LOL: Cop propaganda

We have here some public propaganda to rationalize anti-liberty police checkpoints. Portsmouth Police Captain Frank Warchol gives zero justification for them. He "...said it's difficult to say whether or not sobriety checkpoints yield more arrests or get more impaired drivers off the road than a normal patrol would." He can't even say whether these checkpoints, which have an absurdly low strike rate, work. Yet, we must continue to bear them. His justification? Blind trust, without any argument: in his words, “...sobriety checkpoints are a necessary tool in the fight against drunken driving, saying they have deterrent and educational value.” 

Trust is completely undeserved.

What are the real purposes for these checkpoints? Just ask yourself "Cui bono?" Obviously, the police benefit several times over. They benefit by getting to exert power over other people. They benefit when they can issue tickets and make arrests, which usually have nothing to do with alcohol. And (surprise!) the "voluntary" police officers get overtime. And "snacks and water"! (Should they get paid nap time, too?) More sinister is the fact that we peons are further exposed to the expanding police state. To be clear: government sobriety checkpoints have no place in a free society.

But, don't worry, argues Warchol, no police resources are used. I'm not sure exactly what this means other than saying that the police budget isn't affected. First, I doubt this very much. Is he accounting for every detail, including the tax-funded gasoline that fuels their cop cars? Maybe so and maybe no. Even so, however, Warchol's point is irrelevant. The money comes from the NH Highway Safety Administration, and the hapless taxpayers pay for that too. It's not free money. The difference between this roundabout method of government spending and spending directly by the local police department is simply the amount the graft that’s skimmed off the top. My paycheck is still bled dry.

Warchol then makes a half-hearted utilitarian case, claiming that it doesn’t take up much of a driver’s time. But, he has no idea how valuable a person’s time is. Why should he care? We’re not paying customers, and we have no choice. A “minimal disruption” is still a disruption.

Note, incidentally, that he says one indication of “impaired” driving is if a driver is not following “instructions,” by which he means “police orders.” Don’t argue with a cop, don’t disobey him. If you do, you are automatically a suspect.

This puff piece article is nothing but propaganda. Sobriety checkpoints are a mini cash cow for the police and a clear technique to get the masses accustomed to the police state. Thankfully, it’s not working. People are, so to speak, sobering up.

Police consume their own

After a cop exerted "undue influence" over some lady to get her inheritance, another one told the local paper about it and was accused of "malfeasance" for discussing the situation. The whistleblower resigned so that he could speak freely. Hilarious and telling.

First, I'm "undue influence" is a crime unless there is actual force or fraud involved. Pestering someone, for example, is not a crime per se.

Second, free speech does not extend to private businesses and jobs. If I hire you on the condition that you don’t write about your political opinions, I am perfectly free to fire you for doing so. However, the police is a government entity and, as such, most certainly can not make such demands. (Incidentally, for the same reason, gag orders by government courts are illegitimate.) Third, a good outcome of this story is that it demonstrates quite clearly the corruption of the Portsmouth PD, both how they consider themselves above the law and how they protect their own. Corrupt cops are bred in an inherently bad system. It's not "just a few bad apples." The good ones are the “rats” and “whistleblowers” who have the surprising capacity to treat the boys in blue the same as us peons.