"In this case, a 'person of ordinary intelligence' would know that the defendant's conduct was prohibited by statute when he willfully chose to speed at 126 mph on a well-traveled, interstate highway while talking on his cell phone as well as receiving and sending e-mails in the moments prior to losing control of his vehicle," the motion stated. [More]Doesn't matter. Because:
"We empower them to do things others are not allowed to do," O'Gara said, pointing out that police officers are allowed to wear a gun on their hip while driving a car -- a felony for anyone else.What part of "Only Ones" don't you inferiors understand?
That's evidently why the government watchdog "Authorized Journalists" removed comments.
[Via MDG]
2 comments:
It is important to get to an accident scene as soon as safely possible, especially if injuries are involved. However, it is incumbent upon the responding officer to get to the scene. It's much better to get there a little late than to never get there.
If an officer wrecks out on the way to the scene because he wasn't giving full attention to his driving not only will he not be in a position to help the people at the original accident, he has added additional problems, injuries, deaths for other first responders to address.
I believe that common law places a greater burden of responsibility upon the officer, or any other first responder, who is either directed by dispatcher or makes a personal choice to make a "code run".
Granted, it's been a long time since I've been required to make a code run but in doing so I was required by law and agency policy to exercise a higher degree of care to avoid causing damage,or injury to innocent pedestrians and motorists than I would had I been driving in a normal manner.
[W-III]
Who is this "we" which is supposedly empowering these goons to do things they forbid the rest of us to do? It certainly doesn't include me.
Post a Comment