Serve and Protect ("You Can't Park That There")

As I was going thru some old missives of mine, I found the following which
I wrote to the San Francisco Chronicle in 1995. While it's a bit more
disturbing than John's "handicap-parking experience", it might still be
worth reading.

-- peer


Serve and Protect

Late Sunday night (or rather early Monday morning) on my way home from
work, I observed some peculiar conduct by a San Francisco Police officer
at the local Marina Safeway.

While riding into the parking lot, I realized that a police car was parked
in the handicap space. Since the whole parking area was empty, I didn't
think much about it and pulled into a regular parking space in the
vicinity of the police car.

As I stepped off my bike, two girls in their early twenties pulled in and
parked in another handicap spot next to the police car. Shortly after,
the officer came out of the supermarket carrying donuts (no, I'm NOT
kidding) he had just purchased. While seeing the two girls stepping out
of their car, the officer made a comment that they can't park in a
handicap space. They, as well as I, thought immediately that this guy
must be a humorous fellow aware of the irony of the situation, so they
just answered, "Yeah, and the whole parking lot is filled up with cars."
Since there were only three cars there, I thought this was a pretty good
followup to his remark. But sadly enough, the officer turned out to be
one of those who I believe should get a different job which won't allow
any interaction with people whatsoever. The officer was not joking.
Instead he harshly told the girls that if they didn't move their car, he
would write them a citation.

Since I was just standing a few yards away, I could clearly see the
officer's anger. He could also see me observing the whole situation.
That didn't seem to worry him a bit, as he just made a gesture indicating
that I'd better "move on." Well inside Safeway, I briefly talked to the
girls, who were clearly shaken and surprised by the officer's deranged
behavior.

I wonder how the conduct of this officer fits the motto "serve and
protect."

-- Peer Landa


_________________________________________________

 

On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:43:28 +0000 (UTC),

It's short for "Serve them donuts and you'd better protect your rear."

Maybe there is something to the "twinkie defense" after all.
R, UB

 

Hey Peer,

I can see why you are upset. At the same time you are guilty of one of the
most blatant fallacies that denegrates your edu affiliation. So as an
example, you site 1 observation and indict the whole world of law
enforcement. You could also use this same form of reasoning to falsely
charge all Asians as bad drivers and Blacks as high school drop outs.

SFPD has it's problems--no doubt but not all are parking in HC zones
fetching donuts. When you make this assertion you do not differentiate the
problem from the majority who really do a good job. Again the exception
seems to set the rule for performance or credibility. This is such a banal
form of argument it hardly worth addressing except dismissing the
stereotype you project.

Using your reasoning and use of fallacious argument I could make a case
against any race, culture or organization. If you end up face down under a
busted Duc, you will be happy that a guy in uniform has blocked the lane and
set the right speed for medical response. Until that day, and your reference
to policing in Denmark or where ever is bullshit.

Law enforcement personnel have problems. This stems from bad management. I
guess you could also say bad genes. The fact of the matter is not all are
fucked up. When I think of fucked up I think of that poor Duc you ride. As a
previous poster said. You have more money than brains.

 

Law enforcement can and should be held to a higher standard. There's
no defense for parking in the handicap zone in a parking lot regardless
of current capacity to get lunch/snacks. And while we're on this notion,
any Marin CHP officers found driving 1mph over the limit while off duty
should be fired on the spot.

Shit, I'd be happy if they'd just set a better example with turn signals.

 

Law enforcement can and should be held to a higher standard. There's

hah. the other day, I was behind a Santa Clara Sheriffs paddy-van, which
had a orange suited prisoner in the barred back, who was maintaining a
steady 80-85MPH on US101 south for miles. and, no, he wasn't 'lit' up, it
apparently was just a routine prisoner transport.

 

This point that keeps haunting me:

EVERYONE, including LEO's, complains that law enforcement
in this country is rife with problems.

From the by-standers witnessing abuse of power, to victims of police
brutality, to cops who are being eaten alive by stress (coming from
interactions with the public, their peers and management) -- they all
indicate that something has to be done. [BTW: if you would like to see
some evidence of police stress - read the quoted passage above]

And yet, whenever I suggest it is time for police reform, people seem to
think I'm nuts - instead suggesting that throwing more money around will
solve everything. Well, I've spouted enough about this.

 

Yo Peer,

I will be happy to have coffee with you. I will also own up to my errors in
front of this NG if I misunderstood your intent. There is something x-LEO's
don't lose. Wherever we meet, I will recognize you by your eyebrows.

Yes, I am defensive because I have worked with SFPD and many other agencies
who have great and dedicated people. On the otherhand, I have witnessed
unnecessary beatings, bullshit reports and a system of leadership that bit
the FBI on the butt. Louis Freeh exists in LE everywhere and they make sure
no one rocks the LE boat until towers fall. That is how the beaucracy moves
on. You promote people who NEVER rock the boat and never stepped out of
their church and interacted with the real world.

The FBI is a classic study in total LE failure based on ignorant and
parochial principles of; promote those who are weaker and won't **** with
your sand box. I left LE on my own accord, but they were glad to see me go!!

I was to compassionate, aggressive and questioned the leaders. Like others I
know, we bailed because we could not take the inanity of the institution.

 

On-duty cops are free to ignore ordinary traffic and parking rules in
pursuit of their duties, and to direct private citizens to ignore
traffic lights and stop signs when the needs of law enforcement
require it.

My mother recently acquired a handicapped placard, and as I was
visiting her and driving around with her for the last week, I
certainly got to enjoy the privilege which that plate conferred. But
if we had to hunt a bit harder or wait a bit longer so that an on-duty
police officer could get in and out of a place that they needed to be,
that doesn't strike me as an unreasonable failure to provide
accommodation.

R, UB

 

I have to differ with you. NO ONE is allowed to break the law even police
going red lights and siren. No court would ever back a cop who blows a red
light exceeding the speed limit. The officer must obey the law UNTIL
reasonably safe to enter an intersection. It freaks me out when I see cops
passing on the right fully lit up. If a driver yields to the right--and hits
a police unit--BINGO, the cop is at fault. Police must adhere to a policy of
safety. Red lights and siren does NOT give carte blanche. In pursuits, the
courts have been quite lenient, but that is changing. Chasing a DB with
expired registration is now subject to watch commander's judgment in many
agencies.

BTW, the new photo systems being installed in the bay area are going to reek
havoc with red light violators and speeders. The equipment is so good they
can ID the driver and passenger. If there is doubt they throw it out. They
get your picture, your license plate then send you the tag via mail. Very
little effort except of looking at photos and using the mail. The
municipalities get 281.00 minimum per cite--less the 25 or so percent the
state gets per tag. The payback period should be relatively short for the
equipment purchase. In no time it will be cash flow in the black!!

Motorcyclists for obvious reasons have an advantage--unless you are wearing
one of the non-DOT pudding bowls.

 

It freaks me out when I see cops

Why?

It makes sense, but I am repeatedly hearing that passing on the right is not
illegal.

MH

 

I don't remember the section, but I think passing on the right in a
residential area was okay.

--
Mike

Do what you want, do it until you're blind

aol = mjbothe
yahoo = sv650boy

 

I thought that cops could break certain traffic laws under special
cirucmstances... for that matter: you & I can break certain traffic
laws in emergencies <warning: a second hand story approaches>

A friend was on a "ride along" with a cop and they saw someone blast
down the road WAY over the speed limit. The cop did a U-turn, fired up
the lights and sirens - the drive continued driving like a bat out of
hell ... all the way to the Hospital Emergency room. The cop pulled up
behind the car as the guy ran to the passenger door and helped out his
VERY pregnant wife (whose water broke on the way to the Hospital doors).
The guy never even looked at the cop, who paused, turned, got back
into the patrol car and said to my friend "Looks like he has his hands
full."

I used to hate those photo systems, until a Nimitz-class SUV ran a light
well after I had the green and had started into the intersection.
Reducing the tendency to race red lights helps us motorcyclists.

 

I have yet to see a law prohibiting passing on the right. Roadshow said the
same thing and a CHP I asked also(doesn't make it so tho). I think we are
taught that passing on the right is not safe....but it doesn't seem to be
illegal. (Wheres JR when you need him??) The person in the left lane should
be in the right so faster traffic uses the left.

 

indeed, passing on the right IS legal in California.

 

It's clearly less safe, and if an accident occurs as a result, why should
said driver be cited for an unsafe pass? Isn't that one of the tools used
to ticket lanesplitters? Passing on the right and with a great speed
differential is bad, though unfortunately forced by drivers that don't
read the 'slow traffic stay right' signs.

 

I wish it worked better.

and that the systems didn't have a history of manipulation of the yellow
timing intervals.

 

good...

.....they can toss your rights under the law right out the window. And
they can't be bothered with fixing the sensors to detect a motorcycle.
No money in that.

Which is, of course, the only reason for these gizmos. Forget
civil rights and the fact that retiming the yellow lights or delaying
the green lights can alleviate the problem. There's gold in them thar
intersections. Just like our drunk driving laws. No one has done one
damn thing to reduce drinking, just upped the fines for getting caught
doing it. It's all to generate revenue. Anyone who thinks it's not
is a fool.

http://freedom.house.gov/auto/orwellatm.asp

nb

 

Let me clarify my statement. When a police vehicle is all lit up, the
message to ALL motorists is to pull over to the right and make way for
emergency vehicle. Now, if the police car is in emergency mode and begins
passing on the right and someone pulls to the right and a collision occurs;
it is the fault of the officer driving the emergency vehicle. You will NEVER
see a CHP do this. If he/she encounters a rolling obstacle and they must go
around, they will douse the lights, pass and get to the left ASAP before
reigniting the lights.

Rare emergencies do take place such as delivering a baby in a car. The
officer encountering such a situation may provide escort--if he/she
determines a life is at risk. Otherwise, the officer will call for medical
support. This has happened to me once. Gun shot wounds are usually what
sends people in a frenzy to the hospital.

The ER then notifies the police, a legal requirement.

 

Many of those circumstances are spelled out in the Vehicle Code.

 

We've gone through the cycle in San Diego (though with our fiscal
problems, it may start again). Courts threw out the percentage deal
for the camera provider on the grounds that it gave them an incentive
to create false positives. After a two year hiatus, the city
negotiated a new deal that doesn't compensate the vendor based on the
number of tickets issued, but is rather a flat rental fee.

You guys might be able to cite that as precedent if the system is set
aggressively.

R, UB