And lo on Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:28:24 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> 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).

So presumably you'd want to widen this to including firefighters,  
ambulance drivers, doctors, nurses etc. An ambulance driver is on their  
way back from a call stops off in a no-parking zone to grab a meal because  
a) he needs to keep an eye on the vehicle and b) needs to be able to  
respond to an emergency.

>   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.

Or to put it another way he has to do what everyone else has to do.

>   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.

Hey did I use the word arrogant? Did I say he thought himself above the  
law? No I didn't; I'm sure there are lot of others who do exactly the same  
thing for less 'worthy' reasons; the main point was that regardless of  
who's doing it it's illegal and contrasted with the judges statement that  
he didn't see what was wrong about it. IOW that itself polarised into a  
one law for them and one for us situation.

>> 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.

Yes I noted you'd snipped off my remark about the officer parking next to  
a crosswalk thus creating a potentially dangerous situation. Use that as  
an answer to this.

>> 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!

Oh dear I know you dislike slippery-slope arguments, but it's simply the  
application of the law - you can't park there; not for a minute, not two,  
not five, not ten. As has been already stated elsewhere if he was in  
pursuit of his duties (no *again* I don't include getting a meal) then he  
could park there if he had no other choice.

The options you seem to be endorsing appear to be carte blanche for an  
officer to ignore the law while performing any actions that could be  
tentatively linked to an officer's duties.

If this was an IT worker, a politician, an electrical repairer we wouldn't  
be having this discussion - they'd be in the wrong, end of story despite  
their duties perhaps being just as important to the welfare of society. It  
is always possible to find excuses to justify any actions.

-- 
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