Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> Because as has been said they're supposed to upload the laws and we only  
> allow them leniency whilst in pursuit of those goals, not when in pursuit  
> of a meal.

  A police officer is a human being, not a robot, and eating, hydrating and
being in good condition *is* part of his job, so that he can perform his
other duties at maximum proficiency.

  Another duty of the police office is to be always ready for cases of
urgent emergencies. They must be ready to act as fast as possible when
so needed. This is so even if they are currently caring for their own
wellbeing (which, as I said, is also part of their job).

  Basically you are saying that in a situation where doing both things
at the same time is not possible by the strict letter of the law, for
example because there are no available parking slots nearby, the police
officer must sacrifice one duty for the other.

  Why do people always interpret things in the worst possible way? If a
police officer parks in an illegal place to get food, everyone immediately
interprets it as the officer being arrogant and thinking he is superior
and above the law. Why can't people think more positively: The police
officer always maximizes his readiness to respond to emergencies.

> Perhaps we should also allow them to use their sirens to clear  
> traffic when they need to get to a restaurant that's about to close?

  Please don't succumb to slipperly slope argumentation. That would be
a completely different situation, and would actually potentially cause
unnecessarily dangerous situations.

> It's also important to note that this wasn't a stop, grab and off; "About  
> five minutes after the officer arrived, Bryant walked up to him and told  
> him he was parked illegally." IOW Bryant had already cut the officer some  
> slack.

  Oh my gosh! Five minutes! The end of the world!

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message