Libertarian cop suspended after e-mailing media – NH

image

You must need to login..!

Description
RidleyReport asked:

Sponsor: RidleyReport.com – Epping, New Hampshire police move against one of their own the week after he goes on the Ridley Report alleging harrassment. But was the suspension connected to the report? On 10/31 this msg posted to FreeKeene.com’s forum from Jardis: “UPDATE: The Epping Board of Selectmen has denied my request for not only a public hearing, but any hearing at all. -/- Here’s how: The contract between the Town of Epping and the NEPBA (union) states that a grievance upheld by the police chief may be appealed to the Board of Selectmen within 5 business days. 1. The Chief’s decision was rendered on October 13th. 2. My attorney filed an appeal (on my behalf, a union member) on October 19th. You can consider this either the 4th or 5th business day depending on if you count the 13th itself. 3. The town’s attorney replied that the appeal itself has to come from the union itself. 4. I contacted the union IMMEDIATELY and the VP filed a grievance for me on October 23rd. 5. The selectmen denied it as untimely. 6. NOTE: The original grievance I filed with the police chief I filed personally as a union member. 7. No hearing for me. Cry -/- You follow? Clever. Very clever. In my opinion, fishy. I have already contacted the Union Leader to tell them about this. My attorney and I, and the Union, are now working on this.” This vid is made possible by Porcupine 411, the Free Staters’ info/emergency hotline in New Hampshire. Please donate to them: Porcupine411.com Free Staters

25 comments on “Libertarian cop suspended after e-mailing media – NH

  1. RidleyReport on

    any vid is better than none, but most folks shoot bad vid. It takes years to get good at; a few hours and forty bucks is a drop in the bucket but can solve some key problems like shakiness and failure to get closeups.

    But if ya don’t like the idea of a class don’t take the class.

  2. p00lman on

    I like Dawkins, but I believe he argued against the Christian faith, not religion in general (I don’t know, I haven’t read his stuff, so I may be wrong). The more specific the argument and the more specific the religion, the more you can argue.

    But religion in general? The concept of “god” in general? You can’t really argue for or against it. It’s like saying there was someone who started the big bang – how can we argue that either way? Belief is just beilef.

    What were we talking about?

  3. Elephantintheroom01 on

    No Im not comparing it to a religion.

    People like to say that religion cannot be proven nor disproven but that is just laziness.

    Ask Richard Dawkins, he and i both believe that there is a certain point when a theory becomes so disreputable through continuously being proven wrong, that it can be considered disproven.

  4. p00lman on

    Religion isn’t a hypothesis. A hypothesis is something that can be tested to be proven or disproven.

    If you’re comparing the free state movement with religion, you’re only making a weaker case for yourself.

  5. HKSpowered on

    dont get me wrong, i am a suscriber and fan of the ridley report, but dave… why would you charge 40 dollars to show people how to upload instant video from an i phone????!?!?!??! or do you also teach people how to do mini-dv editing on windows movie maker? honestly 20 bucks would be kinda steep, i mean all you gotta do is plug in your firewire cable to the camera, and it literally starts auto downloading to windows movie maker, and then you drag and drop music, then save it, 40 bucks? lol

  6. Elephantintheroom01 on

    So your trying to tell me that christians do not act as if god is already prooven to exist every day? Even though this is just a hypothesis?
    It requires no radical re-education of those that disbelive it, they just arnt invited to the hypothesis.

  7. p00lman on

    You can’t enact a hypothesis.

    You can test one, but not when the test subject is an entire society and the hypothesis requires changing the entire structure of society.

    What you’re discussing is not grounded in reality.

  8. NDNPolice on

    Who knows what world you live in but in the real world, anarchy results in lawlessness. If a neighborhood or a community were to agree to band together for the greater good of their families so be it. However, even if someone were to break their word and victimize someone within, there still wouldn’t be any legal course of action to be taken, rather, there would be only a sort of ‘jungle justice’ type of retributiive consequence. Anarchy = lawlessness, chaos and civil unrest. It’s that simple.

  9. Elephantintheroom01 on

    If it is indeed hypothetical then you should have no problem when people; free stater/protester try to disprove it.

    After all just because its a hypothesis doesnt mean people dont enact it, even if it is a wrong hypothesis such as a god.
    If nothing were to change then humanity would never advance. We would still have the inquisition torturing people. The only wrong thing to do, is nothing.

  10. Elephantintheroom01 on

    That definition is wrong.

    It is not absolute freedom of the individual, ‘he’ is still constrained by societies de jure public order.
    It is not a state of disorder that is entirely opinion, there is no absence of authority, it is either recognised or not recognised but never enforced.

    Does it follow that I reject? all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker.
    – Mikhail Bakunin quote

    This is the only true definition of authority

  11. NDNPolice on

    anarchy |ˈanərkē|
    noun
    a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority : he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy.
    • absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
    -Oxford American Dictionary

  12. p00lman on

    Why do I need to disprove something that’s only hypothetical to begin with?

    “The idea of the state” isn’t a fact, it’s not something that exists in its purest form in reality. It’s not something that can be proven.

    It’s like telling me to disprove that god exists. Why?

  13. Elephantintheroom01 on

    Heres an explanation i would like you to disprove, beyond the point of opinion, but to evidence.

    The idea of a state excludes the rights of the individual, why? Well not just in practice but at its very core the idea requires that the state is superseded by none. Therefore no one person can challenge the state, and by the 11th constitutional amendment, no one may sue the state for any transgression.

    Tthe justice system falls under the supervision of the state it lacks the power to win.

  14. Elephantintheroom01 on

    Ok, well anarchy does not represent no government. It represents local government-councils who then agree upon things in parliment/congress however there is no leader.

    Anarchy isnt truly 0% government as some sensationalists would have you belive.

  15. NDNPolice on

    Anarchy (no government) is what i was saying. Lawlessness of course leads to civil unrnest and chaos, which is why i used both words.

Comments are closed.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!