Andy Driscoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why people feel that whenever cops are criticized for their unlawful or > unethical behavior, it's their duty to apologize or defend that illegality > as though the police are above the law or part of some sort of deified > culture is beyond me.
No, they're not deified. They need to eat lunch. If you want to argue how unlawful their behavior is under this circumstance, a parking ticket is a petty offense, IIRC. > Just the opposite. If anything, the police should be sending all the signals > that not only are they not exceptions to the rule, they will be exemplary in > their behavior - legally and ethically. They parked their vehicles so they may eat. How petty are you going to get? > Of course it's the same mentality that keeps rogue cops in uniform and on > the streets to wreak their havoc again and again...and never worry about a > conviction. Not even the lawsuits the city's been forced to settle or pay > out on thanks to thumpers. How you made the leap from parking near a restaurant to have timely access to their <emergency vehicle and equipment> to felony assault and deprivation of civil rights needs some explaining. Mark Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I think Russell Sasaoka's response and N.I. Krasnov's response kind of miss >Terrell's point. <snip> > And for that matter, what happens if a call for assistance comes during the > middle of the meal - do they just skip out on the check or come back later > and settle up? What exactly, Mr. Snyder, are you implying? Jim Mork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What if a paramedic vehicle had to get to a patient in cardiac arrrest and was > block by a parked police car? And it seems bogus to me to claim parking in a > parking lot somehow significantly affects response to a police call. That's > kind of scraping the bottom of the barrel for "reasons." Grant Street at the Lotus is not a one lane horse trail. Perhaps there wasn't any parking in the lot at the time. So what? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I don't pay the cops to eat, just as my employer does not pay me to eat. > The cops should eat on their own time just as I do. I take a lunch break, > and I think the cops should get one as well. Your argument that they are on > duty and may need to rush off without finishing their meal doesn't hold all > the water you want it to Russell. Cops should be given the ability to take > time off the clock to eat, thus they would not be on call. Their lunch breaks should be covered under their union contract. Cops won't just sit there eating honey lemon chicken while a car theft is in progress - "Sorry, Ma'am, we're eating lunch". Get back to reality, Mr. Leurquin. They're on duty. > My argument for > this idea follows along the line that they are not on call 24/7/365. You're damn right they are, unless the department has a policy that says they aren't, or they can't carry off duty, or the city won't indemnify a cop for off duty police actions. Go look it up in their Patrol Guide. > However, if you want your way in this, then lets hold their actions up to a > higher standard since they are being given special privileges that the rest > of us do not have. Expanded powers of arrest, walking around with all sorts of firearms and a vest - that's all they really have above civilians. Terrell Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe we try the British model of cops not carrying guns. Maybe we should go back to Sheriffs, Constables and the Hue and Cry. I'd like to see some of the upstanding citizens on this list try to patrol their neighborhoods and effect an arrest. I hope you weren't serious. Garwood, Robin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What on earth for? If a law exists for a reason, it should be followed by > every sector of society and enforced equally. Infringements should not be > overlooked based on the status of the individual breaking the law. That's > selective enforcement, and it's dangerous and wrong; it creates the > circumstances under which vulnerable, unpopular minorities can be targeted for > abuse. Have it your way then: you and other like-minded citizens should get together, petition your Council Members and <DEMAND> the MPD follow the enforcement model of policing. <ALL> laws will be equally enforced, with absolutely <NO> discretion allowed by the Officer. If the level of offense is higher than a petty misdemeanor, <NO> summonses shall issue in lieu of a custodial arrest. You want equal enforcement with no discretion? You'll get it. Why should cops risk getting civilian complaints for unequal enforcement? > the Police Federation, a group whose main purpose seems to be to shout > "SLACK!" every time a police officer is accused of beating someone down. The Police Federation has a responsibility to defend their members and to ensure that an Officer accused of misconduct is given his or her due process rights. Or do you have a problem with that? N.I. Krasnov Loring Park TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
