The rule says, “No vehicles in the park”

Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” by HWR_14 on Saturday June 24, 2023 @08:09AM (#36457995)

There was no reason to assume either the police car or the ambulance was doing their job. There was no mention of a medical emergency, just an EMT driving an ambulance. Police officers may or may not have jurisdiction in the area and there was no evidence the emergency was even a police matter. The EMT driving through the gate to watch the music festival, and the police officer driving through the park during mid-2020 (when the entire world had declared COVID an emergency) would both qualify.

And that doesn't even address the bigger issue that even if they were justified in breaking the rule, they were breaking the rule.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” by SamWhited on Saturday June 24, 2023 @08:13AM (#36458022)

> There was no reason to assume either the police car or the ambulance was doing their job.

The prompts were: "In an emergency, Neil, an EMT, drives his ambulance into the park" and "In an emergency, Laurie, a police officer, drives her police car into the park."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” by HWR_14 on Saturday June 24, 2023 @11:16PM (#36464857)

And all of the second half of 2020 was an emergency. Or there could be a lost kitten.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The rule says, “No vehicles in the park” by scrollaway on Saturday June 24, 2023 @08:21AM (#36458069)

Yes indeed. “In a justifiable emergency, X breaks the rules — does this break the rules?” Is a very clear “yes”. It doesn’t ask whether X should be punished for breaking them.

[ Parent | on HN ]