NH: Keene cops commit armed robbery on-cam

Sponsor: http://FreeKeene.com - Keene officers will face no penalty for the kidnapping and theft they perpetrated today, because it is all allegedly legal. But was it right to jail New Hampshire resident Andrew Carroll for his pre-announced civil disobedience against pot laws? Disclosure: LyfProductions.com is an advertiser on the RidleyReport. This video was shot 1/10/09 and first uploaded 1/11.

Vid from: http://YouTube.com/TackleTheWorld
http://LyfProductions.com

free keene police new hampshire ridleyreport dave ridley report libertarian hunter s. thompson marijuana civil disobedience pot arrest gandhi martin luther king andrew carroll john stossel penn and teller jillette george washington nonviolent henry david thoreau outlaw manicurist rosa parks cannabis hemp bud prince of weed cops prison jail kop busters blue light ganing barry cooper amnesty international human rights watch drug war on drugs

.... Please thank our sponsor by visiting ... FREEKEENE.COM

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• new
• hampshire
• keene
• cops
• police
• drug
• war
• on
• drugs
• marijuana
• civil
• disobedience
• ron
• paul
• free
• state
• project

[SlimTheMan29]

@seanredsky yep, it was called The American Revolution...

[HotblackDesiat042]

@RetSquid (...Are you spending a year dead for tax purposes?) :)

Probably, could a few years of that, nowadays.

[HotblackDesiat042]

@RetSquid Yes, you're right, as long as there is no conflict to the meaning/interpretation of the law by the parties involved. But in their reasoning behind the video title, I think they're trying to emphasize upon the "injured party" principle common in most criminal cases. Because there is no injured party due to on possessing or consumption of marijuana, which they believe is their constitutional right. And to have it confiscated, would be theft of property, making them an injured party.

[HotblackDesiat042]

@seanredsky Please note that I was only trying explain why they titled the video clip the way they did. Sure it's a stretch, IMO

But...

“Many people feel various laws are unconstitutional [or unjust] but that doesn't mean anything.”

"Personal opinions cannot be sufficient. Can you imagine civil unrest that would... result of such a system?”

I’m sure King George III would’ve agreed with you. Our nation was founded through civil unrest. Was the US declaration of independence a ridiculous notion?

[RetSquid]

@HotblackDesiat042

Exactly, the Common law gives the background, but if there is any conflict between the two, the statute/written law 'wins'. Common law does not override the written law.

(...Are you spending a year dead for tax purposes?)

[HotblackDesiat042]

@RetSquid

While I’m not a lawyer, I’m pretty sure common law is the precedent, as it’s often referred to as ”precedent”. Most all criminal statutes are codifications of pre-existing common laws, and are quite often succinct, leaving the unstated defining terms of the law to be analogized by the courts from the pre-existing common law, this system being referred to as jurisprudence. Thus, it is common law that generally defines what a statute or regulatory law means.

[RooksGambit]

@seanredsky Yeah, I can imagine. We live in it now. Under what other criteria do people vote for their leaders besides personal opinion? While not precisely the same it is significantly similar. However, I agree with your first sentence, with the caveat that I disagree when Enforcement directly violates your Constitutional Rights. 

[seanredsky]

@HotblackDesiat042 Enforcement of law is not a criminal offense simply because many people feel those laws are unconstitutional. Many people feel various laws are unconstitutional but that doesn't mean anything. The law must be upheld unless or until it is repealed or presented to and debated before the court and found unjust as a result. Personal opinions cannot be sufficient. Can you imagine the civil unrest that would come about as a result of such a system? It's simply a ridiculous notion.

[RetSquid]

@HotblackDesiat042

Statutory law take prececence over any common law.