I think people fail to see the difference between you being obligated to be restrained and/or moved by another person and you choosing to be moved by another person.
It’s a matter of control, Mr. McGarry. You want to be in control of your body and what happens to it at all times. I understand that. Others don’t. On the airplane you weren’t in control. In the gym, all the body-handling was at your request and under your direction.
Let me know if I’m right or wrong on that.
Some people here just see that you’re strapped in/moved by other people in both situations, they don’t see the difference in control.
Thanks, Soliloquy. That actually makes a lot of sense and answers my questions. The California code specifically lists how the violation of liberty is accomplished, which (I guess) goes to the frame of mind of the victim:
Can any of those elements be applied to the OP’s encounter? I didn’t see any real threat there. I’m not sure the security involved saw a threat either. If there was some kind of threat, I’d expect there would be an arrest. But I gather there wasn’t.
Not being familiar with the machines in question, would this be like pulling himself up off of the floor on a pull-up bar – wheelchair and all? As in his wheelchair is hanging in the air?
Dude, you remind me of my grandfather when he still insisted he could drive, despite the fact that he was always skipping his meds (he’s an epileptic like me), and kept getting into accidents. It finally ended when he wrecked his truck.
Well, to start, I’m only working with California law knowledge, and I know this didn’t happen in California. I also gather that law enforcement never got involved? And we are only getting half the story… I can’t speak to the state of mind of the other half.
Sooo… Basically, when I made my initial comment, I made it from my gut, based on initial information, like I’d have done in the first few minutes of handling a situation… Determining what COULD be… Before I would finish the investigation into what actually WAS… which I’m guessing in this situation is not going to be determined and is, at this point, moot anyway.
Basically, if a call like this came into our Communication’s Center at work, I can guarantee it would be dispatched as a 236IP, a call type we use to mean “false imprisonment in progress”. Our call type are even more vague (on purpose) than Penal Code.
I can also tell you that, even if this were determined to be a legitimate crime on the OP’s part, it would most likely be swept away. The responding officers would convince the parked gentleman that he really didn’t want to press charges against the OP, because he really didn’t want a $400 or some odd ticket, the OP would be told how lucky he was that the person he blocked in wasn’t a third strike parolee at large with a gun who was determined not to go back to prison without taking a bunch of people out first, and everyone would be sent on their merry way.
I find it reasonable that the gym just doesn’t want to be involved, however peripherally, in the OP’s crusade of rolling justice. As far as they’re concerned, it’s easier and legally less troublesome to tell the OP he is no longer welcome, using the broad discretionary terms I assume were in the membership contract.
And I also have some questions about the wheelchair pull-ups. Why were the spotters needed, again? The pull-up bar was too high for the OP to reach while seated? Could he have requested something lower be rigged up?
For that matter, couldn’t he just install a sturdy bar five feet off the ground in his own house? Maybe hang it from the ceiling beams with chains or rods or something.
Isn’t there an agency one can report a business who is not enforcing the legally required handicap accessibility parking spaces? Who’s responsibility is it to enforce those spots. If the business or landowner is legally required to have them, shouldn’t they be responsible for abuse that prevents their use by permitted customers?
I necessarily must have a bar which is too high for me to reach from my chair in order to do the exercise properly. In order to achieve a full range of motion, to “pull-up” from a fully (or near full) extended position, I must start at a level which allow tension to remain on my muscles in that fully extended position. Simply grabbing a bar as high as I can reach in my chair doesn’t achieve this. The most I’d be able to achieve is a partial range of motion.
I should have added that the bar I was doing the pullup on was an adustable bar. So while I did need it to be higher up than I could reach on my own (which brought in the need for the “spotters”) I only raised the bar a few inches above my reach. When I hung on the bar fully extended, I was only a few inches off the ground.
Well, what if you rolled your chair onto little ramp about three inches high, reached up, grabbed the bar, lifted yourself slightly, had a buddy pull the ramp out from under you, and when you were done… could the chair handle a three-inch drop without damage or risk of tipping over?
I actually discussed this idea. And yes the chair could handle those drops, I did them with the reg “wheelchair pullups” as well. After I became proficient and comfortable with them, I just began dropping to the floor rather than get the guys back to lift me down. But it’s a moot point anyway bcause Im at a different gym now that has no problem with the exercise. It was only about a month prior to the parking lot incident that all this stuff with the pullups was going on. So I never even had a chance to implement other ideas. They (she-the manager) just wanted me out of there.
ADA provides access to the building right? Like…handicapped parking spots and wheelchair ramps. What part of the ADA requires a gym to install wheelchair-friendly pullup machines???
Genuine question here, not trying to be an ass. What part of the ADA requires a business to modify every (or any) part of it’s operation to fit a handicapped person??? I thought it was just about providing access to a public place.
There are so many handicapped situations to think of…like a guy with one arm, a guy with one leg, a guy with one foot, a guy with one hand, a deaf guy, a blind guy, a mentally unstable guy, the list is endless… How on Earth can a business be required to provide anything beyond what is normal to their business for a handicapped person?
Whether the wheelchair pullups made for greater risk or not is not something you can really argue with them on. They have a right to provide whatever services they want. You can’t make them serve funnel cake if they don’t want to. You can’t force them to provide 2 pound weights if you can only lift that much. And if you’re an 8 foot tall basketball player, you can’t force them to provide you with a pull up bar that is extra tall if the one they have is for normal sized people. So if the business doesn’t want kids skateboarding down the locker room aisles, or doesn’t want a guy in a wheelchair doing wheelchair pullups, where on Earth are you gonna start building your case from??? And who are you going to complain to that won’t use the arguments I just used to tear your case to shreds?
For crying out loud at what point are restaurants gonna have to provide pre-chewed food for people without teeth?
It doesn’t seem like this is about discrimination at all. More like irritation at not being able to do the things you once could. That’s a shitty tasting pill to swallow and I hope I’m never in that situation.
It’s a medically-based fitness center which is supposed to be a place that meets the needs of the disabled. That is what Hurley Hospital has prided itself on, and marketed itself on, for decades. Many, many of the members at this center are older or somehow disabled. (p.s. I think I threw up in my mouth a little, you’re definitely a sweetheart)
What clinched it for me was the gym mentioning that there were other available handicap spots while at the same time saying that they don’t condone the public use of handicap spots. The gym seems to have an opinion and frankly they may be buying more legal trouble than they realize by kicking out a disabled member for having an altercation with a demonstrable asshole and THEN seemingly making excuses for the asshole.
Broad discretionary terms cannot be used discriminatorily (see Jim Crow south). This may have been discrimination.
