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.

Even failing that, then let them quit whining and deal with it.  If I 
don't have time to go to the restaurant I want on my lunch break, I 
don't go to that restaurant.  And if I refuse to go to any nearby 
fast-food restaurants, then I bring my own lunch.

   "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?

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's almost incomprehensible . . . that those public servants need 
to drive around at public expense burning gas to find a spot to get the 
food that they enjoy"

You know what's incomprehensible?  That I need to drive around at my 
expense burning gas to find a spot to get the food that I enjoy.  But no 
judge would ever waive my parking ticket.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers 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."

When has any judge ever let a common Joe off of the hook under the exact 
same circumstances?  When has a judge ever let a person prone to such 
let-off-the-hook thinking serve on a jury?

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

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

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 Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
    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

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

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 
lot* at Hämeenlinna), which they could do on theier feet at such a place.

>   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

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 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. ;)

  I often like to oppose the majority in many things. That doesn't mean
it's just a principle for the sake of principle. I honestly think that
often the majority truely is wrong, or at least has a misconception or
a view which is too radical.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 28-Jul-08 22:58, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> 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. ;)
> 
>   I often like to oppose the majority in many things. That doesn't mean
> it's just a principle for the sake of principle. I honestly think that
> often the majority truely is wrong, or at least has a misconception or
> a view which is too radical.

In this case you may be part of a majority, actually. In most countries 
there are groups that are effectively above the law and think they 
should be. Which is indeed basically why I think you are wrong on this 
account, but that is just my opinion. ;)

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> In this case you may be part of a majority, actually.

  Sometimes I feel that agreeing with the majority actually *is* rebelling
against common (and loudest) opinion.

  An example: if you believed the internet, the vast majority of people
hate Star Wars Episode 1. However, in reality the majority of people
liked it (at least if you look at its profits).
  Now, rebelling against the people who diss SW Episode 1 is, technically
speaking, agreeing with the majority. Somehow I still feel like a minority
when I say that I liked the movie.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 28-Jul-08 23:34, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> In this case you may be part of a majority, actually.
> 
>   Sometimes I feel that agreeing with the majority actually *is* rebelling
> against common (and loudest) opinion.
> 
>   An example: if you believed the internet, the vast majority of people
> hate Star Wars Episode 1. However, in reality the majority of people
> liked it (at least if you look at its profits).
>   Now, rebelling against the people who diss SW Episode 1 is, technically
> speaking, agreeing with the majority. Somehow I still feel like a minority
> when I say that I liked the movie.

OMG, first that and now an appeal to be part of the silent majority.





































just kidding of course ;)

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> 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.
> 

Let's also repeal all drug laws, but only with respect to law 
enforcement officers. They seize the drugs, let them use them as well. 
After all, their 'down time' is important, so let's not tie them up with 
the legalities of whether they should or shouldn't. Pot and alcohol will 
let them chill out better, and any of the uppers they can get will help 
them perform their duty better.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> In this case you may be part of a majority, actually.
> 
>   Sometimes I feel that agreeing with the majority actually *is* rebelling
> against common (and loudest) opinion.
> 
>   An example: if you believed the internet, the vast majority of people
> hate Star Wars Episode 1. However, in reality the majority of people
> liked it (at least if you look at its profits).
>   Now, rebelling against the people who diss SW Episode 1 is, technically
> speaking, agreeing with the majority. Somehow I still feel like a minority
> when I say that I liked the movie.
> 

SW Ep 1 was the turning point for me.  It's the point when I realized 
I'm too old to enjoy SW :(

It also made me realize that a movie doesn't have to be a "good" movie 
to have a strangely addictive property.  I've seen EP1 countless times, 
despite not liking it.

Curiouser and curiouser...

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:50:48 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> 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.

But a bus driver can't use a bus lane when they're not in a bus. As for  
slippery slope I'm not saying it's a universal simply a tendency. Take  
supermarket parking - they need to provide a certain percentage of  
handicapped spaces, now they're also providing family spaces. Now we get  
the elderly saying 'well why don't we get special closer parking, we need  
it too you know'

>> >   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?

But they shouldn't be eating on 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.

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

-- 
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

And lo on Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:58:59 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> 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. ;)
>
>   I often like to oppose the majority in many things. That doesn't mean
> it's just a principle for the sake of principle. I honestly think that
> often the majority truely is wrong, or at least has a misconception or
> a view which is too radical.

Except by definition in terms of ethics and social morality the majority  
is always 'right'. It's only when a minority change the perception of the  
majority does 'right' become 'wrong'.

-- 
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

And lo on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:28:13 +0100, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at  
vtSPAM.edu"> did spake, saying:

> Let's also repeal all drug laws, but only with respect to law  
> enforcement officers. They seize the drugs, let them use them as well.  
> After all, their 'down time' is important, so let's not tie them up with  
> the legalities of whether they should or shouldn't. Pot and alcohol will  
> let them chill out better, and any of the uppers they can get will help  
> them perform their duty better.

Heck they could throw parties and sell them. Anyone who buys them and  
leaves the party could be stopped, arrested, and have the drugs  
confiscated to be thrown back into the party for resale. Now that'd help  
with funding.

-- 
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

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.




Tom

Post a reply to this message