrupt it is.

    So, like I said, no matter what, you’re going to have both people debating from both sides of the same coin. In the end, the compromise between both sides debating ends up being the laws that we have. Either everyone follows them… or those who are caught not following them face pre-determined consequences. Not sure there’s an easy way around it, unless the only rule is “everyone can do anything to everyone else”… of course, if things went that route, eventually people would start enlisting their friends to help them… then, when they get enough friends together, they can decide how they’d prefer things to be… then the people with the most friends end up overpowering those with fewer friends… then they write all of their rules down on paper, and enlist more friends to help enforce those rules, and then another structured society is born. Oh well. Humans and their darn brains.

  • jnickpuglia

    I’m not sure how any of this has anything to do with victimless versus not victimless. MG said that speeding and DUI are not inherently victimless. Of course they are.

    Hitting someone while speeding or running someone off the road while driving under the influence are not DUI.

    I don’t know the details of Adam’s criminal history, however.

  • In Nevada the speed limit was “Safe and Sane.”

    I once had a Highway Patrol officer pass me while I was going 109 MPH on the highway outside of Reno.

    We had no highway speed limits besides Safe and Sane in the unincorporated areas.

    We had no seat belt requirements. We had no pistol registration and still do not except in Clark County (Las Vegas).

    Then the people from California started to flee Kalifornia and they are making Nevada into a Marxist state because they love the nanny state up until it become too oppressive for them and then they run away.

    Cops are the enforcement arm of the New American Civil Religion of Marxism. Because of that there is no such thing as a good Cop any more than there was such a thing as a Good Nazi or a Good Communist or a Good Fascist. When you join with evil you support evil. If you join the military to fight in an undeclared war then you are the problem.

    If you join the police force you are the problem.

  • @jnickpuglia

    You said, “running someone off the road while *driving* *under* the *influence* are not *DUI*”.

    (emphasis, mine) I’m going to assume there’s a typo in there, so I’m not going to go further on that topic.

    Comparing “victimless” versus “not victimless”, I suppose these need to be defined… and then I’d need to understand your stance in terms of determine how the two should be treated.

    To me, if someone who does not belong on my property enters my property, I am a “victim”. I don’t believe I need to be physically hurt or altered to become a victim, I just need to be “adversely affected by a force or agent”. If someone follows me around 24/7, constantly pointing a weapon at me, I am also a victim… even if they have not physically harmed me. I could also go throughout the town throwing glass everywhere, so that nobody can leave their homes without walking over lots of shards of glass. It would be unfair to say that if anyone steps on the glass, it’s their own fault… they should have stayed indoors if they didn’t want to get hurt. Ultimately, the cause of people getting hurt in that case was a direct result of the shards of glass I put everywhere. For everyone who wasn’t hurt because they stayed indoors, they too are victims because I adversely affected them by keeping them indoors with my shards of glass everywhere.

    So, likewise… speeding by itself (yet avoiding an accident)… driving while drunk (yet avoiding an accident) may appear to be a victimless crime if your definition of “victim” means “someone who is physically harmed”. However, I’d say that for every wreckless driver on the road (this doesn’t just go for those who speed or drive drunk… but those who also drive too slow… cut people off… tailgate… etc…), the very act of driving for everyone else becomes increasingly more dangerous. That’s where people are being victimized… not through direct harm, but by the increased danger from wrecklessness (such as putting shards of glass everywhere, following people around with guns pointed at them, or hurtling a ton of steel through a path at an arbitrary speed which grossly mismatches everyone else’s agreed upon speed).

    Maybe the solution would be to build two roads. The “safe” road and the “dangerous” road. Those who want to drive on the safe road must obey all the usual laws or face fines, etc… Those who want to drive fast or simply not have various different rules to be concerned with can drive on the dangerous road. The cops should stay off the dangerous road, because there are no laws there to enforce.

    But then you have to figure out these details:

    1) Who cleans up the mess when an accident happens on the dangerous road?
    2) What happens on a stretch of dangerous road when there are no tow-truck companies who are willing to enter the dangerous road, and you have a breakdown?
    3) Who re-paves the dangerous road, fixes potholes, cleans up roadkill, etc…?

    Once those types of details are figured out, then how is the cost of this work going to be compensated? Does everyone pay a toll before entering the dangerous road? Do those who want to drive on the dangerous road need to pay special taxes for that road? Does *everyone* pitch in equally for the dangerous road? Wouldn’t that upset people who never want to drive on the dangerous road? Do driver’s licenses get flagged such that you need to pick one road or the other, and you can only ever drive on the road you have designated and are not allowed to drive the other?

    In order to sort out the details of “how does this road get built and maintained and who pays?”… you ultimately end up needing police (or some sort of agency to regularly monitor this road) to make sure the safe-only drivers don’t decide to infiltrate this road and piss everyone off… or to make sure people are paying the necessary toll, if that is the route which is taken.

    The real solution to all of this mess is to just get rid of cars. Technology is ultimately the biggest culprit. Before, when people walked or rode on simple wagons, you didn’t really need paved roads. You only needed to start walking or riding. Once a particular path was well traveled, a road simply came to be from all of the stomping and trampling. Motor vehicles don’t do so well on non-paved roads (at least, not for those who want to go 140 MPH), so someone needed to build the roads and pave them and keep them maintained.

    If left up to corporations to manage this, you’d end up with a huge mess. As soon as you started driving on the Disney-owned roads, you’d have to pay an $80 toll, but those roads would be super clean and super nice but would probably have smiley guards posted every three feet, hiding behind Mickey Mouse and Goofy signs. As soon as you started driving on the Starbucks-owned roads, you’d be forced into a Starbucks drive-thru every few blocks, and would be compelled to buy a latte. If Starbucks and Disney signed a special contract, but left Microsoft out of the deal, you’d end up with spots where Disney and Starbucks roads connected together nicely, but Microsoft roads ended in lumpy dirt roads for a few blocks before connecting with a Starbucks or Disney road. All of this would be a real nuisance.

    So, “the people” get together and organize and determine a solution that will work for all. It involves having paved roads built and having everyone chip in for those paved roads. However, if everyone is going to chip in money for these paved roads, then they each are stakeholder’s in this transportation system. So, everyone has a say. The people agree that driving is a privilege, not a right. (I don’t believe driving is in the Constitution, anyway.) However, each individual’s personal safety *is* a right. So, a system is agreed upon which makes driving safe, though it is understood that a certain amount of danger is inherent in driving. However, there is an acceptable level of danger, and an unacceptable level of danger. If anything turns the system into an unacceptable level, there must be consequences, or else the system would never would and would spiral into something which can no longer be sustained.

    That is where we’re at today. Most people drive on roads they didn’t pave every square inch of. They drive at a speed which would never have been possible without paved roads. They buy cars which would never have been built if there weren’t already roads to drive them on. It’s a win-win situation for everyone, except for the fact that everyone has to get along by following the same set of rules to meet the accepted levels of danger that people are willing to put themselves and their families into while participating in this experiment that nobody really has a right to, but is happy for the privilege. For everyone else, walking is still an option and a right.

    I do see your point, however. Everyone who decided to come to these agreements create this system, that, as it takes over, it starts taking away inherent rights which should be protected. For instance, let’s say I *want* to walk or ride a horse from Nebraska to Colorado. Now imagine I am walking (or riding) and I find that I have now entered someone else’s land. Now I’m committing a crime. If I try to avoid their land, I find that I am now on someone else’s land… again, committing a crime. Then, I find my only options are to walk (or ride) on the freeway. Again, I’m sure I’m now committing a crime by having a horse (or walking) on a freeway. I’m suddenly in a lose-lose situation where I am no longer able to travel the land by my own means. Instead, I am forced to buy a vehicle… which then forces me to register it… which then forces me to drive on particular roads… which then forces me to follow particular rules that I don’t really care for.

    So, I think that as various laws of this technology-laden society are built in order to accommodate these technologies (like cars), we should all be very vigilant to make sure that those who choose to walk or ride horses still have a means to travel the land without fear of breaking several laws unintentionally.

  • @Christopher Hansen

    While I don’t completely agree with your “all or nothing” view on evil, I can sympathize with your general message about the overly anal infiltrating an otherwise enjoyable location.

    There’s a particular burger joint that keeps trying to open shop in my town and “the people” keep fighting against it. “There are already enough burger joints here” they say. Well, I happen to *like* that burger joint and wish one would open up closer to where I live. How about “the people” just let the natural course of a free market take place and stop trying to micromanage everything. Stop trying to create a “culture” for the place and just let the culture rise naturally from the people. If the majority of the people really don’t want that burger joint in the town, then they won’t spend their money at the place and it will naturally leave due to low profits.

    Also, more and more in my area fireworks are being banned for fourth of July. To make matters worse, due to the economy, the city has stopped doing a big fireworks display for the people. Talk about a double-whammy. Look, I understand that fireworks *can* cause a fire… but so can stoves… are they also going to ban stoves? What next, candles? Where is the line drawn, exactly? I think the problem is, people arbitrarily draw those lines where their emotions are. Then, various groups come in and stir up those emotions. Then, the lines get redrawn and everyone gets upset.

    However, I do think this is a two-way street. The ones who are upset see that this “emotional warfare” seems to work, and so this same game gets played by the other viewpoint. Instead of saying most (or many) cops are bad, it turns into ALL are bad, for the very nature of their employment. Instead of saying the system is bad, it’s the people who are a part of the system are bad. Eventually, you end up with both sides overly exaggerating their particular viewpoints until the middle ground simply cannot be seen anymore. Both are convinced that each other’s extreme is the “only way” and that if either wins, we all lose.

    I tend to think that naturalized and inherent rights of all people can only be achieved with a middle ground. A compromise means all people are equally unhappy, but are willing to accept this level of unhappiness for the gains that resulted. The tree huggers can protect the land they want… the technology folks can have their paved roads and motor vehicles… the land lovers have own their portion of land and be protected… the roamers can easily find a way from point A to point B without having to violate the rights of the land lovers, but without having to follow the rules of the technology folks and their paved roads and cars… etc, etc, etc… I really do think it is possible to achieve a melting pot of ideals where everyone can have their way, while only giving up some inconveniences… like those who want to be able to always carry a gun might be disallowed from, say, walking into a bank, pointing it at a teller’s head, then saying “ha ha, just kidding” and get away with it.

    In order to make sure these safe havens for all types of individuals isn’t completely lost or overtaken by another group, there should be a larger (federal?) system which makes sure that all groups are represented. i.e., maybe if ALL states start becoming like California, there needs to be some law in place which prevents all 50 states from turning to the dark side of CA. Not sure how that would be determined… on a law-by-law basis? Or maybe it’s not handled at the state level, but at a county level? You say there is no pistol registration in Clark County. So, maybe there needs to be a certain percentage of the population of every state which should be required to allow a “no pistol registration” rule. So, Clark County would be automatically safe from this, unless some other County in Nevada changed to a “no pistol registration” rule.

    I’m just brainstorming here. The fear is, I don’t completely like the idea of too much federal restriction over states, but without it… you end up with a situation where people from CA can infiltrate NV and turn Nevada into CA-2. Nobody wants that. Maybe instead of federal “rules” which restrict states, it’s more of an “incentive”? Maybe the more of a population of a state that doesn’t require pistol registration, the more funding that state gets? Of course, there’s always the chance that pricks from another state could infiltrate and start shooting the place up like crazy, ruining the fun for everyone else, and convincing everyone that pistol registration is the only way to make things safe again for single moms, for instance. Maybe the incentives could also apply for states which keep their crime rates low… but then every effort to keep crime rates low just results in more cops and more restrictions, which brings things back to a sucky level.

    It would be great if there were some sort of perfect system which would ensure that everyone can enjoy themselves and have the right to protect themselves while, at the same time, allow people to live without fear, like single moms for instance. And where the people who are hired to help keep such a system in place are not feared and are not running around intimidating everyone and not inherently evil because of their career path, but who are just public servants in a system where people are just trying to live a peaceful life and live out their particular goals to make the world a better place before they die of old age.

    In regards to the “all cops are evil” concept, I just have a difficult time picturing that “all or nothing” concept. Where is the line drawn? If someone is respectful to a cop, does that also make this person evil because they showed respect to the devil? Then, if people pay their taxes, and are therefore supporting the cop’s paycheck, are they not evil? What about if someone buys something from a store and that store also pays their taxes, are they not contributing to the ultimate wealth of the cops which are evil? What if you are respectful to your neighbor who owns the store that pays the taxes? What if you are respectful to the father of the store owner, or buy a car from him? If most cops are male, does this perhaps make all males evil? Are female cops forgiven, or would this also make all females evil? If it turns out everyone is evil, then what does the word “evil” mean anymore? Are there now degrees of evil? Maybe a point system?

    It helps to draw a line to help define a term that is being used, or else the term is nearly meaningless. If the system of America is evil, then does being an American citizen make one a victim… or also evil? Is someone evil because they are a sinner? If everyone is without sin, then are we all evil, or only sinners, or is there a difference?

    Can a sinner be forgiven? If so, can an evil person be forgiven?

    Forgive my questions… if you don’t want to answer, you can just consider them to be rhetorical or just “thinking out loud”… if you do want to answer, I’d be interested in seeing your viewpoint. I think it helps everyone to exercise our First Amendment and be open to the viewpoints of others to learn and to find that middle-ground that I am sure is there somewhere. In fact, I’d say that our First Amendment is the most important one of all, which is why I am sure it comes first… not to take away from the others.

  • Raph84


    You just admitted to being a bully. If you have a badge and a gun and you use the law to punish people for not being the way you want them to be (aka not being polite sycophants) you are a bully and a criminal ( ).

    It is foolish to say that citizen’s should be held accountable for police officers’ poor and possibly illegal behavior. The officers are trained, and paid to do a job, and with that comes responsibility. If you or your fellow officers are not up to the task turn in your tin and let someone less prone to petty childishness try their hands at it.

  • Pingback: American Idolatry Intensifies as Nation Sinks in to Depression |


    It is an assault to point a gun at a person. To carry a gun should be no more of a crime than to carry a stick or a hammer, or a rock or a baseball bat.

    4 years ago two Cops came up to me and told me to stand up and put my hands behind my back because I was legally petitioning. Then after I stood and obeyed they laughed and said they were just joking. They threatened to touch me (handcuff me) and take away my liberty (arrest me) and they did it while obviously armed with handguns. That was an assault. That was a crime. Naturally they did not think it was a crime. Nothing was ever done to those Cops. Cops commit such crimes daily because of the way the system works. The system is evil because Cops do not fear reprisal or punishment for pointing a gun at your head and then saying “Ha Ha…just joking.”

    All or nothing is easy to understand. Were there any good dedicated Nazis? Are there any good dedicated police today?

    The system has become corrupt. If you become dedicated to any corrupt system you are corrupt.

    If a system is evil everyone that joins it becomes an agent of evil. If a person joins the Nazi movement it assists the Nazi movement. If a person joins the Communist party is assists the Communist party. If a person joins the Republican party it helps the Republican party.

    You list many groups. You left off a few groups that believe in extremes. I like to use extremes because extreme happen and that is the best way to test any system. You test the weak link in plumbing by putting ever joint and pipe under the same pressure.

    How can abortion on demand groups compromise with 100% no abortions groups that believe any abortion is murder? How can 100% homosexuality is a deadly sin group compromise with Gay rights groups? How can NAMBLA compromise with groups that support the death penalty for having sex with children? How can pro-slavery groups compromise with liberty for all groups? How can dedicated Muslims compromise with Zionists? How can gold and silver coin groups compromise with Federal Reserve Note supporters?

    The way this was done was to have States/nations. That is how the USA was originally set up. If South Carolina wanted Christian Protestants only, as they did in 1778 AD, and New York wanted non-Christians allowed in the political system then they separated into areas and formed separate governments that would be the best to support the “Safety and HAPPINESS” of THOSE people.

    Because of the 14th Amendment that safety valve has been destroyed. Now we force people with divergent views together and what will happen is what always occurs historically. One side dominates the other.

    In the USA the religion of Atheism/Marxism has become the State Religion. It is what the government calls a compromise. It is not. It is forcing people with Christian morals to be forced to participate and even pay for act they consider to be abominations. Irreligion has replaced basic Christianity as the State religion. The US Supreme Court once ruled that America was a Christian Nation. Now we are a Marxist/Atheist nation. We now have the Communist Manifesto forced upon We the People. Income Tax (2nd plank) Federal Reserve (5th plank) God-free mandatory public schools (10th plank.) Socialism (Social Security/Medicaid/Medicare) are all forced upon We the People. If you choose to oppose Socialism today you are labeled as an anti-American that refuses to pay his/her “fair share.” I know. I am such a person.

    People today, like me, that believe Socialism/Marxism/Fascism are Satanic and refuse to participate are considered criminals just like people in the past that supported polygamy or homosexuality or refused to say the pledge of allegiance or refused to participate in prayer is government schools or refused to segregate or were inter-racial couples, etc. were considered criminals or at least unpatriotic.

    So we do not need a larger federal system. We need a smaller federal system. We need to abolish the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments. We need to end the Federal Reserve System.

    Nevada allows for legalized prostitution and open gambling. Other States do not. The same should be true of abortion (it used to be that way.) In Colorado you can marry under Common Law. In Nevada you cannot. So these differences still occur on a small level but they used to be more pronounced. Then the 14th Amendment was forced on the States at gunpoint. That along with the 16th, and 17th Amendment and the creation of the Federal Reserve System, all in 1913 AD, destroyed State’s rights and turned every American into a serf. The natural result of this slavery is that we ended up with a police state. History repeats.

    True Crime rates drop when people have guns and know who to protect themselves instead of relying mostly on Cops. Having a large and powerful police force creates crime. It may reduce crime by common criminals to have a police state but a police state is just organized crime collecting protection racket payments called taxation.

    When the government fears the people there is liberty. Government is ALWAYS the most dangerous and powerful successful criminal organization. It is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Currently our government is our master not our servant. And who is the enforcement arm of the government? Cops.

    Small government with self-reliant moral well-armed people is the freest form of government. Anarchy is more dangerous than tyranny. Liberty is found ONLY in very small limited government with an educated well-armed populous with self imposed morals. Without a system of self imposed morals, like the 10 Commandments or something similar, a nation cannot be free. Noah Webster and most of the Founding Fathers were very clear on this point. A nation that is universally corrupt cannot be free.

    A nation that voluntarily universally practiced: “Love they neighbor as they self” would be the freest nation on earth. Without self imposed morals there can be no liberty.

    If someone shows respect to a Cop today it is like showing respect to a lion. It really does not matter if the lion is Satanic or not. If you are not properly prepared to deal with the lion, (Well armed) then it is best to show respect for the lion, like staying in a car or truck or behind a wall. If not you endanger yourself. Cops force you to come out of your safe place. You MUST be prepared to deal with that. How is your choice.

    To be a male or a female or Black or White is far different from choices we make. A man can have sex with his wife without being an adulterer or a child molester. A man can own a gun and never harm another person with it. Is a Gay man that does not have sex with other men actually a homosexual?

    If you are in America and you have no means to leave to another country and are fighting against undeclared foreign wars and Marxism and Fascism are you still a patriot?

    The First Amendment has become the most destructive of all the Amendments because it has been applied to the States. It says: Congress shall make no law… not: The States shall make no law. Most of the original States had State religions or religious requirements. What was good has been turned to evil.

    There is more than one way to have liberty but liberty does have a few requirements. The teachings of the Founding Fathers include those rules. One is being well armed and that the government must fear the people. That element of liberty is simply not true in the USA today.

  • Christopher Hansen,

    “It is an assault to point a gun at a person”

    I agree. I brought that up because I was trying to determine what a “victimless crime” is. If “victim” requires that someone is physically hurt, that’s one thing. To me, however, if someone points a gun at your head, you are a victim. So, victimless crimes do not require physical harm, but an element of danger. Things get a little bit iffy if someone walks down a street, quickly turning and pointing a gun at every parked car without checking (or knowing) whether or not someone was sitting in the car. Is it only a crime the moment it turns out a person was in the car, or is the very act of doing this result in victims who may witness this and then have a higher sense of fear the next time they sit in their parked car on that street? So, I was purely brainstorming over the term “victimless crime” and whether a crime only exists if someone has been physically harmed. To me, performing an action which a reasonable person would understand “creates fear” is a crime and does result in victims, even if everyone becomes a vitctim.

    “To carry a gun should be no more of a crime than to carry a stick or a hammer, or a rock or a baseball bat.”

    I agree. Just as a person who works out regularly at the gym should not be arrested for carrying strong arms. The potential to do damage is not the same thing as actually doing damage. Combining this concept with the “victimless crime” concept I previously commented on, I think where many people have a difficulty drawing a line is between REASONABLE FEAR and UNREASONABLE FEAR. If someone points a gun at me, I will be fearful. Therefore, pointing a gun at someone should be “assault”. However, to someone else, just knowing someone else has a gun when they don’t… they may experience the same amount of fear. The psychological affect to both me (with the gun being pointed at me) and the other person (who is simply witnessing a gun carrying person) may be exactly the same. The other person may even experience more fear than me. So, the question is, is that other person a victim just as I was a victim? I don’t believe so, because I believe their fear is “unreasonable”. The problem is, for this to work in law, you need to define what is reasonable and what is unreasonable, then everyone needs to agree to these definitions. It’s potentially a never-ending battle between the overly timid and the overly logical. :D

    “4 years ago two Cops came up to me and told me to stand up and put my hands behind my back…”

    That’s pretty messed up. I’d never want to live in a place that’s like that. Thankfully, I don’t… or at least I’ve never experienced such things. It’s sad, though, that such places do exist in our world still.

    “The system has become corrupt. If you become dedicated to any corrupt system you are corrupt.”

    If that’s the case, do you believe there are plenty of corrupt businesses and businessmen? If so, does that mean anyone who is employed is corrupt? If you are paying a business to get onto the Internet, are you contributing to this corrupt system? If you are accessing the Internet via a free means, are you visiting websites which have ads on them… which, in turn, generate revenue for the site owners… which keeps a website alive, keeping the Internet working… which contributes to a thriving business for Internet Service Providers… which are usually large corporations that are a part of an evil system. These corporations also pay taxes, contributing to another corrupt system. So, the question is, wouldn’t the very act of using the Internet imply participation in an evil and corrupt system?

    I only ask because I wonder where the line is… and at what point someone who is involved in such a system can be considered immune? How many levels of separation are needed?

    At the same time, if someone intentionally fights the police… to prove a point… to shake up the system… would they not be contributing to increasing the crime statistics in that region? A reasonable person would know that an increase in crime statistics results in an increase of police force and paychecks. So, the greatest way to grow this system of “evil” and become its greatest advocate is to fight against it, and give it an even greater level of employment and size. If everyone followed the rules, there wouldn’t be a need for a police force to enforce the rules. The police force does not create the rules, it simply enforces them. The rules are created by people who are chosen by the people. So, this pins the blame on every person. The blame is on the people who created the rules, the people who voted for those people, and the people who chose not to enter politics or chose not to vote for someone better and simply allowed evil to proliferate. To me, these are all extremes. They are very easy to define and discuss, but the true answer to the mess of extremes is to find a middle ground. The middle ground does not mean the extremes cease to exist… it simply means that both extremes have equal benefits and equal costs.

    For instance, you test the weak link in plumbing by putting every joint and pipe under the same pressure, yes. However, if you put any plumbing system under a billion pounds per square inch of pressure, you don’t find the weak link… you simply decide that plubming is overrated and you stop washing your hands. At some point, you have to decide that there is a reasonable amount of pressure that the system should support. If anyone comes by and tries to apply higher levels of pressure to your plumbing and floods your place, then says “I found the weak link… it’s the pipes… they can’t handle a billion pounds per square inch!” you’d promptly let them know that the pipes were never intended to handle that much pressure. Then, you’d install a blowoff valve, then you’d inform the person of the limits of the system, and you’d kindly ask them to stop trying to flood your place. If they did it again, you’d believe they weren’t actually trying to test your pipes but that they were just trying to create trouble for you and flood your place repeatedly. You probably wouldn’t hire them for plumbing tasks anymore. This doesn’t mean the pipes don’t need to be tested from time to time, but that there is a reasonable level between testing pipes and simply destroying pipes.

    “How can abortion on demand groups compromise with 100% no abortions groups that believe any abortion is murder?”

    A “compromise” does not mean everyone is happy or there is no more disagreement or conflict. It simply means that a line is drawn, and everyone complains equally about that line. Nonetheless, I believe laws should not protect us from ourselves, but protect us from other people. If a woman who has a miscarriage is not convicted of involuntary manslaughter, then a woman who chooses to have an abortion should not be convicted of voluntary manslaughter. Of course, I definitely think there should be a line drawn (in terms of timeline), but I don’t think all abortions at all levels should be a crime, or else wearing a condom could be a crime. Again, I don’t think man’s laws are meant to completely replicate (and make redundant) God’s laws (or natural law, if that’s what you’d prefer). IMHO, man’s laws should not be about forcing people to be moral… but giving people the freedom to be moral (or not) and to prevent anyone else from infringing on those rights of others. So, someone who does drugs should not be considered a criminal. Someone who drives under the influence of drugs should be held accountable. Someone who gives drugs to their 5-year-old should also be held accountable.

    Those who believe that any abortion is murder will have to deal with the fact that this particular belief is “legal” and simply try to educate the world to convince people not to make that choice. Likewise, I believe adultery is a sin, but I don’t believe someone should be thrown into prison for adultery.

    “How can 100% homosexuality is a deadly sin group compromise with Gay rights groups?”

    Similar situation. I don’t believe “sin” should automatically equate with “crime”. None are without sin. If all sins were crimes, then everyone would be a criminal. If we want to feel better about this, we could just call Earth everyone’s “prison” and then decide that we still need laws to protect our rights. To me, laws should be shields, not hammers. Man’s laws shouldn’t be tools that people use to attack each other. Instead, man’s laws should be shields that people use to protect each other and themselves.

    “How can NAMBLA compromise with groups that support the death penalty for having sex with children?”

    Call me old fashioned, but I don’t believe the death penalty should ever be on the table. Government didn’t create life, so government doesn’t have the right to take life away. The only thing government creates is a particular quality of life… therefore, that quality of life should be able to be taken away. For instance, if I pay for a ticket to a theme park, I should be able to enjoy what that theme park has to offer. If I refuse to pay for the ticket, they should only be able to keep me out of the theme park… they shouldn’t be able to take away more than that. I’d be interested to know your take on this.

    “How can pro-slavery groups compromise with liberty for all groups?”

    To me, slavery implies the lack of freedom. I happen to believe in freedom, so I disagree with slavery. However, there can be different views on this. Some might say that employees are slaves to an employer. Or, the poor are slaves to the rich. This would imply that slavery is already alive and well. Of course, true slavery would imply that the “employee” has no choice of “employer”. I believe in the freedom of choosing our own employer or, if we so choose to take the path, become self-employed. This may fly in the face of pro-slavery groups, but pro-slavery groups would also be against the “All men are created equal” clause, so you’d be talking about a complete reboot of an entire system. A shark might decide it wants to be a salmon, but no amount of wanting to be a salmon is going to actually turn the shark into a salmon. Some fights are usually in vein. It might last for a little while, but the natural course of things usually has other plans.

    “How can dedicated Muslims compromise with Zionists?”

    By agreeing that they both hate each other, but that a civilized society means that each has the right to live. Again, a compromise doesn’t mean hugs and kisses… it just means coexisting. As soon as people decide they don’t want to coexist, they recognize the fact that they are essentially voting themselves off the island, because at the hear of human drive is the desire to exist.

    “How can gold and silver coin groups compromise with Federal Reserve Note supporters?”

    One side needs to recognize the fact that allowing SOME things to happen should be considered unacceptable. For instance, a complete economic collapse should be unacceptable, just as watching a car move slowly towards and infant laying in the road and doing nothing about it should be unacceptable. The great thing about humans is they have the brains to try to solve problems. When you see a baby laying in the road with a car slowly approaching, you intervene by either alerting the driver of the car or picking up the child. Likewise, if you see an economic system on the verge of collapse, you take the steps to try to avert the problem.

    At the same time, the other side needs to recognize that there are limits to what human brains can accomplish. And that, sometimes, micromanaging a system can create a greater problem than would have ever existed if the system had simply been trusted and left alone.

    Somewhere in the middle, there should be a system that allows general instabilities and minor collapses, but not a complete meltdown. This system would make both extremes unhappy for not getting their way, but should be considered a compromise because neither side won 100%.

    “Now we force people with divergent views together and what will happen is what always occurs historically. One side dominates the other.”

    Isn’t this just an inherent problem with Democracy? People are allowed to vote and the majority wins and the minority loses. So, the majority always dominates the minority. I’m not quite sure how the 14th Amendments affects the dealings between one state and the next, since the rules of every person being treated equally is not specific to one state or another.

    “It is forcing people with Christian morals to be forced to participate and even pay for act they consider to be abominations.”

    I agree with you there. If someone has an abortion, I’d call them a sinner. Of course, I don’t believe in all sinners being fined for their sins by the government or being thrown in prison for their sins, or else everyone would be fined and/or in prison. However, that person’s abortion should absolutely not be funded by taxes or a government. I’m not aware of any particular instances where abortions are being funded by tax-payer dollars and have been unable to find anything that wasn’t misleading or inaccurate. Could you point me to some information regarding this?

    “The US Supreme Court once ruled that America was a Christian Nation.”

    Sure, and I don’t think this should ever be denied. However, I don’t believe being a “Christian Nation” means kicking out all non-Christians. After all, isn’t a non-Christian a potential Christian? I feel that Christianity is about loving both your neighbor AND your enemy. Through this love, people will be attracted to Christianity and will be saved. By actually shunning anyone who has not seen or fully understood or embraced God’s Truth yet, you turn away potential advocates of God. The Apostles were not saintly people and were not born as Christians. So, had a similar rule been applied, there may not have been any Apostles in the first place. So, while I think the fundamental truth of America being a Christian Nation still rings true, I don’t believe this means people should be recruited into Christianity under threat of punishment by a Christian Government. This would go against the very nature of and purpose of Christianity. A government which rules over all “sinners” (while itself being without sin) becomes the largest and most powerful and absolute government of all. History shows this. So, if you’re against a Big Brother Super-Sized Government, you’d want to make sure the government can’t start throwing Bibles at people anymore. It’s not about disagreeing with Christianity, it’s about agreeing that there are some places the government just shouldn’t meddle.

    So, to me, the ultimate goal for our nation is to not favor one religion or another, but to trust in God’s will and that those who were destined to go to Heaven *will* go there, as long as they are given the freedom to make the right choices. I don’t believe the Bible says that everyone will go to Heaven. And, I don’t believe someone can be forced into Heaven through cohersion or laws. So, in this, we must trust in God’s will to bring His people to Heaven. America’s job is to create the environment to allow that freedom of choice. With that freedom, everything else will follow. If it is not freedom but man’s coercion through laws, then it won’t be God’s will but will be man’s will.

    It’s when you try to infringe on that freedom, or entertwine man’s laws with God’s laws that things get messy. “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” I don’t believe this is Jesus giving Caesar a high-five. Quite the contrary. I believe the message here is simply not to concern yourself with man’s laws in the same manner that you concern yourself with God’s laws. The two are necessary, but serve completely different purposes. Man’s laws are to make sure God’s children are acting respectfully towards their brothers and sisters in this playground we call Earth. God’s laws are to make sure God’s children find their way home.

    Polygamy is a sin. Homosexuality is a sin. Of course, according to Proverbs 6:16-19:

    There are six things the LORD hates,
    seven that are detestable to him:

    17 haughty eyes,
    a lying tongue,
    hands that shed innocent blood,

    18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
    feet that are quick to rush into evil,

    19 a false witness who pours out lies
    and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.

    Now, maybe I’m misinterpreting “sin” here, but I imagine if there are things God *hates* or considers *detestable* that it is reasonable to consider these to be a sin. So, if polygamy is illegal and homosexuality should be illegal, then shouldn’t a proud look land someone in prison? Maybe the moment someone lies, in *any* situation, they are fined? Someone that soweth discord among brethren should be brought into the courts?

    You see, this is why I don’t believe that every sin should be mirrored by man’s laws, enforced by a government of men. I am a Christian, and I believe every one of these principles are a sin in God’s eyes, so I make every effort to not break any of these sins. If I do, I hold myself accountable to God, and I make amends with any fellow human beings I have wronged, but I don’t expect that I should be subjected to a stoning. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. We should understand that we are sinners, and should respect the fact that our fellow human beings are also sinners, and that we will all be judged by God. In the meantime, so that we can treat each other as brothers and sisters to be in a right relationship with God and follow in Jesus’ example, man’s laws should be about protecting rights and instilling freedom to make ones choices (whether sinful or not) and trust in God’s will.

    You believe that Socialism/Marxism/Fascism are Satanic, and while I may not agree with you 100%, your belief is your prerogative and you have every right to continue with that belief. You may be on the right path and I may be on the wrong path. I would only suggest that Satan hates people… all people. Satan has no preference over his “followers”. Satan would just as easily destroy the life of one of his followers as he would destroy the life of a non-follower. Therefore, Satan’s greatest goal is likely dissention among God’s people. So, if Satan has created Socialism, Marxism, or Fascism to create such dissention, perhaps Satan can be defeated not by hating your enemies or neighbors (since this flies in the face of what God holds most important, according to the Scriptures), but by loving your enemies and neighbors and working with them. If you neighbor is a police officer, this doesn’t mean you join him in the police force and hold hands with him, but it also doesn’t mean you call him evil and tell him he is worshipping the devil and his sins are somehow greater than your own. Instead, you treat him as a brother… as an equal… as a human being who is in the exact same pot of boiling water as everyone else… as an equal victim of Satan’s plans as everyone else… then work with him, together, to find your way out of Satan’s pot of boiling water and into God’s hands.

    Forgive my Bible-thumping. If your readings do not agree with mine, or if you are not a Christian or do not believe in the same views of Christianity, I do not intend on imposing my views. I’m just thinking out loud here. You brought up Christianity, so I thought it would make more sense for my to give my views on those topics to better explain my views when it applies to man’s laws.

    “Nevada allows for legalized prostitution and open gambling. Other States do not. The same should be true of abortion (it used to be that way.) In Colorado you can marry under Common Law. In Nevada you cannot. So these differences still occur on a small level but they used to be more pronounced. Then the 14th Amendment was forced on the States at gunpoint. That along with the 16th, and 17th Amendment and the creation of the Federal Reserve System, all in 1913 AD, destroyed State’s rights and turned every American into a serf. The natural result of this slavery is that we ended up with a police state. History repeats.”

    I’m curious about how a line connects the 14th amendment and the fact that Nevada does (or doesn’t allow) for legalized prostitution. What does gambling have to do with the 14th Amendment? How did the 14th Amendment cause California to become more like Nevada, or vice versa? You keep making this connection, but I’m having a hard time drawing that logical line.

    As for various Amendments to the Constitution, if there are certain Amendments which you do not subscribe to, perhaps the blame should be squarely planted in the rules which allowed for Constitutional Amendments? I’d hate to blame the Founding Father’s, but they paved the way for the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments by allowing Amendments in the first place, didn’t they? I’m not saying I agree with all laws. However, if the idea is that you can disobey any law you disagree with, then couldn’t someone completely dismiss the entire Constitution in disagreement with it? Doesn’t a line need to be drawn somewhere?

    “True Crime rates drop when people have guns and know who to protect themselves instead of relying mostly on Cops.”

    I agree.

    “Having a large and powerful police force creates crime.”

    I have a problem with the circular logic in terms of cause and effect here. Having a large and powerful police force creates crime. However, increased crime results in a larger and more powerful police force. So, this is a never ending problem which can never go away. At some point, people just have to learn to get along and not accept so much dissention for the problem to lessen. The root of the problem starts with parenting. Hit someone and their natural reaction is to hit back. If you turn the other cheek, you diffuse the situation. Sure, you end up with the hurt cheek and they run off with a false sense of pride, and you can complain all day that there is an imbalance there. However, if the goal is to make sure the other person hurts just as much as you hurt, then nobody actually wins and we end up in a downward spiral of moral decay and dissension among brothers.

    I’ve heard the same argument against religion. I’ve heard that religion results in wars. If religion didn’t exist, it would be one less thing for people to fight about. While the logic is sound, it’s circular and it ignores other obvious connections. Religion brings us closer to God and what He intends for our lives. So, religion should be above all things in terms of Purpose. Life should be lived with purpose. If religion didn’t exist, it would mean people would be living without the true purpose. There would still be wars, but these wars would be over other things… like freedom. So, getting rid of religion doesn’t solve the problem, it just changes the problem to the next item of importance. If you keep removing every item of importance until there is no reason for disagreement, then we live only as robots. If we live as robots, what’s the point? So, the solution isn’t to eliminate the things we fight over, but to find a way to live with these disagreements and be respectful of each other’s views and beliefs, even if we disagree. This is the foundation of things such as the freedom of speech or the freedom of religion. It doesn’t mean “freedom to only say things I agree with or would say myself” or “freedom to practice only my religion or to be only sinless”.

    Nonetheless, I agree with you. As crime grows, the solution is not to grow police… because, crime grows again, and police grows again, and this cycle keeps repeating until the Police State becomes absolute, and we are all prisoners. However, true criminals (those who have a complete disgregard for the lives or rights of others) do exist, and sometimes just saying “learn to protect yourself” isn’t good enough. What if someone is sneaking into people’s homes while they sleep and killing them before they wake up? “Install a security system.” What if this person is finding a way to thwart the security system? “Have your neighbor stay awake and watch your home while you sleep, then you can alternate roles with your neighbor, until the killer is caught.” What if your neighbor cannot afford to not sleep on a given night, because he needs his rest to do his job? “Pay your neighbor for his services.” Wouldn’t your neighbor also have to pay you when you watch his home, then it evens out and the neighbor is still out a night’s sleep. Your job might be more flexible, but his requires proper sleep through the night as he is required to start his job early in the morning and be fully aware. “Gather multiple neighbor’s together and everyone can pitch in a small amount of money. This money to go towards two volunteers who decide to play the ‘lookout’ role on alternating nights.” Sounds like a plan! Well, except for if one of the two neighbors who was paid to be a “lookout” decides to sneak into one of the houses and steal items from it. Oh no, a corrupt cop! Down with the system? Or maybe you just need to replace that neighbor with a more trusting one? Can’t trust any neighbors? Well, I guess we’re all S.O.L. then, eh?

    I do think a solution to this problem is to stop criminalizing sins and to stick to only using laws to protect the rights we can all agree need to be protected. Is someone doing drugs? So? That’s their issue to deal with. Let the cops focus on people who are breaking into the homes of others or who is stealing cars. I think the reason the police force keeps getting bigger is not necessarily because more and more people are turning to crimes, it’s because more and more actions are being called crimes. One day, you won’t be able to pass gas without breaking several laws.

    “Small government with self-reliant moral well-armed people is the freest form of government.”

    So you have a solution to make sure every person in America is self-reliant and moral and well-armed? Would you create a law which requires such “education”? Those who flunk their education are thrown into prison? Those who refuse to buy a weapon are thrown into prison? Those who sin are thrown into prison? It sounds to me like everyone would either be in prison, or they’d complain about how this new system forces people into a system of self-reliance education (brainwashing) and everyone is recruited into this system’s police force (forced to wield weapons and use them when deemed appropriate according to the system). If wielding weapons is optional, being self-reliant is optional, and morality is not enforced under fear of punishment, you really wouldn’t end up with self-reliant, moral, and well-armed people.

    So, I agree with you. The government is large because the majority of people are NOT self reliant, are NOT moral, and are NOT well-armed. However, I don’t think shrinking the government will magically make people more self-reliant, moral, and well-armed. Instead, I believe that teaching people to be more self-reliant, to be moral, and to learn to protect themselves properly is the truest way to shrink the government. Make the systems of the government less necessary and they will go bankrupt. The problem is, while we might try to instill these values in our children, we may very well be outnumbered by those who don’t or those who influence our children once they enter adulthood. So, the only way to be sure the majority of children do have these values instilled is to do so through the system of education, whether private education or public education or churches. So, you either create the largest private education institution that has ever been seen and make it more successful than the public system, or you petition to have the public system changed and accept the fact that a government run system might be our only chance. Of course, teaching kids to be moral is not the same as imposing religion. While religion may lead to morality, morality (at least in terms of treating others) is not impossible without religion. Likewise, people of religion can also be immoral. So, the solution does not involve getting religion into schools, but teaching moral principles that everyone can agree with, even Atheists. Leave religion up to families and churches and communities to teach. Do you agree or disagree?

    “A nation that voluntarily universally practiced: ‘Love thy neighbor as they self’ would be the freest nation on earth.”
    “If someone shows respect to a Cop today it is like showing respect to a lion. It really does not matter if the lion is Satanic or not.”

    So, should we love thy neighbor as thy self, or should we avoid showing respect to one another? I believe love and respect go hand in hand. I don’t believe “neighbor” in that context only meant “the person who owns the property adjacent to your own property”. It meant to love your fellow human beings, even if those fellow human beings happen to be lions. You can be prepared to deal with the lion, but it does not mean you should provoke the lion simply for the sake of being a lion.

    “One is being well armed and that the government must fear the people.”

    I agree. However, I believe the solution is not to keep doing more and more to make the government fear the people, because this will ultimately also instill fear in the people, who will petition the government to “do something”, making the government more powerful, and creating an endless cycle of a growing government. Don’t forget that “the government” IS “people”.

    Instead, the way is for each individual to fear the people and respect the IDEA of a government and that rules are created to be followed (to make sure, as an individual, you are programmed to be a part of the solution) and THEN to run for political positions and become a part of that government. If enough people did that, then the government would CONSIST of people who “fear the people” (which is one of the things the government should do). If you don’t respect the system, you won’t want any part of it. If you take no part of it, then you decide that “other people who you disagree with will be a part of it”, then you’re essentially voting for the very thing you claim you don’t want. You need to respect the idea of a government to decide to enter into that system. You need to be a part of that system to instill change.

    The problem is, the only people who have been running for government are people who don’t fear the people or who don’t really respect rules. Prior to entering the government, they break rules, think they are above rules, are convinced the rules they are breaking were created by the “wrong people” and that they are “the right ones to do the job”. They enter the government convinced that they must be right, and that they need to change the system from the inside out, fearing nothing. Then, once they’ve entered this system, they find “the people” complaining about everything they do. They tell the people, “these problems that exist are YOUR fault, and I’m here to fix it!”. Then, they start pulling strings and tweaking knobs and are convinced that THEY are the solution.

    So, if you can convince me that you can enter the system, then listen to me (and others), and will do our bidding, even when you disagree with us… then I’d absolutely vote for you. However, if you can’t convince me of this, or you you just tell me “I’d never run for government, the government is evil”… then you’re not really offering a solution.

  • ALL laws with punishments are about forcing people to be moral.

    Is theft immoral? Is fraud? Is child molestation? Is public nudity?

    Is sex in public? Is murder? Is public corruption? Is yelling fire in a theater?

    Is spreading a sexually transmitted disease to consenting partners?

    EVERY law is the enforcement of what society believes is necessary to maintain the level of morality they want and feel comfortable enforcing. YOu cannot name a law that has a punishment that was not written because someone thought is was wrong.

    The maxims of law are clear that law is the science of what is right and what is wrong.

    I agree on what a crime is. A person does not need to be physically injured.

    It is like disturbing the peace. But that is a two way street. A person CANNOT have his peace disturbed to the point it is a crime if the other person is exercising a right.

    If you SEE that I have a gun and that hurts your feelings because you feel you are endanger…too bad. I have the right to have a weapon to defend myself.

    If say something you do not like or it hurts your feelings that is not a crime because I have the right of freedom of speech.

    If you feel my religion is dangerous to you. To bad.

    If you do not like the people I associate with…To bad.

    That is why we have Constitutional protections. Cops would abuse the disturbing the peace laws if we did not. This is why Cops need to be better trained.

    I do not know of any business that requires you to take an oath to support the USA Constitution and their State Constitution but if there was such a Corporation/business and the business was working against those documents, then yes, that person would be supporting corruption.

    If the person hired could know that the company was corrupt and still worked for the Corporation then again…yes. They would be corrupt. I am not employed by corporations because I believe that 90% are corrupt.

    I do not pay income taxes or have a Socialist Security Number because those things are corrupt. I live my beliefs and they have high costs. All I expect of others to to do the same, even if they disagree with me.

    A person that sticks his face in the mud gets dirty. A person that hires a person whose friend put his face in the mud will not get dirty unless he has a direct association with individual that put his face in the mud. No one can know of every evil or stop it or refuse to associate with the sinner. The key is what you do in your personal life to stop the corruption of the government you are responsible for. In doing so a person works for liberty. It is not only what you refuse to do but what you do that decides your level of morality.

    I believe that adultery is a sin that causes more damage to society than any theft or manslaughter or battery. I believe it should indeed be punished although I do not believe in prisons as punishment.

    And a sovereign of We the People has the RIGHT to declare war on any other sovereign and then accept the consequences. So if he feels that abortion is murder and has to stop it in fear of his eternal welfare then he has the duty to stop it by declaring war on those that commit what HE considers to be murder. Then he has to deal with the consequences of losing that war. That is what the Declaration is clear about. All men are created equal and are sovereigns without subjects.

    How many abortion doctors do you think would stay in the business if the anti-Abortionsits would act upon what they CLAIM are their deeply held beliefs? Naturally there are costs in any war. Even paperwork wars have costs.

    The problem of crime can be stopped with a well armed and trained populous. Individual responsibility is the key.

    My brother used to ask: How many police would it take to enforce liberty on a universally corrupt nation? Naturally that is impossible. You must have a people that are moral and responsible. If not then you cannot have liberty. As Americans become more and more corrupt then the police, that must come out of the public, are already more corrupt than a Rookie Cop in 1950 AD.

    And video can take the place of the neighborhood watch. No need for the corrupt neighbor to keep watch.

    I agree with you about drugs. I support total legalization of all drugs and hope that drug addicts take over doses. I oppose socialism including in medical assistance. Yes I am heartless because people that are irresponsible need to die off naturally. Natural selection is a good thing.

    If people would be responsible for themselves people would not be breaking into homes because it would be too dangerous to break into a home because people would shoot intruders. More guns. Less Crime. Trained well armed populous and even less crime. Less crime, less need for police.

    I would create a system where if you choose not to be well trained and armed then you do not get to vote. Simple system. Soon people that support responsible well armed people will be running things and not people getting checks and welfare and benefits from the government. But I need not force this on anyone. Natural selection and Hyperinflation will essentially set this into motion soon. The crash is coming. Social Security will end. Welfare, unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid, Food stamps will end because their will be no one to pay it. Natural selection.

    The statement is love they neighbor AS THY SELF. When I am evil I hate myself. I know I am in need of repentance. If I was stopped by a Cop while actually committing a crime I would gladly pay the price. If a Cop is evil I will love them like I love myself when I am evil. Not at all.

    If I broke into a neighbors home I would not be angry with the person for shooting me. I believe in honesty and am not a hypocrite.

    It all boils down to the Strawberry Ice cream principle. If a people believe that having or not having Strawberry Ice Cream will make then safe and happy then they will make laws on way or the other about Strawberry Ice Cream. There is no political plan that will make everyone happy and safe. That is why people must have the right to freely assemble ELSEWHERE.

    Small local government is where law on Strawberry Ice Cream work. Not on a Federal level. Compromise will not make everyone happy or safe.

    The fact of the matter is this: People do what they want to do. People think they don’t do what they want to do but they do because they would rather be doing what they are doing than what it takes to change the situation.

    Many people complain about Cops. Some people do things about Cops. Both are doing what they want to do.

    Some people join the military. Some people do not. Some people pay income taxes because they WANT TO. Other do not pay, like me, because they do not want to.

    Even most prisoners do what they want to do because they do not want to be doing something else. Going to solitary confinement is not what they want to do so they don’t punch their guards.

    There is a huge difference between a prisoner and a voluntary slave. Most Americans are either prisoners or voluntary slaves. Currently I am neither but I am a rare bird.

    Since I do not believe that the 17th Amendment was actually ratified I do not support or believe that most laws are even laws. I fear God so I do not harm others. I still work within the system but I now put more emphasis on self-preservation. I know my enemies and I keep them away from me but I am far more prepared than in the past to del with them so that if anyone is hurt it will not be me or my family, including in court.

    I believe that the ONLY way for the system to be corrected is to re-boot. That will occur after hyperinflation hits and those that trusted in Socialism and not God DIE. Natural selection is coming to city near you.

    And I am no longer asking for your vote. I am not running for office. It will do not good to be elected by people that love socialism. They love Socialist Security and Drivers licenses and business licenses and welfare and food stamps and government grants and etc. etc.

    Nope. I am now just waiting for the inevitable to occur. Hyperinflation followed by anarchy and civil war. Then like a Phoenix those hand selected by God will start again. History repeats and it will. Natural selection is about to get very ugly.

  • My third email to:,,,,,

    Hey y’all,

    Hope you’re having a good day.

    Mr. Guilbault, just wanted to let you know that despite the passage of 11 days since your response to me, I have yet to receive any communication from your colleague Mr. Magnan.

    On another note, just wanted to make sure you saw the most-recent Penn Point by Penn Jillette entitled “Police VIOLATE Protesters in My Hometown” (, in which he’s quoted as saying:

    * “. . . where the colonists fought for the kind of freedom that is being pissed away in my hometown of Greenfield, MA”
    * “They’ve done something really really wrong in arresting those guys”

    He also called the use of wiretapping laws “bizarre”.

    I don’t pretend to claim that Penn, Adam or I have extensive knowledge in the legalese used by your courts. It doesn’t make sense to me that one needs to pay for and attend three years of school to know what’s right and what’s wrong. As Adam notes on his recent post about Penn’s video, he [Penn] “at the end sides with us, like most logical people.”

    With this in mind, and considering that the coverage about our arrests (thanks to the actions of Todd M. Dodge and his colleagues) may only increase, I’m interested to learn what actions you, Mr. Martin and Mr. Guilbaultd, will take to remedy the situation and ensure it won’t happen to others in the future.

    Thanks for your time. Looking forward to hearing from you.


  • Pete Eyre

    Below is the response I received to the email above from Greenfield’s Mr. Martin. My response to him is immediately below.


    Mr. Eyre,

    I am awaiting a report from a senior investigating officer. When the report is presented to me via the Public Safety Committee, I would like to discuss the contents with you. Actually, if you are in Greenfield in the near future, call and we can meet.

    I thank you for the updates relative to this incident.

    Bill Martin


    Thanks for the response Mr. Martin.

    Unless things change, I won’t be in Greenfield until July 29th to accompany my colleague Adam Mueller for his pre-trial hearing.

    If you receive the report from the Public Safety Committee before that date and wish to have a conversation, please let me know. Again, as my phone is still being held be the Greenfield PD any communication we have would have to be done in-person or via email.


  • Keep plugging guys.

    It took me 5 years to win one appeal I had.

  • …what the bloody hell!?
    I guess people only have rights AFTER they’ve been convicted.

    I’ve been sitting here trying to think of something else to say, but I honestly can’t think after reading this.

    It’s a damn shame guys and (even though I definitely do not know you) I’m sorry you had to go through that.

  • Doug Elfving

    I’ve worked with law enforcement as a consultant for many years and have respect for the ethical and honest people that do the job. There are bad apples in any group and sadly this is true with law enforcement right now more often than it should be.

    To any of you in law enforcement I would encourage you to join and support where we reassert the oath that you’ve taken (or any oath that you’ve taken in the past) to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. —

    Also a handy piece of law if you encounter any public official abusing your person or your constutional rights is “18 USC Sec 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law”. This is a very powerful tool to fight back against anyone that would abuse their official position in any way. This law has teeth in the form of jail time and significant monetary fines upon conviction. If the act is committed with the use of violence or with a weapon then the punishment can be as high as life in prison. If you’re in law enforcement this should be a good motivator to think about your actions in every situation where you might be infringing on a citizen’s constitutionally protected rights.

  • Doug Elfving

    Here is the actual text of

    TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

    Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

  • Pingback: NA-219-2010-07-21 « No Agenda Show Notes()

  • Waldo

    shesh… all you had to do was disable sound recording. The differance between their recording and yours is sound.if you were filming without sound, then you are not recording voice, which isn’tvwitetapping, and there is no issue. of course a lip reader could transcribe the conversation so you will end up in the same place without violating the law… know tue laws, then you can use them to your advantage…

  • TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 cannot be enforced by the average person. You have to BEG the Feds (FBI) to enforce it and frankly they don’t care because they need to stop all the terrorists first. Well Cops are terrorists that kill more people on the average year than Arab terrorists do.

    No Arab terrorist has murdered anyone in Las Vegas in the last two years but Cops sure have murdered people.

    42 USC section 1983 can be used to go after the scum Cops that are encouraged to be ignorant thugs and murder people and abuse people and rap on the Constitution because they are taught to do so in MOST if not all major cities.

    1000 cases a month should be fled against Cops but people are afraid to do so in most cases or are too ignorant to know what to do because they attended government schools that do not teach them to fight tyranny but to be obedient to tyranny.

    I am in Las Vegas. Cops just murdered two men in separate incident here in the last month. One was a West Point grad and had a Masters from Duke. His crime? He had a permit to carry a pistol and did so. Cop cannot allow such behavior so they slaughtered him in a COSTCO parking lot. Naturally all video has disappeared.

    The other guy had his door kicked in because the Cop LIED on the affidavit for the warrant. Then they shot the unarmed man that was on his knees in his own bathroom in the face. A Few days later they intimidated his mother and hassled his brother. Cops are criminals. ALL
    OF THEM. Just like all Nazis were criminals because THEY WERE NAZIS. Being a good Cop helps the bad Cops have more respect. Being a Cop helps their evil just like being a good man and a NAZI helped Hitler. Cops CANNOT be good men because they are Cops.

    Cops in Vegas are TRAINED to lie and cover-up. They are not punished but protected for doing these things. Not one of them has read the Nevada Constitution and they only train their PIG COPS about the 4th Amendment and they do not even include the additional restrictions upon their authority by the Nevada laws. They ignore those laws. They ignore the First Amendment and violate it DAILY.

    They do not know the gun laws in Nevada and as the Sheriff just said: Cops are trained to shoot first and investigate later.

    They are TAUGHT to be bad apples.

    I have deposed 7 Cops in the last two years and they were all ignorant criminals with badges. Don’t tell me that there are just a few bad apples.
    NAZI = COP

    The Barrel is ROTTEN.

  • Brandon

    Wow. Everything the officers did was the absolute WRONG thing. The icing on the cake was how they ransacked the RV. Im sure with the “legal” excuse of “searching for illegal substances” or some BS like that. I love what this org. is doing. Keep those f*&kers accountable.
    O yeah… we have plenty of crooked cops here in Hollywood Florida! My buddy was threatened to be arrested after parking on his OWN PROPERTY!!!

  • Pingback: Police violence caught on tape. Videographers go to jail.()

  • Pingback: Judge Throws Out Charges Against Anthony Graber  | Cop Block()

  • Mike

    Do any of you people have jobs and/or even pay taxes ?

  • I don’t currently have a job because I am recovering from being crippled by the Cops we called when my wife was attacked by a violent Pit Bull. I used to be a General Contractor but I can never do that again because of what the Cops did to me because they cared more about their own safety than their obligation to follow Constitution.

    The LV METRO Cops just murdered another man here in Las Vegas because he had a cane.

    And I have not filed a voluntary income tax return in over 32 years. I have letters from the IRS that I am not required to file a return. Don’t you have such letters? Why not? Only a slave pays these voluntary income taxes.

    Are you a voluntary tax slave? Why have you not learned how to be a free man? Why will you remain a voluntary slave?

  • Pingback: A Special Thanks from Liberty On Tour’s Pete & Adam |

  • Chris, Adam, Pete…et al.

    First, I’m sorry other battles pulled me away from contributing to Cop Block, but we all have talents best devoted where needed. All I can say is, bravo to all the efforts you guys put forth in walking the walk. You have my utmost admiration and respect. You guys are spiritual warriors pursuing peace and tolerance.

    I don’t take enough time to bestow props to the guys in the trenches, but following this story, and others, you have nothing to fear.

    @Chris, good on-point response to the taxation “do you tithe to your master” question. 32 years! Man, you’ve got me beat by over 15 years. Kudos, brother.

    Love and respect to all the Cop Blockers and pursuers of peaceful pursuits. I avail myself to help in any way possible. Thanks for being there. For all I like to think I am with resolve, principle, and determination… you guys never cease to make me say, “I can do more”.

    Mark McCoy

  • Welcome the small but growing club of sovereign Citizens that realize that the income tax is a fraud and a religion.

    We have had a huge breakthrough in Nevada on fighting traffic tickets. We have discovered that the traffic courts, cops DAs and CAs are all violating Nevada law. The peaceful fight is under way.

  • Pingback: We’re Back but Where’s the Accountability? | liberty on tour()

  • Pingback: Update: Free State Friendship Tour – Greenfield, MA | liberty on tour()

  • Pingback: Greenfield Police Have No Comment Or Accountability | liberty on tour()

  • Jeopardy

    Why do you keep sending emails to people at That’s in Indiana!! Did you mean Greenfield’s local newspaper The RECORDER? If you meant to send emails to them, there’s no way they got them.

  • stuckinGreenfield

    I just turned on the local access channel for Greenfield and this video is playing on it. Keep up the GREAT work guys. Cops with a power trip are ubreal.

  • Dave

    I support this type of action. I am proud of these young men. They show temerity and strength of character. It is not easy to do what they are doing but it must be done. I see nothing wrong with videoing in a public building. It is interesting that these young men told the corrections officials to show them the law or even a written policy of no videotaping and the only answers they got from the corrections officers and police were “because we said so.” Because the cops could not show why videoing inside the lobby was illegal they had to trump up illegal wiretapping charges against them. The judge even gets to the matter where he agrees that secrecy was required for the wiretapping charges to stick and that element was not there. I would be interested to know if these young men were charged with trespassing because that is what the cop said they were doing. God Bless these young men for testing and challenging authority, putting their necks on the line and standing up for liberty. There are too many lies coming from authority and we need more people like these young men to stand up and say, “the emperor has no clothes.” God be with you.

  • Ward

    Good luck monday…..I have to work otherwise i would be there. I have your back 100% GPD abuses power, abuses the law, and abuses humans treating them like scum. They need to be shown how to PROTECT AND SERVER not whatever the hell they are doing now! Along side GPD is the Recorder which then lies for GPD(reporting whatever GPD tells them instead of doing Journalistic Reasearch themselves)getting the town to belive what ever thay may say in the papper which sometimes is exagrated alot. I hope you win your case and blow up GPD/Recorder’s scheme’s. Its really a disgrace. GOOD LUCK MONDAY!

  • Ward

    Good luck monday…..I have to work otherwise i would be there. I have your back 100% GPD abuses power, abuses the law, and abuses humans treating them like scum. They need to be shown how to PROTECT AND SERVE not whatever the hell they are doing now! Along side GPD is the Recorder which then lies for GPD(reporting whatever GPD tells them instead of doing Journalistic Reasearch themselves)getting the town to belive what ever thay may say in the papper which sometimes is exagrated alot. I hope you win your case and blow up GPD/Recorder’s scheme’s. Its really a disgrace. GOOD LUCK MONDAY!

  • Pingback: Sunday Links | The Agitator()

  • mdb

    I oppose the MA law and arrest of these 2, but Adam – drop the fucking attitude – speeding and a DUI are victimless only because you were lucky. One day, if you have a child and some asshole goes flying down your road at an excessive speed, you will understand. Shitheads like you only hurt the cause.

  • Pingback: Greenfield, MA Police/ The State vs. Ademo & Pete Eyre | Nate Cox's Web blog()

  • Pingback: Solidarity *Today* with Pete Eyre and Ademo Freeman | Arm your Mind for Liberty()

  • Pingback: Cop is Issued a Peace Ticket()

  • Highlander

    For the record, since Rosa Parks was mentioned 12 months ago on this comment thread, her act of protest on a Montgomery bus was a carefully planned action conceived by some of the best minds in the civil rights movement at the time. The consequences of her action, including the resulting bus boycott, were all carefully considered and discussed by a number of thoughtful individuals from the movement before Rosa Parks ever set foot on that bus.

    No human is an island, very rarely did an action spark a revolution without groundwork. Organizing is more than videotaping hijinks and posting it online. Y’all need to build capacity and you need to organize your base. Also, it wouldn’t hurt to get a little color in your organization, considering which folks you are likely to have the most resonance with on the subject of police abuse.

  • Pingback: Complete Playlist of Pete & Ademo’s Greenfield, MA Trial()

  • Pingback: Talley.TV Livestream Archive of Pete & Ademo’s Trial in Greenfield, MA - Free Keene()

  • Pingback: Livestream Archive of Pete & Ademo’s Trial in Greenfield, MA()

  • Steve Michaels

    When is the Civil Suit?

  • Robert
  • Robert
  • Pingback: NSP – Jul 3, 2010 – Guest: Calvin |

  • More good news.

  • Dave

    Pete and Ademo, I believe you guys need to look at what happened recently in the civil rights suit of Simon Glik against the Boston Police, the individual arresting officers, and the City of Boston. In an interlocutory appeal, the First Circuit just ruled that video taping officers with a cell phone camera in the performance of an arrest is a 1st amendment protected right. I urge you guys to study this case and get a good civil rights lawyer to take your case (under 42 USC 1983) against the cop that arrested you and make him pay.

  • Pingback: Greenfield police charge LOT’s Beau Davis with “wiretapping” |

  • you’re in reality a just right webmaster. The site loading speed is amazing. It seems that you’re doing any unique trick. Moreover, The contents are masterwork. you have done a excellent job on this matter!

  • It?s really a great and useful piece of info. I?m happy that you just shared this helpful info with us. Please stay us informed like this. Thanks for sharing.

  • mark

    I have been exploring for a bit for any high quality articles or blog posts on this kind of space . Exploring in Yahoo I finally stumbled upon this site. Studying this info So i’m satisfied to show that I’ve an incredibly just right uncanny feeling I discovered exactly what I needed. I so much indisputably will make certain to don?t omit this website and give it a glance regularly.

  • Toshiko Carino

    Truly informative bless you, I reckon your trusty audience may want a whole lot more posts such as this keep up the good content.

  • Excellent put up, very informative. I’m wondering why the other specialists of this sector do not realize this. You should continue your writing. I am sure, you’ve a huge readers’ base already!|What’s Happening i am new to this, I stumbled upon this I have found It positively helpful and it has aided me out loads. I am hoping to contribute & assist other customers like its aided me. Good job.

  • Lazaro Witsell

    Many years back when reading from your cellphone is not possible, I barely read on the go, but nowadays I came across my own coming back for more out of your writings and postings, and thanks to development in technological know-how I will do this everyday whilst I travel.

  • You’re really a just right webmaster. The site loading speed is amazing. It seems that you are doing any distinctive trick. In addition, The contents are masterwork. you’ve performed a great job in this topic!

  • Pingback: MA's Wiretapping Statute Targeted by Coalition of Free Speech Advocates | Cop Block()

  • You guys are very retarded… If you do not like the system why not try to something a little more productive and become a police officer yourselves? Apparently you know exactly all the correct moves!!!

  • Kate

    I just want to say I applaud you guys. I too have had encounters with the GPD and unjustly arrested. More than once. One time it was because I asked the officer his name and badge number because he was saying to my friend “You just got out of detox, why are you drinking?” That is confidental and even if he knew it, he had no right stating that in front of the rest of the people, so I asked his name and badge number. He then stated “You are to leave the premises.” I said “Oh trust me, I am leaving but as a citizen I have the right to have your name and badge number before I go.” He then stated “Are you not going to obey and leave then?” I said, “I AM going to leave but I need your name and badge number.” He then roughly spun me around and twisted my arms while handcuffing me saying I was under arrest for trespassing. WTF?? I hadn’t even left the area yet and there was no trespassing order. I was arrested and then at the station the cops tried to make me undress in the hallway where there was cameras because “There were no cells left to use.” I stood my ground and said I know my rights well enough that you can not make me take my clothes off in a hallway in front of a male officer. They then called in a female officer and suddenly there was a cell available.. They are corrupt and abuse their power to the fullest. And LOVE to humiliate citizens at every opportunity. Over the years it has gotten much worse.

  • Pingback: Injustice System-related content, by Pete Eyre | Cop Block()



  • Pingback: Cop Block founder faces 21 years for attempting accountability | Indie Register()

  • Pingback: Information longs to be free, but statists gonna state — The Libertarian Standard()

  • have you been

    I located some information about hosting online that you might find an interest about.

  • Hqduq Wilson nCode Racquets
    The Prince has also criticised 锟斤拷these journalists… who poke their noses -everywhere锟斤拷.A year ago this weekend I was heading off to cover the revolution.The Arab Spring had begun, historic change was in the air and I found Cairo锟斤拷s Tahrir Square a seething, packed, exuberant focus for the Egyptian uprising.锟斤拷Down with Mubarak,锟斤拷 they yelled. 锟斤拷The President must go.锟斤拷Within a few stunning wee
    aQlpx Arcteryx Jackets Outlet
    came through from the living room to see what Peter was doing.锟斤拷I looked through the kitchen window into the garden and just saw Peter falling backwards. I didn锟斤拷t know what had happened, I thought he may have just slipped or something but I went out to see if he was ok.锟斤拷When I got to him, it was dreadful. He was in a bad state. There was blood and he had a huge cut across his neck. It was hor
    mnKkx 锘縲
    锟斤拷discussion (7)18Housey-housey (5)21Pixie (5)22Controlled intake of food (4)You can do today’s quiz crossword in two ways. Either print out the file below and fill it in with a pen, or click on our special link to let you fill in the grid online.Once you have downloaded the crossword, you don’t have to be online to complete it.Click here to play today’s quiz crossword puzzle onlineACROSS?1Amand
    nptWw g star Mens Covert Vest
    unch an attack or support an Israeli one.These are dangerous days. And difficult times too, politically, for a President anxious to avoid war.?Is Engelbert Humperdinck the Prime Minister’s revenge on Europe?There are two ways to view the choice of Engelbert Humperdinck as Britain锟斤拷s representative in this year锟斤拷s Eurovision Song Contest.It锟斤拷s either David Cameron锟斤拷s revenge on a Europe he锟斤拷s in

  • Qmoih
    bde chart lser 1a og 1b, fordi hjre p alexs heelsis zach,wilson sagde.bde fik god spilletid i sidste sson, bde leg sikkerhed samt, og er et godt supplement til de enkelte other.i ‘ve vret imponeret over, hvordan zach kaster bolden. saffo isnot helt s hj, men en dobbelt trussel.uanset hvor pierre desir linet op i sine tre ssoner som askill afspiller til spartanerne, forsvar skulle redegre for him.desir udjvnet en stjernespkket prep karriere spiller wide receiver sidste yearand frte spartanerne med ni touchdowns.seniors jeremy visor og jordan stevens vil dele tid i theone-back, fire-wide receiver lovovertrdelse spartanerne anstte. wilsonlikes begge backs ‘evne til at finde smmene og skre er begejstrede for at have dem, fordi de vil hjlpe thepassing spil,wilson said.garner wilson forventes at erstatte desir store-play ability.wilson fik i midtvejs gennem sidste sson, har gode hnder og hastighed, og det er en trussel ned sidelinjen. han sluttede sig bredt zachdegrande, en junior i hans frste varsity sson, der kan alsostretch feltet lodret. den slot modtagere er senior tyshearon og junior micah alsobrook, som fordobles som kicker andpunter h
    ang rkke af all-statecaliber fangere og miste orf ydelser skubber golliver behindthe plade. ikke alene var orf bundsolid defensivt, men han var vikingerne ‘bedste hitter sidste r: 0,495, 12 ekstra-base hits, 21 rbis.golliver, en junior, slet 0,278 i 18 at-flagermus. alex syning willbackup golliver p catcher. han vil vre vores bedste hitter,perkins sagde om golliver.heswings fra venstre side, har en super arm.senior alex schaper (6-fods-3) og junior jake baumgartner willsplit tid ved frste base. perkins sagde schaper var en af thehardest arbejdere p holdet og baumgartner solide bat vil makehim et must at passe ind i lineup.second base er en position vikingerne har en starter ryg assenior tim holmes afkast. holmes (6-2) har god rkkevidde p defenseand perkins sagde hans lovovertrdelse br forbedre dette forr. holmes hadnine hits i 36 at-flagermus sidste r. josh schneider vil bakke upholmes ved anden, pitch og spille i outfield.james allen gemt en masse hits og krer spille shortstop overthe r for vikingerne. allen var andet i batting (0,441), frst i rbis (34) og anden i home runs (5). nick armstrong hasa magert, opretstende profil og ser den del af en mar
    kpHhx Alexander Wang Sko
    seahawkswhen: 03:05 linje: bears ved 2.synopsis – seattle er sandsynligt, at g med seneca wallace p qbbecause matt hasselbeck har et brkket ribben. chicago hber at f morefrom rb matt forte, der har krt for blot 84 vrfter i 38carries.bears 17 seahawks 16.saints at billswhen: 03:05 linje: saints ved 6.synopsis – new orleans ‘drew brees har 9 td passerer allerede andfigures at kaste en masse, fordi rbs er slet op. buffalo willtry at holde op med trent edwards fyring til terrell owens og leeevans.saints 38 regninger 30dolphins at chargerswhen: 15:15 linje: chargers med 5 1/2.synopsis – miami viste i sidste uge, at det kan kontrollere bolden, men ikke resultatet, da indy vandt trods af at have mindre end 15 minutesof besiddelse af. san diego er igen minus rb ladainian tomlinson (ankel) og den offensive linje er slet up.chargers 20, delfiner 16.steelers at bengalswhen: 15:15 linie: steelers med 3 1/2.synopsis – cincy er 1-1 til dels takket vre genopstet cedricbenson, whoh lb for 141 yards i oprevet win sidste uge i green bay.but held krer vs pittsburgh forsvar, som giver upjust 65 yards et spil p jorden. steelers vil vre gal afterlosing sidste week.steelers 20, bengals 1
    cjbIy Abercrombie Danmark
    raftig vkst dating backdecades.a 2006 rapport fra economic development center i st. charlescounty viser, at den gennemsnitlige salgspris for et nyt hjem i st.charles amt i 2005 var nsten $ 245,000. den samme rapport showsthat huset boligbyrdeindeks – direkte relateret til thepercentage af husstandsindkomsten brugt p boliger – var 2,8. arating over 3,0 betyder boligen betragtes er p risethose der forvalter programmerne i kommuner throughoutthe county siger det var en kamp i starten at udbrede theirmessage at disse midler var til rdighed. siden da, selvom o’fallon community development block grant administrator carolo’mara sagde, at hun har set interesse hjdepunkt.jeg har haft tre opkald siden sidste fredag,sagde hun march 26, vurderer, at hun modtager 20 opkald en month.for 2007 , 29 familier fra hele amtet modtog $ 266,000 fra programmer, der forvaltes i hele amtet, iflge darlene rich, st. louis county programmer coordinatorand et hus konsortium official.that ‘s en markant stigning fra 2006, hvor der kun 86,000 dollars blev brugt i st. charles county , som udgjorde 11 homepurchases.the udbetalinger i hele amtet i 2007 belb sig til sevenhome kb i st;u=110360;u=1491098

  • Priscila Rollman

    I am so thrilled I found your site. I really found you by accident, while I was browsing on Yahoo for something else. Anyways I am here now and would just like to say thank you for a informative post and an all round inspiring blog. (I also like the theme/design), I don’t have time to read through it all at the moment, but I have added your website to my favorites, so when I have time I will be back to read more. Please do keep up the awesome job!

  • KingE

    Nice work!

  • Eric Peloquin

    Nicely done! I live about 35 miles south of Greenfield, in Chicopee , MA. We are in Greenfield frequently because we own a camp off the Mohawk Trail. We go to Greenfield for groceries, to eat and each July for the fireworks at Beacon Field. I have seen police misconduct like this reported from all over. It is so sad to see it from right here in a town I enjoy visiting. Unfortunately, the thuggery of the police knows no bounds.
    You should both be very proud! You stood up for freedom in the face of tyranny! Some may say that ‘tyranny’ is a harsh word, but it means “arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power” which is exactly what we have happening in our country. I am surely no anarchist by any stretch, but i do believe that “law enforcement” is largely out of control in this country!
    Great, great job to both of you!