Real News: Courts say its okay to discriminate against police candidates based on a HIGH IQ.

awesome.

Well then. What a wonderful turn of events this is.

Less questioning orders that way. What genius wants to be a policer anyhow? Go to space! Or take it as an opportunity to open up shop in the criminal market, since your competition is all DUMB-DUMBS! Wait...is this a trap? It's a trap! Hahaha that guy in the article is an undercover. These guys are geniuies.

Except they just got caught. DUMB-DUMBS!

It takes an IQ over 140 to qualify as a genius. This guy is just of superior intelligence.

This seems like something Giggan would have posted, or had happen to him. I actually never tried to get hired as a cop. Doesn't say whether he has an associates or bachelor's. My IQ is higher than that guy's, too.

I've never taken an IQ test.

You would never pass the psych eval.

Why is he referring to himself in the third-person?

This is awesome.

Do you know what I got my bachelor's in?

...

Criminology. I could have walked onto a beat cop job almost anywhere in the country.

if you say so.

Hehehe.

Frank knows, he's an almost cop. What level of education do most of your comrades have? I would doubt many are higher than associates degree.

You just keep digging that hole, gig.

I thought it was 160?

I guess I shouldn't have thrown away that MENSA application. Or maybe the conspiracy was to see if I was smart enough to look past the disinformation and complete it anyway!

Haha!

They can't get one past me!

Smarter people will just pretend to be dumb enough to get let in, instead of putting on a big whiny show to brag about how smart they are. That is a boaster who will throw weight around with a badge!

Have you ever faced two criminal charges at trial and emerged victorious? How about while representing yourself, without spending a dime on a lawyer?

http://freemanch.com/garret-ean-beats-the-state/

One of us is significantly more experienced than the other person in this realm. If knowing one's shit means digging a hole, then call me an industrial excavator.

Ean was arrested June 4th, 2011 for allegedly refusing to obey a lawful order and allegedly blocking a “crime scene,” hindering the collection of “evidence.” He is part of what is called “The Chalking 8,” although Ean was not charged with chalking the Manchester Police Dept.

You know one of these days you're going to get maced or even tazed pulling one of your little stunts and when you come on here and tell us about we'll just say we told you so.

No, because I have never face criminal charges.

And I was referring to your thinking frank was agreeing with you.

"Writing on sidewalk with chalk" = "criminal charges"

No. That is what they charged you with. They gave you those charges because you were being a pain in their asses and they couldn't legally shoot you. I do expect someday, e're long, you will get yourself tazed; you know you want it, the cops want it, we want it. You'll probably beat whatever rap they lay on you that day as an excuse, too, but ha-ha, you'll still have gotten tazed. Here's hoping your videobuddies are on hand that day as well because we're gonna want to see that shizz on the YouTubes.

Also, having a bachelors in criminal law doesn't mean you automatically can qualify to become a police officer. It simply means you had a big chunk of money and time. Congratulations on that.

You still wouldn't pass a psych eval.

Sooo... because doing what you think is right lands you in some sort of trouble, that makes it wrong?

No, doing what you think is right lands you in trouble if it is illegal.

Garret is a noisy fish in a small-town pond. Writing "Corporate Overlordship Now!" on the sidewalks (or whatever catchy version of the slogan he was pushing that day) in chalk on the sidewalk wouldn't get him looked at twice in a bigger city where the cops have real crime to deal with.

I get it, blah blah blah, you don't like his ideals. But now you're justifying the statement by steering it towards "if it's illegal, it's wrong," and I'm pretty sure you don't believe that.

It's not what he stands for that is wrong, its the way he goes about standing for it.

Got nothing to do with anyone's ideals, nor am I saying, "If it's illegal, it's wrong." We both know that is not necessarily the case. What I am saying is, "If it's illegal, it's illegal, and if you break the law, even standing up for what you believe, you run the risk of getting arrested, so don't bitch about it being a landmark violation of your rights and don't pretend it's a noble fight for justice on your part."

His friends made some graffiti where they knew they would be hassled by the cops because they wanted to be hassled by the cops so that they could get video of themselves being hassled by the cops. They lacked the courage of their convictions, however, and used chalk rather than spraypaint. Or blood. No one wants to do real time or pay real fines. This is not how you change the world.

I suggest Gig actually apply to become a cop and change the system he hates so much from the inside, ground-up.

I suggest that gig apply for a job as a cop and then rub it in all of our faces when he gets the job. Only this won't happen, because there is now way he would get hired.

ScubaSteve1729 wrote:

It does make me happy to see this again. Thank you.

Okay, what? You guys know the basic idea is to stir controversy, right? Civil disobedience, and all that. I'm fairly sure he's not surprised to get arrested. The guy knows the law pretty damn well (far more than we seem to). The "bitching" that comes after is what stirs more controversy, and those that see it in his perspective get a bit more investment from it. This really couldn't be more obvious. Honestly, I think you guys are just bent on demeaning the guy's tactics entirely because you don't agree with his ideals. And Tuffy, I'm just going to ignore those last two hopefully facetious paragraphs.

My only point is that he thinks he can easily get a job as a cop and I think he is wrong.

Giggan is like the worlds most aggressive performance artist. He puts on these shows doing really nonsensical things and saying he's making some big statement and how he's changing the world when all he's really doing is being annoying, a nuisance.

I miss the old Giggan, the one who used to just post pictures of his big magnificent 'fro. What happened to that 'fro Gig? What happened to you?

Got that. No problem there. It's goofy, but hey, I was in college once, too. Smoke pot, protest, why not? But you reach a point where you have to take steps to either accomplish Goal X or admit that you're full of - let's say - hot air.

I believe it was his goal.

Leave me out of your generalizations, please. "The Law" is a a very broad subject, but I have quite a bit of real world experience, rather than textbooks and lectures, in a number of legal fields.

I will absolutely mock any wingnut I come across, be he Left, Right, Middle, Libertarian, Whig, Tory, Bull Moose, or whathaveyou. Hell, I'm a populist and a strict interpreter and supporter of the Constitution (in spite of the apparent slight contradictions there), and I will mercilessly mock my own ideals. But unlike Giggan, I won't look down in superiority upon anyone simply because they don't see things as I do.

Giggan entered wingnut territory for me, and I could no-longer take him seriously at all, when he declared that he believed that all police forces, being tax-funded, should be disbanded, taxes being theft by violence somehow... and then proclaimed later (same day or the next; I don't recall exactly) that privately-owned police forces were a good idea and that he wouldn't mind having one of his very own. So... Most people are on their own, having to protect themselves and seek their own justice, but the rich will have private armies enforcing their own laws as they see fit. Might makes right.

Giggan wants "less government" because apparently he is an plutocrat. And that's not just laughable, it's dangerous, it's un-American, and it is inhuman. So, yes, I will mock him.

These two?

His friends made some graffiti where they knew they would be hassled by the cops because they wanted to be hassled by the cops so that they could get video of themselves being hassled by the cops. They lacked the courage of their convictions, however, and used chalk rather than spraypaint. Or blood. No one wants to do real time or pay real fines. This is not how you change the world.

I suggest Gig actually apply to become a cop and change the system he hates so much from the inside, ground-up.

I'm completely serious.

You mean like Blackwater?

That seems to be the idea.

You're entitled to that viewpoint. However, I've seen a veteran cop friend of mine who stood on the NH constitution as a basis for why he would not make medical cannabis arrests, and the thin blue line closed in around him. To take that sort of job is to force myself to be silent about exactly the problems I see with it. Plus, I would be lying to take the job knowing that I would not, in good conscience, enforce victimless crime laws. You don't offer to take the man's money if you think the job he's giving you is wrong.

I know we've had a share of disagreements on principle in the past. I don't once recall you criticizing my methods of activism in any specific way, and I'd really like to hear what exactly you mean by saying I go about standing for my ideals the wrong way.

Thanks man. I was not surprised to get arrested, but absolutely not intending.

I get the impression for some people on this board, the idea is, debate Giggan. I get found not guilty, meaning the government's own courts determined I didn't do anything to warrant arrest, and some people can't just leave it at, 'hey, congrats on the verdict'. If I was the next door neighbor of some of the people here, I'm sure their general approach would be far less snarky. But it's easy when you disagree with someone on a principle to write them off and wish them poorly because they are more vocal with their principle than you are with your own.

For real, good job on getting off without a lawyer.

Yes, congratulations on that.

I will offer an observation as well, if you do not mind.

I cannot speak for anyone else here, but I stopped showing interest in all of your things a while ago because you don't seem to ever respond to my posts of interest. It could be possible others have done the same.

Meh. I get off without a lawyer quite often.

But I've gotten off with a lawyer as well. And it was awesome.

I didn't say you should take the job, I said you should apply for it.

One thing I've noticed is that Gig doesn't engage in dialogue. He'll be absent for a while, then pop up to post something about himself and/or his activism. He'll debate you on his views, but he'll never congratulate you on your new baby or express sympathy at a loss. Gig doesn't participate in the Cult, he preaches to it.* If someone knows of an instance otherwise, I'll readily admit to being wrong, but if it has happened, I've never seen it.

* A failing, perhaps, of mine is a knee-jerk reaction against preachers and True Believers. I was fine with Gig when he was telling about the things he was doing. Hell, there were instances of me praising his actually doing something rather than being another idle observer. But somewhere along the line he either assumed an air of superiority about it or I simply realized that it was there.

Not going to even address this?

Giggan entered wingnut territory for me, and I could no-longer take him seriously at all, when he declared that he believed that all police forces, being tax-funded, should be disbanded, taxes being theft by violence somehow... and then proclaimed later (same day or the next; I don't recall exactly) that privately-owned police forces were a good idea and that he wouldn't mind having one of his very own. So... Most people are on their own, having to protect themselves and seek their own justice, but the rich will have private armies enforcing their own laws as they see fit. Might makes right.

Giggan wants "less government" because apparently he is an plutocrat. And that's not just laughable, it's dangerous, it's un-American, and it is inhuman. So, yes, I will mock him.

Really? I would like to see a "No, what I meant was..." or at least a "You're misquoting me." or "You're taking it out of context..."

Thanks, Pepper. I don't spend nearly as much time here as I used to. I wouldn't ever hold it against someone for not paying attention to something I'm doing, but it irks me beyond belief when some people act as though they know everything about someone and make judgements from their throne of ignorance.

Tuffy, if it wasn't clear my lack of response to your posts was intentional. You have said some incorrect and disrespectful things on this thread that have made me conclude that your image of who I am is far more important to you than knowing anything about me. If you'd like to take anything back, I might give you the benefit of a response. If you're going to continue to call my views 'hate', speak about my intentions as though you know them better than myself, and sprinkle ad hominims on top of that, I'm not going to take you seriously and waste my time trying to correct the misconceptions you've created.

Someone gave me a really good piece of advice once, probably the only good piece I ever got from that person, and it is strange to, because that person contradicted their own advice with nearly every interaction they ever had with me, anyway, the advice; it is a really bad idea to try to guess or assume what another person is thinking if they haven't told you- you will usually end up wrong.

I'm just going to throw that out there for the entire thread, anyone who wants it can take it.

Giggan, Tuffy made a good point in his post to me above. And you are not here often, but taking the time to notice and respond to whatever has happened in peoples lives at the very least within the last twenty posts within the times and threads you do pop in to view would likely help a lot towards people being more responsive to you. This is something I've had to work very hard on myself, in all areas of my life, remembering to respond out loud to the people around me, and it really does make a huge difference in how people respond back.

My own comment about you not responding to me was in reference to the many many times I have, in the past, attempted to engage you in positive conversation about the things you are doing and you seem to skip completely over my posts and chose to engage with those who are giving you negative feedback instead. And here is the thing, I am actually interested in a good portion of your stuff/lifestyle et cetera, even if there are other parts or tactics or views I disagree 100% with. Yet the only real conversation I can ever remember having with you was a time I disagreed with you and that was the time you chose to engage with me.

If anything, you could spark a lot more interest in your ideals in other people, and come off as much less of a martyr about them, if you tried to foster good relations with others. And be honest, your movement isn't going anywhere unless you gain a lot more recruits.

1. Don't think he's full of hot air. It just seems to go against his principles to become a politician/any government job that can create an instant impact. So he just does what he can to spread a message. I don't see what more he can really do. Sure, he can write a book, maybe, but c'mon. How many freakin' books on anarchism, minarchism, etc, are already out there?

2. Not sure it was his goal, exactly. He seems to know when he's in the right most of the time, and just challenges the faux authority cops seem to try to pull over people and tape it as a message. That's what I respect.

3. Sure, Tuff. You know a shit-ton about law from experience. And I'm sure it's worth more than "textbooks and lectures" that add up to a degree, as well as experience. You're such an alpha.

4. "I won't look down in superiority upon anyone simply because they don't see things as I do."
Sure thing... if it wasn't for almost every other thing I've seen you post in the spirit of antagonism. I don't agree with all of Giggan's ideas either, ESPECIALLY the lack of police one, but I at least discuss it with him in a respectful tone, the same that he gives me. You're hardly equal in your "mockings" with everyone on here. You have your favorites, and now that you've clearly made a line between Giggan and the rest entirely based on his ideals, you've completely nulled the statement presented. No, sir. You think you're superior. If there's one thing I've noticed about you, it's that you have a need to see yourself as the alpha. Was there any need to respond to jes's congratulatory post with a "Pfft, I've done that, too. It's not hard. Look at me!" Nope.

5. a. Spraypaint? That's a violation of his own code of ethics, I believe. Chalk is washable. Therefore, it should not be an arrestable crime to chalk on a sidewalk. That's the thinking he has, and I honestly don't see how you could have interpreted it any different. He wants to challenge the ridiculous laws to show how out of control the government has become. I don't think he thinks permanently damaging property is a step in the right direction. Lead by example, and whathaveyou.
b. I think Giggan's already established how becoming a cop would restrict him. Other than that, how do you propose he changes the world into his anarchist utopia as a cop? Easy answer: it wouldn't be a step in the right direction.

Just to make it clearer, I don't share all of Giggan's ideals. I just see what he thinks, and I wonder what his options are as an activist, and I see these critiques you guys have of his tactics as uwarranted. About his being a cop, meh. I don't know. I've never applied nor have I looked into it.

No, your lack of response was clearly intentional. And my response to your non-response was a prod to get a reply from you, as was also pretty obvious. You do seem to ignore or redirect things you don't wish to address.

My image of you is only what you project. I'm just a spectator to The World Of Garrett Ean; I know nothing of Giggan's life other than what he posts here and all I've seen, aside from the haircut pictures of a few years ago, are in promotion of your Don't Tread On Me activism. If you do anything but, I've not seen it. I have clearly explained here the reasons for my disrespect. They're fairly simple. If I don't celebrate your little victories with you, it is because I find your apparent goals repugnant. I'll wait happily for you to do or say something that would change my view of you, but you seem disinclined. I'm fine with that as well. As to things incorrect that I believe about you, do please feel free to correct me. I'm open to that; I would be very much relieved to find out that you aren't what I think you are.

If the goal of your activities is anything other than to Smash The State and replace it with the anarchistic whims of the wealthy, the strong, and the evil, then I haven't seen it. You're an adult and reasonably intelligent so you don't strike me as naive enough to believe that this is only about decriminalizing victimless crimes. If you simply wanted to decriminalize the marihuanna, there are more effective methods than what you are showing us, and I think you know that. In fact, becoming a police officer who is also a community advocate would indeed be an excellent first step. That you disagree with some laws is not a problem to me, I hold more libertarian views than you know; but not Libertarian views, as that group is a mere shill for those who would return us to serfdom, only with corporate masters rather than kings, something I will fight to my dying breath.

Gig, you may hate That Cop Over There, but never ever forget that there are Some Very Bad People out there and that He is protecting you from Them as well. Remember that there is always someone quicker, stronger, smarter, who wants what you have, and they will not hesitate to take it from you by whatever means seems most efficient at the moment. A Bad Cop is a Nightmare, but A Good Cop is A Wonderful Thing Indeed. Your private police force excepted.

lol, Lib, I am fairly certain the getting off with a lawyer bit was perhaps a dirty joke. Shame on tuffy for being dirty in front of ladies. (Or I just need to get my head out of the gutter.)

*sits back quietly again*

Dammit. Shouldn't my head still be in a gutter at 21? I've aged too quickly.

Oh no, trust me... the gutter only gets deeper in the mire with age.