NH: PD fails to fire pro-liberty cop - for now

[amzuel420]

Anytime a cop stands up and honors his oath...that makes my day. I'm "former" Navy and I still honor my oath. We need to support cops like this in any way we can. If I got arrested by a cop like that...well , I'd kinda feel like I musta deserved it....LOL....great vid!

[defiythelie]

Its sad good cops like this all whys get harassed by their own kind. There was an officer like this in my town, but he was forced to quit. Then he started a youth center in town but they ran him out of town for building code violations. I mean I dont like most cops but this guy was cool shit. I had very long talks with him at the bar about how the police department in our area works and ever bad thing you have heard about cops is true based on what he said.

[treon123456]

THAT COPS A HERO..........HE EVEN TALKED ABOUT...'victimless crimes...the constitution'....those people there in Epping need to march in the streets for this guy!!!!!!

[libertymom100]

Hmmm.....I guess there are good cops out there after all.

[smellyfooty]

saudi "security" has not been "established" worldwide. Why not?

[smellyfooty]

no more talking. Start acting. they're not listening anymore. start fighting.

[Anothercoilgun]

This is actually a bad thing.

[fczwartek]

This pro "free stater" cop is kind of interesting. I agree 100% with finally ending the failure known as the war on drugs, not to mention all our other pointless wars too.

But how does this cop reconcile his pro "free stater" position while being an agent of the very government that the free-staters want destroy.

Beyond that, how does he square his role as a keeper of peace with the apparent anarchistic beliefs of most "free staters?"

[freestatereport]

actually most activists who move for the fsp are not anarchist types. Most are minarchists. The anarchist/civil dis types get more media attention most of the time.

[Veloce3]

I suspect that Brad has the support of millions.....

[klaptongroovemaster]

Losing your train of thought, Dave? You should stand back a bit when covering those 420 events!

[harryogre]

LOL

Thumbs up!

[dtmbcorp]

YEAH! Another victory for common sense and decency!

End the drug war now!

google: LEAP PROHIBITION

[silentthriller]

What the hell's up with that camera Dave?

[dtmbcorp]

I think it's his phone, he adds the filter so it doesn't look so horribly laden with artifacts.

[p00lman]

Did they "fail" to fire him, or did they simply not fire him?

[anarchistassilum]

well they were trying to fire him so i guess they failed

[comradepinko]

You need to clarify who your pronoun "they" is referring to if you want a clear answer.

[p00lman]

It just looks like another case of dishonest wording on Ridley's part.

[comradepinko]

His immediate superiors apparently wanted him fired. So in that sense those people failed to fire him.

The committee members did not want to fire him, so they did not fail.

So if your "they" means his immediate superiors in the police department then yes, they did fail to fire him.

If your "they" means everyone with a say in the process then no. They didn't fail at firing him, they simply decided not to.

[p00lman]

If the committee members of the PD didn't fire him, then they didn't fail.

[comradepinko]

Correct, those members didn't fail. But the superior officer who attempted to fire him but was overruled by the committee did fail. This is why your use of a pronoun confused the issue.

[p00lman]

Then it's dishonest to say the PD failed to fire him when it was only one person who wanted to.

[comradepinko]

I believe it was his two superior officers. I don't think the committee members are members of the police department, although they do have oversight. So I think it's accurate to say that the PD failed to fire him, while it would have been inaccurate to say that the town government wanted him fired.

[p00lman]

Do two superior officers speak for the entire department? Clearly not, since he wasn't fired.

It's spin on Ridley's part of make free staters seem more victimized. It's pathetic.

[Michael7893]

semantics much? in honesty if all you can do is ho hum why do you even bother watching ridley? perhaps your envious that at least he works for meaningful change while all you do is whine and complain?

[p00lman]

It's not meaningful change. First of all, nothing is going to change, and second, his motivations and means are petty and selfish.

[comradepinko]

Covering local news is petty and selfish?

I'm no free stater or libertarian, but you seem to have an incredible bias against Ridley from the previous comments you've left on his videos.

[p00lman]

You seem to be new here. After a while, you'll see the way he slants the "news" he "reports."

A strong point of view in disagreement of the subject matter isn't the same thing as a bias. Looks like you're already picking up Ridley's knack for spin.

[comradepinko]

He is definitely biased, but I take his reports to be from a Free Stater's perspective. I never expect him to praise any government organization because I understand his bias.

You seem to have a strong bias against him (bias - a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.) You claimed he was a liar because he said the PD failed to fire the officer. I gave an explanation, but you insisted he was a liar for different reasons.

[p00lman]

No, you completely fail to grasp difference.

A bias implied an unfair inclination that causes someone to disregard certain attributes of that which he or she is biased against.

Ridley's problem isn't bias. Ridley's problem is spinning his opinion in a dishonest manner.

I am not biased either, since I dispute my points and give reasons for them.

You could say we're both "biased," but it completely misses the point of what and how we're stating our cases.

[comradepinko]

So you don't think you have a bias when you accused Ridley of being a liar for saying "PD fails to fire officer" and then once I clarified the point you just shifted your argument to claim he was a liar for different reasons?

I am doubtful that you had both arguments in mind when making the initial post, you simply want to demonstrate that Ridley is a liar so you'll look for evidence to back this claim.

Bias is inevitable, but you should recognize that you have it and what it is.

[p00lman]

Everyone is biased, but that's NOT what we're talking about here. If everyone is biased, then it's a meaningless label for the purposes of this discussion.

[comradepinko]

It's meaningful if you refuse to recognize that you are biased against Ridley.

[p00lman]

I'm not. I'm open to the possibility that a brilliant video may come along that I'll have no choice but to agree with it.

I doubt that will happen, but I know that Ridley isn't an idiot. In fact, I'm usually more pissed at him BECAUSE I know he's not an idiot, so I know his frequent dishonesty is deliberate.

[mrethrift]

Are you pissed at yourself for being an idiot? Is it hard walking through life as poolboy, the mentally emaciated lone wolf hungering for the possession of intelligence you'll never know? Bay for us baby bitch hahaha!

[mrethrift]

Dishonest? You want honest wording? Allow me: you're a meek man of little use to anyone! Now go upload one of your Asian soft rock vids, put on your diapers, and prepare to whine!

[mrethrift]

Teach em how to fail like only you know how! Your pure expertise in that area should be quite helpful. They can learn to fail by example. All they have to do is read your comments, and they'll see failure in action!