Police Encounter: No Parking Zone

[Wirey]

There's corruption in Canuckistan too !?

Yeah, but I can't figure out how to cash in on it. Yet.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, but I can't figure out how to cash in on it. Yet.

Get a badge, & put flashing lights on top of your truck.
When you stop gals.....
"So miss, you were be'n a 9 in a zone reserved for threes."

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Had an odd yet interesting moment tonight. I went to my favorite Chinese take-out restaurant tonight, and I always park on the side of the building which is not actually a parking zone. Delivery trucks use that spot for unloading stuff, but they usually run before 10am. Anyway...

As I am coming out of the restaurant with my chicken and noodles, some guy walks across the street with his cell phone up as if he is recording. Of course he walks straight at me. Ok.

Here was the conversation:

Dude: "Officer, I have a question. Why makes you think you can just park wherever you want to? That is clearly a no parking zone, yet here you are. If I parked there, you'd give me a ticket. What makes you above the law?"

Me: (inner sigh) You realize I drive a marked police vehicle, and that I respond to emergencies?"

Dude: "Yeah, so..."

Me: "So picture this...your wife is at home and some guy is kicking on the front door. He has a gun and if he gets in, he may rape and/or kill her. She dials 9-1-1. Do you think she wants me parked on the 4th floor of the parking deck across the street, where it would take me 5 minutes just to get to my vehicle and get out of the deck, OR do you think she wants me parked right here where I can jump in and have the fastest response time possible?"

Dude: "Oh...uhm..."

Me: (blank stare)

Dude: "I guess I never thought of it like that. Hey man, I was just...never mind, sorry to bother you."

Me: "Merry Christmas to you!"

He walks off.

I'm a white, clean cut, articulate male. At whatever point in my life, my interactions with cops have gone, "yes sir," "sorry sir," "ok, sir."

The point being that I assume that anyone who has the legal authority to exercise deadly force may do so, regardless of whether it's warranted or not. I assume that I may be dealing with a nutjob, and that cops are probably primed to expect confrontation and disrespect, and may assume that somebody is belligerent at the slightest sign.

Now, I'm all for knowing and exercising your rights, but if you feel they're being abused in the moment, deal with it after the fact. Because if an officer of the law doesn't know, or doesn't care, in the moment, then their response is unpredictable and unchangeable.

That being said, anyone who creates a confrontation with a cop in an in-the-moment situation, unprovoked, just seems completely unpragmatic to the point that whatever happens is somewhat their fault. Whatever your color, age, or situation, assume that a cop could shoot you with the slightest provocation, and you'll get out of it unharmed. If you have a valid complaint, deal with it after that.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Kind of reminds me of that episode of Andy Griffith with Gomer and Barney.

Citizens Arrest:

 

[LuisDantas]

You would have a faster response time if you packed a lunch and ate in your car, THEN you wouldn't need to rationalize breaking the law. Problem solved.

Do you mean you had no other option available to buy food, and still remain close enough to your car, besides breaking the law ?

So then you weren't actually parked in the no parking zone to be ready in case of emergency; you were parked in the no parking zone to get a lunch you liked better.

I am not sure what the actual legal status of the space described in the OP is, nor whether there is a formal exception for law enforcement on duty.

The situation may be technically unlawful, completely lawful, or anywhere in between. That is a minor, almost inconsequential detail.

The core matter is instead how justified it is to have parking privileges for law enforcement officers while they are on patrol or on call.

It is certainly a privilege, but it seems to me to be justified by the rationale presented in the OP itself. To put it in another way, it is the flip side of the exceptional expectations that come with law enforcement duty.

A common citizen is not supposed to park in a no parking space, true. But neither is he expected to feel the duty to leave for potentially hazardous duty with the fastest achievable response time. It is only fair to at least attempt to balance the later with the former - all the more so because there is a clear detriment to the wider society, and not only to the officer himself.

Sure, we could favor a policy of true equal rights. We could even expect or even demand officers on duty to always favor the fastest way of having a meal, even if it is not very confortable or very convenient for them on a strictly personal basis.

But that, too, would have a flip side, and it is not immediately clear that it is an overall better policy. On the one hand, that would presumably lead to even better average response times while on duty. However, that would also mean denying the officers perhaps badly needed opportunity for casual contact with the citizens during their duties, as well as imposing on them some degree of personal inconvenience that can't be good for their morale.

Presumably, the officers are on radio call of some kind and can be contacted in seconds and leave the restaurant immediately if there is a perceived need, so it seems to me to be a fairly light concession to their confort, even before factoring in the social contact factor. I for one would not particularly like law enforcement to actively avoid sitting at a table while on duty. There is a subtle yet very real benefit for having them go through somewhat similar experiences to those of the people they have a duty to.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not sure what the actual legal status of the space described in the OP is, nor whether there is a formal exception for law enforcement on duty.

This varies from city to city. Some give no exception unless actually responding to a call, some allow a blanket exception, some require police to comply "as practical", etc.

The situation may be technically unlawful, completely lawful, or anywhere in between. That is a minor, almost inconsequential detail.

The core matter is instead how justified it is to have parking privileges for law enforcement officers while they are on patrol or on call.

It is certainly a privilege, but it seems to me to be justified by the rationale presented in the OP itself. To put it in another way, it is the flip side of the exceptional expectations that come with law enforcement duty.

A common citizen is not supposed to park in a no parking space, true. But neither is he expected to feel the duty to leave for potentially hazardous duty with the fastest achievable response time. It is only fair to at least attempt to balance the later with the former - all the more so because there is a clear detriment to the wider society, and not only to the officer himself.

Sure, we could favor a policy of true equal rights. We could even expect or even demand officers on duty to always favor the fastest way of having a meal, even if it is not very confortable or very convenient for them on a strictly personal basis.

But that, too, would have a flip side, and it is not immediately clear that it is an overall better policy. On the one hand, that would presumably lead to even better average response times while on duty. However, that would also mean denying the officers perhaps badly needed opportunity for casual contact with the citizens during their duties, as well as imposing on them some degree of personal inconvenience that can't be good for their morale.

Presumably, the officers are on radio call of some kind and can be contacted in seconds and leave the restaurant immediately if there is a perceived need, so it seems to me to be a fairly light concession to their confort, even before factoring in the social contact factor. I for one would not particularly like law enforcement to actively avoid sitting at a table while on duty. There is a subtle yet very real benefit for having them go through somewhat similar experiences to those of the people they have a duty to.

OTOH: when police are seen as flaunting the rules they're supposed to enforce, this erodes trust in the police.

And - speaking as someone whose job involves putting no parking zones in place - there's often a good reason behind them. A police car creates just as much as a view obstruction or an obstacle to traffic flow as any other car.

I see what you're saying as justification if the officer has to go to that specific restaurant for some reason... for instance, if he's investigating a complaint at the restaurant. However, when a cop has a range of lunch options to choose from, if he can't go to one particular restaurant without feeling the need to park in a no parking zone, he should go somewhere else for lunch.

When there's a legitimate conflict between an officer's duty and normal rules, sure: let's question whether the rules should apply in that particular case. However, in the situation described in the OP, the conflict was created by and could have been avoided by - the officer.

 

[Neo Deist]

This varies from city to city. Some give no exception unless actually responding to a call, some allow a blanket exception, some require police to comply "as practical", etc.


OTOH: when police are seen as flaunting the rules they're supposed to enforce, this erodes trust in the police.

And - speaking as someone whose job involves putting no parking zones in place - there's often a good reason behind them. A police car creates just as much as a view obstruction or an obstacle to traffic flow as any other car.

I see what you're saying as justification if the officer has to go to that specific restaurant for some reason... for instance, if he's investigating a complaint at the restaurant. However, when a cop has a range of lunch options to choose from, if he can't go to one particular restaurant without feeling the need to park in a no parking zone, he should go somewhere else for lunch.

When there's a legitimate conflict between an officer's duty and normal rules, sure: let's question whether the rules should apply in that particular case. However, in the situation described in the OP, the conflict was created by and could have been avoided by - the officer.

Some people go out of their way to be anti-police and hate everything about them. They will latch on to the most inconsequential, minute detail and blow it way out of proportion. It can't be good for the psyche to be a full time pessimist...those people most likely have mental issues to begin with.

 

[Neo Deist]

Looking back over this thread gives us an interesting view of society. The responses reflect how different people think over something so trivial. For example:

1. Some people agree that cops are justified in doing things like parking where I did, because of the necessity for a faster response time if an emergency call goes out. This seems reasonable to most people, especially if they were the one that dialed 9-1-1.

2. Others chastise cops for parking in those areas, and would instead tell us to eat somewhere else, or park in a legal area even though it slows our response time down, which in turn can get people killed. In other words, to hell with the citizens that need you asap, you need to park appropriately.

3. There are those that are indifferent and couldn't care less either way. They have more important things to worry about.



Most people fall into category #1 or #3.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some people go out of their way to be anti-police and hate everything about them.

I'm not anti-police. I deal with many officers I know and respect in my job and volunteer work. I have friends and family who are cops. I appreciate and respect all of them.

It takes a lot for me to disrespect a police officer. You managed to do it (if you are actually a cop - I have no way to tell for sure).

... of course, it didn't help that you killed any respect I once had for you long before I ever saw you mention being a cop.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Looking back over this thread gives us an interesting view of society. The responses reflect how different people think over something so trivial. For example:

1. Some people agree that cops are justified in doing things like parking where I did, because of the necessity for a faster response time if an emergency call goes out. This seems reasonable to most people, especially if they were the one that dialed 9-1-1.

2. Others chastise cops for parking in those areas, and would instead tell us to eat somewhere else, or park in a legal area even though it slows our response time down, which in turn can get people killed. In other words, to hell with the citizens that need you asap, you need to park appropriately.

3. There are those that are indifferent and couldn't care less either way. They have more important things to worry about.



Most people fall into category #1 or #3.

Please explain how parking legally somewhere that has convenient legal parking kills people.

 

[Neo Deist]

I'm not anti-police. I deal with many officers I know and respect in my job and volunteer work. I have friends and family who are cops. I appreciate and respect all of them.

It takes a lot for me to disrespect a police officer. You managed to do it (if you are actually a cop - I have no way to tell for sure).

... of course, it didn't help that you killed any respect I once had for you long before I ever saw you mention being a cop.

Yes, you have a chip on your shoulder over me. As a moderator, you do nothing but post negative stuff on several of my threads. I dare say you have a vendetta.

 

[Neo Deist]

Please explain how parking legally somewhere that has convenient legal parking kills people.

Figure it out based on the info in the OP.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Figure it out based on the info in the OP.

Your town has only one restaurant?

 

[Neo Deist]

Your town has only one restaurant?

Dig a little deeper. The info is out there. Come on, you can do it!

Then again, you are Canadian...

 

[Revoltingest]

Dig a little deeper. The info is out there. Come on, you can do it!

Then again, you are Canadian...

I once drove thru Canuckistan.
Unless one makes it to Torontobad, the towns all have poor fare.
Example....
In one town, I asked which is the best restaurant.....
"Well, the Amaco station has poutine, but the Sunoco has a microwave, eh."

 

[Koldo]

I am not sure what the actual legal status of the space described in the OP is, nor whether there is a formal exception for law enforcement on duty.

The situation may be technically unlawful, completely lawful, or anywhere in between. That is a minor, almost inconsequential detail.

The core matter is instead how justified it is to have parking privileges for law enforcement officers while they are on patrol or on call.

It is certainly a privilege, but it seems to me to be justified by the rationale presented in the OP itself. To put it in another way, it is the flip side of the exceptional expectations that come with law enforcement duty.

A common citizen is not supposed to park in a no parking space, true. But neither is he expected to feel the duty to leave for potentially hazardous duty with the fastest achievable response time. It is only fair to at least attempt to balance the later with the former - all the more so because there is a clear detriment to the wider society, and not only to the officer himself.

Sure, we could favor a policy of true equal rights. We could even expect or even demand officers on duty to always favor the fastest way of having a meal, even if it is not very confortable or very convenient for them on a strictly personal basis.

But that, too, would have a flip side, and it is not immediately clear that it is an overall better policy. On the one hand, that would presumably lead to even better average response times while on duty. However, that would also mean denying the officers perhaps badly needed opportunity for casual contact with the citizens during their duties, as well as imposing on them some degree of personal inconvenience that can't be good for their morale.

Presumably, the officers are on radio call of some kind and can be contacted in seconds and leave the restaurant immediately if there is a perceived need, so it seems to me to be a fairly light concession to their confort, even before factoring in the social contact factor. I for one would not particularly like law enforcement to actively avoid sitting at a table while on duty. There is a subtle yet very real benefit for having them go through somewhat similar experiences to those of the people they have a duty to.

And yet you propose that they don't. Because that's what a special benefit entails. It creates people out of touch with reality.
It would be understandable if the cop in question couldn't buy his food anywhere else. But that's the only situation...

 

[columbus]

And yet you propose that they don't. Because that's what a special benefit entails. It creates people out of touch with reality.
It would be understandable if the cop in question couldn't buy his food anywhere else. But that's the only situation...

Well, to me, this is where the rub comes in. Had the car been a Toyota with a couple of black girls in it, would the concerned citizen have felt a need for video evidence of the crime?
I doubt it.
Tom

 

[Koldo]

Well, to me, this is where the rub comes in. Had the car been a Toyota with a couple of black girls in it, would the concerned citizen have felt a need for video evidence of the crime?
I doubt it.
Tom

What do you mean ?
That the concerned citizen shouldn't have felt safe enough to record a police officer ?
Or that calling the police wouldn't have helped against a cop ?

 

[columbus]

What do you mean ?
That the concerned citizen shouldn't have felt safe enough to record a police officer ?
Or that calling the police wouldn't have helped against a cop ?

I didn't mean either of those things.
I meant that the video wouldn't have been bothered with if the driver who parked illegally for 5 minutes weren't a cop. Because nobody would have cared and so #BLM guy wouldn't have had a popular video.
This is why I think #BLM is such a detriment to society. They're big on tiny little problems and ignore the real problems, because reality doesn't work for their narrative.
Tom

 

[Koldo]

I didn't mean either of those things.
I meant that the video wouldn't have been bothered with if the driver who parked illegally for 5 minutes weren't a cop. Because nobody would have cared and so #BLM guy wouldn't have had a popular video.
This is why I think #BLM is such a detriment to society. They're big on tiny little problems and ignore the real problems, because reality doesn't work for their narrative.
Tom

It is simply a different beast when someone that is supposed to enforce the law decides to break it.
Still, I don't get the BLM reference. I don't see why you assume that to be the case. Was there a mention about it in the case that I might have missed ?