Well here’s my ruling: You block in someone in a handicapped space when there are others available and this person did not personally inconvenience you, jerk move.
You block in someone in a handicapped space when there are NO other places for you to park, okay.
I was once yelled at for parking in a handicapped space for about a minute and a half, WHILE A HANDICAPPED PERSON got into my car. Either my husband or I took him to the store every couple of weeks. We usually dropped him off at the entrance and then parked out in the lot and went inside, and while he was at the checkout, went back to get the car and waited for him either at the entrance or in one of the handicapped spots. The issue was that while he could get out of the car pretty fast, and he could walk at least as far away as we’d have to park, it took him a while to get in and required having the door open as far as it could get, not possible in that lot otherwise. If there was a handicapped person who had to wait, they didn’t have to wait that long, and pretty much everybody else who parked there had to wait for a spot to open up, too. I don’t think it’s any harder for a handicapped person than an able-bodied person to drive around the block, and if it is, maybe they shouldn’t be driving. (For the record, there were other spaces available in this particular instance, although that wasn’t always the case at that store.)
This bitch yelled at me that if I was going to ferry a handicapped person around, I should still have a tag, and I guess technically she was correct. But he had no car and no license, so he had no tag or license plate.
I’ve also pulled into those spots by mistake, and I’d have been really hot if someone had taken a picture during the couple of minutes it took me to back out. I think there should be some kind of two-minute rule. But really, parking in a handicapped space seems much less of a dick move if there are a bunch of them available than if you’re taking the last one. I know it’s still illegal, but it seems a little more excusable.
I have no sympathy in this situation. A placard is still needed. As a man living with a permanent disability, regardless of his driving status, it is his responsibility to obtain that placard. Having a valid license is NOT necessary for obtaining one. If you are kind hearted enough to taxi him around, make the next trip to the Secretary of State. There is simply no excuse for this other than laziness.
Asking you why you didn’t go to another gym when you started having a problem with how yours was run is enough to get your panties all in a twist? It seems like a reasonable question - that’s what I’d do if my gym made rules that interfered with my desired workout routine. Unless of course I knew, deep-down, that my desired workout routine was dangerous or problematic to someone else.
I *have *read the thread and you never explained what the exercise was or why it was banned. I know you want us to believe it was banned because everyone is secretly determined to remove your human rights, but that’s kind of hard to swallow.
I didn’t realize she was responsible for parking tags.
jamiemcgarry, you’re kidding yourself about the risk of a confrontation if you keep doing this. In the time it takes you to park, get out of your car, and maybe say a few words to the person you’ve boxed in, he easily has time to get out of his car and take a swing at you. And there’s even more time while you’re crossing the lot. You didn’t deliberately get in the guy’s face (you let your car do the talking), but people do get into fights over this kind of thing.
???He is one responsible. All Im saying is if SHE is his transportation, then make the next trip the one where he goes to get himself a tag. And Ive said it fify bazillion times, so why not one more? I"M NOT IMMUNE TO ANYTHING! I never said I would never be confronted in a similar situation. OKAY?! And I’ve also said that Ive only parked behind a car twice in my life. Jesus holy christ.
I said it would take alot of writing and effort on my part to appropriately explain the matter, and if he’s asking me simple questions which I’ve already answered numerous times in this thread, I feel like I would be WASTING MY TIME by exerting all that time and effort. Tomorrow, maybe. When I’m rested and it’s more on my terms.
By “she,” I meant the Secretary of State (i.e. Hillary Clinton). I’m not sure who is responsible for handicapped parking permits, but I’m guessing the title isn’t Secretary of State.
You said you didn’t confront him in this situation. The truth is that you provoked a confrontation and it easily could have become a physical fight. You also said you blocked the guy because you “simply could not let it go” even though (despite the guy being a jerk) there were four other handicapped spots available. So you have a situation in which you’re at least somewhat emotional and you’re doing something that can infuriate other people. Two things, actually- you’re boxing him in and trying to make sure he gets a parking ticket. If you keep doing this, you will probably wind up in a fight at some point.
Ok, I see where the confusion lies now. I’m guessing you must live in a state with a DMV or something similar? When I said “Secretary of State”, I was referring to the state-level gov’t agency, not the Cabinet member of the federal administration. In Michigan, all drivers licenses, IDs, and various things such as disability placards are handled by the Secretary of State.
And you insist on framing this as a pattern of continuing behavior on my part. I’ll continue repeating myself for you, since you seem to enjoy it: I have parked behind illegally parked vehicles TWICE in my life. There was this incident at HHFC and the incident at Planet Fitness. The PF incident, as I have already stated, multiple times, was one borne out of necessity. And the HHFC incident was rather unique in it’s blatant hostility. That being said, I do not take the possibility of future incidents occuring completely off the table, this is my life 24/7. But let’s have a little perspective here. Two times in eleven years is not exactly a pattern of behavior. And finally, I have also already stated that I use my judgment in doing the things I do. I would never do such a thing to someone who appeared intoxicated or otherwise not-in-control of their faculties. The point I am making is I am well aware of the risks and responsibilities inherent in all my actions. If I ever did park behind someone again, and if that person decided to fight with me, hey, there’d be no one to blame but myself.
What was blatantly hostile about it? The guy parked in a handicapped spot, end of story. I’m sure there were other spots available and he did wrong, but I don’t see anything particularly unusual about it other than the fact that you boxed him in and tried to get the gym to penalize him. And you’ve said it was one of five handicapped spots.
Your judgment is obviously not most people’s. I get that you’ve only done this twice, and you were arguably more justified the other time. But that’s two more times than most people would do it, and you seemed to expect people would laud your efforts, so it seems pretty likely you would do it again. Am I wrong about that?
You probably would not know if they were drunk or out of control until after you’d already boxed them in. (And again, this wording indicates you expect to pull this tactic again at some point, whenever you get upset by someone who has parked in a handicapped space.)
You started this thread because you unexpectedly lost your gym membership, and I think you’re overestimating your ability to figure out if someone is drunk or crazy before you box them in. And I think you’re also trying to sound more emotionally detached than you really are. All of those things make me think you don’t know the risk you’re taking.
No, I didn’t. I get that the gym he was banned from had equipment he liked and used. I get that going to a new gym is a hassle and is not an ideal scenario. But either the ‘banning’ of his favourite exercise was a big deal or it wasn’t. Clearly there is another gym in the area where he could do most of the stuff he wants to do, because he belongs to that gym now. If the problems with management were such a big issue, he could have left and gone to that gym long ago. Perhaps he could have supplemented his gym weight lifting with some kind of home cardio or something, I don’t know.
I just don’t understand why the banning of this exercise is an issue that merits the involvement of the Department of Justice. He obviously feels that it is discriminatory, but I don’t understand why a private gym would be obligated to provide the opportunity for every member to do every exercise they’d like to do. It would really help to know what the exercise was and what the reasoning was for banning it. Like I say, there must have been some reason provided.
Uhhh. You’re giving me a headache here. The “blatant hostility” was not simply in his parking action. It became evident during our exchange, which began with me doing nothing more than politely asking him if he was aware of where he had parked (that was the one issue I took with the reporter’s write-up of the story, he didn’t accurately portray this exchange in the article). And I did NOT “try to get the gym to penalize him.” I dont even know what that means. All I was doing, pay attention, was attempting to get THE SECURITY GUARD. You know? The proper authorities? The gym staff itself could do nothing on the matter. And you’re right. Most people would not do it. Because most people who depend on those spots are the ones being taken advantage of by the people illegally parking there. “Most people” as in most able-bodied people not dependent on those spots, wouldn’t care enough to get involved. And I don’t care if most people laud me. Just the right ones. And that is definitely not anyone on an online message board. I am simply wanting to learn the opinions of people, I’m not seeking admiration or back-patting. OBVIOUSLY. And after exchanging dialogue with a person for several minutes, I believe I MOST CERTAINLY CAN gauge with a decent amount of certainty if there are in control of their faculties or not (i.e. under the influence). You make it seem like I spot a car illegally parked, and just swoop in there and block them in. You make it seem like that so you can make the points you want to make. But that is simply not the reality of the matter.
Well thank goodness im in MI then. Because no police officer has EVER even brought up charges towards me, felony OR misdemeanor. In fact, in the PF incident, the police officer was sympathetic and friendly towards me.
Police officers, well, good police officers have what’s known as discretion. You should try it sometime. Look, the facts are pretty clear. Someone committed a minor offense and you chose to be offended. Instead of doing something appropriate, you decided to do the vigilante thing without having all the facts. And you still refuse to recognize that your blocking someone in is a greater offense than someone inconveniencing you. Read your posts here and compare them to the excuses people use for parking illegally in spot reserved for the handicapped.