Well, yeah I’d say there is a time element, although by the terminology of the law the time limit is vague and subjective.
[QUOTE=CA Penal Code Section 236.1]
(d) (1) For purposes of this section, unlawful deprivation or violation of the personal liberty of another includes substantial and
sustained restriction of another’s liberty accomplished through fraud, deceit, coercion, violence, duress, menace, or threat of unlawful injury to the victim or to another person, under circumstances where the person receiving or apprehending the threat reasonably believes that it is likely that the person making the threat would carry it out.
[/QUOTE]
Note the bolded phrase which is what I’ve been talking about the whole time. What does sustained mean? See the second definition:
They are both subjective words, but you are comparing the OP’s event with that of the one in which a woman was told to remain in a private residence against her will for at least 3 hours. I’d say that is a significant difference than a guy in a public parking lot unable to move his car for what was presumably a considerably shorter period of time (I’m guessing, really; maybe the OP would like to specify the duration of the whole encounter).
Again, what was stopping the guy from leaving the parking lot to go into the gym and have someone call the police for assistance? Are you suggesting that people in CA can be arrested for false imprisonment for double parking their car and blocking someone else’s car into a spot?
I would argue that a car blocked into a parking spot by an empty vehicle whose driver is not even present the entire time for what was likely less than 30 minutes is not sustained or substantial restriction of a person and therefore, not false imprisonment, but rather illegal parking.
jamiemcgarry, I’m too lazy to read all 5 pages, but did you by any chance actually ask the local Chief of Police/PD how they would suggest handling such incidents in the future?
I can understand your frustration since my daughter has and is entitled to handicapped permits. That said, there might be a more productive way to take care of the asswipes that park illegally in handicapped parking than blocking them in. I’d be interested in something that works that I could do as well. thanks
Yeah, the local Police Chief is actually quoted in the online article linked at the beginning of this thread. While he was sympathetic in his remarks, he just said I should have simply called the police. Now, in other situations, this MAY work, but ESPECIALLY in Flint, MI, where the police often dont even respond to murder calls in under 2hrs, the reality is that would be utterly useless. But again, this is not a HABIT of mine. One thing I am trying to help get off the ground is the citizen-deputization program w/the Genesee County Sheriff’s Dept that grants special deputy status to regular citizens, granting them authority to write tickets for handicap parking abuse. IMO, this a win/win situation. It brings in much needed revenue for a desperately cash-strapped county, as well as helps the lives of those who need those spots.
You went right to the new gym and did the same thing? If it’s not a habit, it’s certainly a hobby. You sound like you really need to lay off the caffeine or something. When dozens of people are telling you that you’re in the wrong in several threads, it may be something to think about. Also, I’ve lived in Flint, MI- you better be extra careful about going around in that city confronting people. You’ll die.
I can see that it sucked that the old gym wouldn’t allow you to do your exercises the way you did, but I can certainly see how they were afraid to be open to a lawsuit if anything went wrong. Completely within their rights. Any business has to cover its ass as it sees fit. My husband’s weight room at work was just dismantled and removed because of the same concerns, so he joined a gym near home instead. Liability concerns are quite obvious to the outside observer, despite your feeling that you were completely safe.
I think you need to distinguish between discrimination based on disability, and unfortunate service based on business as usual.
Well they need to show that this exercise somehow fell outside and beyond the risk of other exercises and activities performed there. Like I said, bench-pressing w/out a spotter (which was pretty much all that was done there) could result in the bar falling on the person’s neck, killing them. How does that not open them up to a lawsuit? How is banning MY exercise but not OTHER, just as dangerous, if not MORE dangerous, exercises, not discrimination? And then, to not offer equipment that I could use as an alternative? That is where the ADA comes in.
But what you see as unfair, they see as prudent. It doesn’t matter whether others are violating safety protocols. What you were doing was so far out of the accepted procedures that they feared liability issues. They aren’t familiar with your own special circumstances and disability. If you were injured, they would lose in court.
I know a mentally disabled woman who is a terrific swimmer, but some of the health clubs her family tried to get her a membership to refused her because they can’t be sure of her abilities, even if she is with a companion. If anything happened to her in their pool, they would lose a lawsuit. Other health clubs were more lenient. I don’t see it as discrimination, just CYA safety concerns. They ended up finding a public club with a large disabled community and the resources to more closely guard the pool.
I never said that. But they do need to provide me with the same access to equipment and exercise options that are offered to my able-bodied counterparts. And they didn’t even make an effort.
Ok, this exercise came into existence because I couldn’t use the variety of lat-pulldown machine they had in their gym. So I came up with this exercise. They had plenty of options as far as getting additional equipment, to not only meet MY needs but the needs of other future disabled members who may need it. But since that never happened, this exercise was borne out of necessity. So when it was stripped from me, I expected them to then say, Ok, well we will have something in place that you can use rather than perform this risky exercise. But they just took the exercise away and did nothing else. THAT is the ada violation.
IANAL, but a quick scan of the ADA Standards for Accessible Design seems to indicate that exercise machines are explicitly exempted from “Operable Parts” accessibility requirements.
The OP might have been wrong, but he was not entirely unjustified, the guy who parked in the spot was ENTIRELY unjustified, especially if he got all huffy about it, I’d call it a citizen’s arrest.
As he points out in another post, simply taking down their license plate (and even taking pictures) leads to NOTHING if he leaves before the cops get there.
The letter includes an outline of where jamie requires two other people to lift him up and put him down at the start and end of the exercise.
So no, it’s not like benching without a spotter. You’re involving other people in your extracurricular activity, and I can see why the gym manager would get nervy about three people at a time being involved with setting up an exercise to use a machine outside the scope of its operational limits.
In all honesty, the time over which this occurs matters far less than a. the intent of the restrainer and b. the frame of mind of the restrainee.
PC 236 is a specific intent crime; the restrainer intends to restrict the liberty of another and is aware that that is what they are doing. It is not being done by mistake. (Nor is it necessarily being done for some other nefarious purpose.)
Many crimes speak to the frame of mind of the victim. If the victim in any ways feels like they are not free to leave, for instance, they are restrained, provided all of the other elements of this specific crime section are met. While not necessarily true in this instance, perhaps the driver of the second vehicle felt unsafe to leave his vehicle, not knowing whether the person blocking his vehicle in was armed or an otherwise violent person who might run him down the moment he walked across the parking lot seeking help. Perhaps he felt safer in his vehicle, despite being held there against his will.
Someone could be a victim of this section if they are held for only a minute or two, potentially. The it is not that the words have no meaning, simply that they’re vague on purpose. What is substantial to one person may mean nothing to another.
One major frame of mind type crime that catches people a lot is robbery. If someone threatens to kick your ass if you don’t give them all your money, and you laugh at them and walk away because you don’t believe they can do it, they didn’t really rob you. But if you’re scared of them, whether they get your money or not… PC 211 - Theft by force or fear. If they don’t get your money, it’s an attempted robbery, of course, but your state of mind (fear) is what makes the attempt an actual prosecutable crime in this example.
Yeah, that IS interesting, isn’t it??? Because there is SOOO much in common between the two scenarios, right?? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: