|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
And lo on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:47:58 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tag povray org> did
spake, saying:
> 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.
Quite right police should go all day without eating just like ambulance
drivers.
<snip>
>> 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 judge could have decided that the officer was acting within his duties
and thus eligible to break such rules. Sort of the point of having a
judge, keeps the government in check.
>> 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.
No you posited a point that required a response -
I point out that Mueen suggests such things are fought in court.
I point out that in this case it was and the officer lost.
You declared that this proves that the officer was arrogant and above the
law with the challenge "Right".
I respond as above.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |