*petty

^It may seem petty, but we're supposed to believe that NO man is above the law.

The same goes for teabaggers who refuse to pay their taxes, blankfist.

If he's on duty and he's supposed to stay in a visible place because businesses have been robbed or because it has been requested by the public. Him being in traffic making loops around the neighborhood constantly or being parked at the back of a parking lot with the rest of the vehicles is not performing his job.

Dude filming this video has some kind of axe to grind, and in all likelihood it stems from some illegal activity he has been caught participating in so he feels like he's "sticking it to the man" with this mountain out of a mole hill stuff. In my mind this kind of stuff is stoner logic, because I see it most in potheads that can't get their weed fix without getting caught or have been caught enough that one more will get them in serious shit.

Next we'll be pissed when firefighters park in the no parking zones to put out fires, LOOK OUT.

It's not like he's sitting there eating his lunch or parking to go into the drug-store or something. He's sitting there observing the neighborhood. He's performing his job. Cops also use their cars to block off streets, it's not a double standard.

I don't like it when I see cops use their lights to get through a traffic light or speed by me without their lights on but this isn't even petty, it's totally unrealistic. Again, if he was parking in an illegal spot to go pick up some donuts I would think he was in the wrong but this doesn't even make sense.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

^It may seem petty, but we're supposed to believe that NO man is above the law.
The same goes for teabaggers who refuse to pay their taxes, blankfist.

Glad we can all fit into such tidy nomenclatures.

These people just seem to be getting less intelligent the more videos like this I see.

Again, as stated, he's sitting there in his patrol car doing something It could be radar, he could be watching something, possibly a stakeout. He's not sitting there eating a sandwich and having a nap.

No, you're not allowed to dress your car up with lights and emergency 911 on the side and park there.
While wearing his badge and doing his job, he's allowed to park there. Notice how he's not there as a civilian and saying "I'm exempt because I'm a cop"?

This guy just needs to stop being so thick on stupid issues.

The officers must be held accountable to the law. If a regular person cannot do it, then they should not be able to do it either. It matters not what hat they put on.

It's the little things that count. Give them an inch and they will take a yard. How can you expect them to uphold the law, if they don't obey a law like that? If he cannot do his duty without breaking the law then, he cannot do his duty legally.

Double, fucking, standard.

That's total bullshit. Cops are allowed to do things during the course of their job that the average citizen is not.

Try pulling someone over with your car today. Really yell at them and honk your horn like crazy and see if they pull over. Then, when they don't, perform a nice PIT maneuver with your car. After all, cops are allowed to do it right? So shouldn't you?

Or how about this: Try carrying around a loaded, fully-automatic assault rifle. If anyone screws with you, tell them that SWAT team members are allowed to carry them, so you should be allowed to as well. Sound like crazy talk? It is.

How is this for a double-standard: if a cop sees someone committing a crime, they are required by law to stop it. Whereas you, a normal citizen, is not required by law to do anything. Is that unfair? Or is that because stopping criminals is part of a cop's job description?

Cops are allowed to do things that normal citizens are not. They can put up barricades. They can direct traffic. They can use "police only" radio channels.

It seems to me like this is equivalent to walking into a hospital and saying, "I'd like to perform some brain surgery, and if you don't let me, you're holding me and the actual brain surgeon up to different standards!" But they're not holding you up to different standards at all. Almost anyone can go to school to become a brain surgeon. But the school part is a requirement to actually practicing the work.

In the same way, almost anyone can go to a police academy or other training school and become a cop. So it's not a double-standard, it's two separate roles that individuals play in a society. Roles that are established by that same society. It's not that complicated.

Again, if the cop was using an illegal space to park in while he went and got a tic-tac or something, I could see the argument. But this isn't even an argument. It's crazy talk.

Yeah, I'm with the folks calling it petty. The cops ARE allowed to do certain things that normal citizens are not as part of their jobs. This guy so clearly has an axe to grind that he just comes across as a douche. Frankly this video does not help his cause at all, which is a pity because there are FAR better examples of cops ACTUALLY doing something they shouldn't. Gonna have to call it a "push" on this one, no up/down vote.

This guy's a douche.

Fascinating. Thanks blank. Inspired my sifting this:

http://videosift.com/video/Giorgio-Agamben-State-of-Exception

I thought this might be for the place near where I live. Portsmouth, England. In regular Hampshire, not new Hampshire T__T.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

That's total bullshit. Cops are allowed to do things during the course of their job that the average citizen is not.
Try pulling someone over with your car today. Really yell at them and honk your horn like crazy and see if they pull over. Then, when they don't, perform a nice PIT maneuver with your car. After all, cops are allowed to do it right? So shouldn't you?
Or how about this: Try carrying around a loaded, fully-automatic assault rifle. If anyone screws with you, tell them that SWAT team members are allowed to carry them, so you should be allowed to as well. Sound like crazy talk? It is.
How is this for a double-standard: if a cop sees someone committing a crime, they are required by law to stop it. Whereas you, a normal citizen, is not required by law to do anything. Is that unfair? Or is that because stopping criminals is part of a cop's job description?
Cops are allowed to do things that normal citizens are not. They can put up barricades. They can direct traffic. They can use "police only" radio channels.
It seems to me like this is equivalent to walking into a hospital and saying, "I'd like to perform some brain surgery, and if you don't let me, you're holding me and the actual brain surgeon up to different standards!" But they're not holding you up to different standards at all. Almost anyone can go to school to become a brain surgeon. But the school part is a requirement to actually practicing the work.
In the same way, almost anyone can go to a police academy or other training school and become a cop. So it's not a double-standard, it's two separate roles that individuals play in a society. Roles that are established by that same society. It's not that complicated.
Again, if the cop was using an illegal space to park in while he went and got a tic-tac or something, I could see the argument. But this isn't even an argument. It's crazy talk.


Cops are allowed to do break the law only in the case of an emergency.

A citizen is not afforded the lawful power to stop someone from moving freely on the street, or in the commission of a misdemeanor, or felony.

When was the last time you saw Special Weapons and Tactics carrying around fully automatic weapons on a beat, or a QRT for that matter? No, they cannot just walk around with their fully automatic weapons while patrolling. That argument is bogus. Force proportion. A peace officer does not need an M-4 to perform a traffic stop.

Cops are allowed the erect barricades only in case of emergency. Traffic redirection is case of emergency or special occasion, funerals and the like. In some cases officers have the legal authority to setup checkpoints for license and registration checks. That's been argued that they cannot do that because it hinders freedom of movement, and the police didn't have a legal reason to stop. Other than to check if someone committed an offense.

You will find that police only radio channels are often encrypted, because the public can listen to them, and hijack them. Which is illegal and those laws are enforced by the FCC.

Your argument above has many sections I would say are crazy talk. The video producer's argument is simply stating if a officer who is at rest and is illegally parked he or she is violating the same law he or she is sworn to uphold. There is a reason that area is illegal to park in; fire hydrants, bus-stops, bicycle path, or whatever reason the municipality decided citizens can't park there. What is the officer doing? The exact same thing a citizen would be doing, except he has a different hat on.

This has been argued over and over. The only time an officer can lawfully break the law is in case of emergency. It's the same case when an officer is speeding without his or her lights and sirens active. The only time anything ever gets done to stop unlawful activity is when someone raises the red flags, otherwise it will continue.

Whether the producer's a douche or not is beside the base argument of this video.

Wow, great deconstruction there. I especially like the part where you say that listening to police radio channels is illegal for citizens, blowing whatever argument you had up in your face.

Unless of course you think that cops are breaking the law by listening because citizens can't?

C'mon, let's hear it...?

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Wow, great deconstruction there. I especially like the part where you say that listening to police radio channels is illegal for citizens, blowing whatever argument you had up in your face.
Unless of course you think that cops are breaking the law by listening because citizens can't?
C'mon, let's hear it...?


Let's take a closer look.

You will find that police only radio channels are often encrypted, because the *public* can listen to them, and *hijack* them. Which is illegal and those laws are enforced by the FCC.

The key words there are the public, which could mean anyone listening. Listening is not the illegal act. Hijacking them is, which is covered by the FCC.

Come on, trololololololol harder.

Right exactly.

When the public decodes the signal, it's "highjacking", but when the cops decode the signal, it's called "listening".

Just like when a cop is sitting in a red zone in his car it's called "observing". And when a citizen does it, it's called "illegally parking".

I'm not a troll just because I have what I feel is a legitimate point to make.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Right exactly.
When the public decodes the signal, it's "highjacking", but when the cops decode the signal, it's called "listening".
Just like when a cop is sitting in a red zone in his car it's called "observing". And when a citizen does it, it's called "illegally parking".
I can't believe you thought you just won that argument. I'm not a troll just because I have what I feel is a legitimate point to make.


The officer has to have legal authority (Warrant) to decode the secure traffic because of the many number of laws which calls lawful authority to decode encrypted traffic. The 4th ammendment, and the Computer Intrusion acts, wiretapping laws, even postal laws. An officer simply cannot make that decision it warrants a Judge take a look and be sure that the act is lawful.

I assumed you were trolling, based on this comment "C'mon, let's hear it...?".

I can't believe you actually think that an officer of the law has the legal right to decode anyone's encrypted traffic without sufficient evidence of wrong doing.

I didn't say "anyone's" encrypted traffic. You said that they could listen to their own encrypted traffic and citizens can't.

OK, that was a little trollish of me

>> ^Ryjkyj:

I didn't say "anyone's" encrypted traffic. You said that they could listen to their own encrypted traffic and citizens can't.
OK, that was a little trollish of me


A citizen can do just the same, encrypt their radio traffic too. You must be inferring that I said citizens have a right to listen to encrypted police traffic, and that is governed by a completely different set of laws. Only courts can authorize that kind of action.

In any case, wiretapping laws are generally much more severe than traffic laws. Equating the two in argument is a bit obtuse; because one is criminal and the other is generally civil (Referring to felonious speeding and reckless driving).

There are good arguments here, and people should be aware of both sides. Often times these arguments are better suited for civil court cases simply because people cannot make policy changing decisions (case law). If the producer of the video has a serious case with the police violating the law he need only take it up with a lawyer, and seek a civil suit against the Department.

My only point was that it's one more thing cops can do that citizens can't do. Which to me seems pretty normal.

I can find a lot of good reason's on-line for cops illegally parking, i.e.: they can get back to their car quickly which improves emergency response times, they can get better views and make their presence known, they free up legal parking spaces for other citizens...

but try as I might, I can't find any actual documents pertaining to the legality of an on-duty cops sitting in his car in an illegal space.

OK, So the law here is "No Cell Phones While you are driving"
It's a newer law that's gone into effect and it is heavily advertised.

A few weeks ago, I am first at an intersection getting ready to make a left hand turn.
Across from me, on the other side of the intersection is a police car waiting to do the same thing, only in the opposite direction from me. We are face to face.

He is talking on a cell phone, taking and laughing. Not his police radio, just a cell phone. He could have turned anytime and missed several chances but he was too busy talking on his phone with a lineup of cars behind him.

To me, a clear violation of the law and a public hazard.

I asked a friend of mine who is in law enforcement what the rules are. he says they are flat out exempt from the law and can use a cell phone any time they want, even if it's a personal cell phone and even if it's a personal call.

So basically, they are above the law.
"Who's policing the police?"

Also...,
I know tons of people who own police scanners - you can buy them anywhere. They can be set to scan for any chatter at all or just emergency frequencies. The people I know have them on in the evening partially for entertainment value and partly so they know what's going on as far as crime in their area - the police channels are never scrambled, an we've spent hours listening to them while we play cards or what ever...

The laws may be different in different areas - but I don't believe for a minute it's illegal here.

OK people enough of the radio crap. Whether or not it's legal for a cop to park in a no parking spot will depend on the jurisdiction you are in. I live in British Columbia, Canada and the appropriate sections of the Motor Vehicle Act of BC are shown below. To summarize, a vehicle is an emergency vehicle if it is operated by a police officer in the performance of his duties (it doesn't have to be an emergency situation) and an emergency vehicle is exempt from most provisions of the act provided it is operated safely and with regard to the nature of the use of the vehicle at the time.

To sum up with examples; parking in a no parking spot while having lunch in a donut shop - not permitted; parking safely on the side of the road in a no parking spot while observing the ebb and flow of traffic and ever ready at any time to pursue blankfist, I mean violators - specifically permitted.

While I'm as much against cops taking liberties or gaining advantages the rest of us do not enjoy, to think that a situation like the one in this video is the first step on some slippery slope is just a tad paranoid.

And the guy in the video is a douche




"emergency vehicle" means any of the following:

...
(c) a motor vehicle, or cycle as defined in Part 3, driven by a peace officer, constable or member of the police branch of Her Majesty's Armed Forces in the discharge of his or her duty;

Exemption for emergency vehicles

122 (1) Despite anything in this Part, but subject to subsections (2) and (4), a driver of an emergency vehicle may do the following:

(a) exceed the speed limit;
(b) proceed past a red traffic control signal or stop sign without stopping;
(c) disregard rules and traffic control devices governing direction of movement or turning in specified directions;
(d) stop or stand.

(2) The driver of an emergency vehicle must not exercise the privileges granted by subsection (1) except in accordance with the regulations.

(3) [Repealed 1997-30-2.]

(4) The driver of an emergency vehicle exercising a privilege granted by subsection (1) must drive with due regard for safety, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the following:
(a) the nature, condition and use of the highway;
(b) the amount of traffic that is on, or might reasonably be expected to be on, the highway;
(c) the nature of the use being made of the emergency vehicle at the time.

Yeah Sage, I signed up to a cop forum to ask about this. The general idea was, none of the cops had any idea what the law was regarding parking in an illegal spot. But they all do it.

True story... These asshole suburb cops used to have a few favorite "parking" spots which allowed for speeding tickets and "visibility". Problem is they used to back on to a handicap ramp and park on the big sidewalk area.

One day I was bored an literally reading the state laws cause it was in a big binder and it was that or trying to look busy. Anyways, I jokingly photocopied the sections of the law about driving/parking on sidewalks and the mayor ended up faxing them to the chief of police.

Another video lacking prior context. If he had just pulled someone over and was forced to park there, that is one thing, but I see cops park in non-parking spots all the time for no apparent reason. Like NR was saying, we can make exceptions to parking laws for both cops and ourselves in case of an emergency (like speeding to the hospital when your wife is in labor, got pulled over, then escorted). But in this case, it might be one of those many cases where he did it because he could.

Once again though, it lacks prior context, and this guy was a complete ass about it. What he SHOULD of done, is silently filmed, made a complaint and submitted the video evidence. Complaints usually end up on the cops record even if they are found to be clear of charges, and those start to add up and can look bad for an officer. There is a difference between being proactive with your cause, and destructive.

>> ^Sagemind:

Also...,
I know tons of people who own police scanners - you can buy them anywhere. They can be set to scan for any chatter at all or just emergency frequencies. The people I know have them on in the evening partially for entertainment value and partly so they know what's going on as far as crime in their area - the police channels are never scrambled, an we've spent hours listening to them while we play cards or what ever...
The laws may be different in different areas - but I don't believe for a minute it's illegal here.


It's not illegal to listen to the airwaves. It's illegal to decode encrypted communications. I don't know if you were inferring an opinion, but I never said it was illegal to listen to airwaves.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
The officers must be held accountable to the law. If a regular person cannot do it, then they should not be able to do it either. It matters not what hat they put on.
It's the little things that count. Give them an inch and they will take a yard. How can you expect them to uphold the law, if they don't obey a law like that? If he cannot do his duty without breaking the law then, he cannot do his duty legally.
Double, fucking, standard.




If there is an exception to the law for law enforcement, then it is legal... However, if there is not one, then it is not (I am going to guess there is an exception though...) Every person has exceptions in life and that is fine. It is called a perk by some, however, that is not a true description...

Just like how cops won't generally ticket other cops... Now, however, drink and drive in my county? Immediate termination for police (I see it nearly every month in the paper; they hold the cops to the fire in that regard.) But is that true for citizens who are not cops? No, because with perks comes the foot-in-butt when screwing up.

I rescind my previous opinion, I was under the impression that it was Department policy, and not municipal laws.

I was wrong.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
I rescind my previous opinion, I was under the impression that it was Department policy, and not municipal laws.
I was wrong.


I upvote that comment.

>> ^joedirt:
True story... These asshole suburb cops used to have a few favorite "parking" spots which allowed for speeding tickets and "visibility". Problem is they used to back on to a handicap ramp and park on the big sidewalk area.
One day I was bored an literally reading the state laws cause it was in a big binder and it was that or trying to look busy. Anyways, I jokingly photocopied the sections of the law about driving/parking on sidewalks and the mayor ended up faxing them to the chief of police.


And I am sure that changed policy? Try holding anyone else accountable like that---and it will fail. Business corporations? They would, in most cases, laugh at your petty laws. Religion? Let's not go there---but they would laugh too (Molestation any one?) How about schools? They would just petition for new laws to their favor...

Your protest enforced something. And only in the field of law enforcement is that able to happen (Cept maybe a few other fields...)

See, that is the great thing about being a citizen as opposed to a cop...

"Are officers exempt from the drug, gun and alcohol laws?"

Yes, they are.

Cops can entered restricted buildings with weapons. They can carry drugs for evidence, or undercover. They can carry open containers of alcohol while driving if it's evidence.