On 27-Jul-08 18:28, Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>>    "Traffic Court Judge Terry Hannon said he didn't think the officer 
>> did anything wrong but he had to find Stensgaard guilty because he 
>> violated the letter of the law."
> 
>> So we've got a judge who admits that the officer broke the law, but he 
>> "didn't think the officer did anything wrong."
> 
>> Since when has it not been wrong to break the law?
> 
>   You have to think about which kind of law he broke. It's not like he
> killed someone or vandalized public property.
> 
>   Parking restrictions exist solely to keep some kind of order and fluency
> in city traffic. Someone parking in a no-parking zone is not a serious
> crime. Depending on the situation, it may simply be a small nuisance to
> the fluency of the general traffic.
> 
>   The law exists so that people will not park wherever they want, obstructing
> and hindering others. The police seldom obstructs and hinders others because
> they know how to behave in traffic. If a police parks temporarily in a
> no-parking zone, I would not say that's a grave offence. The police most
> probably chose the place for convenience, but also making sure he is not
> an bad obstruction to other traffic.
> 
>   Why shouldn't the police be allowed more leniency with parking, as long
> as they do not obstruct traffic? I don't see any harm in that.

two reasons:
If the policeman can park there without obstructing, anyone can. Hence 
there was no reason for the no-parking zone. A policeman breaking a law 
simply indicates that the law should be withdrawn. Either truly so, or 
at least in the perception of spectators.
And secondly, because a policeman has to set an example. Here in the 
Netherlands there are even restrictions on what they can do when 
off-duty. E.g. you have a really big problem if you drive with just 
slightly too much alcohol in your blood after a party. For a civilian it 
may be just a fine, for a policeman it may cost him his job.
Aside, apparently it even works that way that when off-duty a policeman 
is still expected to intervene when he sees someone breaking the law. We 
had an incident recently where a policewoman was shot when she, while 
off-duty, stopped a car whose driver was clearly drunk. Nobody 
(journalists, superior officers, ministers) questioned that she did what 
was expected of her, even though it cost her her life. At least here the 
convention is that a policeman is never really off-duty. (And if those 
bloody Americans could stop producing guns, the streets would be safer 
here. Thanks in advance).

To you it might be logical that a policeman can do more than a civilian, 
to me all alarm bells start ringing. And that judge should be fired 
immediately.

Post a reply to this message