That may well be the case Marko, but to assume that the cop is some evil pedophile for following procedure, or that he takes some sort of perverse pleasure in doing so is ludicrous.
Here is the problem.
People in life often have totally
opposed moral obligations.
For example: The person who writes instructions for cops has it, as his duty, to ensure the security of the officers thorugh those instructions and training he gives the cops. Even if someone's tender inhibitions are offended.
But! THe police officer is actually there on scene. And maybe, just maybe... sometimes his own principles should get turned on and say:
"Woah, woah, woah. I'm supposed to now stand over a small child, gun drawn, and watch him while he pees? I don't care I've been trained to do so in this situation. It's disgusting. I'm going to turn my back on the child and give him the privacy to do his thing for thirty seconds. "
Now don't get me wrong.
It's the moral duty for the cop's commander or superior or whoever to later frown at this. "Now, look, John. Those rules are written for your protection and I'm personally responsible... blah, blah, blah and more blah."
Because the officer in charge is responsible to make sure all the people in his team, unit, or whatever, come home safe and all the non-cops are safe.
But the guy there, in the picture, should have said "no". It was his moral choice at the end of the day, and we can see quite well what choice he made.
I'm sorry if this comes out all confused...
