 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / May 2008Citizen Issues Parking Ticket to Cop
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. "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..) > http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=753233&category=22101 > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Stensgaard declined comment through the cops' office of public > information. On Apr 22, 4:43 pm, "Felix Dzherzhinsky" <some...@somewhere.nb.ca> wrote: > "Unfortunately for Officer Stensgaard, Bryant had recently passed the > Oregon bar exam, and decided to pursue the matter further." [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > (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 > On Apr 22, 4:43 pm, "Felix Dzherzhinsky" <some...@somewhere.nb.ca> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > nate I am disappointed. I figured since that was published in multiple papers, they would at least publish the results of the hearing also. Wonder what happened. Harry K >"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. >>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 & [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. >>>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. snip... ...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? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> 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) >>>>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 [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >People sure do love to hate cops.. >(and lawyers, i do admit it) 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. snippy snip > Maybe it's time to get rid of the ticky-tacky laws randomly and > selectively enforced model? >> 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? >>> Maybe it's time to get rid of the ticky-tacky laws randomly and >>> selectively enforced model? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So which laws are you willing to let cops break? The same ones I'm willing to let everyone else break.  Signature-- 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 >>>> 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? > The same ones I'm willing to let everyone else break. Which are? >>> Maybe it's time to get rid of the ticky-tacky laws randomly and >>> selectively enforced model? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So which laws are you willing to let cops break? Infractions, which include parking. But not misdemeanors or felonies. >>>>Maybe it's time to get rid of the ticky-tacky laws randomly and >>>>selectively enforced model? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Infractions, which include parking. But not misdemeanors or felonies. 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 Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>>> Maybe it's time to get rid of the ticky-tacky laws randomly >>>> and selectively enforced model? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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? >> 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. Cops blatantly violating the same laws that they cite citizens for is 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. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >>>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 & [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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. >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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >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? > >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 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > 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. 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. 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. >>>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 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > How could someone be hurt or injured simply by parking in a no parking > 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. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>>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 [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Indeed. So which is more important, a fire truck or an officer having > lunch? The fire truck. Which is why the officer would know in advance that the fire truck was coming and would be able to move his car - which a private citizen wouldn't know, and wouldn't be able to do. > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "official vehicle parking only?" If it's *not* a real problem, then the > officer should just obey the law. Why one spot? Some emergencies would require one vehicle. Some more than one. Some a fire truck, which is longer than a traditional vehicle. >> >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 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >How could someone be hurt or injured simply by parking in a no parking >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. > 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. >> 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) >> In article <QLidnd_arezvW5LVnZ2dnUVZ_uKpnZ2d@comcast.com>, Bo >> Raxo wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > 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. >>> >So when you call 911, and minutes mean the difference between >>> >life and death, you want the cop to sprint a two or three [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Completely agree. This cop was getting lunch and watching TV, not > responding to an emergency. I don't know about the jurisdiction where this "ticket" was issued, but where I live, responsibility for a parking ticket goes to the owner of the vehicle, not the driver (for obvious reasons). So....you issue a ticket on a car owned by the city. Then the city must pay a fine to itself. Yeah, that's a great use of our tax dollars, shuffling them from one account to another, minus the transaction costs. I'm so glad we could spend money on bullshit paperwork than on actual public services, just so some nanny do gooders can feel righteous. Maybe all of the people who think cops parked in front of fire hydrants are such a threat to public safety can get together in some discreet spot and form one big circle jerk, and get each other off. Bo Raxo > >> In article <uYednWd0G4uLT5LVnZ2dnUVZ_uOdn...@comcast.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > on bullshit paperwork than on actual public services, just so some nanny do > gooders can feel righteous. Most of the time, when a parking ticket is issued to any kind of organization (either a government entity or a corporation) they will know exactly who was responsible for the vehicle when the ticket was issued, and require that person to pay the ticket. Thus putting the responsibility exactly where it lies. How is that a "waste?" > Maybe all of the people who think cops parked in front of fire hydrants are > such a threat to public safety can get together in some discreet spot and > form one big circle jerk, and get each other off. Maybe you can blow me. nate >>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 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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. >>>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 [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > 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. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>>>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 [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > 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... >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. > >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 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > 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? If that's the distinction, you should be thankful what a free country we live in. [troll drool] gotta filter this crap out. >> In article <Xc6dna1gl_rVR5LVnZ2dnUVZ_oesnZ2d@comcast.com>, Bo >> Raxo wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > 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. >>>>>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 [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > 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. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>>>>>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 [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > "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. 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. >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. >>>>>>>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 [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > When someone is mugging you, which would do you more good - an illegally > parked cop, or a legally parked lawyer? Either one will likely be useless. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >> When someone is mugging you, which would do you more good - an illegally >> parked cop, or a legally parked lawyer? > >Either one will likely be useless. Well, there's always: "Hey, if you let me keep my wallet, I'll help you roll the lawyer". Useless cop stunt today -- PennDOT, in its infinite wisdom, decided to do some road construction on US-422 (on Saturday) without placing any warning signs. They closed the entire road, leading to traffic backing up over 3 miles, for an hour and a half. People near the end of the backup started bailing by heading the wrong way down an entrance ramp. So they sent out the cops.... not to direct traffic so people could exit the closed road safely, but to give tickets to those doing so. (No, I wasn't one of the people ticketed) SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >>>>>>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 [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > 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. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. SignatureAlan 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." > In article <UM2dnRaOkKFofJLVnZ2dnUVZ_oaon...@comcast.com>, > > > 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. I'd say many, probably. I haven't read anywhere near "most". > I'd like everyone to obey the law. Me too, including cops, excepting the ostensibly "obvious". I think cops should set the example. I think the problem with that is, most cops don't have any more driving training or experience than the average r.a.d. idiot. > If there is a need for police officers to be exempt from parking > regulations, then let the law be rewritten to reflect that. I think the tendency I feel it's safe to assume, of a cop to not cite a cop car parked illegally, precludes the need for additional legislation. I think a cop might look pretty stupid citing a cop parked illegally in the line of duty, or expending the time to determine the driver's duty status. ----- - gpsman > > In article <UM2dnRaOkKFofJLVnZ2dnUVZ_oaon...@comcast.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > - gpsman "pretty stupid?" Since when is expecting people to obey the law "stupid?" Now it might be *personally* stupid for the cop to do so, seeing as he'd be ostracized and harassed, but that does not negate the fact that he'd be doing his job, and also taking a step towards eradicating the hypocrisy that pervades traffic enforcement. nate >>>>>>>So when you call 911, and minutes mean the difference >>>>>>>between life and death, you want the cop to sprint a two or [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > 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! >>>>>>>>So when you call 911, and minutes mean the difference >>>>>>>>between life and death, you want the cop to sprint a two or [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > NEXT! And did this incident involve speeding, or occur in Michigan? No. NEXT! > >>>>>>>In article <QLidnd_arezvW5LVnZ2dnUVZ_uKpn...@comcast.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > NEXT!- well, if you were trying to prove a point, find the similar section of code for Oregon. we'll wait. nate > >>>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 [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > the instances you list above simply because he wants to get lunch? > Where do you come up with this stuff? Simply unbelievable. You think he shouldn't be? Simply unbelieveable. >>>>>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 [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > You think he shouldn't be? Simply unbelieveable. If he can park there safely, it shouldn't be a no parking zone. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>>>>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 [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > If he can park there safely, it shouldn't be a no parking zone. That's not the criteria, sorry. >>>>>>>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 [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > That's not the criteria, sorry. Then what is it? That he's not required to park safely? Unacceptable. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>>>>>>>So when you call 911, and minutes mean the difference between life >>>>>>>>and [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Then what is it? That he's not required to park safely? Unacceptable. 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. > >>>>>>>>So when you call 911, and minutes mean the difference between life > >>>>>>>>and [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > He obviously meant the criteria for making a parking spot illegal is not > whether you can park there safely. Thank you. I didn't think what I said was unclear. > 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. >He obviously meant the criteria for making a parking spot illegal is not >whether you can park there safely. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >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. >>He obviously meant the criteria for making a parking spot illegal is not >>whether you can park there safely. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > quickly, > without the cop car in the way. 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. > Okay, it is possible to construct a scenario in which the cop car being > there causes harm. Uh, r.a.d. Charter; Section 1, Paragraph 2(b): Nirvana fallacy shall be considered an intelligent argument. > Pretty difficult, but possible. Heh. You seem to underestimate the ability of an imbecile to imagine scenarios to support his ridiculous argument. Oh. And you're a troll too. ----- - gpsman >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. >>>He obviously meant the criteria for making a parking spot >>>illegal is not whether you can park there safely. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Now the key is risk in terms of likelihood. The point is the cop is NOT ALLOWED to park in no parking areas for non-emergency stops. PERIOD. He broke the law. PERIOD. Whether or not there is risk in the cop parking there or anyone else is irrelevant, because the law doesn't have a provision which excludes people based on the amount of risk in breaking said law. >>>He obviously meant the criteria for making a parking spot illegal is not >>>whether you can park there safely. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >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. Yeah, we're just having fun with this... >Now the key is risk in terms of likelihood. Your scenario has a pretty >remote likelihood. But it is the same sort of nonsense that they would use on you if it was your car that was parked by the fire hydrant. "$150 and costs..." >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). Or maybe the building just falls in on him from the explosion, and he can't get out to move the car... <GGGG>... >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. Its just annoying that they do that, isn't it? > >>>>>>>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 [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Then what is it? That he's not required to park safely? Unacceptable. Of course he's required to park safely. It's not the criteria to label something a "no parking zone" that parking there is automatically unsafe. 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. And no, I'm not a police officer. >>>>>>>>>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 [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > 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. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>>>>>>>>So when you call 911, and minutes mean the difference between life > >>>>>>>>>and [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > Coulda fooled me. I'm getting the impression you're easily fooled. >>>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 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >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. >>>>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 [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 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. 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. >>>>>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 [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >Straw man argument. I'm not saying every illegal parking spot is okay for a >cop to park in. Some are, some aren't. 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. > >>>>>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 [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > If it's ok for the cops to endanger traffic for the sake of call they > may or may not get.... what about doctors? Doctors are often extended the same courtesy (which I'm sure they abuse) - that's why they can get special "MD" plates. >>>>>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 [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > aspect to letting the cop stay near his cruiser. There is no such tradeoff > with a privately owned vehicle. There's a public safety benefit to having cops around? I'm more afraid of them than I am glad to see them. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>>>>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 [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > nate So you say.... until you're a crime victim. >>>>>>>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 [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > So you say.... until you're a crime victim. Why would being a victim of a crime make me any less afraid of cops? nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>>>>>>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 [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > > Why would being a victim of a crime make me any less afraid of cops? Why are you afraid now? >>>>>>>>>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 [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > > Why are you afraid now? 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 Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > 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.... > > > > If you see a cop around here, he's either sitting in the median, on the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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? >>>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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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 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 Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>>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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > 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? > 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." > Just > driving like we all would if we knew we'd never get a ticket (but > sometimes faster, and more recklessly.) > > nate >>>>>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 [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > 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. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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? nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>>>>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 [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > It's still illegal to drive in that manner. It is? If they're responding to an emergency, but they don't need to 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.) Sure they do. If a guy is taking his pregnant wife to the hospital after her water broke, I doubt he'd get a speeding ticket. > >>Sometimes far out of jurisdiction. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > An errand in another STATE? Officers routinely go to other states. Ever hear of extraditions? And crime investigations? Or do you think all crimes are confined to state borders? > In article <fuouup02...@news2.newsguy.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > - 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. > In article <fuouup02...@news2.newsguy.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > It is? If they're responding to an emergency, but they don't need to > use their lights and sirens, you think they have to use them anyway? Your premise is flawed. They are LEGALLY REQUIRED to use them when responding to a call, otherwise they have no legal ability to break any traffic laws. (yes, I know bout Jaybird's constant arguing with this point, but most of us don't live in Texas, myself included.) > > 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.) > > Sure they do. If a guy is taking his pregnant wife to the hospital > after her water broke, I doubt he'd get a speeding ticket. Based on what I've seen around here, I would expect to get one no matter what. > > >>Sometimes far out of jurisdiction. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > crime investigations? Or do you think all crimes are confined to state > borders? Do you honestly believe that every single police officer I see driving in a marked car is responding to a call at all times? Never mind my first point above. And please explain how responding to a call would relieve an officer of the requirement to signal lane changes and turns and not cut people off, tailgate, etc. nate > > It is? If they're responding to an emergency, but they don't need to > > use their lights and sirens, you think they have to use them anyway? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > any traffic laws. (yes, I know bout Jaybird's constant arguing with > this point, but most of us don't live in Texas, myself included.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten-code See:10-40 http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21055.htm http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-920 > Do you honestly believe that every single police officer I see driving > in a marked car is responding to a call at all times? Never mind my > first point above. And please explain how responding to a call would > relieve an officer of the requirement to signal lane changes and turns > and not cut people off, tailgate, etc. Lol. Nobody's arguing that, Sparky. ----- - gpsman > > > It is? If they're responding to an emergency, but they don't need to > > > use their lights and sirens, you think they have to use them anyway? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten-codeSee:10-40 All well and good, but the officer is not legally allowed to speed or run red lights on a 10-40 at least not in my state. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-920 see section "B." > http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21055.htm So they're required to use at least lights in CA. > http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-920 Again, see section "B." > > Do you honestly believe that every single police officer I see driving > > in a marked car is responding to a call at all times? Never mind my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Lol. Nobody's arguing that, Sparky. So they are breaking the law. Thanks for agreeing. nate > > > And please explain how responding to a call would > > > relieve an officer of the requirement to signal lane changes and turns [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So they are breaking the law. Thanks for agreeing. Bitte. When you're right, you're right. Too bad about the relevance thing though. ----- - gpsman > > > > And please explain how responding to a call would > > > > relieve an officer of the requirement to signal lane changes and turns [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Too bad about the relevance thing though. So some laws are OK to break but not others...? nate |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message