Giving govt a graceful line of retreat during civil dis?

[Kat Kanning]

To start a fire you need a spark.

We need a new character - Sparky Dawkins, shorty's long lost cousin.

[41mag]

I don't even know who Shorty is.  Several refrences though.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Russell was contacted by one of the jailers who quit his job and was apparently very much effected by Russell's incarceration.

They probably hired another jailer.  The guy will have to come out and tell about his experience in the warehousing of people, many of whom didn't cause any harm, just broke the law.

[Roycerson]

Sun Tzu says you should always give your enemy an easy line of retreat. 

You think I should send another email to the prosecutor explaining that it was my intention to bring the cruelty of cops to the light and succeeded in convincing at least two people who previously believed in the altruism of 90% of cops that 90% of cops are sadistic and cruel and planting seeds in many others.  Continuing on to explain that right now those same people believe that the courts are good and fair and won't put me in jail.  Doing so would only serve to further alienate those people from their faith in the system and prove that I was correct all along.

Or something to that effect?

[error]

I personally think you shouldn't say a single word to them until you've consulted with a lawyer and had a chance to evaluate his (or her) advice.

[Roycerson]

I've consulted (am consulting) someone who works as a lawyer but is not legal counsel.  I've decided against a PD because I would have to formally request one.  Asking them to rob the taxpayers is not an option.

[Spencer]

I think that I'm the guy who is consulting with Roycerson re: my general friendly advice (as I am not a licensed attorney in Kansas and cannot give legal advice re Kansas law).

I think that getting a public defender is not a bad thing; if the government wants to put a person in jail for allegedly breaking a ridiculous law, then it should come out of the government's current financial resources (i.e., taxes it has collected -- at gunpoint -- over the last fiscal year); if everyone fought every criminal case with a jury trial and a public defender, then the government would collapse within 2 weeks (trust me) EVEN IF EVERYONE WHO FOUGHT WAS CONVICTED.  Can you imagine the outrage if those facing drug charges all went to trial?  Right now people say how terrible it is that so many people are in jail / prison for victimless crimes, but most of those people plead guilty (which helps perpetuate the system that continues to arrest and prosecute people for victimless crimes).

My obligation is to help out my clients the best that I can (which almost always involves fighting the charges to the fullest extent); the side benefit is that it causes prosecutors to get really tired and ties them up in court all of the time so that they have less time to issue new charges against other people and less time to prepare for their next trial(s).

[error]

I've consulted (am consulting) someone who works as a lawyer but is not legal counsel.  I've decided against a PD because I would have to formally request one.  Asking them to rob the taxpayers is not an option.

In New Hampshire you can request a public defender but you're required to eventually pay the money back, unless you're severely indigent and can prove that there's no way you'll ever be able to pay it back.

[Dave Ridley]

Sun Tzu says you should always give your enemy an easy line of retreat. 

You think I should send another email to the prosecutor explaining that it was my intention to bring the cruelty of cops to the light and succeeded in convincing at least two people who previously believed in the altruism of 90% of cops that 90% of cops are sadistic and cruel and planting seeds in many others.  Continuing on to explain that right now those same people believe that the courts are good and fair and won't put me in jail.  Doing so would only serve to further alienate those people from their faith in the system and prove that I was correct all along.

Or something to that effect?

I'm not sure.   i think publicity may be your best friend.

[supperman15]

Here's a thought:

Gandhi said that for civil dis to be effective it must provoke a response from the authorities.  By this he meant, I think, a negative response in the form of arrest, assault, etc.

On the other hand Ian thinks it's okay if the govt. backs down or ignores an act of civil dis.

Sun Tzu says you should always give your enemy an easy line of retreat. 

I wonder if we can build on Gandhi's approach by adding the Ian / Sun Tzu approach.   

How would that be done?   And should it be done?  What kind of line of retreat would we give the government?

One thought would be giving them more options than just "arrest me or ignore me"

Maybe you could say something like "i will continue doing X in front of your office until you arrest me or until you promise that you will stop doing such and such."

Maybe the demand could be a very reasonable one even by their standards.

Thoughts?

I think the main objective is showing the sheeple that this is going on, it isnt about the cops its about the audience, about the people who see it, either on line or elsewhere.  On the one hand they see the cops doing nothing, so why have the law if its bad and were not enforcing it.  On the other hand, they used force, for that???   Either way buy breaking the law and doing it loudly you get people thinking about the law and the system that is the point of civil disobediance.  Live free, and let others see how powerfull that is