EPD: tax-funded self-aggrandizement

Ugh.

The Exeter Police Department, unhappy, with their measly multi-million dollar tax consumption from Exeter residents, feels it appropriate to expropriate another $20k from the state taxpayers at large. The goal: “enhanced patrol activities.” Read: more loitering, snooping, and ticket-issuing. In short, they are taking more of the tax largesse to bother and expropriate more of the hapless taxpayers. This is a damn shame, but it’s no surprise. More laws justifies more tax money for “law enforcement.”

According to Shupe: “Our goal will also be to educate drivers and others on the specific violation/law they have been stopped for in hopes of curbing a dangerous driving habit.” Wrong. Most everyone knows the laws. News flash: people ignore laws. This is not about education. This is about control, compliance, and enrichment. This is about increasing police power over us peons.

Naturally, Dan beautify-my-storefront Chartrand is delighted with this. Anything that enriches the government coffers (and by conflict of interest, himself) is a good turn of events. A far better and safer solution: abolish EPD.

I await the sobriety checkpoints.

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.

Portsmouth gun persecution

Another overreach by Portsmouth PD. First, they violate the rights of at least 250 people in order to arrest 3. This is a strike rate of 1.2%. It’s actually even worse because only 1 was arrested for DWI. The real strike rate is 0.4%. This is not worth the police state.

Now they go even further and hassle someone carrying a pellet gun. According to the report, “the driver was initially asked if had a license to carry a concealed weapon.” Of course, a c.c. permit is necessary to carry an loaded gun:

159:4Carrying Without License. – No person shall carry a loaded pistol or revolver in any vehicle or concealed upon his person, except in his dwelling, house or place of business, without a valid license therefor as hereinafter provided. A loaded pistol or revolver shall include any pistol or revolver with a magazine, cylinder, chamber or clip in which there are loaded cartridges. Whoever violates the provisions of this section shall, for the first such offense, be guilty of a misdemeanor. For the second and for each subsequent violation of the provisions of this section, such person shall be guilty of a class B felony, provided such second or subsequent violation has occurred within 7 years of the previous conviction.

Was the driver first asked if the gun was loaded?  Does PPD know gun laws for us taxpayers?

The real scary quote by Sgt. David Colby: “This could definitely get you shot.” First, note the passive voice. What he really means is that a cop might shoot you in error for this. And, the implication is that the victim would be to blame. It’s the victim’s fault for not storing the gun “properly,” and the police is excused from punishment because he was in fear of his life.

Why is any of this taking place at a “sobriety checkpoint” anyway? Obviously these checkpoints are just ways for the police to snoop around your car and interrogate you. This is not what a free society looks like.

My feeling about this is that if a cop is not up to the task of discerning between real and fake and places the burden on the gun owner, then he shouldn’t take the tax-funded job in the first place.

Portsmouth police state

At least 401 people were robbed of their liberties in Portsmouth, and four people were arrested. Assuming that all four are guilty of a crime, this is a strike right of, at best 0.998%. Because the government justification for these sobriety checks is to see if people are drunk, the one person who wasn’t arrested for DWI should be discounted, decreasing the strike rate to 0.748%. 

The vast majority of people’s rights are taken away to arrest some people who haven’t even committed any violent crimes. 

Is it worth it?

Hundreds of people's rights violated in Seabrook

After a police state sobriety checkpoint in Seabrook, eleven people were arrested. There were 573 cars stopped and "screened." Assuming there was one person per car, this is a strike rate of 1.9%. However, it's even less (still assuming very generously that there was one person per car), because of the eleven arrested, five were not arrested for DWI. So, the strike rate is 1.0%. 

Were the six people arrested for DWI actually over the .08 BAC limit? We can't say because in this state, one can be arrested for a BAC under .08 is the cop thinks your driving is influenced. Also note that a .08 BAC limit is ridiculously low. Ask yourself: how do you personally feel at a .08 BAC? Would you even be able to recognize it?  So, the police cannot even be sure how much of a "threat" these people were. Eric Peters argues that there is a big difference between "drunk driving" and "drinking and driving."

Is this all worth it? Of course not. It's not worth the waste of people's time, the waste of their tax money, and it is absolutely not worth the loss of liberty. And, we're not kept any safer.

Shame.

Seabrook police bat 1.8%

At the police state checkpoint in Seabrook, six people were arrested after 326 people had their rights violated. Those six people hurt nobody and damaged nothing.

I feel so safe.