Nonsensical parking lot experience

[Ambivalid]

@Omar_Little

Do you consider not properly displaying a legal placard as “abuse”?

Not in and of itself, no.

[Gary_T]

@jamiemcgarry

It is typically the ones who shouldn’t be there in the first place who are the ones who get belligerently defensive and atrociously nasty at the first innocent mention of their lack of permit. They blow up and do everything they can to “sidetrack” the situation away from their wrongdoing.

This rings true.

[LavenderBlue]

@jamiemcgarry

Another thing I want to mention is, over the years I have asked many, many people parking in handicapped-accessible parking if they did in fact have a permit to park there. On a few occassions I have been shown a valid placard, which was poorly displayed or not yet put up (or just put away) by the driver. When this happens, I always am very apologetic and explain why I asked them about their permit in the first place (the glut of abuse, the need that those who truly are disabled have for those spaces, etc).

What I have come to notice, by and large, is that those who are legitimately parked in the handicapped spots are very understanding and empathetic to my questioning about their lack of a visible permit. They understand because they often deal with the same hardships that I (and other handicapped individuals) must endure associated with people abusing those spots.

It is typically the ones who shouldn’t be there in the first place who are the ones who get belligerently defensive and atrociously nasty at the first innocent mention of their lack of permit. They blow up and do everything they can to “sidetrack” the situation away from their wrongdoing. That is exactly what was happening with this situation at RiteAid. There is not a doubt in my mind that this lady had no business parking in handicap parking. And she knew it too.

If those people are that awful you really should leave chiding them to the police. You seem like a nice guy but I fear one day you’re going to get really mad and get in serious trouble with them and the police.

Unless the jerks are directly blocking the only handicapped parking space just ignore them.

[Satchmo]

@kayaker

Hey, just as you :eek: in response to his stabbing statement, I :eek: that you approach a stranger and question their compliance with the law.

You’re a good guy. Try to stay alive.

Can we start calling that the “Help, I’ve been stabbed!” smiley?
Please, please, please?

<trying to start a new in-joke>

[Guinastasia]

@jamiemcgarry

It is typically the ones who shouldn’t be there in the first place who are the ones who get belligerently defensive and atrociously nasty at the first innocent mention of their lack of permit. They blow up and do everything they can to “sidetrack” the situation away from their wrongdoing. That is exactly what was happening with this situation at RiteAid. There is not a doubt in my mind that this lady had no business parking in handicap parking. And she knew it too.

What the hell? She had a fucking placard. Yes, it should have been displayed, but how did you determine that they didn’t have any business there – what, do you think they magically pulled it out of their asses?

[Khadaji]

@jamiemcgarry

Your right, they don’t need to know, or care, why the placard wasn’t displayed when the car was parked in handicapped only parking. They (the police) only are concerned with if the placard was displayed. So they (the mother and daughter parked in handicapped parking) would have been ticketed.

Unlikely in the extreme. If they could produce a placard they would likely have gotten a verbal warning to display it.

If they had gotten a ticket, they would likely have been able to get it taken care of if they went to the station and spoke to whomever was in charge.

If that didn’t work, the ticket would likely have been dismissed if they took it before a magistrate.

Speaking as a man who wrote parking tickets for 5 years of his life.

[Ambivalid]

@Khadaji

Unlikely in the extreme. If they could produce a placard they would likely have gotten a verbal warning to display it.

If they had gotten a ticket, they would likely have been able to get it taken care of if they went to the station and spoke to whomever was in charge.

If that didn’t work, the ticket would likely have been dismissed if they took it before a magistrate.

Speaking as a man who wrote parking tickets for 5 years of his life.

But what if the placard was in the name of the old lady who was just sitting there in the car? She was the one most likely with the placard, which is why it had remained tucked away in the glovebox and why it was put back into the glovebox after taking it out just to show me. The young lady who utilized the placard was NOT the one for which it was legally written. This would justify a ticket, would it not? (This is assuming that this was the case)

[LurkerInNJ]

@jamiemcgarry

But what if the placard was in the name of the old lady who was just sitting there in the car? She was the one most likely with the placard, which is why it had remained tucked away in the glovebox and why it was put back into the glovebox after taking it out just to show me. The young lady who utilized the placard was NOT the one for which it was legally written.

The person with the permit may be the driver or a passenger.

*You may use your disability placard
in any vehicle that you are driving
or is transporting you. However,
Michigan law allows only one
disability placard to be issued to a
person. *

[Ambivalid]

@LurkerInNJ

The person with the permit may be the driver or a passenger.

*You may use your disability placard
in any vehicle that you are driving
or is transporting you. However,
Michigan law allows only one
disability placard to be issued to a
person. *

Even if the person with the disability is NOT the person needing access to the handicap parking spot being used? As in they will not be leaving the vehicle? That’s utter nonsense.

[GrandWino]

Go yell at your mayor, or state senator, or whoever handles this then. Yelling at strangers in parking lots isn’t going to get you anywhere. I’m sure you’ll get real far with the position of taking rights AWAY from the disabled.

[Guinastasia]

@jamiemcgarry

But what if the placard was in the name of the old lady who was just sitting there in the car? She was the one most likely with the placard, which is why it had remained tucked away in the glovebox and why it was put back into the glovebox after taking it out just to show me. The young lady who utilized the placard was NOT the one for which it was legally written. This would justify a ticket, would it not? (This is assuming that this was the case)

How do you know it was the old lady, and not the girl who got out of the car? You know what they say about those who assume, right?
(The fact that she was wearing a Medic Alert bracelet seems to point to her)

[RaftPeople]

jamiemcgarry, the best thing to do in a situation like this is to call the waaaambulance.

[LurkerInNJ]

@jamiemcgarry

Even if the person with the disability is NOT the person needing access to the handicap parking spot being used? As in they will not be leaving the vehicle? That’s utter nonsense.

It’s the law, and it makes perfect sense. Plates are issued to a vehicle, placards are issued to a person. The person whom the placard was issued to has met the disability requirements and has the right to be parked there. Nothing in the law says they have to leave the vehicle.

[LilyoftheField]

@jamiemcgarry

Another thing I want to mention is, over the years I have asked many, many people parking in handicapped-accessible parking if they did in fact have a permit to park there. On a few occassions I have been shown a valid placard, which was poorly displayed or not yet put up (or just put away) by the driver. When this happens, I always am very apologetic and explain why I asked them about their permit in the first place (the glut of abuse, the need that those who truly are disabled have for those spaces, etc).

What I have come to notice, by and large, is that those who are legitimately parked in the handicapped spots are very understanding and empathetic to my questioning about their lack of a visible permit. They understand because they often deal with the same hardships that I (and other handicapped individuals) must endure associated with people abusing those spots.

It is typically the ones who shouldn’t be there in the first place who are the ones who get belligerently defensive and atrociously nasty at the first innocent mention of their lack of permit. They blow up and do everything they can to “sidetrack” the situation away from their wrongdoing. That is exactly what was happening with this situation at RiteAid. There is not a doubt in my mind that this lady had no business parking in handicap parking. And she knew it too.

You are making a lot of assumptions here. Which may or may not be true. The thing is there is a dearth of factual information here. Who was the handicapped person, the belligerent woman or her passenger? We don’t know, assumptions are being made based solely on the fact that the passenger was an ‘older woman’. But young people can be disabled too - you know that, of course. The fact that she was not in a wheelchair or on crutches or otherwise ‘obviously’ disabled means nothing. There are many disabilities which are not so readily apparent. You know that too. Why should you assume the worst? Because the worst case scenario is the most common? Perhaps. But that still doesn’t make your argument based on fact rather than assumption.

People have bad days and sometimes that can make them testy. That happens to all of us, disabled or not. Perhaps the woman you accosted was having a bad day. Perhaps she had been arguing with her passenger (mother? relative? whatever, anything is an assumption) and when she got out of the car the very last thing she needed to hear was some stranger in a parking lot, questioning her credentials for being where she was. Perhaps disability was new to her and not something she was okay with discussing with said stranger. Perhaps. Perhaps not, but we don’t know, do we?

You don’t actually know that the belligerent woman was not the owner of the handicapped placard. You want to assume that, because it makes your actions more justifiable. But you don’t know, you can only speculate based on what you find to be ‘typical’. Perhaps because your own disability is so readily apparent, you are just as quick as anyone else to dismiss the ‘invisible’ disabilities? If so, you are not as different from the able bodied as you may think you are.

There may be no doubt in your mind - but that does not mean that you can’t be wrong. The fact that you came across someone who was not as amenable to your
‘correction’ as others have been in the past, does not automatically make them wrong and you right.

Apparently being ‘right’ is important to you. That’s fine if that’s the way you want to live your life. But don’t make the mistake of basing your ‘rightness’ on your own assumptions. If you want to take a stand on the facts, by all means - take your stand. But if you don’t know, can’t know, the facts - then maybe you should pick your battles a little more carefully.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@jamiemcgarry

<snip>

It is typically the ones who shouldn’t be there in the first place who are the ones who get belligerently defensive and atrociously nasty at the first innocent mention of their lack of permit. They blow up and do everything they can to “sidetrack” the situation away from their wrongdoing. That is exactly what was happening with this situation at RiteAid. There is not a doubt in my mind that this lady had no business parking in handicap parking. And she knew it too.

That seems likely to me, too.

@LurkerInNJ

The person with the permit may be the driver or a passenger.

*You may use your disability placard
in any vehicle that you are driving
or is transporting you. However,
Michigan law allows only one
disability placard to be issued to a
person. *

@jamiemcgarry

Even if the person with the disability is NOT the person needing access to the handicap parking spot being used? As in they will not be leaving the vehicle? That’s utter nonsense.

@LurkerInNJ

It’s the law, and it makes perfect sense. Plates are issued to a vehicle, placards are issued to a person. The person whom the placard was issued to has met the disability requirements and has the right to be parked there. Nothing in the law says they have to leave the vehicle.

That does not make perfect sense. The point of disabled parking is to give disabled people a reserved spot that limits the amount of walking they have to do - if the disabled person isn’t getting out of the vehicle, the car doesn’t belong in that spot. It might technically be legal (and I’m not entirely sure about that), but it sure as hell isn’t ethical.

[Ambivalid]

@LilyoftheField

You are making a lot of assumptions here. Which may or may not be true. The thing is there is a dearth of factual information here. Who was the handicapped person, the belligerent woman or her passenger? We don’t know, assumptions are being made based solely on the fact that the passenger was an ‘older woman’. But young people can be disabled too - you know that, of course. The fact that she was not in a wheelchair or on crutches or otherwise ‘obviously’ disabled means nothing. There are many disabilities which are not so readily apparent. You know that too. Why should you assume the worst? Because the worst case scenario is the most common? Perhaps. But that still doesn’t make your argument based on fact rather than assumption.

People have bad days and sometimes that can make them testy. That happens to all of us, disabled or not. Perhaps the woman you accosted was having a bad day. Perhaps she had been arguing with her passenger (mother? relative? whatever, anything is an assumption) and when she got out of the car the very last thing she needed to hear was some stranger in a parking lot, questioning her credentials for being where she was. Perhaps disability was new to her and not something she was okay with discussing with said stranger. Perhaps. Perhaps not, but we don’t know, do we?

You don’t actually know that the belligerent woman was not the owner of the handicapped placard. You want to assume that, because it makes your actions more justifiable. But you don’t know, you can only speculate based on what you find to be ‘typical’. Perhaps because your own disability is so readily apparent, you are just as quick as anyone else to dismiss the ‘invisible’ disabilities? If so, you are not as different from the able bodied as you may think you are.

There may be no doubt in your mind - but that does not mean that you can’t be wrong. The fact that you came across someone who was not as amenable to your
‘correction’ as others have been in the past, does not automatically make them wrong and you right.

Apparently being ‘right’ is important to you. That’s fine if that’s the way you want to live your life. But don’t make the mistake of basing your ‘rightness’ on your own assumptions. If you want to take a stand on the facts, by all means - take your stand. But if you don’t know, can’t know, the facts - then maybe you should pick your battles a little more carefully.

“Accosted”…really?! Again, all I did was ask a passing woman if she indeed had a permit for her otherwise visibly illegally parked vehicle. Ask.

[Ambivalid]

@Guinastasia

How do you know it was the old lady, and not the girl who got out of the car? You know what they say about those who assume, right?
(The fact that she was wearing a Medic Alert bracelet seems to point to her)

She had no Medic Alert bracelet!! What she did (and said) was, in reply to my asking her if she had a permit, in a nasty sarcastic tone and manner; “Yeah, I got a permit around my ankle mothafucker!”, and then she kicked her leg up (around her head, quite acrobatic) and pointed at it. There was nothing around her ankle.

[Ambivalid]

@LilyoftheField

You are making a lot of assumptions here. Which may or may not be true. The thing is there is a dearth of factual information here. Who was the handicapped person, the belligerent woman or her passenger? We don’t know, assumptions are being made based solely on the fact that the passenger was an ‘older woman’. But young people can be disabled too - you know that, of course. The fact that she was not in a wheelchair or on crutches or otherwise ‘obviously’ disabled means nothing. There are many disabilities which are not so readily apparent. You know that too. Why should you assume the worst? Because the worst case scenario is the most common? Perhaps. But that still doesn’t make your argument based on fact rather than assumption.

People have bad days and sometimes that can make them testy. That happens to all of us, disabled or not. Perhaps the woman you accosted was having a bad day. Perhaps she had been arguing with her passenger (mother? relative? whatever, anything is an assumption) and when she got out of the car the very last thing she needed to hear was some stranger in a parking lot, questioning her credentials for being where she was. Perhaps disability was new to her and not something she was okay with discussing with said stranger. Perhaps. Perhaps not, but we don’t know, do we?

You don’t actually know that the belligerent woman was not the owner of the handicapped placard. You want to assume that, because it makes your actions more justifiable. But you don’t know, you can only speculate based on what you find to be ‘typical’. Perhaps because your own disability is so readily apparent, you are just as quick as anyone else to dismiss the ‘invisible’ disabilities? If so, you are not as different from the able bodied as you may think you are.

There may be no doubt in your mind - but that does not mean that you can’t be wrong. The fact that you came across someone who was not as amenable to your
‘correction’ as others have been in the past, does not automatically make them wrong and you right.

Apparently being ‘right’ is important to you. That’s fine if that’s the way you want to live your life. But don’t make the mistake of basing your ‘rightness’ on your own assumptions. If you want to take a stand on the facts, by all means - take your stand. But if you don’t know, can’t know, the facts - then maybe you should pick your battles a little more carefully.

These assumptions, or speculations as I prefer, are all coming after the incident occured. They did not influence my actions whatsoever. In fact, they weren’t even fully formed until well after I had left the parking lot.

[LilyoftheField]

@jamiemcgarry

These assumptions, or speculations as I prefer, are all coming after the incident occured. They did not influence my actions whatsoever. In fact, they weren’t even fully formed until well after I had left the parking lot.

Is that supposed to be better? I’m not sure what you’re saying. Does this mean that you do not think that you even need to consider the possibility that your reaction may have been too hasty and thoughtless?

[Rigamarole]

Why, what a good little Junior Deputy you are! You deserve a gold star! I can’t imagine why a person would have gotten annoyed by some schmuck in a parking lot who thinks it’s his job not only to enforce the law, but educate other citizens on its finer points as well. But I’m sure they were just bitter old ne’er-do-wells who didn’t recognize the value of the education you were so generously offering them.

Junior Deputy, I think you’re ready for a promotion! For your next assignment, you should locate a den of iniquity - a crackhouse, a brothel perhaps… and go offer your educational services there. Spread the good word of the law far and wide!