Concord PD Hits For The Cycle: Lemonade Stand + Camera + Wiretap Law

from the and-yet-the-scorecard-shows-this-citizen-pitching-a-shutout dept

We’ve covered the overreach of law enforcement several times here at Techdirt. Whether it’s cops objecting to being filmed, cops abusing wiretap laws to prosecute those who have filmed them or cops acting at the behest of their cities to shut down rogue lemonade stands, it’s all been detailed here.

Finally, thanks to Reason’s Hit & Run blog, we can finally bring you the Holy Trinity of excessive law enforcement: Cops + Cameras + Lemonade Stands! Reason’s Mike Riggs has the details:

A Concord man giving away lemonade at a farmer’s market was threatened with wiretapping charges last Saturday when he refused to stop filming a police officer and a fellow vendor. Garret Ean didn’t have a permit to sell lemonade, which drew the ire of the president of the Concord Farmer’s Market. Ean filmed the confrontation, and continued to film when a Concord cop showed up and threatened to arrest him for wiretapping.

Ironically, Ean wasn’t even selling lemonade. He was giving it away to celebrate Lemonade Freedom Day. So, in response to him showing his solidarity with this cause, he is first hassled by Steve Blasdell, who is apparently in charge (or so he makes it appear) of the Concord Farmer’s Market and makes various attempts to bluster Ean out of the area.

When this fails, Blasdell goes for the camera. Unfortunately for Blasdell, Ean remains in control. At that point the only reasonable response is… call the cops! Yes. Exactly. Someone as threatening as a skinny guy armed with a half-bag of plastic cups should be dealt with by professionals trained in the art of subduing skinny guys armed with plastic cups and (unfortunately for them), a printout of the state’s wiretap law.

The cops show up and inform him that they “won’t arrest him today.” Well, god bless ’em. Still, a simple “this looks to be within your rights as a citizen” would be so much nicer than an open-ended threat. In between all the action, some kids take advantage of the free lemonade offer.

At what point, as either the self-appointed mayor of a certain street or as an employee of the city (read: taxpayers), do you find it necessary to curtail this sort of behavior? At what point does it seem like this would further relations between anyone involved? Is it impossible for some people to walk by something that strikes them oddly without feeling the need to enforce something?

There are probably no answers to these questions. I would imagine that the first two questions were never considered and the last question is largely rhetorical. But despite its rhetorical nature, we see answer after answer arriving, often captured on camera.

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Concord PD Hits For The Cycle: Lemonade Stand + Camera + Wiretap Law”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
191 Comments
CommonSense (profile) says:

Re: Re: Which one?

Oh man oh man…. That’s exactly what I was hoping would NOT be the answer. As a native of NH, who loves so much about that great state, I simply can’t find words powerful enough to express my disappointment. Where’s that old man to watch out for this crap when you really need him…(the one in the mountain that fell… πŸ™ )

Jose_X (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Which one?

I get the feeling that when the police checked with legal opinion or whatever, that the people higher up realized that this would all end up ugly if he was arrested (a) because they probably didn’t dot every i cross ts in “selling” the street, (b) because the guy here might ultimately win and get some laws overturned, and (c) because the politicians connected with this might not get re-elected.

CommonSenseParadox (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Which one?

The sergeant who is talking with both parties has it well under control. Trust me they, we deal with this more than most people think from the 4:20 club to the free stater’s. But it didn;t go any further than this, you do a FI report log it and move on. It does however assist police in dealing with issues like this as it has to do more with individual rights vs. black and white crimes and no (not race related).
Do I consider this a big deal in NH, my state no becuase both parties were able to move on. I’m not so sure in other parts of the U.S. which you would think you have the same rights throughout but I’m not blind I see differences in states they way the treat the people they serve.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Which one?

oh my… what a piece of crp site. Can you say FAKE REVIEWS there? i can!

the only reviews posted there so far are 5-star ones and they are timestamped as:

By: Anne R. (Jun 19, 2009)
By: Jennifer L. (Jun 20, 2009)
By: Nancy P. (Jun 20, 2009)
By: Kara W. (Jun 24, 2009)
By: Elaine B. (Jul 23, 2009)

and nothing since then…

funny thing is that all the reviews have the same title “Care2 Review: We love this market!”
same title=dead give-away for being fake.

Elisabeth says:

Re: Which one?

Concord, NH.
The street corner is the corner of Capitol Street and Main Street and his back is facing the State House.

Concord resident, we walked past him at the Farmer’s Market on Saturday. He had a message chalked on the pavement in front of him offering free lemonade and asking for donations going towards a free speech organization.

Anonymous Coward says:

Tim, bad news for you. The cops will never say “this looks to be within your rights as a citizen”, because they could be held to it. They are not a judge and jury, they are only there to act if there is clear criminal activity. They were unable to determine it, so they aren’t arresting him “today”. However, upon review, the local DA might consider charges.

The guy is clearly an instigator, trying to get on camera, and trying to get a rise out of people. He’s the sort of jackass for a cause that makes it harder for everyone else in the long run.

Casper says:

Re: Re:

The guy is clearly an instigator, trying to get on camera, and trying to get a rise out of people. He’s the sort of jackass for a cause that makes it harder for everyone else in the long run.

Phew, glad you are here to tell people how to use their freedoms, otherwise we would have people all over the internet making idiots of themselves.

taoareyou (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Yes he expected a confrontation. When people wish to trample on your civil liberties and you make a planned effort to stand up for them, that’s going to happen.

Giving away lemonade on a public street is not a crime and thus not “instigation”. Exercising your rights is not an attempt to cause trouble. Knowing that others will oppose you doesn’t make you wrong. If anyone was instigating, it was the farmer’s market guy who claimed he owned the public street and assaulted the filmmaker.

Many times in U.S. history people have had to stand up against authority to protect their civil rights. This person, whether you accept it or not, is helping educate people so they too may defend their liberties.

Matthew (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Well…civil disobedience is pretty much, by definition, instigation, but that doesn’t make him a jackass. He was not disruptive and he remained calm and courteous in the face of threats and attempts at intimidation. I don’t see him antagonizing or trying to get a rise out of anyone. Bringing along a camera is a smart and reasonable defense against violence and oppression – people usually behave better when they know they’re being recorded.

This is a good example of how to do these sorts of things.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Wait, aren’t freetards supposed to just take stuff (I’m sorry, let me translate that for you – steal stuff) for free?

Freetards also like to share. That’s what the copyright industry is really against.

So when you give stuff for free, you get the same definition? So homeless shelters are actually food thiefs?

Well, they are taking potential sales away from restaurants. I imagine restaurant owners might say the shelters are “stealing” sales from them.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The cops will never say “this looks to be within your rights as a citizen”, because they could be held to it. They are not a judge and jury, they are only there to act if there is clear criminal activity. They were unable to determine it, so they aren’t arresting him “today”. However, upon review, the local DA might consider charges.

Funny – I thought the function of the justice system was to keep the peace – not to charge as many people with as many crimes as they possibly can.

Trails (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Giving away lemonade is instigation?

Let me make sure I have this right.

1. Ean gives away lemonade
2. Ean knows this will draw police
3. Ean is instigating

This kind of bullshit circular logic is a big part of the problem. Doing something that’s allowed under the law is a “problem” because of foreknowledge that it will draw a response from overbearing police. Hey if only we all went along with what overbearing cops want, there’d be no problem right?

Cops should have proven him wrong by not harassing him. By showing up and harassing him, the cops are proving him RIGHT.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

You forgot 1.a) He gave away lemonade right in front of a market full of places selling beverages.

It’s instigation. When you grow up and run your own business, let me know how it feels when someone stands on your doorstep and gives the same product away for free.

I don’t think you will be thrilled.

He could have easily given away the lemonade in front of his own house, but it would be unlikely to provoke a response. For me, that makes him a jackass. It’s not about free lemonade, it’s about stirring up the shit and getting your video on you tube.

Gabriel Tane (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“I don’t think you will be thrilled.”

Yeah, but my displeasure doesn’t make it any less legal. Unless, of course, I have more money (and therefore, more power to sway the law enforcement) than he does.

“He could have easily given away the lemonade in front of his own house, but it would be unlikely to provoke a response. For me, that makes him a jackass. It’s not about free lemonade, it’s about stirring up the shit and getting your video on you tube.”

Apparently, the very idea of making a statement is lost on you. Did he do this to make sure people had lemonade? NO. The whole purpose, which he even tried to explain to Blasdell, is that this is a solidarity (read: protest) against the ‘enforcement’ against children’s lemonade stands.

Do you really think (as Blasdell apparently does) that one guy with a couple of bottles of lemonade is a significant threat to ‘proper’ vendors? Really?

DS says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“Yeah, but my displeasure doesn’t make it any less legal.”

It could very well be when someone is required to purchase a permit to be there dispensing product. Even charities cannot just setup shop anywhere and vend.

Ean is being an ass, just like his parents for giving him a “cool” way to spell his name.

Gabriel Tane (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“It could very well be when someone is required to purchase a permit to be there dispensing product.”

Not sure what that has to do with my displeasure over someone giving away things in front of my business, but OK.

” Even charities cannot just setup shop anywhere and vend.”

That’s up to the individual jurisdictions. And if he was exercising his free-speech by protesting, then you’ll find a harder time in shutting him down. But that’s for the courts to decide. Sounds to me like Ean read up on what he was allowed to do and not do in advance, and I’d put my money on the fact that him sharing his lemonade with anyone who asks is not going to be “vending food” or “distribution”. But, again, that’s up to the court if it gets that far.

“Ean is being an ass, just like his parents for giving him a “cool” way to spell his name.”

wow… first, congratulations on a multi-generational ad-hominim. Aces. Second, do some research… “Ean” isn’t a ‘cool way of spelling it’, it’s a Hebrew name that’s also (strangly) popular in Ireland. Maybe it’s a cultural heritage way of spelling it. But, hey, if insulting him and his parents makes you feel superior to him, who am I (and facts) to stop you?

DS says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

“Not sure what that has to do with my displeasure over someone giving away things in front of my business, but OK.”

I’m not talking about your displeasure, but the legality of distributing a consumable product at a location where a permit/fee is required to distribute a consumable product.

“That’s up to the individual jurisdictions. And if he was exercising his free-speech by protesting, then you’ll find a harder time in shutting him down. But that’s for the courts to decide.”

If he was doing this outside of the farmers market, in my non-binding opinion, he’d have a stronger case. But offering a product in a location where people are paying for the right to buy and sell a product makes it a bit different.

And he’s still an ass regardless, even besides his name you can tell by his passive aggressive bull. Again, if he did this in front of his house, or some location that he was not getting in someone’s way, that would be different.

Gabriel Tane (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

” But offering a product in a location where people are paying for the right to buy and sell a product makes it a bit different.”

Never been to a farmer’s market held in public places, have you? He was on a public sidwalk, not on privately own land. It makes no difference if there are other people selling things there along side him. That does hot cange the nature of the public area.

” And he’s still an ass regardless, even besides his name you can tell by his passive aggressive

your opinion has been noted and dismissed as a pointless ad-hoinim attack that has done nothing to forward your argument and has only degraded my opinion of you, your skills at debate, and the value of anything you have to say.

“Again, if he did this in front of his house, or some location that he was not getting in someone’s way, that would be different.”

and again that wasn’t the point. As I said in post 33, the WHOLE reason he did this was to protest in public. Wouldn’t do much from the front of his house, would it.

DS says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

“Never been to a farmer’s market held in public places, have you?”

Yes, and they all had to pay for a permit to set up shop.

“your opinion has been noted and dismissed as a pointless ad-hoinim attack that has done nothing to forward your argument and has only degraded my opinion of you, your skills at debate, and the value of anything you have to say.”

Boo fuckin hoo, and your opinion was so devalued, you still had to respond. He was “protesting” in a way that would cause problems, so he could be the big internet star that day. Still an ass.

“and again that wasn’t the point. As I said in post 33, the WHOLE reason he did this was to protest in public”

And again, you didn’t see the point at all. If he was around the corner, NOT in a permit controlled ‘public’ market, it would be different. What’s the point of protesting something to nobody that cares or has any idea what you are protesting? If he interfered with people’s right to free movement, what would be the point of protesting by harassing people who had nothing to do with what he was protesting about? What happened to the good old days where you actually WENT to the people who did the act that you are protesting about?

AW says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

“Yes, and they all had to pay for a permit to set up shop.”

To sell products and act as a business entity yes. Churches routinely have public bake sales facing private streets, many times without proper documentation through ignorance and no police are called on them.

“He was “protesting” in a way that would cause problems, so he could be the big internet star that day. Still an ass.”

Your use of air quotes around the word protesting is inappropriate since he was indeed protesting, regardless of your opinion of it.

One could say your inflammatory posts and aggressive language would make you fall into your own category as you have a far larger audience than Ean, could ever hope at a limited venue.

“And again, you didn’t see the point at all. If he was around the corner, NOT in a permit controlled ‘public’ market, it would be different. What’s the point of protesting something to nobody that cares or has any idea what you are protesting? If he interfered with people’s right to free movement, what would be the point of protesting by harassing people who had nothing to do with what he was protesting about? What happened to the good old days where you actually WENT to the people who did the act that you are protesting about?”

So you say he was protesting something no one knew or cared about, yet he shouldn’t be raising awareness to public who isn’t aware of it? Who precisely should he be talking to then? He was protesting on a street adjoining the state building in an area of high traffic and offering free lemonade to essentially anyone since he had no way of verifying employment status. Since when is sharing food that has passed safety standards a crime? I think you fail to see the point of protesting, in general. Raising awareness to an audience is a major portion of protest. People don’t just spontaneously get angry over issues without provocation. By your standards of protest the sit-ins of the civil rights movement would make them television “stars of the day” and “still an ass”.

Gabriel Tane (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

Well, AW actually covered most of what would have been my response, but I’ll say my piece anyway…

“Yes, and they all had to pay for a permit to set up shop.”

The Farmers Market may have had to pay permit fees to organize the market at that location. The vendors who are selling ‘under the flag of’ the Market would probably have paid money to the association to help offset or recoup that cost.

But you notice Ean was not a vendor? He was giving away lemonade. Period. He wasn’t a vendor, he wasn’t claiming that he was part of the Farmer’s Market.

And if a permit was so required, why wasn’t he forcibly removed by the law enforcement who came by and clearly knew that he didn’t have a permit?

“Boo fuckin hoo, and your opinion was so devalued, you still had to respond. He was “protesting” in a way that would cause problems, so he could be the big internet star that day. Still an ass.”

What? My opinion was so devalued that I had to respond? … what?

Moving on… AW hit it when he said you obviously don’t understand a protest if you think it’s not supposed to ’cause problems’. But let’s back up a second… who did he cause a problem for? ONE FREAKIN GUY! One. That’s it. O-N-E. You could say that he actualy made a few peoples’ days because they got some free lemonade. The rest of the time, he was raising a bit of awareness about the lemonade-enforcement issues. So how is this ?causing a problem??

OOOOhhh? that?s right, he was doing this so he could be on YouTube! How stupid of me.

“And again, you didn’t see the point at all. If he was around the corner…” screw it… people can look up and read…

How would it be different any different? He was doing this in a completely legal way in a completely legal place and bothered no one except one guy who was probably just pissed about not getting a vendor’s fee from him. He didn’t interfere with anyone’s free movement. He was on a spot of the sidewalk that was not crowded, and was not ‘too close’ to any vendors as to block access to them. And who was he harassing? I get more harassment from people giving me jesus pamphlets than from this guy.

You saw a few minutes of this guy?s video… you have no idea what he was doing when he wasn’t being confronted by the farmer’s market pres. Sounded to me like he started off telling people who wanted to stop for a moment exactly what he was doing.

And what good old days are you talking about? The days when we had things like sit-ins on the Capital Lawn? The Million-Man march that blocked traffic in streets? The loud and disruptive vocal protests at university campuses? The PETA gatherings that would splash paint on passers-by wearing fur or leather? How about the TeaParty group that protested a charity dinner being held to raise money and awareness for the homeless just because it?s being done by Muslims. Yeah, he’s such a horrible ASS compared to those examples.

You know, you’re so far off base with your disagreement, I wonder what your problem with this guy really is. Did a lemonade vendor splash lemonade in your eyes as a kid? Is this the skinny little guy you used to beat up in school because you were intimidated by his intelligence? Seriously? what?

Jose_X (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

As a citizen (and not everyone here agrees with this view I’m sure), I do think price undercutting can be bad, but the context matters. This person was not a threat to these people selling lemonade. He was not a threat to the industry or to consumers.

They also claimed they owned the whole public street; they were not inside a private building. Is this a law the citizens of Concord want in the books?

In the end what matters is what voters want. I think an arrest would have ended the fun of these businesses you talk about. It would have hurt their business long term, and they would have deserved it.

DCX2 says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

When you grow up and run your own business, let me know how it feels when someone stands on your doorstep and gives the same product away for free.

In a truly capitalist economy, this would be considered competition. In America’s corporate economy, it’s a threat to their God-given right to profit. Of course in a corporate economy the proper response for a threat to one’s profit is to abuse the law to get rid of the threat.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“When you grow up and run your own business, let me know how it feels when someone stands on your doorstep and gives the same product away for free.”

In a truly capitalist economy, this would be considered competition. In America’s corporate economy, it’s a threat to their God-given right to profit. Of course in a corporate economy the proper response for a threat to one’s profit is to abuse the law to get rid of the threat.

So how’d this be. You’re an independent gas station/convenience store. You set up shop and two months later, Exxon opens across the street. No matter how you price your gas, they go $.25 per gallon less. No matter how you price your snacks they offer 50% off. Using their billions of dollars of corporate resources, they run you out of business and bankrupt you in 6 months. Is this the kind of competition you were talking about?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“When you grow up and run your own business, let me know how it feels when someone stands on your doorstep and gives the same product away for free.”

In a truly capitalist economy, this would be considered competition. In America’s corporate economy, it’s a threat to their God-given right to profit. Of course in a corporate economy the proper response for a threat to one’s profit is to abuse the law to get rid of the threat.

So how’d this be. You’re an independent gas station/convenience store. You set up shop and two months later, Exxon opens across the street. No matter how you price your gas, they go $.25 per gallon less. No matter how you price your snacks they offer 50% off. Using their billions of dollars of corporate resources, they run you out of business and bankrupt you in 6 months. Is this the kind of competition you were talking about?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

When you grow up and run your own business, let me know how it feels when someone stands on your doorstep and gives the same product away for free.

In a truly capitalist economy, this would be considered competition. In America’s corporate economy, it’s a threat to their God-given right to profit. Of course in a corporate economy the proper response for a threat to one’s profit is to abuse the law to get rid of the threat.

Yahtzee.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

It’s instigation. When you grow up and run your own business, let me know how it feels when someone stands on your doorstep and gives the same product away for free.

Whatever. Just because it makes you feel something doesn’t make illegal.

I can stand in front of your Lemonade, Inc. store and give away lemonade all I want and as long as I am not on your property there is not much you can do about it.

He could have easily given away the lemonade in front of his own house, but it would be unlikely to provoke a response. For me, that makes him a jackass. It’s not about free lemonade, it’s about stirring up the shit and getting your video on you tube.

Well duh. Stirring up the shit and provoking responses is what makes civil disobedience civil disobedience.

And to be honest, calling people who stand up for a cause they believe in jackasses only makes you look like one.

Jose_X (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

>> It’s not about free lemonade, it’s about stirring up the shit and getting your video on you tube.

Videos are great. They covey many words.

1 — They allow citizens to discuss with each other if the people “representing” them are doing a good job or if they deserve to be kicked out into the street.

2 — They help convey which are the businesses you want to promote and which you want to stay away from.

3 — Videos help bring into a market more information usable by the consumers to help them make better decisions and be less likely to be exploited by professional vendors colluding on certain items.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

concord’s public spaces are not akin to “your doorstep” Stop being a whiny bitch, if your beverages are better than ones you can get for free, then you have nothing to worry about.

Anyone can put a video on Youtube, even you who can’t grasp the idea of liberty to do as you please so long as you don’t harm others. Your post shows you to be a jackass, not opinion.

Alien Bard says:

Re: Re: Re:

The polices were summoned, therefore they had to investigate. If they absolutely felt the need to harass someone it should have been the person who summoned them needlessly. Their job in this situation was simply to inform each party that no law was being broken at this time and to leave. If the officers were in doubt as to the laws involved they could easily radio in and get assistance with the details.

As it stood, no violence was being offered and only one person was feeling offended. That is hardly cause to involve the police. In fact the guy who summoned the police should be slapped. He is showing others that it is OK to summon the police whenever anyone feels offended – like when someone farts in public?

ltlw0lf (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The polices were summoned, therefore they had to investigate. If they absolutely felt the need to harass someone it should have been the person who summoned them needlessly. Their job in this situation was simply to inform each party that no law was being broken at this time and to leave. If the officers were in doubt as to the laws involved they could easily radio in and get assistance with the details.

Thank you Alien…absolutely correct.

Based on California laws (where I am,) if I was faced with a similar situation, I would have given both parties a chance to state their case (and I wouldn’t mind the camera, it protects me as much as it protects them,) then would have thanked the person giving lemonade away (without a snarky comment about code enforcement…let code enforcement handle their own stupidity,) and then told the RP that I saw no evidence of a crime, and have no probable cause to arrest, but if he’d like to file a report I’d be happy to take the report (with a reminder that filing a false police report is a misdemeanor.) Chances are…he’d walk away angry.

But one thing to remember, as much as I am gun-ho for rights…the officer is coming into a middle of a fight between an adult and a person who looks like an adult, but is acting like a two-year old. Many police officers get into the “make the pain go away,” and will much rather push folks away who shouldn’t be pushed away just to make the problem go away. They think if they can separate the parties, then no big deal. And a guy giving away lemonade can give lemonade away anywhere, right? They want to get on with their day so they can get home, and paperwork just makes their day longer… It isn’t right, but it is something that most cops do just to get through the day.

Alien Bard says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I actually wrote my response before I watched the video. After watching the video I can say that I think the officers acted reasonably (except for the last couple of things – as you pointed out – and even those were nothing worth getting upset about).

Even the complainant wasn’t too bad other then trying to grab the camera. I really don’t understand why people get so upset about being recorded in public places.

TheBigH (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

From what I saw on the video, the cops weren’t really harassing him at all. They showed up because Blasdell called them, and if coppers didn’t turn up to respond to reported disturbances they wouldn’t be doing their job. The fact that Blasdell’s complaint was petty and without merit doesn’t put the cops in the wrong. I thought the cop who talked to Ean was actually pretty polite and restrained, although he could have expressed himself better.

ltlw0lf (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The guy is clearly an instigator, trying to get on camera, and trying to get a rise out of people. He’s the sort of jackass for a cause that makes it harder for everyone else in the long run.

Man, you hit the nail on the head with that one. Gosh. Let me see:

George Washington was clearly an instigator, trying to get England to leave the US alone and trying to get a rise out of people. There were people loyal to England at the time that really didn’t like him. He was the sort of jackass for a cause that makes it harder for everyone else in the long run!

I am truly sorry for the millions who have died for the freedoms that you seem so willing to squander today.

dwg says:

Re: Re:

I love that you think he’s “trying to get on camera.” He brought his own camera and recorded himself, which seems more like “he got on camera,” just like anyone else can nowadays. You sound like one of those people who champ at the bit to be on reality TV, thinking that’s how normal folks “get on camera.”

You’re the jackass. Only when people stand up for rights are those rights actively defended. Or were you counting on the President of the Concord Farmer’s Market who says “This is my street” to take care of that for you?

CommonSenseParadox (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

At times we are there to educate as much as enforce. if there isn’t probable cause then there can’t be an arrest. believe it or not if a law enforcement officer believes a crime has been committed with “probable cause” he/she can make the arrest. Specifics of the case are for the arrest warrant/summons. if in good faith there wasn’t a crime committed, you are released (this happens all the time in the US) It was reasonable to believe at the time that probable cause was met to make the arrest. A police officer does not need to be there to witness a crime if there is evidence a crime has been committed and there is probable cause for an arrest. you may or may not want to arrest that person right then and there, but conducting an investigation, obtaining witness statements will lead you the meet the “probable cause” to arrest the suspect. Mere suspicion is not enough to make an arrest

ltlw0lf (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

You’re almost right…but not. Police are there to enforce laws. If they think that someone is committing criminal activity and they want to make an arrest, they need to know specifically what law is being broken and they must witness it. Otherwise, a judge would need to issue an arrest warrent.

Kinda. A police officer can arrest anyone who they have a preponderance of evidence to suggest committed a felony, whether in their presence or not. So if you commit a felony, and I have enough evidence to show that you committed the crime, I can arrest you solely on that evidence. With misdemeanors, it must be done in my presence (or the presence of a citizen who is willing to sign a complaint,) or I must obtain an arrest warrant (showing the judge that I have enough evidence that I am pretty sure you did it.)

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

> A police officer can arrest anyone who they have a preponderance
> of evidence to suggest committed a felony, whether in their
> presence or not.

That’s probable cause, not preponderance of evidence. The latter is the burden of proof in a civil lawsuit and has nothing to do with criminal law or policing.

As for the whole ‘in their presence’ thing, that’s not a hard and fast rule. It varies by state. For example, many states require an arrest in a domestic violence situation, which can be misdemeanors, and which are rarely actually committed in the presence of the police.

Ron Rezendes (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The joke would have been better years ago when only amateurs were allowed to compete in the Olympics. Since those rules have changed, the joke is just outdated and not funny since there is no reality contained in the statement. I suppose you could go for the nostalgic laugh angle, if you are so inclined.

Ron Rezendes (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Wet Blanket

I think I just needed another cup of coffee. Being a validation tech I end up seeing if things make sense first, and because I knew it no longer did it just went right by because of the lack of irony, I guess.

Still passionate for life but this would have cracked me up years ago when it was true!

[Sense of humor, re-engaged]

Derek Kerton (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Yeah. I wish there was somebody who would go out on the streets and fight to support civil rights. You know, be fully informed of his rights, stand up to power, and win a few small battles. So we could all just sit back on our asses and enjoy summer and potato chips.

When will someone like that be the main subject of the video and topic of this article in this blog?

sarc off

Gabriel Tane (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

?I can’t find anything to actually argue against your point, so I’ll just insult you by implying that doing what you’re doing makes you look like an ass, all without actually having anything to back that up… instead I’ll rely on the assumption that my opinion is better than yours.?

But hey, it makes you feel all intelligent and right about something, so go with it.

Rekrul says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Amazing that it took so long for someone to trot out Rosa Parks. Too bad that it’s an over reaching comparison. But hey, if you think everyone who stands up is equal to Rosa Parks, you go with it. It makes you look like an ass, but hey, go with it.

You don’t think protesting the fact that the US is turning into a police state is a valid cause?

The basis of the legal system here used to be innocent until proven guilty. Anything not specifically prohibited by law was legal. Now, most of the time people are considered guilty until proven innocent and if something isn’t specifically allowed by law, someone, somewhere will tell you that it’s a crime.

When in doubt, prosecute.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Have you wondered WHY the US is turning into a police state? Do you think that the police action is a result of, I dunno, perhaps way too many people pushing their “rights”?

It’s amazing. The police are a reflection of you. The more you become militany and act entitled, the more they have to react to keep the peace. Cause and effect, the police are only an effect.

Christopher Weigel (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

1) It’s rights, not “rights”.
2) Seriously, you’re implying it’s militant to give away lemonade and record the conversations you have? Weird… I thought “militant” actually had a defined meaning.

Specifically:
mil?i?tant   [mil-i-tuhnt]
adjective
1.
vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause: militant reformers.
2.
engaged in warfare; fighting.

Since it doesn’t look like anything about this event fits that definition, except the gentleman who committed assault… perhaps you’re talking about him? After all, your entire statement of entitlement and militant behavior seems much more applicable to the so-called “president” than it is of the peaceful protester… in which case I agree wholeheartedly.

taoareyou (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

So if a police officer tells you to stop doing something which you know for a fact is well within your legal rights, you will always comply and give up every freedom they wish to deny you with a meek “Yes Sir”?

There was no disturbed peace (except for the Farmer’s Market president’s physical attacks and unfounded verbal threats). There was absolutely nothing for the police to do in that situation, as reflected by the lack of action taken beyond the veiled threats of arrest. When the filmmaker displayed his knowledge of his rights, the officer knew he wasn’t going to be able to bully him with the false wiretapping claims, he knew he couldn’t take the camera from him out in public, plain view of bystanders observing him. His only option was to be nice and back away.

I do hope if you find yourself in a situation where you are doing what you know is allowed, that you remember this lesson and have the backbone to stand up for yourself.

AW says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

So in your estimation arguing for anything but more restrictive rights is excuse for a police state? Police are NOT a reflection of society in any way, in fact the exact opposite is more likely true. The less enforcement the more people are expected to be responsible…to a point. Police are only meant to be an impartial force to de-escalate violence, otherwise why have them? We could easily go back to the days of lawlessness where you protected your own person.

You know that rights are what you are entitled to by law correct? There is no act involved. Also you analogy is flawed. The protest is itself the effect caused by police overstepping their authority in excessive force against children.

Please continue to offer flawed logic. This was far too easy an exercise.

dwg says:

Re: Re:

I love it: “professional malcontent.” Can you detail more of this professional’s exploits for me? I’m interested in seeing how prolific he is, and how he gets paid for his activities in furtherance of free speech.

Actually, friend: a professional malcontent would be a lawyer for the ACLU or EFF, or perhaps a public defender. Do those people “mak[e] it easier for lawmakers to tighten up legitimate free speech?” And what is “legitimate free speech” as opposed to illegitimate? Is publicly registering one’s disapproval of children’s lemonade stands being shut down by the cops “illegitimate” free speech?

You are a moron, and a deeply conflicted one. On the one hand, you wish this hippie would shut up and go away. On the other hand, I bet you think of kids’ lemonade stands as a fond childhood memory. Learn something.

Alien Bard says:

Re: Professional Malcontent:

How does one become a professional malcontent? Does it pay well? How much does the training cost, or is it considered a ‘trade’? I’m considering a career change and this sound like a really interesting profession with lots of benefits including flexible hours. Since you seem to be an expert I’m hoping you can e-mail me the details.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

If he has a video of someone trying to take his camera and that someone touches him (or, by extension, his camera), isn’t that an assault and battery?

You can bet that if the shoe was on the other foot and he had tried to take something from the other guy or the cop (gasp) he would have been arrested in a heartbeat. Laws aren’t the same for everyone.

taoareyou (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.”

Yes assault could be argued here.

Two types of battery, physically harmful and not.

“The second type of contact that may constitute battery causes no actual physical harm but is, instead, offensive or insulting to the victim. Examples include spitting in someone’s face or offensively touching someone against his or her will.”

Yes, battery could be argued here. You will notice the filmmaker was shaking when the camera was turned back on and his assailant even mocked him for it.

Jose_X (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

What he may and perhaps should(?) have done: state his intentions ahead of time and see if there might be other issues concerning permits and what not and then see if those have a basis. At that point, he could be seen as a civil disobedient wanting to seek changes in the law or change of representatives, or outright challenge the constitutionality of the law (but I think you need lots of money for this).

Not sure what to guess as far as him being caught off guard at all by the emperor of this street dropping by. Everything may have gone exactly according to planning.

taoareyou (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

He should seek someone in authority and ask their permission for 1st Amendment expression? It looks to me as if he researched his right specific to his location, since he pulled out copy of relevant law when challenged. Knowing your rights I agree with fully. Asking someone if you can exercise them, I don’t.

Jose_X (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

No, what I have in mind is that there might be other issues in play besides first amendment or besides any specific issue. In this case, as others have pointed out, there is the reasonable concern over public food poisoning and perhaps other issues as well (he wasn’t simply passing out leaflets or talking, in other words).

DS says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Well, he should have stated his what he was doing there and why to the president of the market committee. Instead, he pulls out a wrinkled piece of paper, and starts yammering about selling membership to a lemonade club like some little boy. This kid has real problems… it’ll be fun when he gets out into the real world.

taoareyou (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

If he was anti-FRN I believe he would have asked for some other form of currency from the government employees. Your conclusion isn’t a stretch of logic, it’s an Olympian leap. πŸ™‚

He was setting up a parody lemonade stand in the time honored “Lemonade 25 cents” genre. I didn’t see him making any statements about the validity of any currency.

Gabriel Tane (profile) says:

Two questions...

1) Is there a reason to refer to the money received as an “FRN”? I know it’s a Federal Reserve Note, but why not just say “$17”? Is it a north-east or New England thing? Forgive a Floridian’s ignorance 😐

and

2) Is it a violation of City Ordinance to affix signs to city property? At the end, the Honorable Pres. Blasdel (I think that’s him) is attaching a (clearly) home-made “not a member” sign on the City’s parking sign. I wonder if the City Ordinance Enforcement would have anything to talk to him about after, of course, putting Ean to rights for dispensing food products without a license. Must be busy people, those Ordinance Enforcers.

Thomas (profile) says:

People tend to forget...

that cops no longer see their jobs as helping people; their job is to arrest criminals. In a cops mind, there are only 3 classes of people: cops, criminals, and people who are not yet criminals. I think cops expect people to obey them no matter whether the cop orders something lawful or not. Cops seem to spend so much time battling criminals that they think everyone should be treated like a criminal.

It never ceases to amaze me that cops pull stunts like this then wonder and complain that no one trusts them. If you are smart don’t trust a cop, especially if you are a racial minority.

I would much rather encounter a mugger on the street than a cop. At least all a mugger wants is your money and phone, but encountering a cop can wreck your life, You can get arrested for “disorderly conduct”, which is totally defined by the cops and backed up by courts. Then you can spend some nice time in jail, get beaten, and spend tens of thousands of dollars trying to clear your name. I’ll take my chances with a mugger anytime.

Anonymous Coward says:

My take.....

We actually ran across a similar situation many years ago. My daughter played ‘MAYB’ summer basketball. Basically, some parent would put together a ‘dream team’ basketball team, pay some fees to the association, and then tournaments were set up every weekend for the girls to play against each other.

The local public schools rented out the gyms to different teams who were the ‘sponsors’ of the tourney that weekend. The sponsor team’s parents were in charge of ticket fee collection, concession stand stocking/serving, organizing the refs, schedules, selling T-shirts, etc. In turn, the sponsor team got a cut of the revenue, which was used to pay fees for entering tournaments, buy uniforms for the girls..etc..which was about all that was left over at the end of a tourney weekend. (It wasn’t for the money, it was to keep the girls out of trouble.). The only real people making money off of this is ‘MAYB’.

These tourneys can be very large. The one we were hosting had 18 different gyms, so the parents had to take turns with each other, so no one parent was stuck at the same gym all day. (Some of the gyms had A/C, others didn’t.)

Prices were $10 for a weekend pass for access to all games, all gyms, all 3 days. Otherwise it was 2-4$ (kids 2, seniors 3, adults 4) for a single day pass.

Most of the time, I was just a worker bee at the gym, but one afternoon it was 102 deg; no one wanted to be ‘in charge’ of the gym that had no A/C, and was located 10 miles out of town.

Me, being the ‘supporting parent’ that I am, offered to go out. I ended up being the only ‘in charge adult’ out at that gym. I did have my 3 teenage girls to assist me in some of the duties.

After being out in that gym, making hamburgers, handling parent complaints about the heat, schedule, refs, making sure kids weren’t tearing up locker rooms, gathering stat sheets, reporting results of games, changing pop canisters..I was almost just plumb worn out.

One of the rival teams that were playing that weekend (remember, we weren’t playing because we sponsored it…but you can bet that it was a team that we had been head to head with before…these teenage girl teams can be similar to rival gangs..), came to the gym, and set up an ‘ice cream dots’ stand right outside of entrance door to the gym.

I personally didn’t have a problem with it, cause I know how hard it is for teams to raise money, and we couldn’t sell ice cream because the gym wasn’t equipped. We also had a contract with the schools in which food was only allowed to be sold at the concession stand, by the sponsor team (Because the Health Dept starting coming down on the schools, even tho it wasn’t a ‘school function’.)

I had to go ask them to leave, and they got very fussy with me. I never got physical, or yelled. I even begged at one point, pointing out there was a game getting ready to start, and I had to get everything set up for it.

The lady was 6’1″, I’m 5’2″. She said, “Just try and make me leave”.

I called the cops.

Sometimes, there are just too many stupid regulations that too many people are bound to, because of the ‘sue happy’ Americans we have become.

TL;DR
Although, in this case, the ‘President’ was just ticked off that he didn’t get any money out of the guy for being there, even if he wasn’t selling anything.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: My take.....

…came to the gym, and set up an ‘ice cream dots’ stand right outside of entrance door to the gym.

I notice that you rather conveniently left out whether or not they were selling the ice cream. If they weren’t giving it away for free then it wasn’t at all a “similar situation”, as you put it.

Anonymous Coward says:

I can kinda see the point of the market regulation. Who knows what this guy is selling, how he is accountable for health-code violations. What if he isn’t selling lemonade? What if he spikes the lemonade and puts the market under liability?

I understand the “Libertarian” viewpoint here, and I also understand the desire to sell lemonade. I think the solution is that he should be able to sell outside the market 100%. The market wants to maintain a certain level of quality in the vendors and the products, and presumably they’ve applied for permits through the city.

All in all I’m leaning against this guy selling lemonade at this market, but anywhere else should be fine (buyer beware). He’s also abrasive and I don’t identify with his attitude versus many of the other people that have filmed cops..

God I hate Flash. It crashed on full screen mode.

Ron Rezendes (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“Who knows what this guy is selling,”

He wasn’t SELLING anything.

“What if he isn’t selling lemonade?”

He wasn’t SELLING lemonade either.

“I understand the “Libertarian” viewpoint here, and I also understand the desire to sell lemonade.”

He wasn’t selling ANYTHING, including lemonade.

“All in all I’m leaning against this guy selling lemonade at this market,”

He wasn’t selling ANYTHING, including lemonade.

“He’s also abrasive and I don’t identify with his attitude versus many of the other people that have filmed cops…”

Regardless of how you or the “President of the Market/Block” feel about this guy, where is the part where this guy did something illegal that required police action?

Jose_X (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

His (“wasn’t selling anything”) point is perhaps that people should be able to voluntarily give things to each other.

As for the other side, the main concern of the businesses may arguably have been to limit liability and not be misrepresented. Perhaps the market coordinators may undertake some basic quality inspection or information passing among the members (but want a fee for this service).

Jose_X (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I should add that

(a) the market head person could have tried to explain things better (though probably wasn’t thinking of the public safety perspective), and

(b) the police simply showing up does help reduce the risk associated with this unknown citizen and does let the police (as a design element, if perhaps not in the minds of the arriving officers) get a feel for the threat level.

David Liu (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

However, unless he breaks open a new bottle each time he pours a cup, there’s nothing ensuring that the bottle is perfectly fine. Plus, there’s no refrigeration, so nothing that would ensure that the lemonade stayed at a safe temperature.

Sure, I know this is blind paranoia, and that the odds are overwhelmingly likely that he didn’t do jack to it, but these are the reasons behind health codes, and it’s kinda hard to be against something that’s for the safety of the consumer for these reasons.

Cynyr (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

hmm, could you dig up the “safe temperature” for lemonaide, and the amount of time that it can be kept above that temp?

Seems to me that lemonaide should keep somewhat like vinegar, less time though due to the sugar. I would image that it would take most of the day to spoil or even longer even if it started at ambient temp.

I took a quick stab at the above via google and couldn’t find anything.

CommonSenseParadox (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Thats what code enforcement is about, the public safety. Stilltasty.com states refrigerated 7-10 days. Code enforcement would have stated that you need to keep the lemonade refrigerated for the safety of the public. Again “common sense”. So Ean would have to show that is is not endangering the public by complying with common sense and keep the lemonade cold. I wouldn’t allow my children to drink it unless I thought it was safe.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Sure, I know this is blind paranoia, and that the odds are overwhelmingly likely that he didn’t do jack to it, but these are the reasons behind health codes, and it’s kinda hard to be against something that’s for the safety of the consumer for these reasons.

That’s why home cooking should be outlawed. Not only does it harm the restaurant business, but there’s no telling what unregulated cooking by amateur cooks at home might lead to. Food poisoning from a friend or family member is just as bad as from a stranger. Don’t chance it! Eat at licensed restaurants!

taoareyou (profile) says:

Re: Re:

He wasn’t selling anything (at first he has a 25 cents to gov.employees but that was part of the protest, he had not collected any money, nor was he actually expecting money and he decided that he would strike that from his sign just so the purposefully obtuse could be clear).

He was giving away prepackaged lemonade from packaged cups on a public street. If it was private property (like inside a store) the owners could tell him to leave. The Market vendors had paid to sell their products out there. The man was not selling and didn’t need a license to give away anything.

It’s a huge stretch to bring up health code violations. He is not preparing any food. He is poring a drink from an already approved container into already approved containers while in public. If he was spiking anything, it would be apparent right away.

Since he is not a member of the Farmer’s Market and he is giving away his own lemonade on the public street, how exactly does that cause liability at all to the Farmer’s Market?

“What if” does not begin a valid reason for anything. “What if” is used to create actionable situations when no actionable situations exist.

The man is taking a stand against authority restricting liberties, which is a foundation of the U.S. government. It may seem small and trivial to you, but these types of actions get attention and make people aware and may inspire them to defend their own rights in an unplanned situation.

As for his attitude, what I saw was someone refusing to submit to aggression and false threats from authority. Personally, I do identify with this and I wish more would take a stand for their liberties when they are challenged.

Jose_X (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

>> “prepackaged lemonade” is not the same as previously packaged lemonade

A related point might be the expectation of safety implied because of where he was handing out the drinks. A person who ordinarily on a “random” street offers to give you a cup with some liquid labelled lemonade may not be so persuasive.

Also, to the degree he would be set up more formally and from a time consuming setup, there would be the safety that he was seen by many and couldn’t just run away so easily so could be held accountable to some degree if he had engaged in abuse (like poisoning the drink).

dwg says:

Re: Re:

He wasn’t using lemonade as lemonade. He was using his stand, including the lemonade, as speech. Acts can be speech, and the parts of the acts that qualify are protected by the First Amendment. So it ain’t about anything BUT the speech here. Are you arguing that he should be able to speak freely anywhere but at the farmer’s market?

Ninja (profile) says:

And I thought triple scores were for Scrabble and fatalities were for Mortal Kombat.

Seems we have a Triple Score Fatality combo of federal proportions here. [MAFIAA] We obviously need further laws to contain these lemonade stand hooligans! That’s why Protect IP Act is badly needed! [/MAFIAA]

PS: MAFIAA has nothing to do with it but neither do any of the parts involved with the actual (?!) charges (????!!!!?!!) so I felt the urge to use a poetic license and include MAFIAA in this mess.

CommonSenseParadox (profile) says:

Lemonade Stand in Concord NH.

It does appear to be NH from the PD uniform. Whether it’s right or wrong for this individual to do what he did, unless he is disturbing the peace or causing a hazard he was in his rights. Now for a city rules, he may needed to get a permit to sell / give away a product and that’s a simply for his right to do it and to have a record that he is doing it but since it was a onetime thing it could be similar to Halloween, do we all get permits to give candy away? regarding is location, the farmers market gets a permit to assemble, shut down a street, sell product but in no way does it give the farmers market to own the street. The farmers market is on public land and that’s the risk that the farmers market must accept when on public land that they cannot choose whom can enter and who cannot. If they wanted protection then they should have rented private property, which would give them greater rights to manage the farmers market. Trying to remove the man/lemonade stand is assault and trying to take his property is theft since the property does have value. regarding the wiretap law, it’s very clear about a reasonable aspect to privacy, a street, sidewalk, a public building there isn’t any reasonable aspect to privacy. If you don’t want to be recorded, it’s your right to walk away or say nothing but the street is yours and mine to enjoy. At times its our right to exercise our right to freedoms, but you also have to understand that everyone else also has that right. That’s why the police officer did what he did which was nothing. He may have used words like “I won’t arrest you today”, just meaning there was no probable cause for an arrest, that’s it he didn’t say I’m going to arrest you tomorrow he just stated not today. The President of the Farmers market needs to understand that using a public place to operate an event doesn’t diminish a person’s rights to come and go as one pleases, or speak or provide substance on public property. The president was lucky that the lemonade man didn’t press charges, not saying the president would be found guilty but there was enough to summons him to court for his conduct. It’s called being reasonable, he just should have walked away and left it alone. Rent private property next time if you want to police your farmers market. Lemonade man also needs to find out if he should have got a permit to distribute drinks, free or not. To distribute anything in cities usually requires a permit, even free stuff.

taoareyou (profile) says:

Re: Lemonade Stand in Concord NH.

It seems to me that the filmmaker did research the regulations since the police officer would have certainly asked him for a permit to give away drinks if there was a requirement to do so. His actions were prepared and his point was made properly, without yelling, without blowing anything up, without disturbing the peace. It was completely a perfect example of how to educate people and stand up for your rights.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Lemonade Stand in Concord NH.

That’s why the police officer did what he did which was nothing.

It was pretty clear to me that the police were trying to intimidate him. They even stated to him when he offered to show them the law that they didn’t care to see it. And then they promised to arrest him if anyone complained about him videoing them, even thought it would have been perfectly legal. That’s not exactly doing “nothing” my little apologist friend. That’s harassment and intimidation.

He may have used words like “I won’t arrest you today”, just meaning there was no probable cause for an arrest, that’s it he didn’t say I’m going to arrest you tomorrow he just stated not today.

Hey, how about you send a signed letter to the President telling him “I’m not going to shoot you, today.” Let us know what the secret service has to say to you about your “non threatening” words.

To distribute anything in cities usually requires a permit, even free stuff.

Bull.

CommonSenseParadox (profile) says:

Re: Re: Lemonade Stand in Concord NH.

First of all SIR, A threat against a person is a little different, and come on the President….. tell you what, go ahead and threaten, let me know how it turns out. all it takes is someone like you to turn civil issue into a felony crime, good job we need more people like you to bring calm to the situation

Go to the City of Keene, NH… try to walk down a street and knock on doors to give out your mental thoughts, see how far you get before a police officer is telling you you cannot solicite without a permit. Churches to base ball teams pushing candy do this all the time, they get permits to push there thoughts and there candy, they don’t have a issue getting a permit. Most cities have this solicitation statute on the books, look up your own town. How many yard sales can you have a year? Do you have a dog? Do you have a sign in front of your business?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Lemonade Stand in Concord NH.

First of all SIR, A threat…

What? Now you’re saying such language IS a threat? I suppose you probably think that that it matters “who” the treat was directed at, eh?

…against a person is a little different…

Huh? It wasn’t a threat against the lemonade guy because he doesn’t count as “a person”? I find that highly offensive. Along the lines of those who used to justify slavery because slaves weren’t “people”.

…and come on the President….. tell you what, go ahead and threaten, let me know how it turns out.

You were the one claiming such language wasn’t threatening. So go ahead, back up your own mouth. Don’t ask me to do it for you.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Lemonade Stand in Concord NH.

DO you honestly think if there was a crime or violation that the lemonade man wouldn’t be arrested or given a summons which if you didn’t know is in lew of an arrest?? No handcuffs, no trip in a cruiser, just appear at the court, easy to write up easy to give out. But maybe the LEO just wanted each person to leave each other alone without causing a scene. Did you ever think that causing a scene coulod cause more harm than good that if the LEO wrote a summons that there would be 20 lemonade men out the next day doing exactly the same thing. The LEO did the right thing and everyone made it out alive or as you woudl put it the threat level decreased. So you take th LEO as a threat. Have you ever been stopped for speeding? Most of us had sometime in our adult life been issued a warning, or I’m sorry a threat>>>> That if you don’t slow down you are going to be written up. More than likely SIR, the lemonade man at least needed a permit to distribute on a public street, but the LEO didn’t cause a fuss, stopping him and contacting code enforcement right then, there and now. The LEO did exactly what I would have done. Now maybe your mother treated you wrong by not giving you your daily honey on toast, and you honestly think it was a threat (to state to cause bodily harm, to threaten with injury) but the LEO warned the lemonade man. I will go one step further SIR, how about you or I look up the local code in Concord NH regarding distribution to the public and see if he did commit a violation. Maybe you need a have the last drink of lemonade from that day after keeping the lemonade out in the sun for hours and hours, see how you feel, maybe ok but maybe not. Did you see a cooler??? Did you see fresh lemonade??? Maybe the lemonade was from a year ago, want a drink now. That’s what code enforcement is about, safety and the public, nothing more and nothing less, well with you a school crossing guard would be a threat to you.

CommonSenseParadox (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Lemonade Stand in Concord NH.

DO you honestly think if there was a crime or violation that the lemonade man wouldn’t be arrested or given a summons which if you didn’t know is in lew of an arrest?? No handcuffs, no trip in a cruiser, just appear at the court, easy to write up easy to give out. But maybe the LEO just wanted each person to leave each other alone without causing a scene. Did you ever think that causing a scene coulod cause more harm than good that if the LEO wrote a summons that there would be 20 lemonade men out the next day doing exactly the same thing. The LEO did the right thing and everyone made it out alive or as you woudl put it the threat level decreased. So you take th LEO as a threat. Have you ever been stopped for speeding? Most of us had sometime in our adult life been issued a warning, or I’m sorry a threat>>>> That if you don’t slow down you are going to be written up. More than likely SIR, the lemonade man at least needed a permit to distribute on a public street, but the LEO didn’t cause a fuss, stopping him and contacting code enforcement right then, there and now. The LEO did exactly what I would have done. Now maybe your mother treated you wrong by not giving you your daily honey on toast, and you honestly think it was a threat (to state to cause bodily harm, to threaten with injury) but the LEO warned the lemonade man. I will go one step further SIR, how about you or I look up the local code in Concord NH regarding distribution to the public and see if he did commit a violation. Maybe you need a have the last drink of lemonade from that day after keeping the lemonade out in the sun for hours and hours, see how you feel, maybe ok but maybe not. Did you see a cooler??? Did you see fresh lemonade??? Maybe the lemonade was from a year ago, want a drink now. That’s what code enforcement is about, safety and the public, nothing more and nothing less, well with you a school crossing guard would be a threat to you. Just wanted this to be from me (CommonSenseParadox)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Lemonade Stand in Concord NH.

Have you ever been stopped for speeding? Most of us had sometime in our adult life been issued a warning, or I’m sorry a threat>>>> That if you don’t slow down you are going to be written up.

This is more like being pulled over and given a warning when you weren’t doing anything illegal. Kind of like driving while black in an white neighborhood. Of course, I suppose you don’t see anything wrong with cops doing stuff like that. I mean, they’re just giving those black drivers a little “friendly advice”, huh? People like you make me sick.

More than likely SIR, the lemonade man at least needed a permit to distribute on a public street,

No, he didn’t, you’re just making stuff up. Of course, your type are usually liars, so that doesn’t much surprise me.

CommonSenseParadox (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Lemonade Stand in Concord NH.

OK SIR – I’m making stuff up?? I live in NH, do you??? Since he’s protesting as he stated in his short film about the repressed cause of the lemonade stands he does need to fill out a right to protest under march-demonstration-picket, which is a City of Concord ordinance. It only took about 3 minutes to find on the city website and only cost $11.05 (www.ci.concord.nh.us/codeadmin/). Now if the lemonade man was just giving juice out without representing the repressed lemonade stands, he could be OK, But again there is a ordinance about food distribution.
But let me explain this to you very slowly, the LEO instead of causing more issue resolved it using his education, training and experience and within a few minutes all parties went on the way.

Since you hate laws, why don’t you do something about it if you feel so negative? Become a LEO, get the training, learn the constitution and apply this to your life and to others? If not a LEO become a firefighter, paramedic help people or is that to beneath you. Try helping people instead of judging.

This is more like being pulled over and given a warning when you weren’t doing anything illegal.

That’s why we have a court system, that if you believe you didn’t commit the crime, you can have your day in court. If you don’t like this, get the hell out of Dodge, go live in China. Become dysfunction somewhere else. I truly believe in free speech, but make some sense when you speak and don’t judge others as liars if you can’t back it up with facts. You have no clue to who I am, what I do. So i don’t know you, but I don’t call you a liar. Sir – you are already sick, I didn’t do that to you or anyone else. Maybe you need help, it sounds like it. No I do not see police doing stuff like that, at least not in NH and I don’t follow the police around as you imply that you must do in order to make comments like that. SIR- you do need to see someone if you are following the police around, and a little “friendly advise”. If I make you sick and I’m only exercising my rights under the “bill of rights”, you must be someone above us all, only kidding your just someone who wants to only exercise your right to free speech, but no one else, right…

CommonSenseParadox (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I take “Live Free or Die” very seriously. Most laws are for the protecting of individuals rights and freedoms but there are boundries, they have to be. With that said, we have no income tax, we have no sales tax, we do have hefty property taxes and the small business is paying most of the states bills but I wouldn’t want to live anywhere else unless NH could move to warmer weather during the winter (I HATE SNOW) but other than that we are very protective of “Live Free Or Die” Just ask the sailors on the SSN-New Hampshire SSN-78 they love “Live Free or Die” it a morale thing.

ibaconi (profile) says:

Absurd!

What the hell difference does ANY of this make? Why does ANYONE care. 2 imbeciles run into one another and a confrontation of a very minor sort occurs over essentially nothing and so what? Will this remove Obuma from office? Will this provide opportunity for lemonade stands? Does this open the door to open rebellion? I can’t believe I wasted my time watching it, but there ya go.

Akiva (profile) says:

And Thus Freedom and the U.S.A. Died

And thus freedom and the U.S.A. died…through police intimidation via thousands of statues and regulations no one knew or could even understand. Voices of dissent were silenced and entrepreneurial activities crushed.

Bye bye Miss American pie, drove my Chevy to the Levy but it was shut down by code enforcement. Then my Chevy, subsidized for $40,000 by the government, was out of charge but no one had built charging stations because they couldn’t afford to complete the environmental survey.

And all waited in the dark on the street for the government to solve all their problems.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Law

I wouldn’t have debated the statute with the cop, but I would have asked him to explain why it is that the dozens of other people out there with video cameras, taping themselves, their kids, their friends, etc., aren’t being counseled on how it’s illegal to film with audio in public. I’d also ask him to explain why professional TV news organizations can show up and start shooting video in public, as they do all the time, without getting consent from everyone around them and without being threatened with arrest. I’d ask him why it’s legal for the cops to operate dashcams with audio without getting consent from the people they are filming.

There’s certainly no exception in the law for cops and journalists and whatnot, so there’s no excuse there.

I would tell him that it seems that the wiretapping law only comes into play when cops and other government officials find themselves being filmed when they don’t want to be, and that sort of content-based discrimination is a bright line 1st Amendment violation for which the police, if acting under color of authority, can not only be liable as city employees, but can be personally liable as well. That means they’re putting their home, their car, and everything they own on the line by acting this way.

Anonymous Coward says:

570-A:3 Manufacture, Distribution, Possession, and Advertising of Telecommunication or Oral Communication Intercepting Devices Prohibited. ?
I. A person is guilty of a class B felony if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, he:
(a) Manufactures, assembles, possesses, or sells any electronic, mechanical, or other device, knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of telecommunications or oral communications; or
(b) Places in any newspaper, magazine, handbill, or other publication any advertisement of:
(1) Any electronic, mechanical, or other device knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of telecommunications or oral communications, or
(2) Any other electronic, mechanical, or other device, where such advertisement promotes the use of such device for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of telecommunications or oral communications.

You are indeed violating the law you dirt bag

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

570-A:3 Manufacture, Distribution, Possession, and Advertising of Telecommunication or Oral Communication Intercepting Devices Prohibited. ?
I. A person is guilty of a class B felony if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, he:
(a) Manufactures, assembles, possesses, or sells any electronic, mechanical, or other device, knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of telecommunications or oral communications; or
(b) Places in any newspaper, magazine, handbill, or other publication any advertisement of:
(1) Any electronic, mechanical, or other device knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of telecommunications or oral communications, or
(2) Any other electronic, mechanical, or other device, where such advertisement promotes the use of such device for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of telecommunications or oral communications.

You are indeed violating the law you dirt bag

You might want to look up the meaning of the word “surreptitious”

Derek Kerton (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You actually argued back?

I mean, you were called out and busted about your lack of comprehension of a single, specific word…and you are stubborn enough to argue back about the definition of surreptitious without (obviously) even clicking over to a dictionary site to look it up.

That is so weaksauce/pigheaded/lame/wrong and immediately proven so that I am impressed by how brazenly you executed it.

Here’s a link, Lazy Joe:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/surreptitious

and since you probably can’t be bothered, here’s on for “authorized”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authorized

Was the camera surreptitious? The fact that the Market President and the police immediately saw it, and demanded it be shut off prove that it was not surreptitious.

CommonSenseParadox (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

You are right. I don’t understand these others regarding the word surreptitious. First of all its in plain view to everyone there, if the president didn’t want to be recorded its his right to not say anything or turn around and walk away. To say its unauthorized is a missuse of the word regarding this issue. If it were in his home or in a place where expectation of privicy is reasonable then the word “unauthorized” would be correct, but not in a public place. I could say to him your cell phone is unauthorized becuase it has the capacity to record, but then again it would be incorrect.

1.
obtained, done, made, etc., by stealth; secret or unauthorized; clandestine: a surreptitious glance.

2.
acting in a stealthy way.

3.
obtained by subreption; subreptitious.

Jon says:

I don’t know if Garret is a professional malcontent, but I do know he attempted to remove his amateur status in 2010 when he ran for New Hampshire State Representative.
http://www.sos.nh.gov/general%202010/merrrep.pdf He came in 7th of 8 for 4 seats. His mom came in 5th. Four Democrats won. Elsewhere in the state Republicans won 74.5% of the available seats. And thus the state budget went from $11.5 billion over 2 years to $10.2 billion.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop Β»

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...