Warp wrote:
>   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.

	This whole discussion is fairly amusing.

	There's a law. The law did not make exceptions for the police. If 
people think exceptions should be made, let them try to have it 
codified. The police officer can't be let off the hook because _some_ 
people think they should.

	In the US, one can challenge such tickets. So to me it just makes the 
most sense that the officers get ticketed without exception, and they 
can then go in front of a judge and try to explain the rigors of their 
work and the justification for an exemption. It's the judge's job to 
interpret the law, not that of the police officer who does the ticketing.

-- 
Fax me no questions, I'll Fax you no lies!


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

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?

	Why do people *always* speak in absolutes?

-- 
Fax me no questions, I'll Fax you no lies!


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:43:10 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> 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.

Um yes you keep trying to suggest that this train of argument is  
universally flawed without providing any evidence. Slipperysloping is a  
reality - "Hey you're permitting X why aren't you permitting Y which is  
just like X sort of"

>> 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.

So why don't the police do the same thing?

>> >   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.

Nope it's the Spiderman quote - a police officer is given more powers and  
thus has a greater responsibilty not to abuse them. IOW the rules should  
be stricter when they are not directly in pursuit of those duties.

Mueen's got the right idea let a judge determine whether any such illegal  
acts have been commited in the pursuit of a police officer's duty... oh  
wait they did in this case and fined him.

-- 
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

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         This whole discussion is fairly amusing.

>         There's a law. The law did not make exceptions for the police. If 
> people think exceptions should be made, let them try to have it 
> codified. The police officer can't be let off the hook because _some_ 
> people think they should.

  Personally, I wasn't discussing whether the police office broke the law
or not, but whether it makes sense to allow the police in general more
leniency eg. in parking if it's logically justifiable.

  If the judge was forced to fine the police officer because of the letter
of the law, perhaps the law should be changed.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:26:46 +0100, Tom Austin <taustin> did spake,  
saying:

> 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.

Ah now see he had to get to the video store to return the video otherwise  
they'd have blacklisted him. He then wouldn't be able to get videos for  
his 'downtime' relaxation thus increasing his tension and impacting on his  
ability as a police officer. Parking across two stalls was the only way of  
being able to keep an eye on his vehicle and thus necessary in the pursuit  
of his duties.

-- 
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

Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> Slipperysloping is a  
> reality - "Hey you're permitting X why aren't you permitting Y which is  
> just like X sort of"

  It doesn't have to be. Here there are special lanes for buses, taxis
and emergency vehicles in the biggest cities, which nobody else is allowed
to use. In other words, these vehicles get special treatment.

  This has *not* caused any slippery slope to happen.

> >   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.

> So why don't the police do the same thing?

  Because they are in patrol?

> Mueen's got the right idea let a judge determine whether any such illegal  
> acts have been commited in the pursuit of a police officer's duty... oh  
> wait they did in this case and fined him.

  Which of course proves that the police officer was just being arrogant
and thought he was above the law. Right.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   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.

There are signs on those lanes sayin "BUS" or "BUS/TAXI" oslt defining 
who can drive on it (taxis aren't actually allowed to drive on bus-only 
-lane, but they do - and don't get fined).

There are also signs saying "Parking prohibited except for police cars". 
What I understood there was no such sign where the officet got the fine.

>   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?

No, it's strictly specified. What's unfair and a slippery slope is those 
taxi drivers that don't get fined by driving on a bus-only -lane and 
polices driving on a walk-only -road while patrolling (which happens *a 


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

Yes.

>   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.

They could, but they aren't.

OTOH, why couldn't anyone else be exempted from parking prohibitions, if 
they manage to do it in a manner that doesn't cause problems to anyone?

(Yes, I did cut away number of reasons to allow this for police forces - 
it doesn't affect on reasons for denying it for other people).

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

On 28-Jul-08 0:33, somebody wrote:
>> 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?

I would only go as far as to say that as long as it is the law the black 
policemen should sit at the back.

> Granted, not in the same league,

indeed

> but laws evolve via challenges

indeed

Post a reply to this message

On 28-Jul-08 2:22, Tim Attwood 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.
> 
> There's some anti-police intolerance going on though,
> or he wouldn't have gotten a ticket in the first place.
> 
As I understood it there is a possibility of a 'citizen complaint' in 
Oregon, which bypasses the police. Very sensible concept, I don't think 
we got such a thing here (but, IANAL).

Post a reply to this message

On 28-Jul-08 18:23, Warp wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>         This whole discussion is fairly amusing.
> 
>>         There's a law. The law did not make exceptions for the police. If 
>> people think exceptions should be made, let them try to have it 
>> codified. The police officer can't be let off the hook because _some_ 
>> people think they should.
> 
>   Personally, I wasn't discussing whether the police office broke the law
> or not, but whether it makes sense to allow the police in general more
> leniency eg. in parking if it's logically justifiable.

Yes, I know, and many here, including myself, have made the case that 
they should have *less*. In essence this is an ethical discussion and we 
have thus established that you have different ethics than e.g. me. 
Interesting, but not exactly earth shocking. ;)

Post a reply to this message