In another thread, you stated that you wanted to gage what others thought about an issue stemming from your disability. In both cases, this decidedly left leaning board has not jumped to your side. And I’d guess that is any group would side with you, this liberal one would be more likely too. I think you can take from this that most think your conduct and/or view point is generally out of line.
You’ve got an ax to grind and it shows.
So, “substantial and sustained” has no meaning? What is an example of insubstantial restriction that would fall outside the bounds of this law?
I agree, although with a grain of salt since I’m not a California lawyer.
In Schanafelt v. Seaboard Finance Co., 108 Cal. App. 2d 420 (1951), the California Court of Appeals discussed very similar behavior:
I was just thinking of him. His posts were before my time here, but someone linked to them and I read them, and they moved me to tears. When I’m having a bad day, I sometimes think of the grace and humour with which he handled his situation, and get some perspective.
The OP of this thread, on the other hand, makes me think there may be some truth to the idea of karma.
Obviously I know he can’t jump rope at home. But if the machine exists maybe it’s possible to get one for home. Maybe he could get a hand bike. Maybe there’s some other home equipment he could get. I don’t know, hence why I said ‘perhaps’.
FWIW, I really didn’t get the impression that the exercise that was ‘banned’ was the upper body cardio. For one thing, if they own that machine, why on earth would they ban him using it? It doesn’t sound like it would have any other purpose. Unless he means that they got rid of it, in which case ‘banned’ is a strange word to use. I don’t have time to comb the thread for details, but my impression was that there were at least two separate events:
Event 1: New management comes to gym, bans some specific strength exercise for some as yet unknown reason. OP is pissed off but stays with gym due to availability of cardio (but probably bitches a lot).
Event 2: An undisclosed amount of time later, OP plays parking lot vigilante, is terminated by gym, now misses his upper body cardio.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think they banned him from doing cardio while he was still a member. I get that the cardio machine would have great appeal to him and likely be enough of a draw to override his annoyance about not being able to do some other exercise. But I don’t get how banning a specific exercise is a big enough deal that the Department of Justice must be called in. Like I said, maybe I’m wrong and it was the cardio - I was just trying to get more details about the incident because the version of events posted in the OP fairly screams ‘there’s more to this story’.
I was more imagining Locke from Lost. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYfKHVdmjzQ. No one can tell me what I can’t do!
blinkie still hangs around. He doesn’t post a lot. His “Ask The” thread was one for the SDMB highlight reel.
If you’re interested in karma, consider how you’d feel if you were paralyzed and read somebody saying this about you.
I have a suggestion for the OP:
It looks like quite a few folks are interested in getting some more details about this. I know that I am quite curious about the “banned” exercise in particular.
The way that I am reading this thread is that the first gym had a machine that you used for cardio but that this is a separate thing than the banned exercise. Do I have that correctly?
Anyway, it seems like you are reticent to type out all of the details here (which I understand) but you mentioned that you wrote to the DOJ with all of the details. Why not copy/paste the letter here? I assume that you used a computer to compose it.
Regarding the OP in general I want to say that I 100% understand where you are coming from. Not the part where you are mobility impaired, but the part where you see someone doing something wrong and dickish and are moved to do something about it. This is something that I have grappled with for a great many years (albiet with issues that are not as personal as those faced by the OP).
For me this manifests itself when I drive. There was a time in the not too distant past where if, for example, I saw someone weaving in and out of traffic trying to “get ahead” I would alter my speed so that my car was trapping him in a lane. Or if someone was “cheating” in a merge situation I would absolutely not let them in. I would play the “lets see who cares less about their car” game.
All of this culminated in an indecent where I was being very aggressively tailgated on the beltway one day and I thought that the way I would react to this would be to lock up my breaks. What happened is that the car behind me had to swerve off onto the shoulder.
But here is the thing. That car could have easily slammed into me, or could have swerved to the shoulder and hit some construction stuff (there is a lot of that going on here) and rolled. Or swerved the other way and plowed into the car in the other land. My quest to be some sort of Agent of Justice was really about me being willing to gamble with my life and the life of those around me. The fact that I happened to be “right” would not have brought anyone back to life, or mended broken bones or made me any less at fault if I were the cause of someone needing one of those ADA spots in a parking lot.
So I got very lucky and have done a lot of work to just let things go. In the end I would rather be serene than right.
Anyway, food for thought.
But Mommy, he started it!!!
(THIS is how you’re acting like a three-year-old. “But he did it first!”)
Except it’s different. The plaintiff was told not to leave and was restricted to a house for at least 3 hours.
In contrast, I haven’t gathered that the OP told they the douche parked in the handicapped space that he couldn’t leave (rather, before blocking the car, he told him to move) nor was restricted from physically walking away from the cars to get assistance in the gym. It’s also not clear that his car was blocked for a substantial period of time. If the guy sat in his car as opposed to going into the gym for assistance, that seems to me like it was his choice to do so.
I really just can’t see how this is false imprisonment. A guy confined to a wheelchair parked *behind *another guy’s car and went to retrieve a security guard. Just how menacing is that? If it’s anything, it’s annoying and inconvenient. But it’s not menacing.
Is there a time limit? The crime is complete the moment liberty is restrained, so far as I can see. And while she was told not told leave, the mere statement doesn’t create false imprisonment. The key element was: “Her only means of transportation was by automobile and Alexander had parked his car across the driveway for the obvious purpose of blocking exit.”
Again, the question is: at what point is the crime complete? There’s no time element.
But in this case the OP asked the guy to leave and he gave clear indication he did not want to leave. If he consented to be where he was, the OP parked illegally but didn’t falsely imprison him. When the guy saw the OP was really going to get security, he decided he wanted to leave but by then the OP was out of his car and not making the decision about parking.
I realize we begin with the fact that the OP parked there specifically to prevent him from leaving and has admitted that, but in a hypothetical trial it could be argued that the guy consented to be there by saying he was not going to leave.
And the OP could claim the iron-clad defense: “But I was only going to be a couple of minutes.”
Even so, you can’t honestly believe that that defense has anyway of working when presented to reasonable people.
And, I also should have mentioned, the article contains quotes from the Chief of Police from the City of Flint in which he discusses this very action. I firmly believe if such actions were FELONY actions, the Chief of Police would have made some mention of the serious illegality of those actions. He did not.
SMH
No, you OBVIOUSLY misunderstood (probably willfully) my point; HE was the lazy one. Im sorry he’s dead but that is irrelevant here.
You stay classy, Ironside!
Ok, I will put up all the details of the banned exercise today. If I can’t find a copy of the letter on my comp to copy and paste, I’ll write it out. If, for no other reason, to satisify all these nay-sayers who think I’ve been hesitant to do so for some reason other than what I’ve already stated.
My interpretation of the exercise is that he was using a piece of equipment in a way that it was not intended - in order to work muscles he would otherwise be unable to work, due to his disability.
Management decided to stop letting him use the equipment in the way that it was not intended. This is purely speculation on my part, but it’s the only thing that makes sense.
The hand crank cardio is only available at the place he was kicked out of, not at the new place.
During the time I was at HHFC I grew more and more dedicated to working out and learning
about my body. I eventually began competing in wheelchair-bodybuilding competitions and it is
something I am proud to say I still strive to perfect. I take my training seriously as does
every truly committed bodybuilder. I use every tool (legitimate) at my disposal, in an educated
manner, to help achieve my goals.
One of the limitations I faced as a wheelchair bodybuilder training at HHFC was the
availability and accessibility of certain equipment. As a paraplegic, I have different
structural needs in the equipment I use and limitations not experienced by able-bodied trainers.
In particular, lat-pulldown machines are often unusable for me due to the way the machines are
designed. The latissimus dorsi muscles (lats) are EXTREMELY important, central muscles to a body
builder. I had no real way of training mine, since the usual method-the lat-pulldown machine-did
not work for me.
One of the aspects of bodybuilding in a wheelchair that I truly enjoy is the constant need to
use your brain and figure out ways to do what at first seems impossible or off-limits. My
solution to the lat-pulldown dilemma was a particularly successful example of such problem-solving. It began
with pullups using only my bodyweight. I would roll my chair up to the Smith machine, put the
bar up high enough so that my arms were outstretched when I reached up to it and I’d grab it and
go. But considering my injury and extreme atrophy in my lower body (not to mention the fact that
I am just a lean, small guy anyway) my bodyweight really wasn’t enough to build muscle and get
stronger once I reached a point. And I reached that point quickly. So after some thought, I
realized that using a weighted vest would work for providing additional resistance. And it did.
Up to a point. Now what?!
Well one day I just thought, "why do I even need to get out of my chair?" when doing my pull-
ups. Well, I put some thought into it and came up with the idea of strapping my lower body
securely down in my wheelchair (using a heavy duty velcro strap) and having a person on each side
of my chair lift me up to the pullup bar where I would do my pullups…wheelchair’n’all! And
then I’d be lowered back to the ground the same way. And it worked!! Better than I even
expected! I was doing pullups now like I was meant to as a paraplegic. It was a beautiful,
impressive thing which I worked to master.
The reason I went through this evolution of my “wheelchair pullups” like I did is because I
want to show that this was an activity that I performed with experience, knowledge, expertise,
pride AND necessity. I followed a disciplined path to get where I am today. And the relatively
new manager, Dawn Hiller, out of the blue, after I had been performing this exercise for years,
arbitrarily decides that I am no longer allowed to do it at HHFC.
She informs me that the risk of injury is too great performing this "reckless and dangerous
activity". Keep in mind, she had never even witnessed the exercise being performed, she was
simply acting on what someone told her. I immediately countered to her that every weight lifting
exercise carries some inherent risk and I cannot see how my pullups are any more of a risk than
anything else that goes on in this very gym. I said to her, "bench-pressing accidents can
result in death in worst-case-scenarios. Wheelchair-pullup accidents carry nowhere near that
level of inherent risk." She had nothing to say.
Eventually, about two days later, she came back to me to say that the real issue and reason for
disallowing the activity was the risk for the guys whom I had lift me up to the bar (by this
point I was comfortable dropping myself to the ground rather than be lifted back down). I
asked her how, as the people who helped me did so of their own free will and there was no direct
path for them to even be hit or struck by anything (given the structure of the squat rack that the
bar was on). She said it was a "different type of risk than that that is typically assumed
when one signs a gym membership". Huh? It seemed like an incredibly weak argument to me. Plus,
she still wasn’t addressing the fact that the gym wasn’t providing an adequate alternative means
for me to do the exercises I needed to.
So, in effect what was done was my ability to perform an exercise that was a crucial and
irreplaceable staple in my wheelchair bodybuilding training was stripped from me in a back-handed manner.
By making it impossible by removing my assistance. Now also keep in mind, in every other gym I have every been in, and in the gym(s) I currently train in, this exercise is not only allowed but efforts are made so I can do it to my maximum potential.