Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocain freeserve co uk> 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
|