And lo on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:47:58 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> 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.

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