Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> >> So why don't the police do the same thing?
> >
> >   Because they are in patrol?

> But they shouldn't be eating on patrol.

  Excuse me? The police must go all day without eating? This is getting
just ridiculous.

> >> Mueen's got the right idea let a judge determine whether any such  
> >> illegal
> >> acts have been commited in the pursuit of a police officer's duty... oh
> >> wait they did in this case and fined him.
> >
> >   Which of course proves that the police officer was just being arrogant
> > and thought he was above the law. Right.

> The judgement was that he'd broken the law, he supplied his justification  
> and it was rejected in court.

  But not because the justification was bad, but because the judge had no
choice. His hands were tied.

> The only way I can see that as equating to  
> arrogant or above the law was if his reasoning was that he could do what  
> he liked because he was a police officer, which it wasn't.

  You have a rather narrow view of things if that's the *only* way you can
see the situation.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message