Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> >> So why don't the police do the same thing?
> >
> >   Because they are in patrol?

> But they shouldn't be eating on patrol.

  Excuse me? The police must go all day without eating? This is getting
just ridiculous.

> >> 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.

> The judgement was that he'd broken the law, he supplied his justification  
> and it was rejected in court.

  But not because the justification was bad, but because the judge had no
choice. His hands were tied.

> The only way I can see that as equating to  
> arrogant or above the law was if his reasoning was that he could do what  
> he liked because he was a police officer, which it wasn't.

  You have a rather narrow view of things if that's the *only* way you can
see the situation.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:47:58 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> >> So why don't the police do the same thing?
>> >
>> >   Because they are in patrol?
>
>> But they shouldn't be eating on patrol.
>
>   Excuse me? The police must go all day without eating? This is getting
> just ridiculous.

Quite right police should go all day without eating just like ambulance  
drivers.

<snip>
>> The judgement was that he'd broken the law, he supplied his  
>> justification and it was rejected in court.
>
>   But not because the justification was bad, but because the judge had no
> choice. His hands were tied.

The judge could have decided that the officer was acting within his duties  
and thus eligible to break such rules. Sort of the point of having a  
judge, keeps the government in check.

>> The only way I can see that as equating to
>> arrogant or above the law was if his reasoning was that he could do what
>> he liked because he was a police officer, which it wasn't.
>
>   You have a rather narrow view of things if that's the *only* way you  
> can see the situation.

No you posited a point that required a response -
I point out that Mueen suggests such things are fought in court.
I point out that in this case it was and the officer lost.
You declared that this proves that the officer was arrogant and above the  
law with the challenge "Right".
I respond as above.

-- 
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

On 29-Jul-08 14:27, Tom Austin wrote:
> Maybe we shouldn't complain too much about the police parking
> 
> http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/rfisman/parking_20july06_RF.pdf
> 
> It seems that in some places diplomats (and their representatives) are 
> worse at it.
> 
> They ignore the tickets they receive.

I though this would be about UN diplomats in new york and I wasn't 
disappointed. In the table starting on page 22 it seems that the dutch 
are in tied last place. I am sure could do better if we wanted to. 
Interestingly the US seem to be absent from this list.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> So we've got a judge who admits that the officer broke the law, but he 
> "didn't think the officer did anything wrong."

Sometimes the law is bad.

I got a ticket once for running out of passing zone while passing. When 
I went to court, the judge said "where did this happen?"  I told him. He 
  said "Yeah, I know that road. The passing zone is too short. Case 
dismissed."

Not that it happens often, mind.

> I'd like to know why this man is a judge, and why we trust him to decide 
> questions about guilt and innocence when he cannot understand that 
> breaking they law is the definition of wrong.

It isn't, in the USA at least. That's what juries are for. :-)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

On 29-Jul-08 21:50, Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
> 
>> I'd like to know why this man is a judge, and why we trust him to 
>> decide questions about guilt and innocence when he cannot understand 
>> that breaking they law is the definition of wrong.
> 
> It isn't, in the USA at least. That's what juries are for. :-)
> 
Sure, I forgot. Isn't that also the country where they elect the judges.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> They are not even supposed to eat while on a call.

Around here, police call in a meal stop so they don't get assigned to 
stuff while they're not at the car.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Sure, I forgot. Isn't that also the country where they elect the judges.

Some are elected, some are appointed. We have like 23 kazillion 
jurisdictions here.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> >   Excuse me? The police must go all day without eating? This is getting
> > just ridiculous.

> Quite right police should go all day without eating just like ambulance  
> drivers.

  So ambulance drivers patrol the streets all day long nowadays? I didn't
know that.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

I like SW Ep 1, Jar Jar Binks is a great character.

I strongly dislike SW Ep 2, I sometime refer to it as Snore Wars.

SW Ep 3 feels like something made for a fan reunion.

SW Ep 4-6 really broke new technical ground in SF
movie making.

Ep 1-3 focused on the "Grand Art" too much, it lost
much of the gritty feeling of Ep 4-6, much to the detriment.
Ep 1-3 were too slick, too fantastically unreal.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood <tim### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
> SW Ep 4-6 really broke new technical ground in SF
> movie making.

  Hmm. When I compare the first SW movie (made in 1977) to the Alien movie
(made in 1979), the former looks really, really simple and cheap. I'm just
not able to see why it's so good as everyone claims.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message