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.

  Parking restrictions exist solely to keep some kind of order and fluency
in city traffic. 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.

  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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 27-Jul-08 18:28, 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.
> 
>   Parking restrictions exist solely to keep some kind of order and fluency
> in city traffic. 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.
> 
>   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.

two reasons:
If the policeman can park there without obstructing, anyone can. Hence 
there was no reason for the no-parking zone. A policeman breaking a law 
simply indicates that the law should be withdrawn. Either truly so, or 
at least in the perception of spectators.
And secondly, because a policeman has to set an example. Here in the 
Netherlands there are even restrictions on what they can do when 
off-duty. E.g. you have a really big problem if you drive with just 
slightly too much alcohol in your blood after a party. For a civilian it 
may be just a fine, for a policeman it may cost him his job.
Aside, apparently it even works that way that when off-duty a policeman 
is still expected to intervene when he sees someone breaking the law. We 
had an incident recently where a policewoman was shot when she, while 
off-duty, stopped a car whose driver was clearly drunk. Nobody 
(journalists, superior officers, ministers) questioned that she did what 
was expected of her, even though it cost her her life. At least here the 
convention is that a policeman is never really off-duty. (And if those 
bloody Americans could stop producing guns, the streets would be safer 
here. Thanks in advance).

To you it might be logical that a policeman can do more than a civilian, 
to me all alarm bells start ringing. And that judge should be fired 
immediately.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> If the policeman can park there without obstructing, anyone can.

  You clearly didn't really understand what I wanted to say.

  Just because a police car parks somewhere for 10 minutes once a day
doesn't mean that 5 cars parking there 24/7 don't obstruct anyone any
worse.

  I see absolutely no problem in such exemption.

> To you it might be logical that a policeman can do more than a civilian, 
> to me all alarm bells start ringing.

  But a police *can* do more than a civilian, because they are trained and
educated for that. It's their job.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 27-Jul-08 19:27, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> If the policeman can park there without obstructing, anyone can.
> 
>   You clearly didn't really understand what I wanted to say.
> 
>   Just because a police car parks somewhere for 10 minutes once a day
> doesn't mean that 5 cars parking there 24/7 don't obstruct anyone any
> worse.
> 
>   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)

>> To you it might be logical that a policeman can do more than a civilian, 
>> to me all alarm bells start ringing.
> 
>   But a police *can* do more than a civilian, because they are trained and
> educated for that. It's their job.

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.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 27-Jul-08 19:27, Warp wrote:
> > andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >> If the policeman can park there without obstructing, anyone can.
> > 
> >   You clearly didn't really understand what I wanted to say.
> > 
> >   Just because a police car parks somewhere for 10 minutes once a day
> > doesn't mean that 5 cars parking there 24/7 don't obstruct anyone any
> > worse.
> > 
> >   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)

  At least here in some of the biggest cities there are lanes on the biggest
roads which are reserved exclusively for the use of buses, taxis and
emergency vehicles. Other people are prohibited from using that lane by
law. If they use the lane, they get fined.

  Is this exemption unfair and a slippery slope? Is it unfair that *some*
people (such as bus drivers and the police) can use the special lane but
not others?

  Or is this exemption there in order to make traffic more fluent and
less troublesome?

  Why couldn't the police be exempted from parking prohibitions, as long
as they do it in a manner that doesn't cause problems to anyone? I just
can't see any rational reason.

  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.

> 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.

  The law can (and perhaps should) be changed to allow police officers on
duty to park in places which are most convenient.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  Why couldn't the police be exempted from parking prohibitions, as long
> as they do it in a manner that doesn't cause problems to anyone? I just
> can't see any rational reason.

It may be reasonable to introduce a law that allows police more lenient 
parking restrictions in certain cases. However, such a law doesn't exist 
yet. Police, perhaps moreso than others, need to follow the law that exists, 
not the law that some people think maybe should exist.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

"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. 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.

Post a reply to this message

"Slime" <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote in message
news:488cd4a0$1@news.povray.org...

> >  Why couldn't the police be exempted from parking prohibitions, as long
> > as they do it in a manner that doesn't cause problems to anyone? I just
> > can't see any rational reason.

> It may be reasonable to introduce a law that allows police more lenient
> parking restrictions in certain cases. However, such a law doesn't exist
> yet. Police, perhaps moreso than others, need to follow the law that
exists,
> not the law that some people think maybe should exist.

True, hence I agree with the fine. However, many laws emerge from such
challenges *when* they happen. This incident may very well result in an
exemption, which is logical. So the judge is correct, IMO, in applying the
law as well as criticising it.

Post a reply to this message

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