What are the various goals of civ dis?

[David]

If you have a good idea of what you want to accomplish, you have a way to judge the results afterwards by comparing them to the goal.  The goal is a way to evaluate success. 
It seems to me that there are two main goals that have been expressed by those interested in actually doing civ dis. 
1. The ignore me or arrest/harrass me goal.  I very much like this approach, and I give Dada the credit for bringing it to my attention.  I want the cops to ignore me, but if they dont', I will slow them down as much as possible in an effort to increase their costs.  It is a peaceful and completely nonviolent form of deterence.  Here the focus is on trying to get in particular the first line enforcers, usually the police to ignore us.  If they do, then it doesn't matter what the law is, it isn't enforced.  It is hard to get publicity for this because if we 'report' too accurately, (name, badge number, etc.) in theory we could get the police officer in trouble, something we don't want to do.  I like this approach because I think it is more achievable. 
2. Using civ dis in an attempt to get others to see the stupidity of gov't and hopefully get others to join with the goal of overwhelming gov't enforcement.  Also completely nonviolent.  A strong emphasis on the 'right civ dis', meaning to choose the situation to maximize positive response from those that may be interested in what we are doing.  Within this goal category is two approaches, the 'in your face' approach, a good example is Mike Fishers 'outlaw manicuring event, and the 'going about my day' approach, a good example is when Lauren Canario was pulled over in Milford and when asked by the cop to produce license and registration she refused.  Srqrebel is prolly the main proponet of this goal and a focus on the going about my day approach. 

The gambling civ dis this last weekend was from my perspective completely successful.  The police ignored us.  We didn't hurt anyone, no victim, so they left us in peace. 
In my registration refusenik situation, I tried to get the trooper to choose to recind the ticket by writing a letter to him.  It didn't work and I got a court date.  In court I told the judge I was engaged in civ dis, and would not pay fine fees etc.  He found me guilty then suspended the fine.  A victory for the most part. 
I was prompted to start this post because of this post by Ian,

"Well, they ignored us this weekend, so I was just suggesting something they couldn't ignore.  If you'll notice, in my initial post I said it probably wasn't a great idea." 

I'm not trying to pick on you Ian, or this specific subject that you were initially suggesting.  But I don't understand what you would have been attemting to achieve.  Ignoreing us is good, and if they don't ignore us, ideally the more popular the idea is the greater the PR.  Such as Mike Fishers' manicuring, Laurens' two arrests trying to fight eminent domain.  Even those that don't like what we are doing generally supported what they did. 

[FTL_Ian]

I'm not trying to pick on you Ian, or this specific subject that you were initially suggesting.  But I don't understand what you would have been attemting to achieve.  Ignoreing us is good, and if they don't ignore us, ideally the more popular the idea is the greater the PR.  Such as Mike Fishers' manicuring, Laurens' two arrests trying to fight eminent domain.  Even those that don't like what we are doing generally supported what they did. 

I was trying to explore the idea of finding something they, by their own laws have no discretion on, and seeing if they exercised discretion anyway for the purpose of ignoring us.  IE, if it is mandatory to arrest for ________, then will they still ignore us?

The drinking & driving was a lousy idea, but the "itinerant vendor" is better, in my opinion.

So, I agree that ignoring us is best.  Therefore, ignoring us when they have no legal discretion to ignore us, would be even better!

[John Edward Mercier]

The itinerant vendor has to do with licensing and BET issues... not likely to win public perception, nor change the statute.

The underage drinking, if not done while driving... could. There is a very large arguement on Age of Consent being that its variable within the State legal system. Obviously I'm not sure what the outcome would be, but it is being discussed.

[David]

So, I agree that ignoring us is best.  Therefore, ignoring us when they have no legal discretion to ignore us, would be even better!

I agree, but it would be wise to find PR friendly things then.  Your previous suggestion was prolly not PR friendly, or as you say, lousy.    

[srqrebel]

I was trying to explore the idea of finding something they, by their own laws have no discretion on, and seeing if they exercised discretion anyway for the purpose of ignoring us.  IE, if it is mandatory to arrest for ________, then will they still ignore us?

I would think that any instance of law-breaking would be subject to police discretion, as long as the officer(s) themselves are not being monitored in any way.

Most likely, police will choose to ignore anytime they recognize it to be in their best interest to do so. However, ignoring lawbreaking under certain circumstances could count against them (whether or not a response is officially mandated) -- and ultimately cost them their jobs.

For instance, any officer who pulls someone over, only to find out that the driver does not have a government-issued driver license (or a suspended one), yet lets him drive away from the scene, would be at risk of being sanctioned for it. Hence, getting caught driving without the permission of 'the government' results in an arrest, every single time.

The same applies to openly serving alcohol to minors, as well as public alcohol consumption at any age. Also, it is my understanding that the police are required to fully enforce the law anytime a complaint has been lodged with them -- thus, had someone complained about illegal gambling at Freedom Fest, there would very likely have been arrests, assuming it falls within the jurisdiction of the local police.

When (and if) the police ignore us under the above circumstances, we will have achieved a major milestone in the struggle for freedom.

...but, far be it from me to precipitate an arrest by lodging a complaint!!!

[John Edward Mercier]

Police can act, but prosecution comes from a different authority. Many are reading NH laws as Select Boards must prosecute... being mandatory. What it means is the Select Board and only the Select Board has the authority.