Here's a story in today's Oregonian about a policeman who got a traffic 
fine for illegal parking:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/121687171035380.xml&coll=7

Here are some relevant quotes from the article:

   "Oregonians believe police don't get to ignore the law."

This is exactly how I feel, and I fully support the idea that those who 
represent Law and Order should be bound by it as fully as any other citizen.

   "Portland police, however, vowed to push to allow officers to park in 
no-parking zones to order food"

Seriously?  They're fed up that they have to park in the same spaces 
that we have to?

OK, I understand that policemen need to stay within a certain distance 
of their vehicles (both to respond more quickly to calls, and in case 
someone tries to vandalize their vehicle {the article states that this 
is a real concern for them}).  However, if they aren't able to get the 
food they want because of this, then how about calling ahead and having 
your order brought out to you?  I've seen countless officers pull up to 
restaurants (ok, donut shops - and I'm not even making that up!) and an 
employee carried their order out to them.

Even failing that, then let them quit whining and deal with it.  If I 
don't have time to go to the restaurant I want on my lunch break, I 
don't go to that restaurant.  And if I refuse to go to any nearby 
fast-food restaurants, then I bring my own lunch.

   "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?

I'd like to know why this man is a judge, and why we trust him to decide 
questions about guilt and innocence when he cannot understand that 
breaking they law is the definition of wrong.

   "It's almost incomprehensible . . . that those public servants need 
to drive around at public expense burning gas to find a spot to get the 
food that they enjoy"

You know what's incomprehensible?  That I need to drive around at my 
expense burning gas to find a spot to get the food that I enjoy.  But no 
judge would ever waive my parking ticket.

Post a reply to this message