On Tuesday, August 26, 2003, at 06:53 PM, N.I. Krasnov wrote:
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.
Although that post from Andy Driscoll didn't explicitly say so, I don't believe that anyone has taken the position begrudging an officer's need to eat lunch. A parking ticket may or may not be a *petty* offense, but by your own usage it would be an offense. I believe that is the crux of the issue: Do the police have an explicit exemption from following traffic laws even when not actively engaged in actual police work? If so then anyone who disagrees with the law should take it up as a legislative matter of changing existing law. If the police do not have an explicit exemption, then I see this as an issue of selective enforcement of the law. (I wouldn't consider an officer eating lunch to be engaged in "police work", even when he/she may be in uniform and on the clock.)
Andy Driscoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
I can't put words in Andy's mouth, but I believe that it may be the same logic that Terrell Brown stated:
MPD through their SAFE teams had told us that small crimes, they give examples such as panhandling and jaywalking lead to bigger problems. That, they tell us, is one of the reasons they enforce those laws and tag people missing a single tail light. In the instance I originally pointed out, the restaurant has a parking lot which is closer to the door than where these guys parked.
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?
Granted, the street would probably be wide enough to accommodate a parked squad car and an ambulance. But by N.I. Krasnov's logic, one can break a law if there is no perceived ill-effect. If that was the case I could run a red light and argue that I shouldn't get a ticket if I didn't hit anyone. I don't believe that is a desirable system of enforcement. Many traffic laws exist to protect us from acting when we unwisely *think* our behavior won't have a negative outcome.
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.
(Here here!)
N.I. Krasnov responds:
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.
That doesn't sound too unreasonable. I think it would be an awful lot of work, though. The issue is not so much that <ALL> laws be enforced (there are some stupid laws that probably should be revoked), it is that there are laws that are generally enforced which some people seem to be exempt from.
If the level of offense
is higher than a petty misdemeanor, <NO> summonses shall issue in lieu of a
custodial arrest.
I don't belive this was implied by Robin Garwood, nor would it be desirable or feasable.
Terrence Asselin Kingfield (just moved!)
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
