On 27-Jul-08 22:06, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:488### [at] hotmailcom...
>> On 27-Jul-08 19:27, Warp wrote:
> 
>>>   I see absolutely no problem in such exemption.
> 
>> I did understand what you were saying but I simply disagree and yes, I
>> do see the problem. It is the problem of the slippery slope. (yes, I did
>> consult wikipedia)
> 
> Slippery slope can be abused.

Hence the remark about wikipedia 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope)

> Just because the law applies differently to
> police doesn't mean it becomes meaningless. Many laws have built in
> exceptions, but they still work.
 >
>> It's their job to enforce the law for everybody. No exceptions for
>> policeman, lawyers, judges, politicians or the mayor's wife or friends.
>> Law is law and it applies to everybody.
> 
> Laws can be different for different people. Handicapped persons, already
> have priviledges with regards to parking, for instance. Why not the police?
> While resentment at others' priviledges is a natural human emotion, I cannot
> find a good logical argument.

As slime said: it is not a problem if you make it into a law. As long as 
it is not a law however, the police should abide by the existing law.

Post a reply to this message