Chambers wrote:

> Here are some relevant quotes from the article:
> 
>   "Oregonians believe police don't get to ignore the law."
> 
> This is exactly how I feel, and I fully support the idea that those who 
> represent Law and Order should be bound by it as fully as any other 
> citizen.
> 
>   "Portland police, however, vowed to push to allow officers to park in 
> no-parking zones to order food"
> 
> Seriously?  They're fed up that they have to park in the same spaces 
> that we have to?

Heh. Apparently these guys think they're somehow above the law.

To qutoe Judge Dred, "I never broke the law! I *am* the law!"

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

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).

  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.

  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.

> 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.

> 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!

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Heh. Apparently these guys think they're somehow above the law.

  Why do people *always* interpret everything in the worst possible way?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Heh. Apparently these guys think they're somehow above the law.
> 
>   Why do people *always* interpret everything in the worst possible way?

I don't know Warp, why *are* you interpretting me in the worst possible 
way? ;-)

I just find it amausing that *everybody* struggles to find parking 
spaces, yet these guys seem to think that just because they're 
policemen, they should be able to just ignore the rules and park where 
they want. In other words, every No Parking Zone magically becomes a 
Police Resurved Zone... What makes the police so special?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Heh. Apparently these guys think they're somehow above the law.
> 
>   Why do people *always* interpret everything in the worst possible way?
> 

In this case, it's because we've all seen or know of cops who do act 
this way. The court house parking lot in the town I grew up in had a 'no 
left turn' sign when leaving it. It had a good reason for the sign, the 
signal light was just to the right an when traffic was stopped long 
enough to allow you to turn left there was often a line of cars blocking 
you.

None of the cops obeyed that sign. Not a one that I saw over the 20 
years I lived there. When asked about it, some would respond that they 
knew they were safe, others responded with 'there is a traffic sign there?'


Since you support this group of people breaking the law, which they were 
as there is no exemption on the record at this time, who should have to 
follow it? What about a doctor, on call but not in a marked ambulance? A 
mother with a sick child at home? Who has to obey the law if the police 
do not?

Post a reply to this message

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

Chambers wrote:
> Here's a story in today's Oregonian about a policeman who got a traffic 
> fine for illegal parking:
>
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/121687171035380.xml&coll=7

> 
> 
> Here are some relevant quotes from the article:
> 
>   "Oregonians believe police don't get to ignore the law."
> 
> This is exactly how I feel, and I fully support the idea that those who 
> represent Law and Order should be bound by it as fully as any other 
> citizen.
> 
>   "Portland police, however, vowed to push to allow officers to park in 
> no-parking zones to order food"
> 
> Seriously?  They're fed up that they have to park in the same spaces 
> that we have to?
> 
> OK, I understand that policemen need to stay within a certain distance 
> of their vehicles (both to respond more quickly to calls, and in case 
> someone tries to vandalize their vehicle {the article states that this 
> is a real concern for them}).  However, if they aren't able to get the 
> food they want because of this, then how about calling ahead and having 
> your order brought out to you?  I've seen countless officers pull up to 
> restaurants (ok, donut shops - and I'm not even making that up!) and an 
> employee carried their order out to them.
> 


I once say a police car pull up at a McDonalds and block (2) handicapped 
stalls because he parked badly.  He was not in uniform.  He got out and 
proceeded to return a video the video machine there.  He then went 
inside and got something and came back out.  All in all he was there for 
about 5 minutes.

What frustrated me was that he looked off duty (but that may not have 
been the case), blocked 2 handicapped stalls - all with about 5 empty 
parking spaces about 25 feet away that were easy to get into and out of 
- ie pull through.



Maybe places should be required to keep a certain number of spaces 
reserved for emergency vehicle parking during non emergencies - just 
like for the handicapped.


The extension is that they would have to make parking for all sorts of 
groups of people.  If you didn't belong to a special group you would 
have to park 1/2 mile away because that is where the 3 unreserved spots 
were.
It might help with the obesity problem in the US, but then again they 
might be one of the special groups that get a reserved spot up close...




Tom

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> So presumably you'd want to widen this to including firefighters,  
> ambulance drivers, doctors, nurses etc.

  No, because they don't patrol the streets while on duty.

  You are still slipperysloping.

> 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.

  Ambulance drivers eat at the hospital (or whichever place they are when
not on a call). They are not even supposed to eat while on a call.

> >   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.

  Everyone else don't have the same duties as police officers. A police
officer has more responsibility, thus it's only logical to make him
fulfilling this responsibility as easy as possible.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> Heh. Apparently these guys think they're somehow above the law.
> > 
> >   Why do people *always* interpret everything in the worst possible way?

> I don't know Warp, why *are* you interpretting me in the worst possible 
> way? ;-)

  Because of this:

> I just find it amausing that *everybody* struggles to find parking 
> spaces, yet these guys seem to think that just because they're 
> policemen, they should be able to just ignore the rules and park where 
> they want. In other words, every No Parking Zone magically becomes a 
> Police Resurved Zone... What makes the police so special?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:488dbb68@news.povray.org...

>   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.

Of course he is arrogant and is thinking he is superior. That comes with the
territory and demands of being an "enforcer". However, the fact that he
likely has less than noble motives doesn't mean his behaviour does not have
a net benefit.

Post a reply to this message