NationStates Jolt Archive

Take for example of speeding, the offficer has to speed to catch up with you. So in my humble opinion the law is broke by two not one. I dont think it should be far to enforce a law by breaking it.

Within that fact i can see no justice.

Dont get me wrong we have laws for a reason and yes it should be so but justice should be held hand in hand with the laws. Look at some of these big criminals dope lords and such 3 months in prison and only serving the booking time is that justice.

It is lawful for a police officer to go over the limit in a chase.

Breaking the law to uphold the law is never a good thing. It can only lead to a corruption of ideals.

Yes, as Assasd said, it is legal for police officers to go over the speed limit in pursuit of someone.

I do not think the law should be broken in order to enforce it, for then it makes the idea of law meaningless.

That´s the problem I have with the american tactic of entrapment: especially since they´ve been doing it on our territory as well (in the netherlands). I know entrapment is illegal, but the tactic used by the police sometimes is quite unlawful in my view:

If you sollicit someone into doing something criminal, you are performing a criminal act, no? So why is it that officers can get away with arranging of setting up supposed big drug-deals? Isn´t that a window into corruption better closed?

The point is, it isn't against the law for a police officer to give chase after a speeding motorist, or suchlike. So, if it is legal for them to do so, then no law has been broken. And most people understand why it is legal for them to do so. It is when they do things such as speed or drive through red lights when NOT in an active chase or heading to a crime scene that there is a problem. Many times I will see police cars drive through red lights and indeed speeding when their sirens are dormant. This is what needs to be dealt with -- it is an abuse of their power, and it does not set a good example.

If the law you have to break is less than the law that you are stopping then yes, its the right thing to do. Breaking another persons window is illegal, but the right thing to if you somhow save a life in the process. (like a baby in a car on a hot sumers day dying slowly because the parent is to dimwitted to open a window or take the baby with her/him.
And in the end, you havnt really broken the law at all, because life is more important than property (at least by the Norwegian laws)

If I was the leader, I would abolish speed limits. And I would quote this paper (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8282(198512)75%3A5%3C1159%3ASCAT5M%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O) to do it.

Take for example of speeding, the offficer has to speed to catch up with you. So in my humble opinion the law is broke by two not one. I dont think it should be far to enforce a law by breaking it.

Within that fact i can see no justice.

Others have answered this correctly, but it's a bee in my bonnet so I'm going to answer it as well.

A police officer does NOT break the law in pursuing a driver who's failing to stop. That's why police officers go through police driver training and get given permits to exempt them from certain road restrictions to a certain extent under certain circumstances. It doesn't give them carte blanche to ignore the law - it simply makes a different set of rules apply to them while those circumstances hold. So yes - there IS one law for them and another for us in those cases. You're just going to have to learn to live with it.

While we're on the subject, there's another point I'd like to make, too:

If a driver is being pursued by police, and that driver crashes into someone or something, it is the offender's fault - NOT that of the police. The offender is the one who has chosen to break the law (see above), and so it's the offender who is accountable for the result. The offender could have stopped at any time - and if he had the slightest interest in or concern for anyone but himself he would have. That he didn't is simply down to his utter selfishness. I get sick and tired of hearing the British press squealing about police 'causing' accidents by pursuing offenders - this moronically naive assumption that the offender wouldn't be driving like an idiot if the police weren't chasing him. And no thought given as to WHY the police might have been chasing him in the first place.

Sorry. As I said, it's an issue for me.

Take for example of speeding, the offficer has to speed to catch up with you. So in my humble opinion the law is broke by two not one. I dont think it should be far to enforce a law by breaking it.

Within that fact i can see no justice.

Dont get me wrong we have laws for a reason and yes it should be so but justice should be held hand in hand with the laws. Look at some of these big criminals dope lords and such 3 months in prison and only serving the booking time is that justice.
I agree, i feel that offficers of the law should have the right to blow pwople up with James Bondesque Missiles attached to their vehicles, if people break the law they shoud be exploded.

If the law you have to break is less than the law that you are stopping then yes, its the right thing to do. Breaking another persons window is illegal, but the right thing to if you somhow save a life in the process. (like a baby in a car on a hot sumers day dying slowly because the parent is to dimwitted to open a window or take the baby with her/him.
And in the end, you havnt really broken the law at all, because life is more important than property (at least by the Norwegian laws)
I believe thoes are called mitigating circumstances (sp?)

Isn't putting someone in prison a kidnapping then?

If the law you have to break is less than the law that you are stopping then yes, its the right thing to do. Breaking another persons window is illegal, but the right thing to if you somhow save a life in the process. (like a baby in a car on a hot sumers day dying slowly because the parent is to dimwitted to open a window or take the baby with her/him.
And in the end, you havnt really broken the law at all, because life is more important than property (at least by the Norwegian laws)
You'd still have broken the law, you just won't get punished for it (or get a reduced sentence)

Given that I would have little problem shooting someone who was raping another even if I could stop them non-lethally, yes, yes it is.

Take for example of speeding, the offficer has to speed to catch up with you. So in my humble opinion the law is broke by two not one. I dont think it should be far to enforce a law by breaking it.

Within that fact i can see no justice.
It's like saying, is it legal for ambulances, police cars and fire trucks to speed to the location where they're needed? By speeding, are they not indeed braking the law?

Hard question, I think there are some crimes that should be stoped anyway possible. But where do you draw the line?

People defending the police are missing the point. Cops being allowed to exceed the speed limit is an example of the fascist police state we actually live in. While they are not technically breaking the law, you have to examine why that is.

They are not breaking the law because there is a double standard. They are exempt from the law. Above it. You saying "they are not breaking the law" means "the law doesn't apply to them" which is the same as saying "they do not have to obey the law". It doesn't matter if it is just one law, or every law. It creates a situation where there are the haves and have-nots. They have the power, we don't.

Now, if I can go down and pass a high speed driving course, I should be allowed to drive as fast as I want- but that is not going to happen.

[QUOTE=

They are not breaking the law because there is a double standard. They are exempt from the law. Above it. You saying "they are not breaking the law" means "the law doesn't apply to them" which is the same as saying "they do not have to obey the law". It doesn't matter if it is just one law, or every law. It creates a situation where there are the haves and have-nots. They have the power, we don't.

[/QUOTE]


How, exactly, are they supposed to enforce a no-speeding law without being allowed to catch up with the speeder?

How, exactly, are they supposed to enforce a no-speeding law without being allowed to catch up with the speeder?
How about not enforcing such law?

There is a difference between the concept of coordination (ie traffic lights) and limitation (ie speed limits).

And that quite beside the point that the whole thing is just to make extra money for the State.

How about not enforcing such law?

There is a difference between the concept of coordination (ie traffic lights) and limitation (ie speed limits).

And that quite beside the point that the whole thing is just to make extra money for the State.

Does that mean I can drive down your street at 100 MPH while your kids are playing in the street? Don't worry, I KNOW I'm a good enough driver to handle it, no matter what everyone else says.

People defending the police are missing the point. Cops being allowed to exceed the speed limit is an example of the fascist police state we actually live in. While they are not technically breaking the law, you have to examine why that is.

They are not breaking the law because there is a double standard. They are exempt from the law. Above it. You saying "they are not breaking the law" means "the law doesn't apply to them" which is the same as saying "they do not have to obey the law". It doesn't matter if it is just one law, or every law. It creates a situation where there are the haves and have-nots. They have the power, we don't.

Now, if I can go down and pass a high speed driving course, I should be allowed to drive as fast as I want- but that is not going to happen.

Police, fire, and rescue personnel are only allowed to exceed the speed limit in the course of their duties. If they aren't in pursuit or on their way to a call, they shouldn't be speeding/going through lights.

I know if my house was on fire and I was trapped inside, I'd want the fire and rescue people there RFN. If I'm being assaulted, I'd want the police there quick, fast, and in a hurry.

People defending the police are missing the point. Cops being allowed to exceed the speed limit is an example of the fascist police state we actually live in. While they are not technically breaking the law, you have to examine why that is.

They are not breaking the law because there is a double standard. They are exempt from the law. Above it. You saying "they are not breaking the law" means "the law doesn't apply to them" which is the same as saying "they do not have to obey the law". It doesn't matter if it is just one law, or every law. It creates a situation where there are the haves and have-nots. They have the power, we don't.

Now, if I can go down and pass a high speed driving course, I should be allowed to drive as fast as I want- but that is not going to happen.

Well, that's just fine - but as far as I'm concerned you've forfeited your right to complain if it takes the police a long time to answer your call. When you disturb an intruder in your house, you've no right to expect an immediate response (though the sad thing is you'll probably get one anyway). You've specifically argued that the police shouldn't be allowed to do that. So in attending any call by you I would like to see police conscientiously observing all traffic regulations, waiting at red lights, queuing in traffic, and if the burglar hurts you or your family in the meantime, well, that's okay: just so long as those nasty fascists in the police aren't violating any traffic laws while it's happening.

And of course, it's only the nasty old police who're evil fascists for breaking speed limits. After all, they're the ones that spend all their time trying to stop you doing exactly whatever you want to do. You don't criticise the ambulance service or the fire service for doing the same thing in response to their kind of emergency, do you? And you complain about double standards?

The fact is that, as I've said, there IS a double standard. There's a double standard because there NEEDS to be. You argue you should also be allowed to go on a high-speed driving course. Why? Why do you need to drive at high speed? Because you want to. Why do the emergency services do it? Because the job depends on it. Police can't saunter after criminals and expect them to wait for them. Ambulance crews haven't got the luxury of time when they're responding to a critically-ill patient. Fire crews can't wait for buildings to burn down and people to die while they negotiate queues. But you? You just want to drive fast.

And that is precisely why you shouldn't be allowed to.