5 ms·

If cops have to break the law to save someone then the law is at fault. But I cannot, for the life of me, think of any such scenario. As for exposing corruption

by hnnnnng 13y ago

If cops have to break the law to save someone then the law is at fault. But I cannot, for the life of me, think of any such scenario. As for exposing corruption or being a whistleblower, there are many who want to modify laws to make it easier(Infact, Obama's stance on it during his elections is a prominent example.), but by definition, whistleblowers are fighting against the more powerful and/or the rich which has made it a losing battle.

vacri 13y ago
If cops have to break the law to save someone then the law is at fault. This may be, but it still means that they broke the law, and would still be affected by zero tolerance. Just because the law is an arse doesn't mean the law has no teeth. As for an example of breaking the law in the course of duty, in a lot of places police are required to have lights and sirens before they break traffic rules - no sirens means no breaking traffic rules. There are times when police serve better by doing just this.
- quinnchr 13y ago
  What situation would warrant breaking traffic laws without using light and sirens? It seems almost a tautology that doing so is a danger to everyone else on the road...
  - vacri 13y ago
    It's not remotely a tautology, because you're assuming that any breaking of a traffic rule is dangerous when that just isn't true. Ever seen a 'no u-turns' section in the dead of night with no cars in sight? There's plenty of times and places where traffic rules can be safely broken, and there are times when police have to respond in a timely but not urgent manner. For example, frequently with theft, they'll take a while to get to the location where it was reported - this is because the one place the criminal is not at is the site of the theft. So they drive around the location for a bit, sirens off so as not to alert the criminal, and see if they find anything suspicious. Then they can come in to do the report after the scout around. If you honestly cannot think of a situation where police need to respond without using sirens or breaking traffic rules, then I would suggest you're not close enough to understanding what the job entails to be passing comment on their procedures.
    - quinnchr 13y ago
      Yes I have seen people make u-turns in the dead of night when "no one" was around, and they proceeded to hit me while I was riding my bike. No one has 100% perfect situational awareness which is why traffic laws exist in the first place. Are you arguing that breaking traffic laws does not increase the likelihood of an accident, because every statistic on the matter disagrees with you there. And I don't see why an officer has to break traffic laws when patrolling for a burglar. Seems like breaking traffic laws would alert the criminal as much as running sirens.
      - vacri 13y ago
        "every statistic"? The Earth is 12,700 km in diameter. I'm not sure how that statistic disagrees with me. What statistics did you mean? Quote some relevant statistics, because just making an empty appeal to some vague authority - that you assure me is on your side - is a terrible way to argue. Seems like breaking traffic laws would alert the criminal as much as running sirens. Can you hear someone doing a u-turn like you can with sirens? Can you tell that its the police doing so? The whole point of sirens is to attract attention. They are specifically designed to pull your attention.
        quinnchr 13y ago
        The earth being 12,700km in diameter isn't a statistic, it's an observable, measurable, and testable fact. As for relevant statistics, since you mentioned u-turns: http://books.google.com/books?id=hct23LM0Y68C&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=number+of+accidents+from+u+turns&source=bl&ots=m3JPTKFeT8&sig=BycwGDJgJBERQOSm_-AMvQhdlu0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AX_zUejCHYLW8gTYhICADQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=number%20of%20accidents%20from%20u%20turns&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=hct23LM0Y68C&pg=PA65&lpg=PA... There you have it u-turns cause accidents, which I would think is fairly obvious... Also, that's some amazingly judicious quoting you did there. You'll note I said "every statistic on the matter." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not a native english speaker, so for future reference this is how antecedents work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antecedent_(grammar) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antecedent_(grammar) Also, believe or not, criminals (like most humans) are blessed with more senses than just hearing, it is quite possible to notice illegal traffic maneuvers with your eyes.
cheald 13y ago
> If cops have to break the law to save someone then the law is at fault. Yes, this is precisely the point. Zero-tolerance assumes that the law cannot be at fault, when we know full well that it can be. Ergo, until the law is perfect and unerring, zero tolerance is flawed.
- spiritplumber 13y ago
  Doesn't the notion that [any system less complex than the cosmos] is never wrong violate one of the incompleteness theorems anyway?
  - tomjen3 13y ago
    No, it just means that there are things that are true but cannot be proven given the axioms of the system if the system is powerful enough to express Peano arithmetic. It has very little to do with laws, as they don't really prove anything (that is for the jury/judge to do).

by hnnnnng 13y ago

vacri 13y ago

If cops have to break the law to save someone then the law is at fault. This may be, but it still means that they broke the law, and would still be affected by zero tolerance. Just because the law is an arse doesn't mean the law has no teeth. As for an example of breaking the law in the course of duty, in a lot of places police are required to have lights and sirens before they break traffic rules - no sirens means no breaking traffic rules. There are times when police serve better by doing just this.

quinnchr 13y ago
What situation would warrant breaking traffic laws without using light and sirens? It seems almost a tautology that doing so is a danger to everyone else on the road...
- vacri 13y ago
  It's not remotely a tautology, because you're assuming that any breaking of a traffic rule is dangerous when that just isn't true. Ever seen a 'no u-turns' section in the dead of night with no cars in sight? There's plenty of times and places where traffic rules can be safely broken, and there are times when police have to respond in a timely but not urgent manner. For example, frequently with theft, they'll take a while to get to the location where it was reported - this is because the one place the criminal is not at is the site of the theft. So they drive around the location for a bit, sirens off so as not to alert the criminal, and see if they find anything suspicious. Then they can come in to do the report after the scout around. If you honestly cannot think of a situation where police need to respond without using sirens or breaking traffic rules, then I would suggest you're not close enough to understanding what the job entails to be passing comment on their procedures.
  - quinnchr 13y ago
    Yes I have seen people make u-turns in the dead of night when "no one" was around, and they proceeded to hit me while I was riding my bike. No one has 100% perfect situational awareness which is why traffic laws exist in the first place. Are you arguing that breaking traffic laws does not increase the likelihood of an accident, because every statistic on the matter disagrees with you there. And I don't see why an officer has to break traffic laws when patrolling for a burglar. Seems like breaking traffic laws would alert the criminal as much as running sirens.
    - vacri 13y ago
      "every statistic"? The Earth is 12,700 km in diameter. I'm not sure how that statistic disagrees with me. What statistics did you mean? Quote some relevant statistics, because just making an empty appeal to some vague authority - that you assure me is on your side - is a terrible way to argue. Seems like breaking traffic laws would alert the criminal as much as running sirens. Can you hear someone doing a u-turn like you can with sirens? Can you tell that its the police doing so? The whole point of sirens is to attract attention. They are specifically designed to pull your attention.
      - quinnchr 13y ago
        The earth being 12,700km in diameter isn't a statistic, it's an observable, measurable, and testable fact. As for relevant statistics, since you mentioned u-turns: http://books.google.com/books?id=hct23LM0Y68C&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=number+of+accidents+from+u+turns&source=bl&ots=m3JPTKFeT8&sig=BycwGDJgJBERQOSm_-AMvQhdlu0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AX_zUejCHYLW8gTYhICADQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=number%20of%20accidents%20from%20u%20turns&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=hct23LM0Y68C&pg=PA65&lpg=PA... There you have it u-turns cause accidents, which I would think is fairly obvious... Also, that's some amazingly judicious quoting you did there. You'll note I said "every statistic on the matter." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not a native english speaker, so for future reference this is how antecedents work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antecedent_(grammar) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antecedent_(grammar) Also, believe or not, criminals (like most humans) are blessed with more senses than just hearing, it is quite possible to notice illegal traffic maneuvers with your eyes.

cheald 13y ago

> If cops have to break the law to save someone then the law is at fault. Yes, this is precisely the point. Zero-tolerance assumes that the law cannot be at fault, when we know full well that it can be. Ergo, until the law is perfect and unerring, zero tolerance is flawed.

spiritplumber 13y ago
Doesn't the notion that [any system less complex than the cosmos] is never wrong violate one of the incompleteness theorems anyway?
- tomjen3 13y ago
  No, it just means that there are things that are true but cannot be proven given the axioms of the system if the system is powerful enough to express Peano arithmetic. It has very little to do with laws, as they don't really prove anything (that is for the jury/judge to do).