Militarization of Police

Concord Cop Threatens Camera-Wielding Lemonade Stand Operator With Wiretapping Charges


A Concord man giving away lemonade at a farmer's market was threatened with wiretapping charges last Saturday when he refused to stop filming a police officer and a fellow vendor. Garret Ean didn't have a permit to sell lemonade, which drew the ire of the president of the Concord Farmer's Market. Ean filmed the confrontation, and continued to film when a Concord cop showed up and threatened to arrest him for wiretapping. Photojournalist Carlos Miller (who we interviewed for the November issue of Reason about the war on photography) has the story

The man, whom Ean identified as Steve Blasdell, ordered Ean to turn off the camera.

Ean instead engaged him in a debate about what constitutes vending.

At 2:48, Blasdell shut down Ean's camera, but Ean turns it right back on.

That was when Ean turned from lemonade activist into  photography rights activist, claiming he was now "a member of the press."

And that was when Blasdell tried to grab the camera from him after first trying to grab his cooler of lemonade.

The two men squared off with Ean accusing him of assault while Blasdell said it was not assault because he was only trying to swipe the camera without touching any part of his body.

 Blasdell then ran off to call police while Ean announced he is giving away "free lemonade."

Police arrived ten minutes later and wrongly told Ean he is violating the state's wiretapping law by recording them on a public sidewalk.

Ean offered to show him the actual law, which he has printed on a little card, but the cop refuses, saying he already familiar with the law.

But then he again threatens to arrest him on wiretapping charges if anybody else on the street complains

More on the war on cameras: 

NEXT: Florida Finds That Not All Welfare Recipients Are Drug-Addled Pillbillies

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Poorly trained LEO is poorly trained.

    1. No, not poorly trained. Trained very well in exactly what local PDs train: To harass and intimidate.

    2. They aren’t experts in the law…

      1. which is of course true. but they should use due diligence to know what the fuck they are talking about. this cop clearly didn’t

        1. It’s quite possible that he was knew what the law was and was just being a dick. The fact that he didn’t actually arrest anyone and has had previous public filming run-ins kind of points to the fact that he knew that the kid wasn’t in violation of the wiretapping statue.

          1. that’s certainly possible. and if true, that is definitely punishable behavior. that’s a more serious offense in a way, because he KNOWS he is in the wrong, and he is doing it anyway. at least that’s how my agency would look at it

            the cop can dislike people videotaping all he wants. but he should absolutely not interfere with them

            1. I’m sure he will bear in mind the swift and severe consequences he is sure to receive for his actions the next time.

              1. i note the sarcasm.

                and fwiw, i don’t think he should get SEVERE consequences. for fuck’s sake, he didn’t beat somebody or falsely arrest them or something

                however, he needs corrective counseling (at a minimum) with a warning that if he does it again, he will get suspended

                AND the dept should write a polciy (like mine has) prohibiting such behavior AND clarifying law.policy

                1. He threatened the guy with arrest. That’s basically the same thing as arresting him in my book.

                  We don’t let muggers off the hook because they only threatened their victim with a gun, they didn’t actually shoot them.

                  1. well, the real world doesn’t work like “your book”

                    it is not the same thing, and neither the law nor common sense agrees with you.

                    the mugger analogy is specious, and you know it.

                    get real.

                    1. It’s specious because one thief is wearing a uniform, and the other is not.

                    2. “Steve Chabot, a Republican, had cell phones and cameras confiscated in order to “prevent an embarrassing Youtube video from making the rounds… See video of the incident below.”

                      Oh sweet tasty irony.

                    3. Yeah, I don’t get why it’s specious either. Both bad actors coercing or attempting to coerce the other party with the threat of unlawful acts against the victim.

                    4. Both bad actors coercing or attempting to coerce the other party with the threat of unlawful acts against the victim.

                      Except that only one of the parties has state authority behind the actions, which is why a state actor threatening illegal prosecution is worse than some yahoo without the ‘law’ and the corresponding funding and employment protecting bureaucracy behind his actions.

                    5. Although, since an unlawful arrest is an assault and battery, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the threat of an unlawful arrest is in itself an assault?

                    6. You’re right, Dunphy. If only we had a word in the common lexicon to define someone who uses the threat of violence, or of the seizure of a person or property against the will of the victim, to punish political thought or behavior.

                      If only … if only …

                      See, Dunphy, this is where you lose me. Normally, I’m one of your silent supporters in these arguments, and I see the nuance and logical thought you bring to bear. But on this one, no, you lose me. Because you’re right, this cop was not the equivalent of a mugger.

                      But you’re wrong, because the word is ‘terrorist’.

                  2. “”He threatened the guy with arrest. That’s basically the same thing as arresting him in my book.””

                    Really? Not going through the booking process is the same as going through the process?

                    1. yea. it;s kind of like if a cop shows up, it’s just like getting a gun shoved in your face. well, they have one on their hips, so it’s still close, so “in my book” it’s like the same thing…

                      or something

                2. Suspended with full pay, of course.

                3. and fwiw, i don’t think he should get SEVERE consequences. for fuck’s sake, he didn’t beat somebody or falsely arrest them or something

                  He threatened someone with arrest over a law he made up in his head while refusing to acknowledge the actual law. Why is ignorance of the law no excuse for the amateurs but it is for the pros? If I went around with a gun on my hip threatening people with my own bullshit theories of the law, I suspect I’d get more than corrective counseling.

            2. I thought ignorance of the law was no excuse?

              1. Ignorance of the law is actually a felony.

          2. I just paid $22.87 for an iPad2-64GB and my girlfriend loves her Panasonic Lumix GF 1 Camera that we got for $38.76 there arriving tomorrow by UPS. I will never pay such expensive retail prices in stores again. Especially when I also sold a 40 inch LED TV to my boss for $675 which only cost me $62.81 to buy. Here is the website we use to get it all from, HitPenny.?om

        2. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Unless you’re charged with enforcing it.

          1. Hey now, you can’t expect the people enforcing the rules to be fully aware of the rules. Ya know, they could just arrest everyone first and then let the experts determine if the people are guilty or not.

            1. Juss doin’ their job ya know…

              Now STOP RESISTING!!!

        3. You don’t do so well with sarcasm, do you?

        4. They really don’t have to because most cops know the courts will rubber stamp anything they bring forward.

  2. Yeah, whatever, you all are a little late to the party. You think you can throw in one story about police abuse (which isn’t even abuse, since the man didn’t have the proper licenses) and that this will make you not a right wing nutjob rag? Puh-leeze.

    1. Maybe you should check out the archives.

      1. maybe you should check out the name of who you are responding to…


        1. Maybe I should get another cup of coffee.

  3. I just dropped a steaming brown Dunphy into the toilet.

  4. “…have a permit to sell lemonad

    1. who we interviewed for the November issue

      I think that should be “whom”, not “who” also?

      1. HTML FAIL!

    2. Lemon nads = lemonad?

  5. Lawrence, what are you talking about? People have rights, regardless of whether they have the right “licenses” or not. And that isn’t what the cop was busting him about, but “wiretapping”. Threatening to arrest someone for an action that is not a crime, is abuse under color of authority, and should be punishable by extreme measures. Including termination.

    1. Somebody’s not getting the joke…

      1. Was there a memo? I didn’t get a memo. Should I have gotten a memo?

    2. Terminate his command.

      1. “You understand, Captain, that this mission does not exist, nor will it ever exist.”

        1. Terminate with extreme prejudice.

  6. The two men squared off with Ean accusing him of assault while Blasdell said it was not assault because he was only trying to swipe the camera without touching any part of his body.

    Oh, so it wasn’t assault, it was theft. Got it.

    1. I might go so far as to call it aggravated faggotry.

      1. that is hilarious

    2. Not theft. Larceny.

      After all, he intended to return the camera. It would only have been a temporary interference with Mr Ean’s enjoyment of his property.

    3. Actually, it’s still assault. Or at least that’s how I learned it in law school.

      1. law school doesn’t take into account (often) the variance in penal codes state to state, considering instead primarily the MODEL PENAL CODE.

        iow, depends on the jurisdiction

        1. For instance, in many juristdictions, “resisting arrest” consists of reflexively reeling back in pain when you’re struck with a baton or hit with a taser.

          1. yawn.

            troll-o-meter: .000000001

          2. For instance, in many juristdictions, “resisting arrest” consists of reflexively reeling back in pain when you’re struck with a baton or hit with a taser.

            As is losing consciousness following repeated blows to the back of the head.

        2. Imagine my embarrassment when the MODEL PENAL CODE hearings didn’t include a banana-hammock contest.

        3. Law school usually teaches common law assault, which the model penal code reflects. I would be very surprised if there were any state penal codes that didn’t consider objects that you are holding part of your body for purposes of determining an assault.

          1. didn’t consider objects that you are holding part of your body for purposes of determining an assault.

            Watson: Get that out of my face.

            Holmes: It’s not in your face, it’s in my hand.

            Watson: Get what’s in your hand out of my face…

        4. So if I grab the walkie-talkie out of a cop’s hand while he’s talking on it, I can’t be charged with assaulting a police officer?

          1. tulpa, the point is – it DEPENDS ON THE STATE.

            in my state, regardless of the law (at least in my county) the prosecutors will not even CONSIDER charging an assault on an officer (assault III) unless INJURIES result.

            so, in brief, in my county – no (assault III is a felony and thus under the county prosecutor jurisdiction)

            if you grabbed a walkie talkie out of the cop’s hand you would most likely be charged with obstructing. maybe assault IV (less likely).

            in cases where people grab a phone out of a victim’s hands trying to call 911 to report DV we charge them with ‘interfering with a report of DV” not assault

            i have never in my entire career charged or seen somebody charged with assault for merely snatching something out of the somebody’s hand

            iirc, in one state i worked with the charge would be “theft from a person”

            again, it depends…

            1. Tulpa, asking a cop for legal advice is about as productive an exercise as asking a pig to sing. Dipshit is correct that the exercise of prosecutorial discretion varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but it’s unlikely that there’s ANY jurisdiction where forcibly grabbing a camera out of someone’s hands doesn’t meet the black-letter elements of assault.

              1. and understanding the difference between black letter law and the real world is also helpful.

                black letter law says one can get a year in jail for a dui, even a first offense.

                does that happen?


              2. also, he asked what he COULD be charged with. i explained to him, in my jurisdiction, what he WOULD be charged with

                1. Unless the DA or the cops had unrelated reasons to dislike you.

                  1. no. the charging standards etc. are written policy.

                    look at it this way, tulpa.

                    12 yr old kid comes up to another kid on the playground and says “give me that carton of milk or i will kick your ass”

                    that is TECHNICALLY robbery, iirc a B felony (unarmed).

                    do you really think a cop is going to arrest that kid for that, or the prosecutor will charge him for it?

                    if the school even bothered to call us on it (hopefully we wouldn'[t be called) we’d tell em to deal with it administratively and with the parents

                    that’s the real world. at least round these pahts

                    1. no. the charging standards etc. are written policy.

                      And honored principally in the breach. But hey, they’re written down! COPS R UR FRENZ!!

                    2. “”that’s the real world. at least round these pahts””

                      Yeah, those pahts, but in other pahts such as TX, things work a little differently.


                      I read a better article about the issue the other day but I can’t find it.

                    3. no. the charging standards etc. are written policy.

                      So were my New Year’s resolutions. Policies enforced by those the policies restrict are as no better than no policies at all.

                    4. Sounds more like extortion to me. OTOH, IANAL.

    4. Actually, so long as they’re not naked, you can beat the shit out of someone without ever touching their body.

    5. And in fact, there is a very good argument that it was, in fact, assault. Perhaps not battery, but yes, assault.

    1. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition, ProL. No one.

      1. Bring out. . .the Comfy Chair.

  7. Garret Ean didn’t have a permit to sell lemonade, which drew the ire of the president of the Concord Farmer’s Market. Ean filmed the confrontation, and continued to film when a Concord cop showed up and threatened to arrest him for wiretapping.

    You can actually wiretap photon emissions reflecting from pasty faces. Honest, your honor!

    1. One would think that wire tapping should involve tapping a wire at some point. But one is apparently not a lawyer or a cop.

      1. or a legislator. my state requires two party consent for recording (it’s considered a form of wiretapping).

        however… that only refers to PRIVATE conversations and a very public interaction between a peace officer (public officer) and a vendor is clearly not a private conversation

        the cop should be punished and if he doesn’t like people videotaping him, get a new fucking job, man

        1. How’s the wife?


          1. my wife is fine. she’s also a kickboxer, so i am not going to show other wifes to her


        2. re: Washington State law

          seems fair… tell me, in your experience, do police sting operations involving a concealed camera/microphone require a warrant to circumvent the two-party consent clause?

          1. imo, (and i believe case law will back this up), UNDERCOVER police operations certainly do since the person talking to the cop clearly THINKS they are engaged in a private conversation.

            iirc, there is some subsection of the law that gives limited exception to wires worn purely for safety purposes (monitoring) but nothing on the tape can be used in court, etc.

            in fact, the wiretapping statute in my state actually prohibits evidence obtained by taping in violation of the law EVEN IF the taping is done by a non-cop. iow, it’s a statutory exclusionary rule for both civil and criminal trials, which is amazing.

            1. it is the nature of us highly trained LEOs to lie. that is why we are special. c

      2. I’ve been saying for years that ignorance of the law *is* an excuse.

        That’s not to say you won’t be punished for your ignorance, but the vast proliferation of laws has made it so everyone is breaking or will break a law they can’t possibly know anything about.

        Blame whoever you want…we’re all criminals now.

        1. I’ve been saying for years that ignorance of the law *is* an excuse.

          It’s been legally proven as an excuse for both the cops and government in general.

          1. It’s true, Paul. I was ticketed for solicitation without a license whenever I was selling security systems door-to-door about 8 years ago. Except that since ADT, who I worked for, was a licensed security contractor, by the laws of the muncipality I was in, that exempted me from having to have the separate solicitation license.

            Anyway, I took it to court. I reseachered the laws on my own, came up with a folder with print-outs of the applicable laws, copies of ADT’s operating licenses, and copies of prior case law. I met my public “defender” 5 min. before the trial was supposed to start. I handed him all my work, which he contributed nothing to, took to the judge, and the case was dismissed.

            Point being, I had to spend time preparing my case, showing up to court, and suffered (potential) financial loss by being stopped from solicitation in that city for the time period involved (between ticket and case). In this instance, it was the fucking cops who were ignorant of the law, but that was perfectly fine: I received no renumeration for my time or effort. It was basically, “well you didn’t go to jail so that’s your reward.”

            Excuse me?! My compensation for the police being fuck-ups and handing out citations for laws they’re unsure of is that I don’t go to jail for a law I didn’t break!? So ignorance of the law IS an excuse for them, but jeez, just you try it when it applies to you, the peasant, and see how far that gets you.

            1. sad to say but if they merely gave you a ticket, yes… you don’t have pretty much any chance for recompense.

              if they had custodially arrested you and hauled you off, then of course you would.

              you didn’t mention in your post but did you EXPLAIN (remember, reasonoids believe you should never talk to the police oh noes…) your defense to the cop. you say X, but you don’t say you told the cop X.

              if the cop was doing his job properly, and you explained it, his best course of action would have been to get your name, address, etc. and then contact the prosecutor’s office if he was unsure of the law. only then, should he have cited (mailed it to you) but since the prosecutor would hopefully edumucate him that you were in the right, no cite would be issued

              due diligence… it’s what’s for dinner

              1. That’s the best part, but I thought the post was getting too long as it was.

                Not only did I explain it to the cop, I showed him a print-out of the applicable law that I carried around for just such an encounter.

                I was sitting on a curb (at their direction) while Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum stood there reading it, then one of the geniuses noticed the web script at the bottom, guffawed, and said, “This is just printed off of the internet, it’s meaningless” (or something very similiar; it has been quite a few years). As if a dusty 4-inch tome of The Law is the only acceptable source of reference.

                I told that story to the public defender, as well. I wasn’t in chambers, but I do hope that the judge explained to the cops that it doesn’t matter where someone got their copy of the law, what matters is that it is the applicable law.

                1. So what was the prosecutor up to? Was he going to charge boldly forward despite the law?

                  1. I have no idea, robc. Since the license exemption is a relatively obscure caveat to a general law, I have to assume that the prosecutor wasn’t aware of the exemption, either.

                2. then these cops sounded like idiots.

                  they should have done due diligence imo

                  again, since they merely cited you, i see no civil liability , but clearly what they did was sloppy and lazy

                  1. And there you see the rub I, and many others, have with the police. There’s no civil liability, you’re correct. So essentially, here are some guys, who just because they can, cause me to lose a full days worth of working hours preparing documents to defend myself with, and potentially cause me loss by suspending my ability to do business in that municipality until the case is resolved…and there is nothing I can do about it. I’m just supposed to bend over and take it with a smile. Well, fuck that.

                  2. Seems to be a lot of that going around. I sense a pattern. A lot of the cops in these stories are idiots, sloppy or lazy, and need further education and training and possibly reprimands. Great. But why do their seem to be so many that fall into this category?

                    “Oh, show me one.”

                    “O.K., here’s one.”

                    “Oh, well, o.k., that guy is an idiot and he should be reprimanded, but he’s an exception. In my jurisdiction…”

                    “Here’s another one.”

                    “Oh well, yeah, ok, that guy is an idiot and needs better education, but you know most…”

                    “Here are two more.”

                    “Well yeah, ok, they’re stupid – they should get another job and be reprimanded or at least be trained better, but really, there….”

                    “Here is another one.”

                    “Well ok, but you know…”

                    1. many prosecutors are just as (or more) ignorant of the law too. they have the benefit of lexis-nexis accounts, assistants to research, etc. whereas most cops make decisions in the field without having those resources to rely on

                      regardless, the point is – if you are not sure, RESEARCH then act, – unless there is some sort of exigency.

                      that’s the best cause of action.

                    2. nobody (certainly not I) is claiming that many cops are lazy, sloppy, etc.

                      this isn;t exactly a revelation

                      i wouldn’t say just a few are.

                      i’d say MANY are.

                      iow, you are claiming that somebody “show me one” doesn’t believe this to be true?


                      not me. cops are civil servants. many are lazy as fuck.


                    3. Exactly right, hell I work with some lazy officers. I also work with some who will go strict letter of the law and issue citations to everyone regardless of circumstances. Yes, people break the law all the time, whether out of convenience or ignorance, but we are supposed to practice some kind of discretion. This is what so many officers don’t get. Am I really accomplishing anything by giving someone a ticket because they didn’t come to a full stop at a stop sign in the middle of the night on a deserted road? No. Did they commit a violation? Yes, but what purpose does it serve to cite them?

                      Yes there are a lot of lazy officers, there are a lot of incompetent officers. That doesn’t mean we’re all like that. You could go through every department in the country and find those people, I know there are some in my department. I would still like to hear what profession is out there where everyone is perfect. What job or career has no bad apples? The answer is none, because guess what, we’re all human, and humans suck.

        2. see: “three felonies a day”

  8. Blasdell then ran off to call police

    What a little bitch.

    1. Sure you can disrespect the Man – but you have to show the proper respect for the august Office [of President of the Concord Farmer’s Market]

  9. The world of today under the State:

    Police arrived ten minutes later and wrongly told Ean he is violating the state’s wiretapping law by recording them on a public sidewalk.

    Ean offered to show him the actual law, which he has printed on a little card, but the cop refuses, saying he already familiar with the law.

    “Because under the power of the State, the police make up their own laws.”

    1. we are highly trained LEOs, making up laws is what we do.

  10. If shit like this happened at my local farmer’s market, I’d go more often.

    1. I’d go for the entertainment, but skip the $6.00 bunch of carrots.

      1. true dat. i was at a farmer’s market in orcas island recently (hippie haven) and the prices were OBSCENE.

        my favorite was the $6 SLICEs of pizza.

        i am sure they had “organic” tomato sauce though :l

        1. To be fair, I believe the only way to get goods over to Orcas Island is to swim with them on your back. I’m sure that adds to their cost to provide the goods.

          1. the grocery store prices were about the same as the mainland, though.

            the farmers market prices were the obscene ones.

  11. Concord, New Hampshire?

    1. Massachusetts? Who the fuck knows.

      And would it kill someone to actually give us a hint as to what the law says?

      1. Appears to be New Hampshire, based on the link.

    2. Yes, but he should’ve been more specific in his post. Michelle Bachmann surely will think it’s in Massachusetts.

      1. damn colin, we cant bachmann-proof everything now can we?

  12. the Cambridge, er, Concord police acted stupidly.

  13. Dear cops,

    If you do not want to look like an ass on camera, do not act like an ass.


    1. I hope you don’t have a dog, RR.

  14. You don’t have to engage in harmful or offensive touching of somebody to be guilty of assault, you only have to create the impression that you are about to engage in harmful or offensive touching (battery), and have the wherewithal to carry through on the threat. Of course, vigorous implementation of this law would result in mass arrests at TSA security counters.

    1. In NH, it is all assault.

      1. correct. this is why it’s annoying when people say stuff like “this is what assault is and …” when it DEPENDS on the penal code (hu hu penal code) of the state.

        my state doesn’t have A&B just Assault.

        however, there may be a CIVIL TORT for A&B but the criminal charge is assault I, II, III, or IV

        1. The seller/recorder could have been referring to a civil tort, right?

          1. usually, ime they aren’t e.g. “i want him arrested for assault and battery” etc.

            but could he have been? sure

            i am more referring to reasonoids etc. who opine on what thye believe is the law w/o taking into account it varies so broadly state to state.

            1. As opposed to retards like you who confuse the exercise of prosecutorial discretion with variance in state penal codes.

              1. no, we explain to tulpa what would ACTUALLY happen in the real world.

                example : forgery of any govt. document is a felony under the RCW.

                does anybody ever get charged with felony forgery for having an altered driver’s license when they use it to buy beer?


                i would assume tulpa is interested in reality, not theory that has no basis in reality

                1. We’ll wait and see what Actually happens in the real world of Fullerton California.

                2. Above, you made a huge fucking deal about the state-by-state variance in penal codes (by way of arguing, hilariously, that the legally-educated have little business opining about whether something is assault).

                  Now, it’s all about the “reality” of how prosecutors enforce the law versus the “theory” of how the law is actually written.

                  By all means, keep showing your ass. I love deflating stupid fucking blowhards like you.

                3. The reality is that they have the power to overprosecute, even if it’s not used in practice. A society where citizens’ ability to walk free is at the whim of a prosecutor is not a free society in any meaningful sense of the word.

                  1. i readily agree. that’s why the legislature should refrain from writing bad laws. overbroad laws etc. invite abuse.

                    we need less laws, not more

                    we need less state power, not more

                    1. “….the legislature should refrain from writing bad laws. ”

                      Thanks Dunphy, now I have to get some paper towels and wipe coffee off of my screen.

    2. IMHO a peace officer threatening arrest under false pretenses should be illegal too. No different from pointing a gun at someone, really.

      When you put on the uniform you get special protections from the law, so you should pay the price for that by getting extra responsibilities.

      1. tulpa , get over yourself.

        no different from pointing a gun at someone?


        lemme just ask you one question? have you ever had a gun pointed at you?

        i would suggest if you had, you would realize how stupid your statement is

        1. So how do you enforce your arrests?

          1. we don’t make the vast majority of arrests at gunpoint

            but yes, all govt. force is via the barrel of the gun. however, having to pay your vehicle registration to drive it on the road is not thus the same as having a gun pointed at you

            and ya darn well know it

            1. I imagine the difference would disappear soon after your court date if you fail to appear for the ticket given you for not having a registration sticker on your plate.

              1. no. because we don’t draw guns and point them at people3 for that.

                give it up.

                1. Tulpa has a long-standing history of equivocationitis, Dunphy. Don’t take it personally.

                  1. it’s a side effect of internetitis – people who cannot simply admit they said something completely asinine will just go to more asinine extremes “‘splaining it away” by every means of sophistry available instead of simply saying “my bad. never mind, cheddar”

  15. “Garret Ean didn’t have a permit to sell lemonade, which drew the ire of the president of the Concord Farmer’s Market.”

    What are the rules of the farmer’s market? Are use of the premises free to anyone wo comes by, or do you need to get permission from the owner’s?

    If the President had a just cause to remove a trespassing vendor, why do the police need to trump up charges on the guy filming the incident?

  16. Who do you call when the cop is breaking the law?

    1. you make a complaint. the cop should be punished.

      1. That’s sarcasm, right?

        1. no, it’s reality. happens all the fucking time, in my agency and others.

          one does NOT have to limit oneself to making a complaint with the agency. i also suggest the media (local and national),the aCLU, federal agencies, and/or getting a good attorney

          1. Many law enforcement agencies have no easy way to file a complaint. Media and the feds are only going to care if there’s a hot-button issue at play. Getting an attorney is going to be expensive and time-consuming.

            1. the feds also only have limited jurisdiction.

              i am just covering the bases.

              ime, most law enforcement agencies DO have an easy way to file a complaint.

              you can also complain to the overseeing body. iow, if you can’t figure out how to complain about spd, you complain to the city of seattle etc.

              it is not hard at all to make a complaint. fuck, some agencies actually hand out paperwork to people that clearly explains how to do it.

              6 man agencies though do not have IIU’s. complain to the chief, the mayor, etc.

              use your common sense

              1. “”ime, most law enforcement agencies DO have an easy way to file a complaint.””

                Yeah, but most of them lead to the garbage can. You can’t really complain about group X to group X and expect unbiased resolve. That’s just the nature of humans.

                Even the citizen review boards are stacked with pro-LEO folk, or created toothless.

                1. np, “most of them ” don’t

                  but again, i realize this is a place where one never has to justify unsubstantiated antipolicebigotry

                  1. “”unsubstantiated antipolicebigotry””

                    Not from me, I’m not anti-police.

                    I faulted human nature.

                    1. that’s a fair cop, guvner

        2. It’s a factual statement. Should be punished, yes. Will be punished? We can hope. I hear hope is a strategy now.

          1. Hope requires faith. That is something I lost a long time ago.

            1. hope is the thing with feathers- emily dickenson

              1. I’ve always detested Emily Dickenson. I’m skeptical of poetry in general but she is especially intolerable.

                1. i’m way more into yeats, etc. but i like that quote

      2. “you make a complaint. the cop should be punished.”

        Or your next of kin does, in the case of Kelly Thomas.

      3. “you make a complaint. the cop should be punished.”


        1. let’s remember what he did here? did he make a false arrest? no.

          he incorrectly told somebody what they were doing was illegal, when it wasn’t

          corrective counseling, and hopefully a proactive policy addition to their manual would be the proper redress.

          as well as (imo) a written apology from the PD.

          1. as well as (imo) a written apology from the PD.

            From the PD or from the officer in question?

            1. i would suggest from the PD. the union (lol) would NEVER accept a supervisor ordering a forced letter from an officer etc.

              1. Reason #5378 to get rid of pub-sec unions.

          2. he incorrectly told somebody what they were doing was illegal, when it wasn’t

            And threatened to drag him away and put him in a cage if he didn’t stop doing this non-illegal thing. The threat of illicit force is illicit force.

          3. “Corrective counseling”?

            How about better fucking training and education up front, including a general class in Know What the Fuck You’re Talking About Before you try to Violate a Citizen’s Fundamental Rights 101?

            How about training and education that includes making sure the LEOs know that the vast majority of us “civilians” (what a bullshit line that is, BTW) are NOT their enemies, and that they are NOT smarter or better-educated in the law or somehow always in the right merely because they’ve got a badge, a gun and the love of Jesus in their hearts? And how about making sure they know when to slow their roll a notch and confirm whether their understanding of the law is correct when provided with reasonable evidence of the actual content of the law, rather than proceeding out of (excuse the expression) pig-headedness and a fear of appearing to not be the authoritai and In Complete Control Of The Situation?

            Too often, a situation that is merely uncomfortable, awkward or “bad” becomes worse by the involvement of the po-leese.

            1. seriously. get over yourself. the cop was wrong, he should be corrected. he made some erroneous statements to somebody and he should be taught what the law is, furthermore, his agency should come out with an explicit policy forbidding this shit

              i am sorry, but this poutrage is a bit much

              1. “” the cop was wrong, he should be corrected.””

                True, he should be corrected for threating to falsely arrest, not just giving false information.

          4. “”let’s remember what he did here?””

            Let’s do.

            “”he incorrectly told somebody what they were doing was illegal, when it wasn’t””

            If we want to remember what he did, why leave out the part about threatening to arrest? It’s not like the cop was someone at the information booth giving wrong information. Threats were made.

            1. omg. clearly, he needs to be hung by his petard for this egregious violationb!!!!

              oh noes!!!

              1. “”omg. clearly, he needs to be hung by his petard for this egregious violationb!!!!”‘

                You are the one saying we need to remember what he did. When I bring up the part you are ignoring, you respond like a troll.

                I don’t know what the punishment should be, nor have I stated an opinion to such. All I’m pointing out is that if we believe he should be disipline for what he did wrong, he should be disiplined for threatening a false arrest.

              2. Well first, excuse my assumptions. I’m assuming you think threatening to arrest someone for something not a crime is a false arrest, and that you believe such an action is wrong.

        2. dunphy’s theoreticals work as well as Krugman’s.

          1. yawn. my theoreticals clearly work, since the kind of responses i get are almost always emotional/trolling, etc. not evidence based and/or logical

    2. If it’s local LEO, you call the state police. You can also call the FBI if you think federal law is being violated. Not that they’d necessarily do anything, but it creates a paper trail.

      1. you also can call their agency. contrary to popular belief, many (if not mostto all) Pd’s will aggressively investigate their own.

        also, call the media.

        1. Yeah, we agressively investigate our own, wait, what?

          1. i see no evidence they don’t. they just don’t do it in a kneejerk alice in wonderland fashion as you would like.

            1. LEt’s all remember that dunphy claims to been part of the Massachusetts law enforcement monopoly and is no doubt aware of the reputation of the Boston PD. And the Chicago PD. And the LAPD. And the Tullia TX PD.

              And yet, all the data collected about those and other organizations is emotional drivel, and dunphys assertions are facts.

              Dunphy, your funhouse libertarianism is like a Garfield cartoon, formulaic to the point of being darkly funny.

              1. why should we all remember what you are clearly stupid enough to erroneously believe?

                i neither work in nor live in mass. as i have said at least a half dozen times, i USED to live/work there.

                your reading comprehension sux

                1. Whoops, I somehow left out the ‘have’ from that first sentence.

                  The point still stands. I find it telling that you pretend that organizations like the Boston PD are not abusive.

                  1. since when?

                    i have no idea. i never worked for boston PD. boston being a liberal town, prone to nepotism and having last i checked a city residency requirement probably has a bunch of entitled fucksticks in govt. IN GENERAL, and in the PD as well

                    i have zero opinion on boston PD

        2. many (if not mostto all) Pd’s will aggressively investigate protect their own.


      2. Not that they’d necessarily do anything, but it creates a paper trail.

        A paper trail the local police unions will soon follow backwards to you.

        1. yup . with their black helicopters as surveillance vehicles

          (rolls eyes)

          1. If you’re not paranoid, you’re not paying attention:

            A police union has posted the picture of a television reporter and a “be on the lookout” advisory on its Web site after a hidden-camera story was aired about how the public can file complaints against police officers.

            The picture of WFOR-TV reporter Michael Kirsch and the BOLO advisory describing tactics used to do the story remained yesterday on the Web site of the Broward County Police Benevolent Association. Such BOLOs are usually issued by law enforcement agencies searching for criminals or missing people.

            The hidden-camera investigation, done with assistance from a watchdog group called the Police Complaint Center, involved visits to 38 law enforcement agencies in Broward and Miami-Dade counties seeking forms to file complaints against officers.

            Only three departments had such forms, the reporters found. Although not required by law, the forms are recommended by the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

            1. nice example. i’ll give it props


          2. Filing a police complaint form.

            If you don’t like that video, there are about 50 more. You are out of your element this time, Dunphy.

    3. Who will police the police? I dunno, the Coast Guard?

  17. But there could have been LSD in that lemonade! The only way to guarantee its purity is with a permit from the farmer’s market.

    1. LSD in the lemonade would be a feature, not a bug

      1. Sounds like they need to spike die Lemonade with G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate.

        What’s with the state and lemonade, anyway? We need a lemonade amendment.

        1. I dunno. They’d probably give badges to the resulting Reavers.

          1. Best sci-fi show ever.

            1. Totally agree…. that show was awesome. I can’t believe it never caught on.

        2. I aim to misbehave!

        3. What’s with the state and lemonade, anyway?

          Lemons are yellow, and yellow is a happy color. Browns and reds give you the proper cravings for the viscera of your enemies.

          1. the brown acid is a bummer, man

        4. Until just last night, I would have had no idea what you’re talking about.

          Finally rented “Serenity” from Netflix and watched it last night.

          I give it two “meh”s. Meh, meh.

          1. I guess if you didn’t really like the movie, you’d probably have a similar opinion about the series, “Firefly,”… but it might be worth checking out if you get bored.

            1. I’m not sure how well Serenity would work without the series as background.

          2. You are just the worst kind of person.

          3. Replying to year old comment! Yeah!

            Nah, Serenity sucked big time. Watch Firefly instead, it’s much better. For one thing, the author didn’t hate his diehard fans at the time so didn’t try kill off all the characters in a variety of boring and cliched ways. For another, Summer Glau as River is much creepier/cooler in the series.

  18. And nothing else happened.

  19. Also-


    1. Mmm. Tres Leches.

      Wait, did I take out one too many of your extraneous e’s?

      1. i thought he was talking about leche condensada…or was it dulce de leche?

  20. I’d make them all stand in a corner.

  21. The pixiq article has an incorrect link for the Concord farmer’s market. The link they posted was for a California market.

    If anybody wants to give Steve Basdell a piece of their mind, his number is listed here:…..rket-M1509

    1. I also found his email here:…

      Apologies to the mods/Reason/squirrels if posting this kind of personal info is frowned upon. Something about this guy in the video just really rubbed me the wrong way.

      1. Apologies to the mods/Reason/squirrels if posting this kind of personal info is frowned upon.

        If you could post Allah’s phone number, it would very much be appreciated. A lot of us have some questions to ask…


  22. About 20 different reasonites (we have them many within easy driving range of Concord, right?) should set up free lemonade booths this saturday at the same Farmer’s market. With cameras, of course.

    1. Everybody should go ask these people some tough questions, and then post the results on Youtube!

      1. Shut the…

        Oh, to hell with it.

      2. I really miss this guy.

        1. Yeah, we’ve learned since that the bar for trolling goes way lower than we ever imagined.

          I wonder if one our resident satirists could do a White Wacko/Lone Indian pastiche.

          1. Well, RC, the problem came about when the StatelessSocieties didn’t do anything to stop the unchecked expansion of AgriculturalImmigrants…

  23. Having watched the whole video, I’d have to say that was a big load of nothing. The cop mentioned his (probably erroneous) understanding of the wiretapping law and warned the guy of what he thought were the limits. Then, he left after wishing him a nice day.

    The only good part was the very end when the farmers market president in a huff posted a sign that the lemonade kid wasn’t a part of the farmer’s market. I’d actually say that the police did relatively well here responding to a complaint, finding it was nonsense, and leaving after a brief, friendly chat with the participants.

    1. What about the part where President and Supreme Commander of the Concord Farmer’s Market Steve Blasdell lays hands on Garret Ean and his camera without Ean’s permission?

      1. Blasdell needs to occasionally remind people like Ean that Blasdell runs shit up in here.

        1. if the farmer’s market paid to rent the property etc. for the day, then they have every right to expel people not properly paid up etc. to them, etc. the police can act as their agents.

          the problem is that the cop has no right (or shouldn’t… i can’t speak to NH law) to tell people not to videotape him

          police should WELCOME people videotaping them

          it protects us from false complaints and helps bring bad cops to justice

          1. it protects us from false complaints and helps bring bad cops to justice

            I think the problem is the inverse, Dunphy. Videotaping cops exposes them to legitimate complaints. Which is why so many cops don’t like being taped. Because if they’re later found to be… you know, ignorant of the law, it’s now on record.

            1. except i know several officers just recently who have been completely exonerated of complaints due to the existence of videotape.

              MOST officers i know WELCOME videotaping

              you just don’t get those officers doing shit like this , so reason doesn’t make an article about it (with the exception of the cop with the open carrier guy that was pretty good)

              i get videotaped all the fucking time


              most cops are good cops and most cops have no problem with people videotaping.

              again, outliers do not define the whole, despite the bigots preconceptions and the preachin’ to the choir here.

              how many thousands of videos are on youtube from people videoing cops where the cops didn’t do jackshit in regards to videotaping?

              heck, just that i KNOW about, i’ve been videotaped at least a dozen times this year

              again, bfd.

              that’s what most cops think

              1. most cops are good cops

                [Citation needed.]

              2. “except i know several officers just recently who have been completely exonerated of complaints due to the existence of videotape.”

                You mean the cops in Fullerton? Or do you mean the cops that shot David Lee “Deacon” Turner.

                Disclaimer: This is not an emotional post.

                1. “Disclaimer: This is not an emotional post.”

                  But this post is you shit-sucking, cock-gobbling, pathological lying pig.

          2. it protects us from false complaints and helps bring bad cops to justice

            Which is why it is fair to assume that cops who don’t like to be videotaped might in fact be bad actors.

            1. that’s true of many, i am sure.

          3. From the article:

            It starts when activist Garret Ean sat on a public sidewalk during a farmer’s market in Concord, New Hampshire to sell lemonade during Saturday’s Lemonade Liberation Day.

            No property rights issues here. If there’s a statute about giving stuff away on public property that might be an issue but nothing like that is ever mentioned.

            1. yes. again, there is always a problem with parsing every word in such an article literally since ime such basic journalism often gets a lot of facts wrong

              for example, even on a public sidewalk, there are often provisions (like when an area is closed down for a fair, etc.) where it is still rented to a body like a fair, or a farmer’s market, etc.

              as an example, many parks allow people to pay a fee to rent an area to picnic barbeque exclusively, like a pavilion

              even though it’s publically owned, it is still restrictable thusly.

              so, again, the article doesn’t really make it clear to me. as is so often the case, the devil really IS in the details.

  24. Serious question: Given the makeup of both the patrons and vendors at your typical Farmers Market, what do you think their views on things like civil disobedience would be?

    And when it was directed at or around them?

    1. ime, liberals and hippie types are often the most enamored of state power as long as it is used to further their ends.

      1. True, but I doubt too many of the “hippie types” see eliminating unauthorized lemonade sales as one of their ends.

        1. You might be surprised how many hippie types are easily persuaded by the “How do you know that they’re on the level if they haven’t got the proper paperwork to prove it” argument.

          1. god knows i wouldn’t. these are the type of people that infest universities etc. all you have to do is look at their speech codes (thank god for FIRE), etc. to realize that these people LOVE institutional and state authority.

            1. You don’t strike me as a hippie type, dunph.

              1. i don’t love either. i would be very happy if the state had less power than they did, and if a substantial amount of illegal stuff (mostly consensual stuff like drugs, etc.) was legalized.

    2. Agree with Dunphy. As soon as they found out the guy didn’t have a permit (gasp! where’s the accountability/control for his lemonade?) they would side with President Blasdell.

      1. was this some sort of state required health permit or just a payment to the farmer’s market?

        i am getting the impression it’s the latter.

        iow, this is a property dispute.

        farmer’s markets have every right to require people to pay a fee etc. to use their (usually rented, etc.) land to sell at.

        flea markets, etc. do this too

        ANY private property owner also has the right to have the police come and act as their agents if they are having trouble with somebody violating their property rights

        the issue here is the videotaping thang

        1. This clearly wasnt the case or they would have had him removed/arrested for trespassing.

          1. Maybe the cop understands the laws on trespassing as well as he understands the wiretapping laws.

            1. that i could believe

        2. He was operating on a public sidewalk. The only possible issue would be a city business permit, which isn’t mentioned.

          1. that’s NOT the only possible issue. for those of us who don’;t make up our minds w.o evidence.

            public sidewalks can be and sometimes are closed and rented out etc. as part of street fairs, etc.

            again, the devil is in the details, which we don’t know

            it’s completely tangential to the real issue – which is the videotaping thang

            1. I remember one time I went in for a closer look as the cops were busting up an impromptu electrified outdoor concert. Some guys had set up their gear on this half pipe they built in their drive way. They were pretty good too.
              Then the cops came. Several cars and a van.
              I thought it was odd that they couldn’t figure out that they had to open the door to the van to put someone inside. They just kept slamming one of the guys against the door. Bam! Bam! Bam! I stopped short on the sidewalk aghast, and one of the cops runs at me yelling “Sidewalks are for travel! Get moving or I’ll take you in for loitering!”
              Seeing as how much trouble they were having with the van door, I decided to walk the other way.

              1. i remember when i played in an exceptionally loud band throughout my college years. i also remember always being treated fairly and respectfully by the police.

                i had almost universally positive experiences with police. even when i was proned out at gunpoint as a robbery suspect.

                the one time i was a dick to them, otoh, they were a dick to me. shocking

                1. “i remember when i played in an exceptionally loud band throughout my college years”

                  And all of the girls stood in line for hours just to suck my 18″ cock (and it’s fat too! Yeah, THAT’S the ticket!).

                  1. you really must have a sad, empty life if it’s that hard for you to believe that , unlike you, others HAVE a life

                    playin’ a band, doing stuff, etc.

                    not just sitting in yer mama’s basement eatin’ cheezy poofs and ranting

                2. I shudder to think of what would have happened to me had I tried to film that incident.
                  Probably would have lost some teeth.

                  the one time i was a dick to them, otoh, they were a dick to me. shocking

                  Are you justifying the cops repeatedly slamming an unarmed man’s face into the side of a parked vehicle?

                  Maybe he was resisting. He refused to obey the public servant so he got his ass kicked.

                  That makes sense.

                  1. no, i am not

                    1. dunph – have you ever whispered into someone’s ear “Give me one reason. You know I want to. I’m begging you. Please give me one reason”?
                      Have you ever issued a DUI to an intoxicated bicyclist who was hit by an SUV driving teenager who ran a red light (the cop told the outraged witnesses “I’m giving one ticket at this accident and it’s going to him” pointing at me. Then ordered everyone to disperse.)?
                      I have my reasons to fear and distrust the police.

                    2. Oh, and as far as my intoxication goes. I blew a 0.08 while the threshold for DUI was 0.1. But because I didn’t have three grand sitting around to pay a DUI lawyer I was found guilty by reason of not being able to afford a defense.
                      That thing about being guaranteed an attorney is a lie. It all depends on the charge.
                      I ended up with a totaled bicycle, a shoulder that has never been the same, I had to fix the car that hit me, I lost my job because court conflicted with my schedule…

                      I took away several lessons from that:
                      One – don’t ride a bicycle after drinking. If some teenager blows a red light causing you to wake up in the middle of the road after going over his hood, the cops will apologize to the kid and issue you a citation.
                      Two – the police can and will issue you a citation beyond even what is written in the report, and you can’t do a damn thing about it if you can’t afford an attorney.
                      Three – your constitutional right to an attorney is a lie.
                      Four – if the cop guesses that you cannot defend yourself in court, he can take advantage of it.

                      A friend of mine got out of his DUI because he spent three grand on an attorney who is personal friends with the DA.

                      Charges dropped.

                      And people wonder why I have zero faith in police, courts, or anything else.

                    3. in many jurisdictions, first offense DUI does not result in jeopardy, and thus the right to an attorney does not apply

                      or at least so i hear :l

                      regardless, sounds to me like you are pissed off because you got caught.


                      btw, i readily agree that having money gets you a better defense. nobody denies that

                      i think the operative lesson is correct here that you learned. i just think, frankly, it sounds like whining. i don’t see an injustice.

                      the cop had PC to issue the cite right?

                      you had the right to trial. you lost. deal with it

                      i just don’t see your case as an example of anything except you whinging because you FEEL slighted.

                    4. Wait a minute, Sarc. You blew a 0.08, and legal threshold was 0.1? You didn’t NEED an attorney. You know, you CAN plead not guilty for an offense like this without an attorney.

                      Pretty simple defense: By the authorities’ own measurement I was not legally intoxicated.

                      Case closed.

                    5. not true.

                      .10 at the time (it’s currently .08) is the PRESUMPTIVE limit. it doesn’t therefore follow you can’t be convicted at LESS than the presumptive limit

                      look up “presumptive”

                      again, this shows why people who don’t understand THE LAW(tm) should be careful about commenting on it.

                      at less than the presumptive limit, there is no… wait for it… PRESUMPTION that the person was impaired based on the BAC result alone. however, the totality of the circumstances can still establish impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

                      also note in many jurisdictions, it is a crime merely to drive at that level of BAC. iow, one need not prove impairment.

                    6. can’t do dui’s on bicycles in WA state.

                      but to answer yer question, … no

                      i’m not looking to escalate.

                      however, if the cop had PC you were DUI on the bicycle, and it was illegal in that jurisdiction, i have NO problem with that.

                    7. oh also, if running the red light was the cause of the accident, at least where i work, we have discretion NOT to issue the civil infraction of running the red light.

                      i almost never issue citations for people who cause an accident. our policy doesn’t require it.

                      however, DUI is a crime, not an infraction, and one that i do not cut people slack for…

                      so, again… i have no problem with him citing you for DUI. don’t do DUI’s if you don’t wanna get caught for them


                    8. Let me get this straight.
                      You don’t issue a ticket to the guy who caused the accident, meaning that the guy who could have been killed gets to fix the car that hit him.
                      That’s fucked up.

                      No I’m not pissed that I got caught as much as I’m pissed that I had to fix the car that hit me.
                      I’m pissed that the kid who could have killed me got off free.
                      I’m pissed that I was found guilty by reason of being poor. If I could have afforded an attorney I would have gotten out of it.
                      I’m pissed that my shoulder was damaged and that the guy who caused the damage didn’t have to do a damn thing.

                      All because of the cop’s “discretion”.

                      Fuck the police.

                    9. this really says it all. you are pissed off. i get it. your emotion is clouding your judgment and analysis of cop’s etc.

                      i get it. it’s quite enlightening and i thank you for being so honest.

                      but if the incident convinced you not to bicycle under the influence, at least some good came out of it


                3. I always had positive experiences with LAPD during my college years as well while throwing parties when they showed up for noise complaints. This is even when I answered the door obviously high on well…. Everyone was polite. I used them as an excuse to kick everyone out. They didn’t sit around and fuck with partygoers after the fact even though they could have. I even had one small house party where I closed the windows and turned the music down and the cops stood outside checking sound levels so that I could set the music to a level that was acceptable. Clouds of pot smoke were coming out the windows when the pulled up and they never said a thing. Well, they did check out some of the womenfolk and ask if they could cruise back by after their shift. lol

                  1. This wasn’t LA.

                  2. i visited UCLA a lot. i agree about LAPD. may have been UCLA PD as well.

  25. this reminds me of an incident last week. guy calls from a private park complaining that some kids at the park who he BELIEVED weren’t lawfully there since they weren’t residents (turned out they were) were using profanity in front of his kids.

    “i want them arrested” bla bla bla

    i tried to explain the first amendment to him but he wasn’t buyin’ it.

    the HOA was free to civilly exclude the kid/his family from the park for misbehavin’ and the kid/family are free to sue them but it aint a criminal thang.

    i am reasonably confident the kid was saved by a punch in a mouth by this other guy due to our arrival.

    apparently, the kid was laying down a bunch of f-bombs about 10 ft from his young children.

    i tried to explain to the kid that his mouth was going to get him in trouble sooner or later, but well… 14 yr olds know EVERYTHING, so he will probably learn his lesson when he gets punched by some irate person after he pulls that shit one too many times

    1. A good humane beating does wonders for a teenager’s attitude. But they tend to piss off people who aren’t inclined to be humane while beating them.

      1. it’s a fair assessment, but frankly… as the columbians say “one learns best with blood”. this kid was about 135 lbs soaking wet (which he was- from swimming), and he had an older teen with him who kept profusely apologizing for him and saying he did this stuff all the time and would never learn until somebody beat his ass.

        and then of course his parents would scream for justice for their innocent child…

        i told the guy (relevant to this) also, to FUCKING VIDEOTAPE when people are doing this shit and they want to report it to the police.

        he said/she said suck.

        nearly everybody carries a video camera on them (cell phone) but so few USE it to gather evidence before police arrival. we LOVE it.

        gives a clear unbiased account of what actually happened, helps lessen the possibility of wrongful arrest/citation

        helps convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent

        1. it’s a fair assessment, but frankly… as the columbians fucking pigs say “one learns best with blood”

          1. I said “fucking pig!” Almost better than wanking!

  26. Growing up in a small town, there were 4 family names that covered about half the population. The folks with the guts and initiative to spend their lives exactly where they were born, and consequently considered anyone who moved to town in the previous 100 years a new comer. So I couldn’t help but notice this man’s name. In southern Maine and New Hampshire, you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a Blasdell. There’s roads and other features with the Blasdell name. So maybe off topic, but somehow I’m not surprised old Steve felt like he owned the street.

    1. same thing in small town massachusetts where i used to work as a cop.

  27. That wasn’t lemonade, but the libertarians didn’t mind. They begged for more.

  28. New Hampshire is – for the most part – a wonderful place to live but our wiretap laws suck ass.

    My town (Weare NH) has a police force that has charged citizens with felonies for recording cops.

    Recently proposed legislation would have clarified the law and made it legal to record anyone in public but it was defeated due to pressure from certain interest groups. Anyone care to guess who opposed it?

    1. Anyone care to guess who opposed it?

      Ooh! Ooh! I know this one!

      Hitler. Amirite?

      1. Close. They do wear uniforms.

        1. well, hitler DID model his troops’ uniforms after the MA state police.

    2. The same people that supposedly welcome it?

      1. 99.9% of them do. It’s that lousy 0.1% causing all the problems again.

        1. ….Which is why their unions nearly always oppose it. You know, concentrated pain, diffuse costs, public choice inefficiency and the like.

          1. provide evidence of this claim

            “their unions nearly always oppose it”

            iow, a substantial majority is what you claim.

            i call bullshit

    3. The notebook industry?

    4. Whatever the interest group was, I’m sure it wasn’t the police union. Dunphy tells me that his union doesn’t lobby and therefore, by implication, anyone who asserts otherwise is merely spewing emotional drivel.

      1. i never said we didn’t lobby.

        you are as usual, a liar

        1. That’s right, I’m lying:

          who is “the police” who lobby. the ONLY laws my union lobbies on, and they are the only ones that represent me are stuff like retirement or line of duty death stuffs

          they have never taken a position on drug laws (for or against), sex laws, etc. and considering our membership has VASTLY disparate views on same, i think thats sound policy.

          again, you can wank all you want, but this is not a police problem

          And this was written in response to my comment

          I can count the times I’ve heard the police lobby to have a law repealed on one finger.

          It would take 10 bits to store the integer recording the number of times I’ve observed the police lobbying against repeal of laws.

          The police love the fact that we’re all committing three felonies a day as we peaceably go about our business. If gives them an excuse to fuck with anyone they want to, anytime they want to. Fewer crimes on the books mean lower budgets and fewer cops.

          Dude, if you don’t want to be a laughingstock, you might want to engage people honestly instead of denying reflexively that they have a point when they actually have a point.

          1. Dude, if you don’t want to be a laughingstock, you might want to engage people honestly instead of denying reflexively that they have a point when they actually have a point.

            I doubt it would help. The guy’s a joke and doesn’t even realize it.

            1. his quote supports MY point. here i’ll help you

              reading comprehension. i suggest you get some


              “who is “the police” who lobby. the ONLY laws my union lobbies on, and they are the only ones that represent me are stuff like retirement or line of duty death stuffs

              they have never taken a position on drug laws (for or against), sex laws, etc. and considering our membership has VASTLY disparate views on same, i think thats sound policy.”

              1. Does your membership have vastly disparate views about the propriety of recording cops in public? Is that one of those controversial subjects about which law enforcement refuses to take a stand? Because that’s what we’re talking about here.

                I realize you’re about a 40-watt bulb, but do try to keep up.

                1. evasion. i called the claim a lie. the quote was offered as proof *i* lied. it does nothing of the sort. it supports my claim

                  however, as an answer to your question, cops are not monolithic. we have repubs, dems, libertarians, and god forbid some socialists.

                  as for our UNION, which was what was referenced, we have taken no stance on recording, medical mj, or most other such issues.

                  1. Let’s break out the magic marker and draw a big bright line connecting the bidding, since you’re observably too fucking stupid to follow it without help.

                    (1) Mr Weebles points out that, in New Hampshire, police unions actively fought against reforms making it clear that it’s legal to videotape or otherwise record police peforming their duties.

                    (2) tarran sarcastically says that he is assured by dunphy that police unions don’t lobby.

                    (3) dunphy calls tarran a liar, claims he never said any such thing.

                    (4) tarran produces a quote by dunphy stating that while his union lobbies over salary, pension, benefits, and suchlike, they don’t lobby on controversial issues like drug laws and suchlike, owing to the disparate views of membership, and “this is not a cop problem”.

                    (5) dunphy continues to call tarran a liar, notwithstanding that Mr Weebles pointed out an example of police lobbying on an issue the likes of which dunphy previously claimed that police don’t lobby on.

                    (6) When this is pointed out to dunphy, he doubles down, claims that everybody but him can’t read for comprehension, yadda yadda.

                    Now pour yourself a nice tall glass of shut the fuck up.

                    1. i never said “police unions don’t lobby”

                      i said QUITE THE OPPOSITE..

                      1) i said they lobby
                      2) i said i had only heard rare occasions of them lobbying to REPEAL legislation (other than pension etc. bullshit)
                      3) i did not say they did not lobby.
                      4) i did not say they did not lobby (there, for emphasis)
                      5) the quote supports my claim

                      *if* i had said “police unions never lobby” etc. then he would have a point

                      i said quite the opposite


                    2. Yes. That’s right. You didn’t say that they don’t lobby at all.

                      Instead, you were quite specific that they ONLY lobby on a few specific issues related to their own remuneration — a category into which “opposing clarification of wiretapping laws” does not fall.

                      And yet Mr Weebles pointed out that police unions did, in fact, lobby against clarification of New Hampshire’s wiretapping laws.

                      And that is why tarran correctly called you a liar.

                      HTH, GFY.

                    3. Actually, I didn’t call dunphy a liar. I actually called myself a liar. Which makes dunphy’s hysteria particularly amusing. 😉

                      Ballchinian, otherwise your magic marker analysis was exactly spot on. Dunphy knows it, and that’s why he’s pounding the table so hard.

                      I should point out that dunphy’s behavior is true to his formula: whenever someone talks about police abuse, he says “it’s not true in my department, implying that this is true throughout the industry”

                      If someone points out that abuses are happening nonetheless, he then will engage in some interesting defenses:

                      1) It’s the Democrats wot done it.
                      2) Of course abuses happen, I never said they didn’t
                      3) You just hate cops and are missing the big picture.

                      Combine these tendencies with his general arrogance, and his delusion that he is a defender of liberty and civilization while carrying out the dictats of the state, and you have the picture of a petty, pathetic, insecure little man who is desperate for adulation and respect and pathologically incapable for taking responsibility for his actions.

                    4. Seriously, dunphy, you said “the ONLY laws my union lobbies on, and they are the only ones that represent me are stuff like retirement or line of duty death stuffs.” Now, there are two possibilities here:

                      1. You intended to mislead the reader by saying “my union”, even though you knew that what was expected was a response on unions in general. Once you “refuted” the point by cleverly saying “my union”, you let the misapprehension lie because it serves your argument. IOW, you intended for us to (misleadingly) extrapolate a generality about police unions from your specific example.
                      2. You stupidly offered up your union as a complete non-sequitur to the issue in the original thread.

                      So, you are either a snake, or stupid. You decide.

                      Next time, save the lawyering for the lawyers. Weasel.

                    5. no, i said MY union because a reasonoid bigot was broadbrushing.

                      people who can actually comprehend what they read would be nice. i shouldn’t have to dumb it down for your ilk


          2. no, it’s exactly what i said. i did not say we didn’t lobby. i said that my union only lobbied on those type of laws (pension, etc.)

            iow exactly what i said.

            thanks for proving my point

    5. Anyone care to guess who opposed it?

      Apple, they are guilty of everything these days.

  29. It’s okay if they use cameras on us at every traffic stop, infra-red surveillance, scans at airports, cameras on the streets and in the woods, invade our email, check out our credit card purchases, and track us through gps, but they sure can’t take it in return, can they? Poor dears.

    1. any cop who doesn’t want to be recorded, is free to turn in their badge and get another job.

      comes with the territory

  30. No tazers, arrests, beatings, shooting,
    or confiscation of property by the state.

    This story still looks like a molehill to me.

    1. it’s more an insight into the reason anti-police hysteria.

      the cop was an asshole. that’s about it.

      whoa! shocking

      1. It gives us something to do. Beats working.

      2. Who is feeding into the anti-police hysteria? Do you think most of the nation just woke up and said “You know what, I’m going to adopt an irrational hatred of cops today..”?

        Maybe, just maybe, they arrived at that point by paying attention to some of the shit your brothers and blue have been doing. yeah?

      3. Who is feeding into the anti-police hysteria? Do you think most of the nation just woke up and said “You know what, I’m going to adopt an irrational hatred of cops today..”?

        Maybe, just maybe, they arrived at that point by paying attention to some of the shit your brothers and blue have been doing. yeah?

        1. kind of my point. outside the rarefied climate of, the vast majority aren’t infected with the anti-police hysteria. polling data btw endlessly cited.

          1. More people should read reason then.

            1. more people should. it doesn’t therefore follow that it would create more anti-police nuts.

              they have been, and hopefully will remain, a fringe group. reading reason presents *a* side of the argument in re: cops, but i have confidence that most people look at the whole picture and not just reasonselectionbias and come to the conclusion that cops, in general, do a good job, and that , in general, they are to be respected.

              that’s the viewpoint of the public as a whole, and it’s based on everything, not just reason-cherry-picks.

    2. There was the threat of an arrest under false pretenses.

  31. I can’t imagine why respect for policing is in such decline….

  32. dunphy, stop playing the stupid victim card here, you may think that accusing people of bigotry against the police somehow gives you the moral high ground, it does not. Police are not the victims here.

    You can cite all the studies you want, people “respect” the police the same way anyone respects somebody who can create instant harm over them. It is a respect based on fear, nothing more.

  33. War on cameras! This is incident number 43 out of 989,674 police/camera interactions! What is the percentage on that by the way…?

  34. If Reason views itself as more than a local publication, it should say which Concord. I can think of three without effort, and there are probably a lot more.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.