Or ignorance. Which theoretically we fight here.
Certainly, the person giving the other person a lift is now informed there is legal solution to the dilemmas involved and can now make a more informed choice regarding future trips.
He meant the STATE level Secretary of State, not the Federal level. That would be Ruth Johnson where he lives, not Hilary Clinton.
Uh…I have a mental disability that can absolutely destroy my life in a matter of days. It’s happened in the past. And you’re right, the rest of the world doesn’t really care, and even less so when I’m symptomatic. So you know what you do in a case like that? You learn to live with the disability with the understanding that you have to make your own way in the world just like everyone else. You take responsibility for it, learn your limits, and play the same game as everyone else. Everyone’s got their own battles and it’s childish to think yours are less fair just because they can be seen.
I don’t really have a problem with what the OP did - granted it was illegal and could’ve resulted in a fight - but I certainly understand the anger that builds over time as a result of actions like the guy in the spot.
As long as he was willing to put up with the potential results of his actions (possible ticket or maybe a fight) then the worst thing he did to the guy in the car is inconvenience him - it’s not like he slashed his tires or keyed the car.
I would suggest in the future, a digital camera so he could just snap a pic rather than put himself in harm’s way.
The point I was making is that you only have to read the board for a few years and you realise that quite a number of members suffer from various ailments- some serious, some less so. (Hey, I think it’s unfair that I didn’t get a bigger dick but I’m not going to park someone in because of that). Not everyone makes each thread a shrine to the slings and arrows they face.
I’m sure Mr. McGarry will correct me if I have the wrong interpretation here, but because Mr. McGarry does not have use of his legs getting cardiovascular exercise is much more of a problem for him than for the rest of us walking folks. Just telling him to do “home cardio” isn’t really a solution, because it’s not like he can run in place or jump rope for an hour at home.
I believe he’s referring to a device that is much like a stationary bicycle but uses a handcrank instead of footpedals. This is not a common piece of equipment, and would generally be used only by the disabled, though there’s no reason an able-bodied person couldn’t use one. It’s not a common item of gym equipment so there are probably few alternatives to the few gyms that own one.
It’s not a matter of it being a “favorite” exercise so much as being one of the very few forms of cardio exercise open to Mr. McGarry.
Though perhaps Mr. McGarry would like to consider an actual hand crank bike which he could personally own and use outside of a gym, thereby freeing himself from the tyranny of asshole managers.
Right, he explained that. I didn’t think he actually believed Hillary Clinton was responsible for the permits, but I thought he might be using the wrong term. I don’t think we have a Secretary of State in New York.
I know he said that this gym was the only one that had a hand crank thingy, but I didn’t catch that it was this machine that he was banned from using. The whole exercise banning thing is still a bit murky.
OK then. I did try to look that up earlier, but I didn’t find it.
Banning ignorance left and right in this thread! 
As I said in your other thread before I got tired of your is so/is not routine, you don’t have to respond to every post, and you certainly don’t have to respond to posts 3 seperate times (as you have done so several times). I do find it interesting that when someone does say something new and it makes sense. you become strangely quiet and ignore that post’s points (or go off on some unrelated tangent).
And as someone else said in that other thread;
“Mr Pot, I’d like you to meet…”.
Wait, it’s a felony in CA to park illegally behind a parking spot?
I’m no expert in California law, but I’m guessing that the infraction is more along the lines of intentionally creating a barrier to traffic with a motor vehicle or (as someone else suggested) illegal imprisonment.
No, the felony, as it would be considered in my jurisdiction, since the person he was blocking was actually in his vehicle at the time and prevented from leaving by the actions of the OP, would fall under the crime title “false imprisonment”. While I know that this doesn’t make sense based on the exact definitions of the words, based on the elements of CA Penal Code section 236, it applies.
Then, he’ll just be replacing asshole managers with the tyranny of asshole drivers who wrongly believe that roads are no place for bikes.
You can’t fight evil with a macaroni duck.
Oh, laziness. Well, it’s too late, he’s dead. But here I was, using a handicapped space for the benefit of a handicapped person, and for a total of about two minutes–and I’m lazy?
The guy in question is now dead, but thanks for your generous input anyhow.
IANAL but I read that
Cite here.
Huh. IANAL, but it surprises me that parking behind someone’s vehicle would be considered “substantial and sustained restriction of another’s liberty.” Now, if you blocked their doors and trapped them inside the car, I can see how that could be considered substantial restriction. But the guy was able to get out of his car without risk to his personal safety and go get assistance. I have trouble seeing that as substantial or sustained. I suppose words like that make the law very subjective and so, it would depend on whether the cop and the judge see it as substantial.
IANAL either. But as a cop, there is precedent for charging a person with this crime section in this type of situation. Also, LEO’s charge wobblers as felonies. If the courts want to drop them to misdemeanors later, that’s up to them. It still goes on the record as a felony arrest.