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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message