Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>>    "Traffic Court Judge Terry Hannon said he didn't think the officer 
>> did anything wrong but he had to find Stensgaard guilty because he 
>> violated the letter of the law."
> 
>> So we've got a judge who admits that the officer broke the law, but he 
>> "didn't think the officer did anything wrong."
> 
>> Since when has it not been wrong to break the law?
> 
>   You have to think about which kind of law he broke. It's not like he
> killed someone or vandalized public property.

It's not the seriousness of the offense, it's the attitude of the police.

"Oh, we shouldn't have to worry about that, since we're the Police!"

At best it's arrogant and annoying, at worst it's indicative of a much 
more serious disregard for the law.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   In fact, I can see rational reasons to *allow* police cars on duty to
> park in places where other cars normally can't, as already mentioned in
> this thread: If the police suddenly gets an emergency call, he must be
> able to access his car fast. Thus it may be imperative that his car is
> in a place which is as easy to access as possible. If all the regular
> parking slots nearby are in use, and he would have to park very far away
> to obey the law, that could be critical in a case of emergency.

What is more important: the Police obeying the same law they claim to 
uphold, or making an exception for the Police so they can have their 
favorite food?

One thing noted in the original article is that there *were* several 
other restaurants nearby this Policeman could have eaten at without any 
problems parking.  He specifically chose not to.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On 27-Jul-08 22:06, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:488### [at] hotmailcom...
>> On 27-Jul-08 19:27, Warp wrote:
> 
>>>   I see absolutely no problem in such exemption.
> 
>> I did understand what you were saying but I simply disagree and yes, I
>> do see the problem. It is the problem of the slippery slope. (yes, I did
>> consult wikipedia)
> 
> Slippery slope can be abused.

Hence the remark about wikipedia 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope)

> Just because the law applies differently to
> police doesn't mean it becomes meaningless. Many laws have built in
> exceptions, but they still work.
 >
>> It's their job to enforce the law for everybody. No exceptions for
>> policeman, lawyers, judges, politicians or the mayor's wife or friends.
>> Law is law and it applies to everybody.
> 
> Laws can be different for different people. Handicapped persons, already
> have priviledges with regards to parking, for instance. Why not the police?
> While resentment at others' priviledges is a natural human emotion, I cannot
> find a good logical argument.

As slime said: it is not a problem if you make it into a law. As long as 
it is not a law however, the police should abide by the existing law.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> Laws can be different for different people. Handicapped persons, already
> have priviledges with regards to parking, for instance. Why not the police?
> While resentment at others' priviledges is a natural human emotion, I cannot
> find a good logical argument.

Please understand, there already *are* exceptions for Police when they 
are acting in an official capacity.  There simply *aren't* any 
exceptions for them when they're going to get food, and that's the crux 
of the problem.

The Police want special consideration for something that I think they 
don't deserve, and which the law as it exists doesn't grant them.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> "Oh, we shouldn't have to worry about that, since we're the Police!"

> At best it's arrogant and annoying

  No. At best it's a question of practicality and safety.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:488### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 27-Jul-08 22:06, somebody wrote:
> > "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> > news:488### [at] hotmailcom...
> >> On 27-Jul-08 19:27, Warp wrote:
> >
> >>>   I see absolutely no problem in such exemption.
> >
> >> I did understand what you were saying but I simply disagree and yes, I
> >> do see the problem. It is the problem of the slippery slope. (yes, I
did
> >> consult wikipedia)
> >
> > Slippery slope can be abused.
>
> Hence the remark about wikipedia
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope)
>
> > Just because the law applies differently to
> > police doesn't mean it becomes meaningless. Many laws have built in
> > exceptions, but they still work.
>  >
> >> It's their job to enforce the law for everybody. No exceptions for
> >> policeman, lawyers, judges, politicians or the mayor's wife or friends.
> >> Law is law and it applies to everybody.
> >
> > Laws can be different for different people. Handicapped persons, already
> > have priviledges with regards to parking, for instance. Why not the
police?
> > While resentment at others' priviledges is a natural human emotion, I
cannot
> > find a good logical argument.

> As slime said: it is not a problem if you make it into a law. As long as
> it is not a law however, the police should abide by the existing law.

Would you also agree that as long as it's the law, blacks should sit at the
back end of the bus?

Granted, not in the same league, but laws evolve via challenges

Post a reply to this message

>> "Oh, we shouldn't have to worry about that, since we're the Police!"
>
>> At best it's arrogant and annoying
>
>  No. At best it's a question of practicality and safety.

There's some anti-police intolerance going on though,
or he wouldn't have gotten a ticket in the first place.

In San Francisco they're putting illegal alien crack dealers into
minimum security juvenile group homes to intenionally have
them escape. There's been eight such cases in the last
month or so. They also flew crack dealers out of town
(to Texas) where they were released with the intention of
having them return to Honduras, without informing ICE,
and so mostly they just flew back to SF, since they'll be
released again if the police arrest them again.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
>> As slime said: it is not a problem if you make it into a law. As long as
>> it is not a law however, the police should abide by the existing law.
> 
> Would you also agree that as long as it's the law, blacks should sit at the
> back end of the bus?

Of course not.

> Granted, not in the same league, but laws evolve via challenges

If I thought the Police getting preferential treatment for parking were 
anywhere near as important as racial segregation, I'd be all for the 
Police intentionally parking in no-parking zones as a means of protest.

As it is, if the law is changed, then so be it.  What I don't like is to 
see the Police knowingly break a law with the attitude, "It's not that 
important, so I don't have to obey that particular law."

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

In article <488cea40$1@news.povray.org>, ben### [at] pacificwebguycom says...
> Warp wrote:
> >   In fact, I can see rational reasons to *allow* police cars on duty to
> > park in places where other cars normally can't, as already mentioned in
> > this thread: If the police suddenly gets an emergency call, he must be
> > able to access his car fast. Thus it may be imperative that his car is
> > in a place which is as easy to access as possible. If all the regular
> > parking slots nearby are in use, and he would have to park very far awa
y
> > to obey the law, that could be critical in a case of emergency.
> 
> What is more important: the Police obeying the same law they claim to 
> uphold, or making an exception for the Police so they can have their 
> favorite food?
> 
The later.. Duh! Oh wait.. Got that backwards...

Seriously though. Break one law, break all of them. In this town the 
local police routinely pass people in the wrong lane, cut people off it 
traffic, ignore stop lights, fail to use turn signals, etc., and all 
while neither in pursuit of a speeder, on the way to an incident, or 
doing anything other than just patrolling. If someone had tried that in 
the town I grew up in, they would be fired so damn fast it wouldn't even 
be funny. No park zones are there for "fire zones" or "official" use. 
Getting a soda or buying #$#@#@$ lunch doesn't qualify, even where I 
live now, and, as I said, the cops here refuse to follow laws that are a 
*lot* more fracking serious. But man... Let a nipple show in public and 
you will wish you where a certain celebrity, since she probably got off 
fracking easy. Don't know, somehow, I would have thought stolen multi-
million dollar paintings, a spree of people slashing tires, theft of 
sculptures from people's yards, or the local group of drug dealers would 
*all* be a tad more serious than if someone saw a womens tits, and laws 
like, "Don't pass on the shoulder, even if you are a cop.", might be a 
bit more serious too. Somehow, it turns out I am wrong, at least in this 
idiot conservative town..

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:28:29 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
>
>   Parking restrictions exist solely to keep some kind of order and  
> fluency in city traffic.

No they don't they're also there for safety reasons. Check page 2 of the  
link "saw the officer park his marked patrol car in a curbside no-parking  
zone, within several feet of a crosswalk." You don't park next to a  
crossing as it obscures the view of pedestrians (both senses).

> Someone parking in a no-parking zone is not a serious
> crime. Depending on the situation, it may simply be a small nuisance to
> the fluency of the general traffic.

Which is why the parking laws often have exceptions or need clarifying  
such as adding loading restriction markings to a parking restriction.

>   The law exists so that people will not park wherever they want,  
> obstructing
> and hindering others. The police seldom obstructs and hinders others  
> because
> they know how to behave in traffic. If a police parks temporarily in a
> no-parking zone, I would not say that's a grave offence. The police most
> probably chose the place for convenience, but also making sure he is not
> an bad obstruction to other traffic.
>
>   Why shouldn't the police be allowed more leniency with parking, as long
> as they do not obstruct traffic? I don't see any harm in that.

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. 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?

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.

-- 
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