GreenfieldPD and Brad Jardis Face Off in Comments Section

Brad Jardis gives his response to “GreenfieldPD” who’s been spending a lot of time commenting on lately. I hope he’s learning something and takes it back to share with the other LEOs.  It’s interesting to see this current cop and former cop discuss the meaning of policing as their views of the same job are rather different.

GreenfieldPD is block quoted where Brad J is not.

“Ok, Looks like I may have upset some people. Sorry it took so long to respond but I was on vacation with the family for the 4th.”

Thank you for being willing to continue the dialog here.

“Absolutely, police are held accountable. I know I can not do a lot of the same stuff you are allowed to do. If I were to get caught doing many of the things many people do I would be repremanded at work.”

This statement is a bunch of bull. A detective I used to work with got into a fight down on Hampton Beach in Hampton, NH…. and my former Lieutenant covered it up. The detective bragged about it. The assault was witnessed by a former CI that the detective burned (went around and told everyone he was a snitch) and the CI reported it to the cops. The cops contacted my former department to investigate. Poof…. nothing happened.

“What would you suggets someone do if they catch someone breaking into their house?”

Use whatever force they deem appropriate to protect themselves and their property… and call their private protection agency to take the person into custody for violating their property rights.

“A jail is not a public space. It is a secure facility that allows you to go there to bail your friends out. Even if its not a law, it may just be a facility rule. One that due to security breaches, must be followed. How would you feel if your tape gave someone the insight into how they could breach security and someone broke out and harmed someone. Would that be your responsibility?”

Your argument here is irrelevant. NOWHERE in the US Constitution does it say that rights can be attenuated. The 1st Amendment says that NO law shall be made to interfere with the freedom of the press. Adam and Pete are members of the press, specifically (The 14th Amendment incorporates the 1st Amendment to the states, by the way.)

If a law enforcement officer was really going to honor their oath, they would have to respect that people have the freedom to do what Adam and Pete did. Since we both know that most cops don’t even know (or give a flying fuck about) what the Constitution says, rights are violated every day.

“Basically the police messed up with the RV. No they do not have the right. People are humans, they make mistakes. Although they should be held accountable for their mistakes just like anyone, they do make mistakes. Not that the rv thing was a mistake. It was your a pain in my ass so I am going to be one in yours. Would I have handled it that way? No! but I understand why they did.”

This statement makes me believe you are NOT a Greenfield police officer. There is no way an active member of that force would make a statement here on a public forum where we all know the Greenfield PD is reading.

If Adam and Pete file a civil suit, which I hope they do, finding out who you are would be fairly easy with subpoenas. Your statement that the police were acting illegally/improperly would shoot their claim of “Qualified Immunity” right out of the water. I disbelieve you are who you say you are.

“I think I do my job very well. I am also very understanding. But when I am trying to do my job and someone starts demanding I give them their rights, it just gets annoying. I know your rights, I am not beating you, I am not torturing you, Im doing my job and I am proud to do it.”

You obviously DO NOT know what individuals’ rights are as you have proven yourself to not understand the very 1st Amendment of the document you allege you are sworn to defend. Your alleged oath is to uphold the United States and Massachusetts Constitutions…. and the federal one says that NO LAW can be passed which infringes on the right of the press.

“Im doing my job and I am proud to do it. I love it when someone is having a problem and I can help them. It makes me feel goot that I was able to help someone.”

The police do FAR MORE to hurt people than to help. If you claim otherwise, you’re full of bull. I was a cop for eleven years.

“I get to say, I feel good because I was able to help that person or take that druggie off the street so he does not break into anyone elses house to steal to buy more drugs.”

Your logic is tragically flawed. If you REALLY wanted to make communities safer you would support ending the “War on Drugs.” Do you? The “War on Drugs” is precisely why “druggies” are breaking into people’s homes to steal to buy more drugs… they are not doing it because they are high on drugs, they’re doing it because they are addicted to a prohibited product.

You are making the community far less safe if you support and enforce the “War on Drugs.” Again, another reason why I had to quit my former job.

“You are free to put whatever you want into your body. Weed, coke, heroin, model glue, i could care less. “

No, people are not… and you are full of crap. How many people have you arrested for possessing these innocuous plants and substances? How many people will you continue to arrest for it?

Unless you declare right now unequivocally that you will never again arrest someone for possession of an “illegal” drug, you are full of crap.

“But when you drive, sell it to my kids or their friends, break in to someones house to get more, Ill be waiting.”

Driving dangerously and endangering/harming someone because of impairment on drugs is a real crime with a real victim. So is breaking into someone’s house to get money to buy more.

Selling drugs to someone is a victimless crime… and since you’ll be “waiting” – you clearly DO care about what someone puts in their body, as you’re willing to put someone in a cage for providing said substances to the person who wants them.

“As for use of force, if its me or you, getting hurt, it wont be me. Im going home so I can help another day.”

You are willing to use deadly force to enforce the most victimless laws… this you need to understand. Every single law, no matter how victimless or silly, is backed up by the fact that the government will kill you if you do not comply with it. Another reason why I had to quit my job.

“That is the principle that this country was founded on, not being able to carry a fuc*in gun.”

You’re once again proving you have no understanding of the Constitution or history. This country was INDEED founded on the principle of carrying a “fuc*in” gun. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with target practice or hunting. It was put in place by the Founding Fathers so that a tyrannical government could not enact tyranny on the people.

Being from Massachusetts I completely expect you to be indoctrinated to think otherwise… so I am not surprised. Whenever you enforce (again, I question whether or not you actually are a law enforcement officer) one of Massachusetts draconian gun laws… you are violating your oath to the United States Constitution. Why should you care though, right? You get paid.

“I completely disagree with the armed society being a safe society. Think of how many senseless killings there would be if more people had guns. People over react to a lot. Many would get shot out of fear of being shot. It would be crazy. Completely unrealistic. I have come across many people that have no business having a gun.”

Most of the people who have “no business having a gun” are the people who work in government. The amount of people who DO NOT work in government who absolutely would never use a firearm in an aggressive manner are completely dwarfed in comparison by the amount of people who work for the government who would use their guns (and do…) to hurt people.

YOU are the violent one here, not Adam and Pete. YOU are the one who is willing to use your firearm to ensure compliance with various words on paper that ban completely harmless activities. Adam and Pete are non-violent people… who would never do that to you. You need to look in the mirror and lose the cognitive dissidence.

You really need to watch the movie Equilibrium.

“No not all cops are trust worthy. Not all bankers and scientists and firemen and priests and teachers and prostitutes are trustworthy either. I do not get your point.”

You wouldn’t get it, would you?


Words on paper said it was okay at one time to use violence against a black person who was drinking out of a white water fountain… was THAT okay?

“You have no idea what my mindset is. Please do not be bumb enough to try and guess either. I am a very patient tolerant man.”

No, you’re not. If you really ARE a law enforcement officer, you are a person who believes that initiating violence to solve a non-violent problem is a virtiuous act. Your mindset is that it is okay to use violence against peaceful people… so long as a bunch of people write down words on paper that say it is okay.

I had the same mindset as you once. Once decent non-violent people like Adam and Pete showed me that I was a violent thug, I had no choice but to quit my job. You are a violent thug who, like me at one time, doesn’t realize it.

“If you get in my face telling me you have the right to do this and that and you are bothering others and disturbing their peace and quiet, I will ask you politely to stop. Probably a few times. Then you will get locked up for it.”

Locking someone up for asserting and exercising their Constitutional rights is a blantant violation of your (alleged) oath to defend the Constitution. You clearly don’t give a flip about that, though.

Everyone should know the oath to defend said document is a load of crap anyways. It is a feel-good PR trick, just like the “Law Enforcement Officer’s Code of Ethics.” Care to debate me on that one?

“No big deal. I will sleep fine knowing that the family taking a walk that specific day can do so without listening to your rants.”

Of course you would sleep fine. I used to sleep fine after using violence against peaceful people to lock them up for doing completely harmless acts. Then I realized how much of a violent thug I really was. Now I’m unemployed.

You may be making money… but I’m not hurting people.

“I hope I get the chance to pull you over some day and give you a pass on a ticket, or get to come to your house for an emergency and change your mind without you knowing who I am or me knowing who you are.”

Showing decency does not relieve you of your responsibility for your other aggressive actions.

Simply putting on a costume with a piece of metal on it does not mean you are no longer an individual human being with moral responsibilities to your fellow man.

“As for why I will not tell you who I am. You have not earned my respect enough. I am a private person and like to keep it that way. I do my jib and go home to my family knowing I made a difference.”

I’m sure police who arrested black people for drinking out of white water fountains, or the Nazis, or the US Marshals who enforced the Fugitive Slave Act went home thinking they made a difference…. when in reality all they were doing was using violence to hurt people.

“I have never stolen, beat, or wrongly went after someone.”

Every time you get paid you are stealing from people… with the threat of violence.

“I wear my uniform with pride.”

Your uniform does not make your violence against peaceful people a virtuous act. It makes it worse… as it uses public perception to justify actions that are absolutely immoral.

“Just because you disagree does not mean im wrong.”

Just because words are written down on paper authorizing you to be violent to peaceful people does NOT make YOU right. Or moral. Or a good person.

I deeply regret all the people I hurt… simply because words on paper and a majority of people thought it was okay. Might does NOT make right.

“It means you are in the United States and have that freedom. Try your antics just about anywhere else and see what happens. You will gladly come back here and say sorry and maybe a little thank you would be nice.”

Ah yes… The tyranny is less here, so kiss the ground and thank god for what you have.

There is no freedom in the United States. It is sad that you think there is.

“Again, keep up the good work, no one hates a dirty cop more than I do. DO it the right way and I will stand with you.”

You are a dirty cop, you know. There is no such thing as a “clean cop” when *all* cops initiate violence against peaceful people simply because words on paper say it is okay. Might does NOT make right.

I know my response to your response has been harsh… but I hope you will take it to heart. Think for yourself about what it is that you do. If you truly are a good person, a non-violent person, you’ll have no chance but to quit.

There are lots of police officers who are good people who simply do not understand that what they are doing is immoral. I didn’t. I learned… and I corrected my life. It has not been easy, but my soul feels much better.


Ademo Freeman

was born and raised in Wisconsin, traveled the country in a RV dubbed “MARV” and is an advocate of a voluntary society, where force is replaced with voluntary interactions. He’s partaken in projects such as, Motorhome Diaries, Liberty on Tour, Free Keene, Free Talk Live and is the Founder of

If you enjoy my work at, please, consider donating $1/month to the CopBlock Network or purchasing Gear from the store.

Find Ademo at these social networks:

  • Luthor

    “That is the principle that this country was founded on, not being able to carry a fuc*in gun.”

    Clearly, this cop failed History. The first battle of the Revolutionary War (you know, the one that started “this country”) occurred when the British government tried to take the peoples of Massachusetts’ guns. Massachusetts, for cripes sake!

    If someone held a gun to my face, and a bystander called 911, I would still have a gun in my face while I waited for the fat blue line to show up. It would only take an instant to blow me away, it takes the cops minutes to arrive. Logically, it’s better to have a gun and not need it than to need one and not have it.

    Maybe this guy should live in England if he wants people to be defenseless from thugs in or out of a uniform. I don’t really believe that, as I’m not a “love it or leave it” kinda guy, but he should at least think about how insanely dangerous that place became when they banned guns. Or how about the murder capitol of the world, Washington D.C.? Thank god they finally allowed people to preserve their lives.

  • Kudos to Brad Jardis on the clarity he offers as well as the integrity and intelligence it took him to reach it.

  • Aside that I don’t believe any good could come from a “private protection agency” and that marijuana shouldn’t be in the same league as synthetic drugs, I enjoyed this article.

    FYI, the Greenfield PD also has a twitter feed:

  • Sydney Carton


    While I can respect a reasoned libertarian argument, you should understand that many people do not understand it and believe in the need for some level of policing. The general public is not going to accept an argument that requires them to believe that all policing activity is the immoral exercise of force. It is better to convince them that certain laws are unjust or that drugs should be decriminalized. Your average voter will listen to that argument instead of one that says all cops are evil.

    That’s just the nature of what you’re dealing with. Even if you don’t want to abandon that argument, it should be done in baby steps (as it is, I don’t think it’s a good argument to begin with but from a strategic matter even if it was a good argument it should be made after a stronger foundation is laid for the public to accept it).

    I think you’d have more success focusing on the abuses performed by cops that are plain for all to see. These sort of philosophical arguments aren’t going to get you anywhere fast.

  • re: “The general public is not going to accept an argument that requires them to believe that all policing activity is the immoral exercise of force. It is better to convince them that certain laws are unjust or that drugs should be decriminalized. Your average voter will listen to that argument instead of one that says all cops are evil.”

    This is the so-called pragmatic approach, but it’s not actually very pragmatic at all. The strength of the libertarian position is its logical consistency and moral weight, yet that is precisely what it is urged that libertarians abandon. This so-called pragmatism is a lie and it is no worse a lie because its advocates sincerely believe it. The simple truth is that we have a radical message and there will be social sanctions that must be endired by the people who are early in spreading that radical message. With familiarity brought on by exposure from the stubborn and the brave, we will win acceptance. We just have to suffer for it first.

    We are enslaved today because libertarians 30 years ago were, on balance, cowards. That must come to an end, and the end of it begins here and now.

  • Brad,

    I’m with you. Liberty-lovers need to grow a pair and stop begging for freedom.

    Hope to see you soon in NH – it’s easier to be courageous when you have people near you who agree!

  • AngryHateMusic

    This approach is exactly what people need to be exposed to. The private protection alternative is a better model in which there would be some accountability that doesn’t exist in the government gang. Kudos Brad!

  • Sydney Carton


    It sounds like you’re selling a religion instead of something practical for society. What if someone is not a libertarian but does not like police abuses at all?

    I mean, take a basic example: the crosswalk guard. Almost everyone on the planet respects them because they protect their kids safety when they’re walking to school. Yet the crosswalk guard has authority to force a car to stop moving down a public street. Are you guys against that also?

  • re: “What if someone is not a libertarian but does not like police abuses at all?”

    Monopolies are inherently abusive. One can either addres the issue or engage in ritualistic kabuki theater of concern over the issue that accomplishes nothing.

    Sure, not many people get the connection. We also live in a world with pervasive abuse by monopoly police. It’s hardly my fault many are in denial about the true extent of the issue.

    BTW, I’ll stack my own rationality up against the cult-like devotion to irrationality and aggression of any statist devotee of monopoly government any day of the week.

  • Sydney Carton

    So the answer is, you have no use for people who otherwise don’t believe in your philosophy?

  • re: “you have no use for people who otherwise don’t believe in your philosophy?”

    If you mean I’m going to do everything I can to convince as many people as I can to not let themselves be victimized, sure. Of course, that’s almost exactly the opposite of what your choice of words would seem to imply — presumably because the very idea that someone has a firm and intellectually defensible notion of what constitutes victimization, one which can be applied without regard to social status, sets off your Pavlovian conditioning (because that’s ultimately all I’m arguing for).

  • Sydney Carton

    Radical revolutionaries have a history of devouring their own. It happens all the time.

    Pavlovian conditioning? That’s what you think of me, or others? I said that I can respect a reasoned libertarian argument (though, I question how “reasoned” your argument really is). If you automatically assume that people who don’t necessarily agree with you are pre-programmed drones who need a lot of work to convince them of the rightness of your idea, instead of rational people who perhaps have already weighed the merits of radical libertarianism and found it lacking, yet still have common goals with you, then you’re not going to get anyone to assist you at all. Furthermore, it is an extremely convenient answer that points to a fundamental flaw in your reasoning: if people really aren’t so rational after all and can be controlled like dogs, then why bother with libertarian rationalism to begin with? If you’re right, then your whole approach is wrong.

    But whatever. I thought this blog would be posting videos of police abuses to build awareness and grow to a wider audiance. It seems you want to post rants in an echo chamber. Good luck with all that.

  • @Sydney — I’m a reader/commenter and not part of the editorial team of this site or otherwise representative of the organization. Perhaps you were confused by my sharing of the first name “Brad” with Brad Jardis.

  • re: “Pavlovian conditioning? That’s what you think of me, or others?”

    So when you try to make the discussion about people rather than ideas, as here with an implied accusation worded vaguely so that you wouldn’t have to be responsible for actually defending it:

    “So the answer is, you have no use for people who otherwise don’t believe in your philosophy?”

    …that’s OKAY.

    Then when people, in turn, give their opinion of you they’re being unreasonable all of a sudden?

  • Wow, Brad Jarvis really mops the floor with this so-called “GreenfieldPD” racketeering apologist. And Brad Spangler’s comments here are the icing on the cake. Bravo to you all for standing up for morality and justice, and calling thuggery by its rightful name!

  • I meant Jardis… that was a typo.

  • Pingback: The “State of MA” aka Todd M Dodge vs. Ademo & Pete Eyre | Cop Block()

  • Learn how the courts really work. Listen to the free classes provided by Rod Class archives here: see
    Learn how to do a Title 42 section 1983 civil rights lawsuit. Some info on these calls, much more in archives: General (prosecutor), by what contract do you claim I am a party to which gives you jurisdiction? Show it to me now or stop wasting everyone’s time, as you clearly have no personal jurisdiction, no subject matter jurisdiction, and by the way, the 11th amendment stripped this court of all powers, so may I see your oath of office? I am John, living breathing live man who is the executive administrator of the estate of John Doe, no I am not Mr. Doe, and I represent the legal estate of John Doe If the judges says he won’t then argue, isn’t the prosecutor representing as a third party, am I not entitled to due process and equal protection? If not, then I question the competency of the judge…