Not much sympathy in the comments. Two wrongs don't make a right.
No they don't, but this a more complex situation here. The argument is the case here is that the policing methods weren't credible or sufficiently robust as the issuing officer hadn't observed the event and therefore couldn't make sufficient judgement of it.
Although I think that there would be better cases to pursue against the police, I don't think that this one is entirely without merit. It highlights what amounts to an institutionally systematic unfair and unbalanced application of the law. The argument that, where an issue of personal safety is enshrined in law and supported by infrastructure, it seems unreasonable to penalise someone for perpetuating that level of safety where other illegal activity has compromised it is a bit more flimsy, but probably one still worth making.
No they don't, but this a more complex situation here. The argument is the case here is that the policing methods weren't credible or sufficiently robust as the issuing officer hadn't observed the event and therefore couldn't make sufficient judgement of it.
Although I think that there would be better cases to pursue against the police, I don't think that this one is entirely without merit. It highlights what amounts to an institutionally systematic unfair and unbalanced application of the law. The argument that, where an issue of personal safety is enshrined in law and supported by infrastructure, it seems unreasonable to penalise someone for perpetuating that level of safety where other illegal activity has compromised it is a bit more flimsy, but probably one still worth making.