Citizen Issues Parking Ticket to Cop
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=753233&category=22101
From Apr 17 – Apr 23, 2008
Turning the Tables
Citizen Issues Parking Ticket to Cop
BY MATT DAVIS
A CITIZEN who watched a cop illegally park, then walk into a Chinese
restaurant to wait for his food, has issued the officer a series of
citizen-initiated parking violations.
Eric Bryant says he was sitting in the SanSai Japanese Grill on NW 21st
and Hoyt on March 7 when he witnessed Officer Chad Stensgaard pull up and
park his patrol car illegally, next to a "No Parking" sign.
Stensgaard walked into the restaurant wearing his police uniform, but did
not make any arrests or citations. Instead, he turned his attention to
the basketball game on television, according to Bryant. When Bryant asked
Stensgaard about his vehicle, Stensgaard allegedly acknowledged being in
a no-parking zone but asked Bryant, "If someone broke into your house,
would you rather have the police be able to park in front of your house
or have to park three blocks away and walk there?"
Bryant returned to his seat, and says shortly afterward he watched a
restaurant employee hand the officer a plastic bag before he left.
Unfortunately for Officer Stensgaard, Bryant had recently passed the
Oregon bar exam, and decided to pursue the matter further.
"If he had acknowledged and corrected his error, we could have avoided
this whole thing," says Bryant. "But instead, he kept watching basketball
and told me he wasn't doing anything wrong."
Now, using ORS 153.058, Bryant—as a private citizen—has initiated
violation proceedings against Officer Stensgaard. Bryant alleges
Stensgaard was in violation of state statutes on illegal parking, illegal
stopping, obeying parking restrictions on state highways, and illegal
operation of an emergency vehicle or ambulance—the violations carry fines
totaling $540.
Officer Stensgaard has received a Multnomah County summons to appear in
traffic court on May 23. Meanwhile Bryant denies he is just stirring up
trouble.
"Citizens should be concerned that he used his status as an officer of
the law as justification for breaking the law," he says.
Stensgaard declined comment through the cops' office of public
information.
Felix Dzherzhinsky
Oregon bar exam, and decided to pursue the matter further."
There's the heart of the matter; a newly minted lawyer looking to make a
name for himself.
Not a citizen concerned about a violation of the law.
It brings to mind the question; if it had been Joe Average parking there
instead of a cop, would 'Citizen Bryant' have even bothered?
(and yes, it IS wrong to park in a 'No Parking' zone..)
"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:Xns9A886EDABC2F7r...@216.168.3.70...
>
>
>
> http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=753233&category=22101
>
> From Apr 17 - Apr 23, 2008
>
> Turning the Tables
> Citizen Issues Parking Ticket to Cop
>
> BY MATT DAVIS
>
> A CITIZEN who watched a cop illegally park, then walk into a Chinese
> restaurant to wait for his food, has issued the officer a series of
> citizen-initiated parking violations.
>
> Eric Bryant says he was sitting in the SanSai Japanese Grill on NW 21st
> and Hoyt on March 7 when he witnessed Officer Chad Stensgaard pull up and
> park his patrol car illegally, next to a "No Parking" sign.
>
> Stensgaard walked into the restaurant wearing his police uniform, but did
> not make any arrests or citations. Instead, he turned his attention to
> the basketball game on television, according to Bryant. When Bryant asked
> Stensgaard about his vehicle, Stensgaard allegedly acknowledged being in
> a no-parking zone but asked Bryant, "If someone broke into your house,
> would you rather have the police be able to park in front of your house
> or have to park three blocks away and walk there?"
>
> Bryant returned to his seat, and says shortly afterward he watched a
> restaurant employee hand the officer a plastic bag before he left.
> Unfortunately for Officer Stensgaard, Bryant had recently passed the
> Oregon bar exam, and decided to pursue the matter further.
>
> "If he had acknowledged and corrected his error, we could have avoided
> this whole thing," says Bryant. "But instead, he kept watching basketball
> and told me he wasn't doing anything wrong."
>
> Now, using ORS 153.058, Bryant-as a private citizen-has initiated
> violation proceedings against Officer Stensgaard. Bryant alleges
> Stensgaard was in violation of state statutes on illegal parking, illegal
> stopping, obeying parking restrictions on state highways, and illegal
> operation of an emergency vehicle or ambulance-the violations carry fines
N8N
wrote:
> "Unfortunately for Officer Stensgaard, Bryant had recently passed the
> Oregon bar exam, and decided to pursue the matter further."
>
> There's the heart of the matter; a newly minted lawyer looking to make a
> name for himself.
> Not a citizen concerned about a violation of the law.
>
> It brings to mind the question; if it had been Joe Average parking there
> instead of a cop, would 'Citizen Bryant' have even bothered?
>
> (and yes, it IS wrong to park in a 'No Parking' zone..)
Probably not, because then the citizen would have received a ticket
from a meter maid eventually. Cops OTOH just don't get tickets (no
matter how much they deserve them.)
Poor bastard is gonna have to move soon though...
(groups trimmed to those actually pertinent, even though SADDAM
actually posted something of passing interest without its usual racist
or inflammatory commentary.)
nate
Brent P
>"Unfortunately for Officer Stensgaard, Bryant had recently passed the
>Oregon bar exam, and decided to pursue the matter further."
>
>There's the heart of the matter; a newly minted lawyer looking to make a
>name for himself. Not a citizen concerned about a violation of the law.
If he isn't doing this on principle it is the wrong way to make a name
for one's self. If where he lives is anything like Chicago &
C(r)ook county, IL (and other places nation wide) He's going to have to
move and never set foot in that town again regardless of the outcome.
He's going to find himself pulled over ALOT. He's going to find no
parking zones appearing in front of his house. He's going to be cited
for every ticky-tacky thing regarding his property. And that's just for
starters.
>It brings to mind the question; if it had been Joe Average parking there
>instead of a cop, would 'Citizen Bryant' have even bothered?
The cop would have ticketed Joe's car either on the way in or the way
out, it's part of a cop's performance objectives to keep his numbers up
and that's a nice free-bee. Bryant wouldn't have had to do anything.
Harry K
<xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=753233&category=2...
I saw that in Saturday's paper, was going to post it but let it slide,
sorry now. The article I read said the officer claimed that as an
emergency vehicle, he needed instant access to it and therefore was
allowed to park in no parking zones even if not on a call.
No surprise there. What was surprising was how the article ended.
Someone, quoted by name and IIRC title, said Stensgaard would have to
argue that point before the judge. I think it was someone in the
cop's chain of command but may be mistaken.
The surprise was that the chief didnt' just tear up the ticket and is
letting 'nature take its course'.
My bet is that it will be ruled in Stensgaard's favor.
Harry K
jerry warner
small problem - when the police are on duty they can park any place
they want for any reason. Woooops! The Yuppie
wannabe forgot about that. Tells you the kind of lawyer that moron
is going to be - they infest the planet.
Elias D
>>
>>There's the heart of the matter; a newly minted lawyer looking to
>>make a name for himself. Not a citizen concerned about a violation
>>of the law.
>
The heart of the matter is an authority figure abusing power.
> If he isn't doing this on principle it is the wrong way to make a
> name for one's self. If where he lives is anything like Chicago &
> C(r)ook county, IL (and other places nation wide) He's going to have
> to move and never set foot in that town again regardless of the
> outcome. He's going to find himself pulled over ALOT. He's going to
> find no parking zones appearing in front of his house. He's going to
> be cited for every ticky-tacky thing regarding his property. And
> that's just for starters.
>
There are two things dirty cops fear -- the law and cameras. The last
thing a smart cop wants to do is to screw with a lawyer.
>>It brings to mind the question; if it had been Joe Average parking
>>there instead of a cop, would 'Citizen Bryant' have even bothered?
>
> The cop would have ticketed Joe's car either on the way in or the
> way out, it's part of a cop's performance objectives to keep his
> numbers up and that's a nice free-bee. Bryant wouldn't have had to
> do anything.
The government and their enforcement agents are frequently
out-of-control today. It's good to see someone willing to take the
bull by the horns and deal with it.
Felix Dzherzhinsky
"Elias D" <Eli...@crystalbay.org> wrote in message
news:EcWdnWuqeKuYv5LV...@earthlink.com...
> Brent P wrote:
>
>>>
>>>There's the heart of the matter; a newly minted lawyer looking to
>>>make a name for himself. Not a citizen concerned about a violation
>>>of the law.
>>
>
>
> The heart of the matter is an authority figure abusing power.
...but which authority figure? The cop who parks in a no-parking zone (oh,
heinous crime) or the lawyer that uses his authority for personal
entertainment/gain?
we've had problems here with local lawyers getting all gung-ho and
litiginous (sp?)regarding minor statutes and regulations to the point that
their neighbors want nothing to do with them. Isn't that abusing one's
power?
>
>
> There are two things dirty cops fear -- the law and cameras. The last
> thing a smart cop wants to do is to screw with a lawyer.
parking in a no-parking zone makes one a 'dirty cop'?
>>>It brings to mind the question; if it had been Joe Average parking
>>>there instead of a cop, would 'Citizen Bryant' have even bothered?
>>
>> The cop would have ticketed Joe's car either on the way in or the
>> way out, it's part of a cop's performance objectives to keep his
>> numbers up and that's a nice free-bee. Bryant wouldn't have had to
>> do anything.
I meant Mr. Bryant, not the cop. Had Joe Average parked his pickup in a
no-parking zone (with no cop around) and wandered in to pick up an order,
would Mr Bryant have even mentioned it to him? Probably wouldn't have said
a thing, there being no advantage.
Bryant could've solved the entire issue by dropping a line to the cop's
supervisor with name, badge #, date, place, etc. it DOES work.
Instead, being a lawyer, he hauls the cop into court for lots of publicity
and exposure, thus wasting the court's time and the public's money.
People sure do love to hate cops..
(and lawyers, i do admit it)
Brent P
Maybe it's time to get rid of the ticky-tacky laws randomly and
selectively enforced model?
Felix Dzherzhinsky
stop playing petty games with an already collapsing legal system.
"Brent P" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pKWdnXAP2OjLwpLV...@comcast.com...
snippy snip
Larrybud
news:480e4ea1$0$4066$9a56...@news.aliant.net:
> "Unfortunately for Officer Stensgaard, Bryant had recently
> passed the Oregon bar exam, and decided to pursue the matter
> further."
>
> There's the heart of the matter; a newly minted lawyer looking
> to make a name for himself.
> Not a citizen concerned about a violation of the law.
>
> It brings to mind the question; if it had been Joe Average
> parking there instead of a cop, would 'Citizen Bryant' have even
> bothered?
Well of course not, that would be the cop's job to issue a citation
to Joe Average. But since a cop would never give another cop a
parking ticket, how else do you punish the cop for breaking the law?
Props to this guy, regardless of his motive.
Larrybud
>> selectively enforced model?
> order and stop playing petty games with an already collapsing
> legal system.
So which laws are you willing to let cops break?
Brent P
>> Maybe it's time to get rid of the ticky-tacky laws randomly and
>> selectively enforced model?
>or perhaps maybe just maybe it's time to get our priorities in order and
>stop playing petty games with an already collapsing legal system.
It's no petty game. It may be a petty infraction, but the concepts
involved are anything but. As far as collapsing legal system, it's being
collasped so that people can't fight back, especially for things like
parking tickets.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
news:18f820d8-ef84-48f6...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
> I saw that in Saturday's paper, was going to post it but let it slide,
> sorry now. The article I read said the officer claimed that as an
> emergency vehicle, he needed instant access to it and therefore was
> allowed to park in no parking zones even if not on a call.
>
Cops always say that. Typical govt employee. They make the laws and they
break them and then wonder why taxpayers hate them so much.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
news:480EDBB4...@mchsi.com:
> small problem - when the police are on duty they can park any place
> they want for any reason. Woooops! The Yuppie
> wannabe forgot about that. Tells you the kind of lawyer that moron is
> going to be - they infest the planet.
>
>
You are obviously a paid govt shill sent here to defend the lawbreaking
cops.
Matthew T. Russotto
Felix Dzherzhinsky <som...@somewhere.nb.ca> wrote:
>"Unfortunately for Officer Stensgaard, Bryant had recently passed the
>Oregon bar exam, and decided to pursue the matter further."
>
>There's the heart of the matter; a newly minted lawyer looking to make a
>name for himself.
>Not a citizen concerned about a violation of the law.
>
>It brings to mind the question; if it had been Joe Average parking there
>instead of a cop, would 'Citizen Bryant' have even bothered?
No, but Officer Stensgaard would have.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick
news:Xns9A898153080CAla...@204.153.245.20...
The same ones I'm willing to let everyone else break.
--
--
A skilled, armed man lives on a plane of security and contentment
different from that of others. The man who cannot cut it, envies,
fears and sometimes hates the man who can. -Cooper
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
N8N
petty? Since when?
nate
On Apr 23, 12:12 pm, "Felix Dzherzhinsky" <some...@somewhere.nb.ca>
wrote:
> or perhaps maybe just maybe it's time to get our priorities in order and
> stop playing petty games with an already collapsing legal system.
>
> "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:pKWdnXAP2OjLwpLV...@comcast.com...
> snippy snip
>
>
>
> > Maybe it's time to get rid of the ticky-tacky laws randomly and
> > selectively enforced model?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bo Raxo
>
>>>
>>>There's the heart of the matter; a newly minted lawyer looking to
>>>make a name for himself. Not a citizen concerned about a violation
>>>of the law.
>>
>
>
> The heart of the matter is an authority figure abusing power.
>
>
So when you call 911, and minutes mean the difference between life and
death, you want the cop to sprint a two or three blocks to where his car is
parked?
Even better: the radios clipped to the belt are relayed from the patrol
cruiser's radio, and only good within about a hundred meters. You'll be
lucky if the officer even receives the call.
But at least you'll die knowing he's parked legally.
>
>
>> If he isn't doing this on principle it is the wrong way to make a
>> name for one's self. If where he lives is anything like Chicago &
>> C(r)ook county, IL (and other places nation wide) He's going to have
>> to move and never set foot in that town again regardless of the
>> outcome. He's going to find himself pulled over ALOT. He's going to
>> find no parking zones appearing in front of his house. He's going to
>> be cited for every ticky-tacky thing regarding his property. And
>> that's just for starters.
>>
>
>
> There are two things dirty cops fear -- the law and cameras. The last
> thing a smart cop wants to do is to screw with a lawyer.
>
>
Illegally parked makes him a "dirty cop"? You are remarkably stupid.
Bo Raxo
Infractions, which include parking. But not misdemeanors or felonies.
Brent P
>So when you call 911, and minutes mean the difference between life and
>death, you want the cop to sprint a two or three blocks to where his car is
>parked?
>
>Even better: the radios clipped to the belt are relayed from the patrol
>cruiser's radio, and only good within about a hundred meters. You'll be
>lucky if the officer even receives the call.
>
>But at least you'll die knowing he's parked legally.
What about someone who is hurt or injured because the cop parked
illegally and created a hazard?
If it doesn't create a hazard to park there, why is it illegal?
Nate Nagel
> "Elias D" <Eli...@crystalbay.org> wrote in message
> news:EcWdnWuqeKuYv5LV...@earthlink.com...
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>There's the heart of the matter; a newly minted lawyer looking to
>>>>make a name for himself. Not a citizen concerned about a violation
>>>>of the law.
>>>
>>
>>The heart of the matter is an authority figure abusing power.
>>
>>
>
>
> So when you call 911, and minutes mean the difference between life and
> death, you want the cop to sprint a two or three blocks to where his car is
> parked?
I expect him to eat his lunch on his lunch break. I also expect him to
obey the laws he's sworn to enforce.
>
> Even better: the radios clipped to the belt are relayed from the patrol
> cruiser's radio, and only good within about a hundred meters. You'll be
> lucky if the officer even receives the call.
>
Then he shouldn't be more than a hundred meters away from the cruser.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Nate Nagel
So speeding, unsignaled lane changes, etc. are OK too? Sheesh. (not
that I don't see cops breaking those laws too every fraggin' day)
Nate Nagel
> In article <uYednWd0G4uLT5LV...@comcast.com>,
> zone?
It could be a no parking zone because it's too close to a curb, causing
cross traffic to have to pull out too far to see oncoming
traffic/pedestrians/cyclists. It could be blocking a fire hydrant. It
could be a required fire lane in front of a high-rise. Any number of ways.
Like Brent said, if parking there didn't cause any negative
consequences, why would it be a no parking zone?
>
> No parking zones in front of buildings are often there for fire and
> emergency vehicles to get close to the building if needed. The concern
> is that if a private vehicle is parked there, the owner may not be able
> to be located and the car would have to be towed (which takes time) or
> the emergency responders wouldn't be able to get as close as they would
> need to get.
Indeed. So which is more important, a fire truck or an officer having
lunch?
> That concern isn't present when it is a police officer. If there was an
> emergency requiring the police, he was there anyway. And if there was
> one requiring fire or ambulance service, he'd hear about it over the
> radio (or at a minimum, the police dispatcher would be able to get in
> touch with him over the radio) and he could move his vehicle.
You hope. And of course there are other reasons why a space might be a
no parking zone, like visibility.
If this is a real problem, why not designate one space per block as
"official vehicle parking only?" If it's *not* a real problem, then the
officer should just obey the law.
Bo Raxo
> In article <QLidnd_arezvW5LV...@comcast.com>, Bo Raxo wrote:
>>So when you call 911, and minutes mean the difference between life and
>>death, you want the cop to sprint a two or three blocks to where his car
>>is
>>parked?
>>
>>Even better: the radios clipped to the belt are relayed from the patrol
>>cruiser's radio, and only good within about a hundred meters. You'll be
>>lucky if the officer even receives the call.
>>
>>But at least you'll die knowing he's parked legally.
>
> What about someone who is hurt or injured because the cop parked
> illegally and created a hazard?
>
Exactly how would that occur? It doesn't - which is why illegal parking is
an infraction, not a crime. Show me someone injured by an illegally parked
car - if you can't find a real life example, then perhaps it's because it
doesn't happen.
> If it doesn't create a hazard to park there, why is it illegal?
>
Plenty of reasons. For example, if there's a fire hydrant - but the can
break the car windows to run the hose through if needed. Bus stop. Loading
zone. Handicapped spot. None of these are going to create much of a
hazard, certainly less than making the cop be several minutes walk from his
cruiser. In some cities, a business can request the curb in front be made
a no parking spot, where I live the fee is $250.
Bo Raxo
"Nate Nagel" <njn...@roosters.net> wrote in message
news:fuojv...@news2.newsguy.com...
> Bo Raxo wrote:
>> "Elias D" <Eli...@crystalbay.org> wrote in message
>> news:EcWdnWuqeKuYv5LV...@earthlink.com...
>>
>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>There's the heart of the matter; a newly minted lawyer looking to
>>>>>make a name for himself. Not a citizen concerned about a violation
>>>>>of the law.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The heart of the matter is an authority figure abusing power.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> So when you call 911, and minutes mean the difference between life and
>> death, you want the cop to sprint a two or three blocks to where his car
>> is parked?
>
> I expect him to eat his lunch on his lunch break. I also expect him to
> obey the laws he's sworn to enforce.
So if he's on his lunch break you think he doesn't have to answer radio
calls?
"Gee, looks like those guys with guns are exiting that bank and jumping in
the getaway car. Too bad I'm on lunch break, and my patrol car is three
blocks away"
>
>>
>> Even better: the radios clipped to the belt are relayed from the patrol
>> cruiser's radio, and only good within about a hundred meters. You'll be
>> lucky if the officer even receives the call.
>>
>
> Then he shouldn't be more than a hundred meters away from the cruser.
>
Then you've contradicted yourself. Either he parks illegally, or he parks
legally and might be too far from the patrol car.
Nate Nagel
And you think that police officers should be allowed to park in all of
the instances you list above simply because he wants to get lunch?
Where do you come up with this stuff? Simply unbelievable.
Nate Nagel
or HE EATS LUNCH WHERE HE CAN PARK LEGALLY AND BE IN RADIO RANGE.
If he can't do that, then he can go through a drive through.
Bo Raxo
I think public safety is best served by having a cop close to his cruiser.
It's common sense, which is why every police department in the country
routinely allows officers to park illegally.
Where do I get it? Gee, I guess every single police department in the U.S.
is just as crazy as me, and you're the only sane one Or...
Brent P
>In article <uYednWd0G4uLT5LV...@comcast.com>,
> tetraethylle...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>zone?
It's blocking sight lines for one. It causes traffic to go into the
on-coming lane. whole host of reasons.
>No parking zones in front of buildings are often there for fire and
>emergency vehicles to get close to the building if needed.
And often they are for visibility reasons. I've often come across
situations where some asshat (cop or not) has parked in one of these
spots and now it makes it difficult to proceed safely because the view
is blocked.
> The concern
>is that if a private vehicle is parked there, the owner may not be able
>to be located and the car would have to be towed (which takes time) or
>the emergency responders wouldn't be able to get as close as they would
>need to get.
And magically looking around for the cop to move it doesn't take time?
>That concern isn't present when it is a police officer. If there was an
>emergency requiring the police, he was there anyway. And if there was
>one requiring fire or ambulance service, he'd hear about it over the
>radio (or at a minimum, the police dispatcher would be able to get in
>touch with him over the radio) and he could move his vehicle.
And this is supposed to take zero time? It would take about as much time
as finding the registered owner and looking up his phone number and
calling him.
Bo Raxo
Have you ever, in your entire life, seen a patrol car in a drive through?
No.
Can you figure out why? Because when an emergency call comes in, you can't
have the patrol car trapped in a line of cars.
You really don't have any understanding of how routine police work occurs,
do you?
Here's a hint: Every department allows officers to park illegally. That
isn't hubris, it's for public safety. When a cop sees someone careening
down the street plowing through pedestrians or doing a drive by shooting, he
or she needs a patrol car. You want them a block or two away from the car,
and let people die, over a silly illegal parking spot?
You really are nuts.
Brent P
>
>"Brent P" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:uYednWd0G4uLT5LV...@comcast.com...
>> In article <QLidnd_arezvW5LV...@comcast.com>, Bo Raxo wrote:
>>>So when you call 911, and minutes mean the difference between life and
>>>death, you want the cop to sprint a two or three blocks to where his car
>>>is
>>>parked?
>>>
>>>Even better: the radios clipped to the belt are relayed from the patrol
>>>cruiser's radio, and only good within about a hundred meters. You'll be
>>>lucky if the officer even receives the call.
>>>
>>>But at least you'll die knowing he's parked legally.
>>
>> What about someone who is hurt or injured because the cop parked
>> illegally and created a hazard?
>>
>
>Exactly how would that occur? It doesn't - which is why illegal parking is
>an infraction, not a crime. Show me someone injured by an illegally parked
>car - if you can't find a real life example, then perhaps it's because it
>doesn't happen.
I find it remarkable you've never had your view blocked by an illegally
parked car. Even more remarkable that you haven't had to go around one
in the oncoming lane. You don't think collisions occur in those
situations? Hell... people it police cruisers when they are on the
shoulder of the interstate... that's why it's illegal to park there too.
>> If it doesn't create a hazard to park there, why is it illegal?
>Plenty of reasons. For example, if there's a fire hydrant - but the can
>break the car windows to run the hose through if needed.
No difference for the privately owned auto and police cruiser.
> Bus stop. Loading
>zone. Handicapped spot.
No difference for the privately owned auto and the police cruiser.
> None of these are going to create much of a
>hazard,
much of a hazard... but a hazard none the less. If it is an acceptable
hazard then it should be a legal parking place for all.
> certainly less than making the cop be several minutes walk from his
>cruiser.
So says you. Chicago cops could use the excerise and suburban cops have
no excuse at all.
> In some cities, a business can request the curb in front be made >a no
> parking spot, where I live the fee is $250.
In Chicago if you piss off city government enough they will make the
area in front of your house a no parking zone for free.
Brent P
>"Gee, looks like those guys with guns are exiting that bank and jumping in
>the getaway car. Too bad I'm on lunch break, and my patrol car is three
>blocks away"
Dirty Harry just walked over to the bank. If it's further away than
that, a cop who isn't on lunch break is going to get there first.
Bo Raxo
>
> And this is supposed to take zero time? It would take about as much time
> as finding the registered owner and looking up his phone number and
> calling him.
>
Uh, the DMV records don't include phone numbers, at least in my state. And
unlike an on-duty cop's radio, people don't always answer (or even carry)
their phone.
Bo Raxo
"Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
news:x-3EA576.21...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>>
>> Then you've contradicted yourself. Either he parks illegally, or he
>> parks
>> legally and might be too far from the patrol car.
>
But that would violate the labor laws. I thought you were all about
everyone following the law?
Bo Raxo
Straw man argument. I'm not saying every illegal parking spot is okay for a
cop to park in. Some are, some aren't.
And most of the time I'm on a motorcycle, so for me, getting around an
illegally parked car is not a problem :)
>
>>> If it doesn't create a hazard to park there, why is it illegal?
>
>>Plenty of reasons. For example, if there's a fire hydrant - but the can
>>break the car windows to run the hose through if needed.
>
> No difference for the privately owned auto and police cruiser.
>
The difference is the balance of hazards. There is a politive public safety
aspect to letting the cop stay near his cruiser. There is no such tradeoff
with a privately owned vehicle.
>> Bus stop. Loading
>>zone. Handicapped spot.
>
> No difference for the privately owned auto and the police cruiser.
>
The difference is the balance of hazards. There is a politive public safety
aspect to letting the cop stay near his cruiser. There is no such tradeoff
with a privately owned vehicle.
>> None of these are going to create much of a
>>hazard,
>
> much of a hazard... but a hazard none the less. If it is an acceptable
> hazard then it should be a legal parking place for all.
>
The difference is the balance of hazards. There is a politive public safety
aspect to letting the cop stay near his cruiser. There is no such tradeoff
with a privately owned vehicle.
>> certainly less than making the cop be several minutes walk from his
>>cruiser.
>
> So says you. Chicago cops could use the excerise and suburban cops have
> no excuse at all.
>
The difference is the balance of hazards. There is a politive public safety
aspect to letting the cop stay near his cruiser. There is no such tradeoff
with a privately owned vehicle.
Brent P
>I think public safety is best served by having a cop close to his cruiser.
>It's common sense, which is why every police department in the country
>routinely allows officers to park illegally.
I grew annoyed dealing with the traffic hazards caused by illegally
parked police cruisers years ago. Some of the parking CPD does can at
best be described as hazardous. Sometimes they are kind enough just to
drive up on to the sidewalk and park out of the way though.
>Where do I get it? Gee, I guess every single police department in the U.S.
>is just as crazy as me, and you're the only sane one Or...
Some of us just prefer a free country, not one with rulers and serfs.
Bo Raxo
About two years ago I witnessed a felony assault, and spent about twenty
minutes chasing the asswipe on foot, on the phone to 911 the whole time.
There was one patrol car in the neighborhood (and this is in a major city,
but in a very low crime part of town). That officer was already responding
to a call. The first patrol car to reach the area first picked up the wrong
guy (someone on the street two blocks away who matched the description - I
had a charming argument with the 911 dispatcher who was insisting the
officer was on the scene and had the suspect).
That's real life. That's why a cop in a patrol car is never really on a
break.
I'm sure the 911 tape was pretty funny, I'm not in great shape and was
huffing and puffing and probably sounded like I was about to have a heart
attack. When the cop jumped out of his car, the suspect and I were both
pretty winded, the cop was fresh, and the asswipe just sat down on the
sidewalk.
Brent P
>
>"Brent P" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:fqGdnVD4I-onR5LV...@comcast.com...
> >
>> And this is supposed to take zero time? It would take about as much time
>> as finding the registered owner and looking up his phone number and
>> calling him.
>>
>
>Uh, the DMV records don't include phone numbers, at least in my state.
They don't here either... yet the cops easily found my phone number when
that b*tch in the MB SUV who ran the red light and flipped me off with
both hands called the cops to report me for daring not to put up with
her MFFY driving.
> And
>unlike an on-duty cop's radio, people don't always answer (or even carry)
>their phone.
Somehow I see a cop on break being like any other government employee on
break.... I don't think they leave their lunch on the table like on TV.
(And I've eaten at quite a number of places where cops eat and never saw
them once leave their lunch in an emergency... even when I could HEAR
the gunshots from where I sat and the cops were at the next table over)
Bo Raxo
> In article <7bidnRbEEKhHQJLV...@comcast.com>,
Whack me with a stupid stick, sorry.
Brent P
>Have you ever, in your entire life, seen a patrol car in a drive through?
>No.
I have. I've also seen them park at the closed gas station next door to
a Dunkin' Doughnuts.
Nate Nagel
Then why are we even having this discussion? Clearly a lot of this
"professional courtesy" is not codified into law. If it as cut and
dried as you think it is, it ought to be easy to get the law changed.
Nate Nagel
Gee, turning the steering wheel to the right and standing on the gas is
too hard? Or is the cop worried about losing his $4 Big Mac?
>
> You really don't have any understanding of how routine police work occurs,
> do you?
All I know is that I see cops routinely and unsafely breaking the law
every day and I'm sick of it.
> Here's a hint: Every department allows officers to park illegally.
Cite?
> That
> isn't hubris,
Sure is.
> it's for public safety. When a cop sees someone careening
> down the street plowing through pedestrians or doing a drive by shooting, he
> or she needs a patrol car. You want them a block or two away from the car,
> and let people die, over a silly illegal parking spot?
IT'S FOR THE CHIIIIIIILDRUN! I'm sick and tired of fear mongering being
used as an excuse for all kinds of egregious BS if you can't tell, from
traffic cops up to the POTUS and a whole mess of places in between. It
has to stop.
>
> You really are nuts.
>
Nope, just seen a couple hundred too many cops flagrantly violating the
law. The same ones that you'd get not only a ticket but a hypocritical
little lecture for if the same cop saw you breaking them. Goose,
gander, etc.
It's either safe or it's not. Therefore it should be legal for all, or
none. That can apply to a whole mess of traffic law.
Nate Nagel
> In article <fuojv...@news2.newsguy.com>,
> Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Bo Raxo wrote:
>>
>>>"Elias D" <Eli...@crystalbay.org> wrote in message
>>>news:EcWdnWuqeKuYv5LV...@earthlink.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>There's the heart of the matter; a newly minted lawyer looking to
>>>>>>make a name for himself. Not a citizen concerned about a violation
>>>>>>of the law.
>>>>>
>>>>The heart of the matter is an authority figure abusing power.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>So when you call 911, and minutes mean the difference between life and
>>>death, you want the cop to sprint a two or three blocks to where his car is
>>>parked?
>>
>>I expect him to eat his lunch on his lunch break. I also expect him to
>>obey the laws he's sworn to enforce.
>
>
> expect him to say "sorry, I'm on lunch" and keep eating his sandwich?
Not my job to figure it out. Perhaps he should only patronize eateries
where he can park both legally and within radio range.
nate
>
>
>
>>>Even better: the radios clipped to the belt are relayed from the patrol
>>>cruiser's radio, and only good within about a hundred meters. You'll be
>>>lucky if the officer even receives the call.
>>>
>>
>>Then he shouldn't be more than a hundred meters away from the cruser.
>>
Bo Raxo
Same reason the law doesn't specifically say a cop responding to a call does
not need to obey the speed limit or red lights.
Because it's common sense.
The parking ticket will get thrown out, and the lawyer who wrote it will
find himself pulled over for the slightest moving violation or non-op.
When someone is mugging you, which would do you more good - an illegally
parked cop, or a legally parked lawyer?
Like I said, common sense.
Nate Nagel
> In article <fuol2...@news2.newsguy.com>,
If he can park there safely, it shouldn't be a no parking zone.
Brent P
Strawman? Not at all. You just got through saying it doesn't happen. I
find it remarkable you've never encountered those situations if you
think it doesn't happen.
>And most of the time I'm on a motorcycle, so for me, getting around an
>illegally parked car is not a problem :)
I got some narrow chicago city streets where people who are illegally
parked make it a hazard to go around with a bicycle to show you.
>>>> If it doesn't create a hazard to park there, why is it illegal?
>>>Plenty of reasons. For example, if there's a fire hydrant - but the can
>>>break the car windows to run the hose through if needed.
>>
>> No difference for the privately owned auto and police cruiser.
>The difference is the balance of hazards. There is a politive public safety
>aspect to letting the cop stay near his cruiser. There is no such tradeoff
>with a privately owned vehicle.
It makes no difference if the solution is to break the windows.
>>> Bus stop. Loading
>>>zone. Handicapped spot.
>> No difference for the privately owned auto and the police cruiser.
>The difference is the balance of hazards. There is a politive public safety
>aspect to letting the cop stay near his cruiser. There is no such tradeoff
>with a privately owned vehicle.
The bus now stops in traffic. Hazard to other road users and bus
passengers. The truck now has to double park... hazard for other road
users and the people unloading/loading it. Handicapped person now has to
park far away, which if we are to believe the reasoning of it, poses an
undo burden and a hazard to the handicaped person. These hazards are the
same if the crown vic belongs to 'joe average' or the police department.
Further more, why does the state get to shift risk from one group of
people to another? Why should one group take on additional risk for sake
that someone might get a call that forces a cop to cut his lunch break
short? Sounds like the trucker logic that says a trucker can endanger or
slow other drivers because he feels he is more important to the economy
to me.
>>> None of these are going to create much of a
>>>hazard,
>> much of a hazard... but a hazard none the less. If it is an acceptable
>> hazard then it should be a legal parking place for all.
>The difference is the balance of hazards. There is a politive public safety
>aspect to letting the cop stay near his cruiser. There is no such tradeoff
>with a privately owned vehicle.
If it's ok for the cops to endanger traffic for the sake of call they
may or may not get.... what about doctors? What about countless others
who may be 'on call' where lives and property are at risk?
>>> certainly less than making the cop be several minutes walk from his
>>>cruiser.
>>
>> So says you. Chicago cops could use the excerise and suburban cops have
>> no excuse at all.
>The difference is the balance of hazards. There is a politive public safety
>aspect to letting the cop stay near his cruiser. There is no such tradeoff
>with a privately owned vehicle.
I see you are a broken record. See above.
Nate Nagel
Hmm, if only someone made a container so that one could carry food with
them to work... perhaps something made of an inexpensive, biodegradable
organic product...
Brent P
>
>"Brent P" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:FpWdncPK8Ls9QZLV...@comcast.com...
>> In article <1oednX1Wp5g6S5LV...@comcast.com>, Bo Raxo wrote:
>>
>>>"Gee, looks like those guys with guns are exiting that bank and jumping in
>>>the getaway car. Too bad I'm on lunch break, and my patrol car is three
>>>blocks away"
>>
>> Dirty Harry just walked over to the bank. If it's further away than
>> that, a cop who isn't on lunch break is going to get there first.
>>
>
>About two years ago I witnessed a felony assault, and spent about twenty
>minutes chasing the asswipe on foot, on the phone to 911 the whole time.
>There was one patrol car in the neighborhood (and this is in a major city,
>but in a very low crime part of town). That officer was already responding
>to a call. The first patrol car to reach the area first picked up the wrong
>guy (someone on the street two blocks away who matched the description - I
>had a charming argument with the 911 dispatcher who was insisting the
>officer was on the scene and had the suspect).
>
>That's real life. That's why a cop in a patrol car is never really on a
>break.
Lol. my personal experience says they sit there and eat their lunch.
Nate Nagel
There's a public safety benefit to having cops around? I'm more afraid
of them than I am glad to see them.
Brent P
>Same reason the law doesn't specifically say a cop responding to a call does
>not need to obey the speed limit or red lights.
>
>Because it's common sense.
Having nearly been creamed by a police cruiser doing 90+mph in a 45mph
zone I strongly disagree.
Laurence Sheldon
[troll drool]
gotta filter this crap out.
Nate Nagel
Either one will likely be useless.
Harry K
<xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> jerry warner <"warne(na)"@mchsi.com> wrote innews:480EDBB4...@mchsi.com:
>
> > small problem - when the police are on duty they can park any place
> > they want for any reason. Woooops! The Yuppie
> > wannabe forgot about that. Tells you the kind of lawyer that moron is
> > going to be - they infest the planet.
>
> You are obviously a paid govt shill sent here to defend the lawbreaking
> cops.
Except you forgetting one minor little detail. According to the
article in the OP, the cop wasn't breaking the Oregon law.
Harry K
Nate Nagel
So you didn't read the article, then.
It's a sad day when Aunt Judy actually sounds more logical than most of
the posters to a thread.
Nate Nagel
> In article <fuoni...@news2.newsguy.com>,
> Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Larry wrote:
>>
>>>In article <fuojv...@news2.newsguy.com>,
>>> Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bo Raxo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Elias D" <Eli...@crystalbay.org> wrote in message
>>>>>news:EcWdnWuqeKuYv5LV...@earthlink.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There's the heart of the matter; a newly minted lawyer looking to
>>>>>>>>make a name for himself. Not a citizen concerned about a violation
>>>>>>>>of the law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>The heart of the matter is an authority figure abusing power.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>So when you call 911, and minutes mean the difference between life and
>>>>>death, you want the cop to sprint a two or three blocks to where his car
>>>>>is
>>>>>parked?
>>>>
>>>>I expect him to eat his lunch on his lunch break. I also expect him to
>>>>obey the laws he's sworn to enforce.
>>>
>>>
>>>So if an emergency occurs and he's the nearest police officer, you
>>>expect him to say "sorry, I'm on lunch" and keep eating his sandwich?
>>
>>Not my job to figure it out. Perhaps he should only patronize eateries
>>where he can park both legally and within radio range.
>
>
> desk every single day, so that your boss can interrupt your lunch with
> an emergency whenever one comes up.
Perhaps I *am,* or at least within cell range.
Somehow I manage to do it without breaking any laws. Lord knows how
I've managed to keep my job when you all seem to think that this is
impossibly difficult.
Nate Nagel
> In article <fuonk...@news2.newsguy.com>,
Then what is it? That he's not required to park safely? Unacceptable.
Nate Nagel
> In article <fuono...@news2.newsguy.com>,
Why would being a victim of a crime make me any less afraid of cops?
Bo Raxo
He obviously meant the criteria for making a parking spot illegal is not
whether you can park there safely.
The cop was parked in front of a fire hydrant. If there was a fire, do you
think he'd sit there in the restaurant, or move his car? There was no
safety issue by parking there. If he had to park a block or two away, there
could be a safety issue.
Nate Nagel
> In article <fuork...@news2.newsguy.com>,
Because the attitude of many cops around here is that they're out to get
you for something. I've been pulled over and cited for driving 100%
legally by a lying cop.
If you see a cop around here, he's either sitting in the median, on the
shoulder with someone pulled over, or hauling arse down the freeway at
80+. I can't remember the last time I saw a cop *other* than a traffic cop.
Nate Nagel
> In article <fuore...@news2.newsguy.com>,
>
> It's not the criteria to label something a "no parking zone" that
> parking there is automatically unsafe.
But you'd still be cited if you parked there.
>
> Besides, I've already explained how it could be safe for a police
> officer to park there but not a private citizen - since any first
> responders would be able to get in touch with the officer within
> moments, unlike private citizens.
You've rationalized. And it's still not legal.
> And no, I'm not a police officer.
Coulda fooled me.
Bo Raxo
>
> If you see a cop around here, he's either sitting in the median, on the
> shoulder with someone pulled over, or hauling arse down the freeway at
> 80+. I can't remember the last time I saw a cop *other* than a traffic
> cop.
>
After all, it's not like any cops are in plain clothes, driving unmarked
cars....
Nate Nagel
> In article <nMqdnTU74MQsa5LV...@comcast.com>,
> Perhaps responding to a 911 call or a crime in progress?
Nope. No lights/sirens. Sometimes far out of jurisdiction. Just
driving like we all would if we knew we'd never get a ticket (but
sometimes faster, and more recklessly.)
Nate Nagel
> In article <fuotk...@news2.newsguy.com>,
> Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Larry wrote:
>>
>>>In article <nMqdnTU74MQsa5LV...@comcast.com>,
>>> "Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Nate Nagel" <njn...@roosters.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:fuosl...@news2.newsguy.com...
>>>>
>>>>>If you see a cop around here, he's either sitting in the median, on the
>>>>>shoulder with someone pulled over, or hauling arse down the freeway at
>>>>>80+. I can't remember the last time I saw a cop *other* than a traffic
>>>>>cop.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>After all, it's not like any cops are in plain clothes, driving unmarked
>>>>cars....
>>>
>>>
>>>And where does Nate think they're going when they're "hauling arse"?
>>>Perhaps responding to a 911 call or a crime in progress?
>>
>>Nope. No lights/sirens.
>
>
>
> Sometimes officers don't use lights and sirens so as to not alert the
> perpetrator(s) they're coming. Sometimes they use lights, but not
> sirens, in residential areas so as to not bother the community more than
> necessary.
>
> And sometimes, when they're on the freeway, and "hauling arse"
> uninhibited by traffic, there's just no need for lights and sirens, now
> is there?
It's still illegal to drive in that manner. Citizens don't get any
breaks in such a situation ("officer, it was safe to drive 63 MPH,
honest, 'cause there wasn't any traffic!" See how far that gets you.)
>
>>Sometimes far out of jurisdiction.
>
>
> If they're out of their jurisdiction that makes it all the more likely
> they're on official business, since if they leave their jurisdiction for
> personal matters, they'd be in trouble.
>
> Dispatcher: "Officer Smith, we need you to respond to a robbery in
> progress."
>
> Officer: "Sorry, dispatch, I can't. I'm three towns over running an
> errand. I'll be back soon, though."
>
An errand in another STATE?
Bo Raxo
Yeah, it's not like some criminals work across state lines, or that police
in different states ever need to collaborate, cooperate, or get the benefit
of training in another jurisdiction that isn't available in their own
department.
MLOM
> In article <fuouup02...@news2.newsguy.com>,> > > In article <fuotkt02...@news2.newsguy.com>,> > >>>In article <nMqdnTU74MQsa5LVnZ2dnUVZ_iydn...@comcast.com>,
> > >>> "Bo Raxo" <crimenewscen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>>"Nate Nagel" <njna...@roosters.net> wrote in message
> > >>>>news:fuosl...@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> > >>>>>If you see a cop around here, he's either sitting in the median, on the
> > >>>>>shoulder with someone pulled over, or hauling arse down the freeway at
> > >>>>>80+. I can't remember the last time I saw a cop *other* than a traffic
> > >>>>>cop.
>
> > >>>>After all, it's not like any cops are in plain clothes, driving unmarked
> > >>>>cars....
>
> > >>>And where does Nate think they're going when they're "hauling arse"?
> > >>>Perhaps responding to a 911 call or a crime in progress?
>
> > >>Nope. No lights/sirens.
>
> > > This is what you base your conclusion on? No lights and sirens?
>
> > > Sometimes officers don't use lights and sirens so as to not alert the
> > > perpetrator(s) they're coming. Sometimes they use lights, but not
> > > sirens, in residential areas so as to not bother the community more than
> > > necessary.
>
> > > And sometimes, when they're on the freeway, and "hauling arse"
> > > uninhibited by traffic, there's just no need for lights and sirens, now
> > > is there?
>
> > It's still illegal to drive in that manner.
>
> use their lights and sirens, you think they have to use them anyway?
>
> > Citizens don't get any
> > breaks in such a situation ("officer, it was safe to drive 63 MPH,
> > honest, 'cause there wasn't any traffic!" See how far that gets you.)
>
> after her water broke, I doubt he'd get a speeding ticket.
>
> > >>Sometimes far out of jurisdiction.
>
> > > If they're out of their jurisdiction that makes it all the more likely
> > > they're on official business, since if they leave their jurisdiction for
> > > personal matters, they'd be in trouble.
>
> > > Dispatcher: "Officer Smith, we need you to respond to a robbery in
> > > progress."
>
> > > Officer: "Sorry, dispatch, I can't. I'm three towns over running an
> > > errand. I'll be back soon, though."
>
> > An errand in another STATE?
>
> crime investigations? Or do you think all crimes are confined to state
> borders?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Also, what about metro areas crossing state borders? IRL, in KC there
is cooperative effort between KCMO and KCK police when criminals cross
the state line.
jerry warner
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> jerry warner <"warne(na)"@mchsi.com> wrote in
> news:480EDBB4...@mchsi.com:
>
> > small problem - when the police are on duty they can park any place
> > they want for any reason. Woooops! The Yuppie
> > wannabe forgot about that. Tells you the kind of lawyer that moron is
> > going to be - they infest the planet.
> >
> >
>
> You are obviously a paid govt shill sent here to defend the lawbreaking
> cops.
Hillary-fucking-Larious!@ Keep up the good werk!
Jerry
jerry warner
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> jerry warner <"warne(na)"@mchsi.com> wrote in
> news:480EDBB4...@mchsi.com:
>
> > small problem - when the police are on duty they can park any place
> > they want for any reason. Woooops! The Yuppie
> > wannabe forgot about that. Tells you the kind of lawyer that moron is
> > going to be - they infest the planet.
> >
> >
>
> You are obviously a paid govt shill sent here to defend the lawbreaking
> cops.
I have to retoot again! Thatis about the funniest damned thing
Ive ever read ........... in a longgggggggggggggggg time.
Where do you come up with such nonsense. Cept for one
thing. I basically support everything yous ay and do, so,
when I say keep up the good work, I ACTUALLY MEAN IT!
You deserve a Pulitzer for this last one!
Very best regards!
Jerry
Alan Baker
"Bo Raxo" <crimene...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" <njn...@roosters.net> wrote in message
> news:fuon9...@news2.newsguy.com...
> > Bo Raxo wrote:
> >> "Nate Nagel" <njn...@roosters.net> wrote in message
> >> news:fuol2...@news2.newsguy.com...
> >>>the instances you list above simply because he wants to get lunch? Where
> >>>do you come up with this stuff? Simply unbelievable.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I think public safety is best served by having a cop close to his
> >> cruiser. It's common sense, which is why every police department in the
> >> country routinely allows officers to park illegally.
> >>
> >> Where do I get it? Gee, I guess every single police department in the
> >> U.S. is just as crazy as me, and you're the only sane one Or...
> >
> > Then why are we even having this discussion? Clearly a lot of this
> > "professional courtesy" is not codified into law. If it as cut and dried
> > as you think it is, it ought to be easy to get the law changed.
> >
>
> Same reason the law doesn't specifically say a cop responding to a call does
> not need to obey the speed limit or red lights.
Actually, most jurisdictions have laws that say precisely that.
>
> Because it's common sense.
>
> The parking ticket will get thrown out, and the lawyer who wrote it will
> find himself pulled over for the slightest moving violation or non-op.
>
> When someone is mugging you, which would do you more good - an illegally
> parked cop, or a legally parked lawyer?
I'd like everyone to obey the law.
If there is a need for police officers to be exempt from parking
regulations, then let the law be rewritten to reflect that.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Dave Head
wrote:
>He obviously meant the criteria for making a parking spot illegal is not
>whether you can park there safely.
>
>The cop was parked in front of a fire hydrant. If there was a fire, do you
>think he'd sit there in the restaurant, or move his car? There was no
>safety issue by parking there. If he had to park a block or two away, there
>could be a safety issue.
The fire was caused by an explosion in the donut shop, which killed the cop.
The car is now sitting there blocking the fire hydrant, so it takes more time
to hook up the hose to put out the fire in the donut shop, and 3 more people
die that would not have if the fire hydrant could have been accessed quickly,
without the cop car in the way.
Bo Raxo
"Dave Head" <rall...@att.net> wrote in message
news:erj014pbn51oo6pnk...@4ax.com...
Okay, it is possible to construct a scenario in which the cop car being
there causes harm. Pretty difficult, but possible. I do have to point out
that your scenario wouldn't work here, because the cop car was parked on the
same side of the street as the restaurant the cop was in, therefore the hose
would be hooked up on the side opposite the car, but that's a nit.
Now the key is risk in terms of likelihood. Your scenario has a pretty
remote likelihood. Compare that to the chances that the cop will get an
emergency call while he's away from his car, or witness a crime that
requires he get in his cruiser and give chase. The chances of him getting
called to an emergency situation is far higher than the emergency happening
to him (and being disabling or fatal, which your scenario requires).
So you have to balance the risks. Is there some risk created by the cop
parking illegally but close by? Yes. But it is far less than the risk
created by having the cop park legally and be some distance away from his
cruiser.
Brent P
>> Not my job to figure it out. Perhaps he should only patronize eateries
>> where he can park both legally and within radio range.
>Perhaps you should always be "on the job" and required to eat at your
>desk every single day, so that your boss can interrupt your lunch with
>an emergency whenever one comes up.
That's exactly how my present job is, minus it being 'required' in black
and white, but that is how it is effectively.
Brent P
>Okay, it is possible to construct a scenario in which the cop car being
>there causes harm. Pretty difficult, but possible.
And that's exactly the same sort of thing a cop would do tell 'joe
average' why he did a bad thing by parking illegally.
Larrybud
>>>> selectively enforced model?
>>> or perhaps maybe just maybe it's time to get our priorities in
>>> order and stop playing petty games with an already collapsing
>>> legal system.
>>
>> So which laws are you willing to let cops break?
>
> The same ones I'm willing to let everyone else break.
>
Which are?
Larrybud
news:lbqdnQyTAswgW5LV...@comcast.com:
>
> "Larrybud" <larryb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A898153080CAla...@204.153.245.20...
>> "Felix Dzherzhinsky" <som...@somewhere.nb.ca> wrote in
>> news:480f606c$0$4066$9a56...@news.aliant.net:
>>>> Maybe it's time to get rid of the ticky-tacky laws randomly
>>>> and selectively enforced model?
>>> or perhaps maybe just maybe it's time to get our priorities in
>>> order and stop playing petty games with an already collapsing
>>> legal system.
>>
>> So which laws are you willing to let cops break?
>
> Infractions, which include parking. But not misdemeanors or
> felonies.
And why should those who are supposed to uphold the law be allowed to
break those same laws?
Brent P
One of my favorite bits of cop driving I've witnessed was two out of
jurisdiction (about 3 towns away) cops driving one behind the other at
80+ mph. The cop that was following was tailgating as cops around here
typically do. Well cop #1 was about to miss the exit and nails the
brakes so he can make the exit and cop #2 nearly rear-ends him.
Larrybud
>>
>>
>
> So when you call 911, and minutes mean the difference between
> life and death, you want the cop to sprint a two or three blocks
> to where his car is parked?
>
> Even better: the radios clipped to the belt are relayed from the
> patrol cruiser's radio, and only good within about a hundred
> meters. You'll be lucky if the officer even receives the call.
>
> But at least you'll die knowing he's parked legally.
The guy in this story was getting lunch and watching TV, not trying
to save a life. THAT is why it's ABUSING power.
Larrybud
news:x-07211F.20...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
> In article <uYednWd0G4uLT5LV...@comcast.com>,
> tetraethylle...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> In article <QLidnd_arezvW5LV...@comcast.com>, Bo
>> Raxo wrote:
>> >So when you call 911, and minutes mean the difference between
>> >life and death, you want the cop to sprint a two or three
>> >blocks to where his car is parked?
>> >
>> >Even better: the radios clipped to the belt are relayed from
>> >the patrol cruiser's radio, and only good within about a
>> >hundred meters. You'll be lucky if the officer even receives
>> >the call.
>> >
>> >But at least you'll die knowing he's parked legally.
>>
>> What about someone who is hurt or injured because the cop
>> parked illegally and created a hazard?
>>
>> If it doesn't create a hazard to park there, why is it illegal?
>
> How could someone be hurt or injured simply by parking in a no
> parking zone?
>
> No parking zones in front of buildings are often there for fire
> and emergency vehicles to get close to the building if needed.
Completely agree. This cop was getting lunch and watching TV, not
responding to an emergency.
Larrybud
news:x-B7FD84.21...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
> In article <R-GdnerzE6E6Q5LV...@comcast.com>,
> tetraethylle...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> In article <Xc6dna1gl_rVR5LV...@comcast.com>, Bo
>> Raxo wrote:
>>
>> >I think public safety is best served by having a cop close to
>> >his cruiser. It's common sense, which is why every police
>> >department in the country routinely allows officers to park
>> >illegally.
>>
>> I grew annoyed dealing with the traffic hazards caused by
>> illegally parked police cruisers years ago. Some of the parking
>> CPD does can at best be described as hazardous. Sometimes they
>> are kind enough just to drive up on to the sidewalk and park
>> out of the way though.
>>
>> >Where do I get it? Gee, I guess every single police
>> >department in the U.S. is just as crazy as me, and you're the
>> >only sane one Or...
>>
>> Some of us just prefer a free country, not one with rulers and
>> serfs.
>
> Police officers parking where you don't think they should
> deprives you of freedom and makes you a serf and lesser-class
> human?
No, they're parking where the law says they shouldn't. While
getting lunch. And watching TV.
Brent P
>Yeah, it's not like some criminals work across state lines, or that police
>in different states ever need to collaborate, cooperate, or get the benefit
>of training in another jurisdiction that isn't available in their own
>department.
So let me get this strraight.... it's ok for a cop to drive 85mph to his
meetings but if I drive even 75mph to a meeting for my job it's unsafe
and I get ticketed? LOL. It's either safe to drive those speeds or it
isn't. The state issued costume doesn't change it.
Larrybud
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njn...@roosters.net> wrote in message
> news:fuon9...@news2.newsguy.com...
>> Bo Raxo wrote:
>>> "Nate Nagel" <njn...@roosters.net> wrote in message
>>> news:fuol2...@news2.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>>>Bo Raxo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Brent P" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>message news:uYednWd0G4uLT5LV...@comcast.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <QLidnd_arezvW5LV...@comcast.com>,
>>>>>>Bo Raxo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So when you call 911, and minutes mean the difference
>>>>>>>between life and death, you want the cop to sprint a two or
>>>>>>>three blocks to where his car is
>>>>>>>parked?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Even better: the radios clipped to the belt are relayed
>>>>>>>from the patrol
>>>>>>>cruiser's radio, and only good within about a hundred
>>>>>>>meters. You'll be
>>>>>>>lucky if the officer even receives the call.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But at least you'll die knowing he's parked legally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What about someone who is hurt or injured because the cop
>>>>>>parked illegally and created a hazard?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Exactly how would that occur? It doesn't - which is why
>>>>>illegal parking is an infraction, not a crime. Show me
>>>>>someone injured by an illegally parked car - if you can't
>>>>>find a real life example, then perhaps it's because it
>>>>>doesn't happen.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>If it doesn't create a hazard to park there, why is it
>>>>>>illegal?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Plenty of reasons. For example, if there's a fire hydrant -
>>>>>but the can break the car windows to run the hose through if
>>>>>needed. Bus stop. Loading zone. Handicapped spot. None of
>>>>>these are going to create much of a hazard, certainly less
>>>>>than making the cop be several minutes walk from his cruiser.
>>>>> In some cities, a business can request the curb in front be
>>>>>made a no parking spot, where I live the fee is $250.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And you think that police officers should be allowed to park
>>>>in all of the instances you list above simply because he wants
>>>>to get lunch? Where do you come up with this stuff? Simply
>>>>unbelievable.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think public safety is best served by having a cop close to
>>> his cruiser. It's common sense, which is why every police
>>> department in the country routinely allows officers to park
>>> illegally.
>>>
>>> Where do I get it? Gee, I guess every single police
>>> department in the U.S. is just as crazy as me, and you're the
>>> only sane one Or...
>>
>> Then why are we even having this discussion? Clearly a lot of
>> this "professional courtesy" is not codified into law. If it
>> as cut and dried as you think it is, it ought to be easy to get
>> the law changed.
>>
>
> Same reason the law doesn't specifically say a cop responding to
> a call does not need to obey the speed limit or red lights.
Actually, the law does say that, at least in Michigan. Note the
part that says "when traveling in emergencies or in the chase or
apprehension of violators"... it doesn't say when "The cop wants
to get a donut and watch Oprah".
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S
(b1k30bvj3uaydonopzyuuj3s))/mileg.aspx?
page=getObject&objectName=mcl-257-627
"The speed limitation set forth in this chapter shall not apply to
vehicles when operated with due regard for safety under the
direction of the police when traveling in emergencies or in the
chase or apprehension of violators of the law or of persons
charged with or suspected of a violation, nor to fire department
or fire patrol vehicles when traveling in response to a fire
alarm, nor to public or private ambulances when traveling in
emergencies. "
NEXT!