[hnnnnng]

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.

[cheald]

> 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]

Doesn't the notion that [any system less complex than the cosmos] is never wrong violate one of the incompleteness theorems anyway?

[tomjen3]

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).

[vacri]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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=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)

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.

[thwarted]

These are terrible examples. The point of the sirens is to let other people know to be aware when the police find it necessary to break the rules. "timely but not urgent" doesn't make any sense if, because the police decide to drive on the wrong side of the road to avoid traffic so they can get there in a timely fashion, they get into a head-on collision because the other drivers were not expecting it. The sirens are on because the rules are being broken by police, the sirens are not orthogonal to breaking traffic laws.

It's in the best interest of the police and for scoping out the area around where a theft has occurred to not draw attention to themselves, by both NOT turning on sirens on AND by not skirting traffic laws. If they are are intent on not alerting the criminal, then driving normally would help with that. And if they are driving normally, then there is no need for sirens then either.

[AnthonyMouse]

You want a better example? Suppose the officer is covertly following a suspect of a serious crime to see where he goes. Turning on lights and sirens will obviously give the officer away. The suspect is violating various traffic laws as many people often do (speeding, ignoring "no turn on red" etc.) and the officer has to match the violations or lose the suspect.

The point is, zero tolerance is stupid. We need to have an appropriate balance between clear rules and discretion, so that the law actually means something rather than only being whatever the prosecutor says it is, without being so overly rigid that you have people being prosecuted for doing harmless or beneficial things.

The existing law is very, very far away from being overly rigid. Government officials have far too much discretion and get away with far too much. But it is theoretically possible to go too far the other way -- we just haven't, and never have to worry about doing so in practice, because of the politics of the situation. Politics making zero tolerance for police misconduct unachievable in practice doesn't mean it would be a good idea even if we could manage to implement it.

[thwarted]

This is a bad example too, and is pretty much the same example I already refuted. The point here is that there is no such thing as "covertly following" if the police are disobeying traffic laws. They'd have to be close enough to keep track of the suspect, and that means the suspect will see that someone else is "matching their violations". In this case, many police departments will not pursue because a chase endangers too many lives (I don't have a reference handy for this, but I believe I read about here on HN some months back).

Yes, zero tolerance is stupid, and this remains a bad example.

[vacri]

Are you aware that there are often long stretches of road which, if you follow the traffic rules completely, take you quite a ways out of your way before you can double back? Similarly, using sirens late at night in urban areas for non-emergency events is not pleasant for residents.

[quinnchr]

Are you suggesting convenience is more important than the safety of everyone else on the road?

Please don't forget the fact that you have the privilege of being encased in a few tons of steel with multiple safety systems. When doing your moral calculus and weighing how many lives are worth risking to save time, please remember there are other people on the road who don't have that privilege. Cyclists have to be constantly aware of cars breaking traffic laws if they want to stay alive, and they are not as visible as you would like to imagine.

If there is a non-zero chance of causing an accident and harming someone by breaking traffic laws, and the only benefit is saving time or not annoying residents, how do you justify that?

[3825]

Sometimes they just turn their lights on especially in small towns at night