Pete Eyre Arrested For Wearing A Hat - Blatant Unneeded Aggressive Coercion

Sure it is, no victim, no crime. The statists believe in using violence on peaceful people who don't infringe on others, we don't...

Yep, we expect you to have police shoot us over seat belts, this type of law makes perfect sense coming from you....

Well then your grandma can ask you to leave, not tie you up in the basement.

There are some grandmas that don't tie you up in the basement. I am going to have to have a long talk with my mother's mother.

True. It's a matter of picking your battles. Who is honestly going to stand for this guy when he was just being an ass.

because being an ass means being thrown in a cage?!?

Absolutely not! But you will not gain support for an ass is all I mean...don't get me wrong, I am with you on this issue, even this specific issue. I am only saying this incident, and incidents like this only serve to drive public sentiment away. As sad as it is, the public is not going to react to something unless it is outrageous enough.

A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community.

Um, how are we trying to deceive? Our message seems pretty straight forward... and if you don't understand it, then you are admitting that you seriously haven't researched it.

We are not sockpuppets...

Uni - your comments though childish did make me laugh - thanks - i need it! :-)

Libertarian public disobedience theater.

Help! The violent statist won't let me wear my hat in court!
Coercion !

It is also wrong to steal, lie about where the money goes and how it is spend, continuously vote in such a manner that your constituents will be held responsible to pay even more for something they never voted for, and throw them in jail if they do not. I think if this guy is to be in prison for wearing a hat, then nearly the entire govt should be jailed for theft, misrepresentation of financial accounting and corporatism, and starting wars that we never had to be involved with from the beginning. But it appears that you guys are more concerned with a guy disrespecting such enforces of poor legislation by wearing a hat than take the responsibility to hold your govt accountable. If you really are a private, then you need to grow the fuck up - and i say that from the position of an E-5 who had an honorable discharge after 10 years of service.

I grew up years ago when I learned in elementary school that we live in a republic not a democracy. Get used to it.

But you would rather complain about the lack of manners then the taxpayer money being used to enforce a victimless crime law...why is that? Because you have the cajones to speak out against an ill mannered person but not a court?

I never brought up manners. Read the backstory on these people so you understand why this stunt is not about a hat but about the dangerous people behind it:

http://www.freekeene.com

yeah i am as well.. it is silly and a waste of time and i hate both the system that enforces such absurd abuse of power and the idiot who wants to feel he is mlk or ghandi or mandela 'fighting the man' with his sore wrists and misdemeanor record

heck, in some cases...they can even create new laws right there on the spot!!! lol That MUST mean that it is okay... lmfao

No he's a shit head from New Hampshire.

He arrested himself for a non law?

As much as children would like to say otherwise disobeying a police officer is against the law.

If you mean that in every single case it is against the law, you are incorrect. You do not actually have to do whatever a police officer tells you.

Well you will be arrested for disobeying the police officer but that can be contested. You are correct that there is a point in which the law isn't being broken.

Libertarianism: A simple-minded right-wing ideology ideally suited to those unable or unwilling to see past their own sociopathic self-regard.

You're not the only one who can play semantics.

Democracy: 1.) Mob Rule 2.) The notion that because a majority of the people approve of a thing makes that thing inherently right or factual.

I disagree, don't elect anyone. Don't prop one human up over another. Instead, aim for voluntaryism and a peaceful society. Besides, I don't want the libertarians in office to blame when the system comes crashing down from the one party systems incrementalism destruction...

Don't elect anyone?
Didn't you just manage a senate campaign?
And you must not really believe in the libertarian party if you don't want to see them in power because they might be blamed for the state of things.

With great power comes great responsability, and from what you (a political director for the LP) just said, I don't think your party wants resposiblity or power. You just want to bitch & complain & BLAME.

You are correct that I was in one, but have since left the entire political arena to focus on education, instead of elections. Once again, I have nothing to do with the Libertarian Party anymore, although I know many of their participants mean well, as do most people who get active to "better" society. The entire system is what is wrong. It does not serve the small guy, but instead the elite and special interests. I do not believe in good government anymore. The entire system is coercion.

It's the Fucking Patriot Act, plus all the Goon Training, kickin in doors killin house pets. we know whats to come if we don't expose this shite for what it really is.

maybe not in our lifetime, but someday.... maybe...

Members of NWA have had to appear before judges many times, and they took their hats off every single time.
Word To The MotherFucker

Yep...good little slaves... do what their masters tell them...

"Blatant, unecessary and intentional disrespect" - blatant yes. intentional - probably. Unecessary? No - Courts that consistantly fine people for victimless crimes are what is uneccessary. Courts that fine people so much for committing an action that hurt noone so much that the person has to be set on a payment plan to pay for someones bruised ego? Thats unecessary. The truth is that the authorities are for the most part enforcing laws they do not understand to make more revenue for the state - nothing more. This is what is truly awful - so yes, they deserve all the direspect they get.

" What a crock. Grow up boys. If I were your mother, I'd have taught you proper manners."
Not a crock - the sad truth. You are not my mother - my mother raised me with terrific manners. However she also raised me with common sense. If someone is stealing money from me under force of law to enforce some victimless crime law, they are the real criminals. No, you are not mother, and with such platitudes, you could never hope to be. I would suggest you yourself grow up a little more before urging others to do so.

So what if YOU THINK he disrespected them, they disrespected him first. The real crock comes from the ideal that they can control you like this. THAT is the REAL source of evil in this world.

its never too late.. where do i sign up ma'am

The cop should be arrested too then... they didn't even give him time to leave, just started arresting him.

@ii386,
"Wearing a hat in a courtroom is not allowed." - because it offends a judges sensibility - nothing more - no harm no foul.

"He REFUSED to listen" - it is called civil disobedience to ridiculous laws - I applaud his action.

"He is a moron and this story is stupid." - Ad hominen attacks now....wow - expected though from someone who fails to make a real argument. ii386 seems to fit as long as we are throwing those around. The story is not stupid but shows how ridiculous it is to be arresting people (using tax payers money) to collect even more money for the state to punish someone for a victimless crime. Do you say your hail hitlers every night?

No, my argument is as stands. Hats are not allowed in courtrooms and he didn't take off his hat. He got what he deserved. No harm no foul? Apparently not! Victimless crime? The only victim is the guy who didn't follow a simple rule! If you applaud his action then go into a courtroom with a hat on and do the same thing. Video tape it even! I'd love to see it.

Now, let's get this straight really fast. You criticize me for "not having an argument" but your response consists of no argument either. You really think this is civil disobedience? That would be a disgrace to those that have used civil disobedience against laws that ACTUALLY MATTER. You claim I used ad hominem attacks? YOU PRACTICALLY CALLED ME A NAZI! What a joke! First one to resort to nazi names clearly loses the argument.

The cops also had hats on in the courtroom, they were NOT made to remove them! Just because someone wears a costume, has a sign, a gun and a taser does that give them special privileges??? I don't think so!!! They get paid to SERVE the people, we don't SERVE them!

The rule is stupid. I doubt you would be singing the same tune if the man had to do the hokey pokey because it was a law. This is just a power play on the part of the police officers and court room. Failing to remove your hat does not harm society, it just harms the ego of the retards that are trying to put this law into practice.

Not to confuse you, but I am not saying that every law is good and all laws should be followed...but come on! Use some discretion and pick your fucking battles once in a while. I, for one, would much rather this guy bring a joint into the courtroom and light it up! THAT is a battle I would get behind, not the ability to wear hats in government buildings.

Besides, you can hide stuff in hats, conceal your identity, and its just a common sign of respect for authority. If you don't agree with it then obviously don't go to a fucking courtroom.

This is definitely a case of someone not being wise in "picking your battles."

I know this seems like a mute point to you, but really think about. Who is being harmed by this man wearing a hat? They have scanners and metal detectors at the door. Where's the threat? No where in the constitution does it say you must remove your hat before a judge or be arrested. Over the years our rights of expression have been stripped away. It's laws like these that slowly etch us farther and farther away from the founding ideas of this country. Not being able to wear a hat in a court house that your taxes pay for, means something; just like bringing a joint into a courthouse would mean something.

Why should this man--Why should any of us have respect for authority? Especially when time and time again they treat us like children unable to make informed decisions on what we can do to our own bodies or wear over our heads.

Yes it's a small form of civil disobedience but sometimes that's enough to wake people up. Think of Rosa parks. She did something as simple as sit in the front of a bus. Many people thought it was rude. I'm sure many people had discussions like the one we're having now as to whether she should respect authority or not.

You see you are confusing this as the battle to wear a hat in a room, but this is actually a battle to be treated as a human being instead of a suspicious criminal--another enemy of the state. If removing your hat is a sign of respect then tell me where it is required that I offer such respect. People are entitled to their own opinion, sometimes that opinion is expressed in simple acts of disobedience like refusing to remove and article of clothing just because a police officer says so.

*disrespect

If, somehow, that law which says "you have to remove your hat in a courtroom" was revoked tomorrow. What then? Would we be better off? And, just to keep this discussion going, what other laws would you like to see revoked?

You have a point, but I think the bigger picture is that you will fail to have support over an issue of someone refusing to remove a hat in a courtroom. The point of civil disobedience is to inspire people to your cause through the outrage of the incident. This will not inspire outrage. This guy is not Rosa Parks, and drawing an equivalence is only going to cause more enmity than it will draw support.

Though you are correct in your assertion that this is a wanton abuse of power.

There are a lot of laws I'de like to see revoked, this is one of them. If this law was revoked than the man in the video would not be dealing with a civil rights violation and we would not be having a discussion on whether their is an abuse of power here.

It took laws big and small to get us to the state we are in today it will take the undoing of laws big and small to bring us back into a state of liberty, democracy and peaceful coexistence.

The issue is not a man refusing to remove his hat per-say. It's an issue regarding how the police officers handled the situation. I feel it does cause some to think. It's a simple act of disobedience as I said earlier, but it begs the question why are we using such force to implement a victimless law? Furthermore, I feel it does inspire people. When people get behind this man they are in essentially saying "we will not tolerate any state abuse no matter how big or small it is".

Enmity is being caused because a lot of people spend time splitting hairs, putting each other down, and trying to put ideas into neat little theoretical packages. In real life people both educated and uneducated want to see things change. Not all of them subscribe to voting or one day protests. Change is usually a result of ordinary people doing what they can do with what they know. We need to support and educate each other all this arguing is not getting anyone anywhere. It's standing up even in a small way that really moves us forward, but we need more people to start speaking up.

Yeah, a slave in rebellion should be criticized more than the master's bullshit rules...good call.... lol I can't believe people think it is acceptable to knee a guy to the ground over a fucking hat. You call this civilization?!? That is completely the opposite of civilized.

All victimless crimes.

True enough. I do find it amazing how in a single generation the entire notion of civil disobedience has been brainwashed out of the public mind almost entirely.

We're not free because this guy couldn't wear his hat. Excellent Conclusion!

Well actually, that would be a correct analysis. If you are not free to do as you wish as long as you don't infringe on others, then you are not truly free.