Once a cop... Part 2

[John]

Unfortunately it looks like we're probably needing a part 2.


In Grafton we've got a "former" state (CT) undercover nark cop who is not only part of the "liberty" gang, but he's also part of the "peace" gang.
He seems to love calling his blue-light-gang on others - quite frequently.


Any guesses who it might be?

Need/want a hint?

[Jim Johnson]

Any hint at all would be good at this point.

[John]

He is an activist who moved to NH within the FSP movement timeframe, and moved to Grafton just a few months ago.
His age is above average.
He rides a bike.
He calls himself a "Quaker reformer."


Has worked at:
US Navy
US Patent Office
CT State Police
Video Store owner

[John]

"... he transferred to the Department of the Army as a civilian worker in the legal office of the Communications Electronic Command (CECOM) at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, "working the other side of the desk preparing patent applications on inventions of army scientists where aspired to a transfer at the equivalent office at the Underwater Sound Lab in New London, Connecticut. "

[Free libertarian]

Conflict resolution can be difficult when property ownership and the inherent authority which arises from it is not clearly defined, observed or recognized.   Often calling the police does not ameliorate the situation, but can bring unintended consequences once THAT ball is rolling.

My recommendation is the property owner in this situation make his intentions clear and the rest of us honor it.  If we don't agree, we don't have to go there.   Peace.

[John]

Often calling the police does not ameliorate the situation, but can bring unintended consequences once THAT ball is rolling.

My estimation is that it usually does not ameliorate the situation, but rather escalates things.

That ball IS rolling, and some of the consequences (from what I'm hearing) are MANY conversations which a variety of police (first both local guys, and now state) including various additional allegations from, and at, each other.

Yup. it is escalating.

[Free libertarian]

Often calling the police does not ameliorate the situation, but can bring unintended consequences once THAT ball is rolling.

My estimation is that it usually does not ameliorate the situation, but rather escalates things.

That ball IS rolling, and some of the consequences (from what I'm hearing) are MANY conversations which a variety of police (first both local guys, and now state) including various additional allegations from, and at, each other.

Yup. it is escalating.

When the "my thug is bigger than your thug"  replaces a good observation of the property rights / wishes of the owner,  absurdity can often ensue.   

Escalation?  Oh damn! I don't even have any popcorn to munch on and the drama theater has already dimmed the lights ?

My recommendation remains, the property owner should make his intentions clear and the rest should abide by it or peacefully move on.

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't think I could trust anyone that was a deceiver like an undercover cop. I think that is likely to continue to be their mindset.

[Russell Kanning]

yea .... it seems like for any of us to trust a former undercover cop .... there would be many steps
like confessing to everyone that he was one of those rascals
and so forth

[John]

He (John Boanerges Redman) seems quite ready to tell people about his jobs with GovAlmighy, including the part about his job as an undercover-rat-thug in college. But hey, that was all a long time ago - and stuff.

These days, he seems strangely pleased with himself when he calls the cops on people, which he has done several times since moving to Graftopia just months ago.

Seems pretty twisted.

[Tom Sawyer]

Googled his name got lots of web activity to include

http://cops-being-cops.blogspot.com

Seems he has a problem with cops in general.

[John]

Googled his name got lots of web activity to include

http://cops-being-cops.blogspot.com

Seems he has a problem with cops in general.

I had looked him up as well.//
Then I've ask him about how he can preach the anti-state stuff so well, and then keep calling cops on people.
He says it is the "most peaceful" way ...

[John]

One of my mentors used to teach that we should be very very care about what we hate, because what we hate gets inside us.

He would often say that people often "become what they hate."




I try to be on alert for this in myself.

[Free libertarian]

Part of the problem identified here is a manifestation of the state's monopoly on "conflict resolution". 

In a free market any property disputes would first be the duty of the property owner  to solve or take steps to prevent from even happening in the first place. 

The fact that two people, ostensibly guests on property that neither owns, have an issue with each other could still be solved without calling in the thug / state unless there was a clear and present danger of bodily harm to one or the other, which in the present paradigm muddies the waters.  Once cops are called though, it clearly has the potential to bring unintended consequences into a solvable situation.

I am, however, sympathetic to the weaker party in these kinds of disputes, since often the only LEGAL recourse is to call the thugs as the thugs have forbidden other alternatives.   That's a problem of course and perpetuates a  kind of state enforced false dichotomy regarding dispute resolution.

Sorry for digressing from the main point which seems to be harshing on cops and former cops.  Please continue.  I can make more popcorn.   

[MaineShark]

One of my mentors used to teach that we should be very very care about what we hate, because what we hate gets inside us.

He would often say that people often "become what they hate."

"When you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."

The fact that two people, ostensibly guests on property that neither owns, have an issue with each other could still be solved without calling in the thug / state unless there was a clear and present danger of bodily harm to one or the other, which in the present paradigm muddies the waters.  Once cops are called though, it clearly has the potential to bring unintended consequences into a solvable situation.

I am, however, sympathetic to the weaker party in these kinds of disputes, since often the only LEGAL recourse is to call the thugs as the thugs have forbidden other alternatives.   That's a problem of course and perpetuates a  kind of state enforced false dichotomy regarding dispute resolution.

There are, usually, other alternatives.  Some simply choose to immediately jump to using the violence of the State.

It's similar to issues of self-defense.  I'm strongly in favor of self-defense, and by no means a pacifist.  But, despite asserting that there is a right to violently defend oneself, I would also assert that any decent human being would never treat violence as a first resort.  Human decency demands that we explore what alternatives may exist, and place violence well down the list.

Someone asked me for an opinion on a property rights dispute, some years ago.  It was a difference of opinion as to what had been sold, and who had a right to use the disputed property.  What I told him at the time was that whomever actually owned the property had a right to take it from the other, up to an including the use of force to do so, but that since there was a dispute, a reasonable person would refrain from engaging in force until other realistic alternatives were exhausted.  Even if it were determined that the violent one was right in his assertions this time, and the other was not, I'd much prefer to be around the wrong but nonviolent individual than the right but violent one.  Being around someone who immediately jumps to violence is not safe, even if he's been right every time in the past, because the first time he is wrong may be the time he attacks you.