:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:dubious: :dubious: :dubious:
Yes, I did it one Christmas. When the security guard came, I feigned ignorance. That wasn’t very hard to do. 
(bolding mine) Didn’t you have a gun? Why not use that? :rolleyes:
Assuming Elendil’s Heir was there first logically he is entitled to the spot and when he leaves then the SUV gets to use the spot and only when the SUV leaves is Elendil’s Heir’s wife entitled to the spot. It’s a simple queue.
It seems in this case, howwver, that Elendil’s Heir saw an empty space and by the time he walked to it the SUV was already waiting and he pushed his way to the front of the queue so in this case Elendil’s Heir was wrong.
Personally, I think that even if Elendil’s Heir was there first the parking spot is not for pedestrians so he still would have been in the wrong.
Zerc, This is the sanest, most sensible answer I’ve seen.
If anyone cares, the situation I had alluded to earlier (that of “what sane cop could fire a gun at a car?”) is being extensively discussed here. Please note how very critical people are being of the cops firing at a car filled with unarmed passengers in circumstances wherein, unlike the circumstances I had raised,
- the cops had more reason to suppose the passenger(s) were armed
- the passenger(s) had already done some serious damage to a vehicle
and - the passengers were putting themselves in a situation where they were more likely, not less likely, to be able to escape custody.
Nonetheless, the majority reaction seems to be that these cops were totally unjustified in firing on the car. So I ask again, if the position **threemae ** put forth still makes ANY sense to anyone?
It took some stones to stand in that space, but I would not have done it, just because it would have been discourteous.
I guess Mr. SUV had a tale to tell at the dinner table that night, huh? 
Q
I’ve had parking spaces held for me in front of my store (yes, on a public street) when I needed to pull in a truck for loading and unloading. Aside from that, I never do it.
Okay, I’m confused. Everywhere I’ve ever lived it’s illegal to block the entrance to someone’s residence. People have to be able to get in and out. If you park your car across my driveway, I’ll have it towed away. Why do you think it’s okay to do it in NYC?
The position Threemae put forth is that the rules governing cops’ behavior as cops allows them to fire at the driver of a vehicle moving toward them.
You ask here whether her position makes sense. Of course it does. I read it and understand exactly what she means.
I take it you’re trying to ask whether her position is plausible, specifically in light of the fact that a bunch of people from your other thread thought some cops were unjustified in shooting some guys in another relevantly similar incident.
But I don’t see how her position’s plausibility is related to the reaction you note on the thread you link to. Her position takes a stance as to what the rules on the books for cops are. The thing you note from the linked thread has to do with how people are reacting to some cops’ actions. Since the people whose reaction you are noting are not invested with the power to make or enforce judgments regarding the cops’ adherence to the rules on the books, I don’t see how their reaction is relevant to the question of what those rules in fact are.
On TV, anyway, :), the rule seems to be cops are supposed to shoot at drivers of vehicles when those vehicles are being used as weapons. But you know how TV is…
-FrL-
Ditto that confusion.
-FrL-
This ain’t a driveway. It’s a door to an apartment building. There is no cut in the curb leading to a driveway, and there is nowhere to park a car. This is NOT a vehicular entrance that is being “blocked” by a car parked at curbside.
The sign is there to discourage people from blocking the pedestrians in hte building from being easily able to leave their building and hail a cab, in a city where street parking is at a premium.
Clearer? It’s totally outrageous.
Just think, if Mr Suv was a doper, there would probably be a pit thread on this right now.
Jim
You don’t? Really? In this thread, I note how I might announce my intention to park in a spot being occupied by a person. I am unarmed (or at least nowhere suggest that I am armed) and when I have succeeded in gaining my intention, I will be in a parking space and completely unable to escape other than on foot. An armed officer, upon seeing what I’m trying to do, could allow me to park, assume a position just outside the passenger door with his gun trained on my forehead, and order me to put my hands on the wheel and place me under arrest. Nonetheless, Threemae prefers that the officer standing in the parking space instead open fire on me with intent to kill me.
Now, in the actual example in the NYC news this week, the civilians were, at least purportedly, thought to have been armed themselves, and were attempting to position their vehicle in such a way as to make their escape from custody, and had already bashed into a car containing police personnel. Nonetheless, most Dopers in that thread, note that the police should NOT have opened fire on the car. (The jurisdiction, btw, is the same one in both cases: New York City. ANd the same rules about conditions allowing police to open fire apply to both.) Are you of the opinion that the police had every right to fire in both my (and** threemae**'s) hypothetical situation AND in the actual one, or are you saying that the hypothetical situation I described gave the police greater cause to open fire? If the latter, tell me what those aggravating circumstances would be, please.
Not only is the latter a better rule, it is the only way I can think of that does not result in an utterly absurd situation. If spaces can be “reserved” in advance, without a car, by merely showing up, then what is to prevent me from simply placing a sign in a space the evening before to reserve it for myself, and then parking there the next day? Since I was the first one there, it would satisfy the “first come, first served” rule. No, the only rule that makes any sense is that the first car to pull into the space is entitled to that space.
Had such a situation as the OP describes happened to me, I imagine I would have politely asked the person to move out of the way, and if he failed to comply, I would have honked my horn until such time as he decided to move, or a store employee came out and made him move. And if anyone thinks that’s rude, I submit that it’s more rude to deliberately stand in the way of a vehicle.
Prefers? You didn’t get that from Threemae’s posts.
As I said, her position is that the rules on the books for cops are thus-and-so. Your position is that acting according to that rule is thought by most to be outrageous. There is simply no disagreement between these two positions.
-FrL-
It was supposed to be understood that the revised rule meant by “first come” “first person to occupy the space continually with his own presence up til the time in question.”
Anyway, in a subsequent post, I said I was wrong, and that the “first car come” rule is better after all, since it is more conducive to the flow of auto traffic than the “first person come” rule would be.
-FrL-
I forgot to answer the above questions. I should preface my answer by saying that my opinions in this matter are irrelevant to the point I was making. Having said that: I do not know enough about the actual situation discussed in the linked thread to have a judgment about it, and I think the police would be wrong to fire in both your and Threemae’s hypothetical parking lot situations, and, incidentally, I doubt Threemae is correct to think that the rules allow the police to fire in such situations. Again, this is irrelevant to the point I am making in my conversation with you. My point is that you are interpreting Threemae as having made a claim about whether a policeman would have been justified in firing on you, when in fact she was just saying that she believes the rules allow him to fire on you and that it is likely that a policeman would fire on you.
-FrL-
And at the very least, it’s clear that with FAR more provocation and cause in the same exact jurisdiction, the police officers in Jamaica earlier this week have violated clear departmental policy regarding the use of firearms and will be disciplined for that violation. They may well be fired, or resign, which was exactly my point when I asked how long she thinks they would remain police officers after firing a gun at an unarmed civilian.
Would a cop fire at me in the circumstances I described? Maybe, if he was an insane, self-destructive cop bent on wrecking his career. Otherwise, no. The rules on use of force (and the rules on his self-preservation of his livelihood) say that he may not fire at all, much less fire with intent to kill, much less kill.
Which of course isn’t any better or less arbritrary than, “first person to put a sign up”.
Sorry I missed that.