I’m better than you, laws don’t apply to me

[Indian113]

Sometimes the Handicap of a Person is NOT Visible! I agree the Idiot Parking in the 1st picture is terrible. But I am not able to look at some one and see if they have heart trouble or bad lungs or many other things that give them the ability to have a Placard!

[GOPAPA]

Originally Posted by Indian113

Sometimes the Handicap of a Person is NOT Visible! I agree the Idiot Parking in the 1st picture is terrible. But I am not able to look at some one and see if they have heart trouble or bad lungs or many other things that give them the ability to have a Placard!

I have a wife that fits this to a tee, Sometimes when I park in one of then disabled parking spots with the wife ,,some one gives me the eagle eye thinking I am healthy and should no be parking there,, like you said ,,quick looks do not tell enough of why some people do not look diabled (According to Them)

[Steeveedee]

I know what you mean, with the not easily noticed disabilities. Though I will say that the contractor (even if he was an old man) parking his truck in the handicap space and loading a bunch of construction materials in it doesn't strike me as particularly handicapped. Left me wondering what the problem was.

[special-K]

Now we are onto a major pet peeve of mine. It's these wussies at Home Depot and Lowe's who park under the loading canopy. Some Home Depots even have designated diagonal parking for 'Pros'. When did a loading area become the parking lot and the parking lot become the loading area? I point out to these guys all the time how ridiculous it is that an able body contractor has to park closer to the store than a handicapped customer. I always leave my cart pushed up against their bumper. I'd like to scrape it down the side of their truck. Oops, guess you parked it in a hi risk area. People who care about their trucks park out where no one will bump it.

[jeffahart]

Originally Posted by special-K

Now we are onto a major pet peeve of mine. It's these wussies at Home Depot and Lowe's who park under the loading canopy. Some Home Depots even have designated diagonal parking for 'Pros'. When did a loading area become the parking lot and the parking lot become the loading area? I point out to these guys all the time how ridiculous it is that an able body contractor has to park closer to the store than a handicapped customer. I always leave my cart pushed up against their bumper. I'd like to scrape it down the side of their truck. Oops, guess you parked it in a hi risk area. People who care about their trucks park out where no one will bump it.

I watched one of those guys sweep crap out of the bed of his truck onto the loading area. He left the mess. I never drive into the loading area of the orange box... full of nails and screws, who needs a flat? They should change the sign from "Pro Parking" to "Jerk Zone"



j

[Jrainman]

Lots of replies on this thread , So what is your opinion on the recent case in Florida

Where a man approched a car at a convience store and told the passenger in the car, that the car was parked in a handicap zone and to move the car ,just then the driver of the car came walking up, confronted the man they had a few heated words, the driver of that car then pushed the man to the ground as the man fell to ground he rolled took out his leagly bought hand gun and shot the man who parked in the handicap zone to death

At first the police said it was a jusified shooting because Florida has a law that clearly states if your life is indanger you have the right to prtect yourself with deadly force. but as weeks gone by the police and DA decided to charge the man in question.

[richard2717]

Originally Posted by Jrainman

Lots of replies on this thread , So what is your opinion on the recent case in Florida

Where a man approched a car at a convience store and told the passenger in the car, that the car was parked in a handicap zone and to move the car ,just then the driver of the car came walking up, confronted the man they had a few heated words, the driver of that car then pushed the man to the ground as the man fell to ground he rolled took out his leagly bought hand gun and shot the man who parked in the handicap zone to death

At first the police said it was a jusified shooting because Florida has a law that clearly states if your life is indanger you have the right to prtect yourself with deadly force. but as weeks gone by the police and DA decided to charge the man in question.

I watched a couple videos of that one and to me it was not a justified shooting. When he pulled the gun the guy that pushed him down clearly stepped back to diffuse the situation and had his hands up. The guy on the ground shot him anyway. I am pro 2a but that was not needed in this instance In my opinion.

[jeffahart]

Originally Posted by Jrainman

Lots of replies on this thread , So what is your opinion on the recent case in Florida

Where a man approched a car at a convience store and told the passenger in the car, that the car was parked in a handicap zone and to move the car ,just then the driver of the car came walking up, confronted the man they had a few heated words, the driver of that car then pushed the man to the ground as the man fell to ground he rolled took out his leagly bought hand gun and shot the man who parked in the handicap zone to death

At first the police said it was a jusified shooting because Florida has a law that clearly states if your life is indanger you have the right to prtect yourself with deadly force. but as weeks gone by the police and DA decided to charge the man in question.

Born of anger not self defense.

A true story from a sad afternoon at Ft. Irwin Ca. I will not use real names; killed man will be "Bleeder", man who put him down will be "Chucker". This is a true story of anger in confrontation.

It was a blistering afternoon out on the MTA(Military training area). Men in the S3(Operations) shop were setting up a GP Medium for the TOC(Tactical Operations Center). You can google GP medium tent to see it's size. I was helping the the guys in the "3" shop. I was attached to the S2 (Intelligence). Non of the troops in the 3 shop were my friends. We only knew each at work. I didn't care much for any of them.

The men were cranky and arguing. A couple that didn't care much for each other got into an altercation. It was broken up but harsh words were being tossed from one side of the tent to the other. The tent was set up and all the sides were rolled up, so it was like a giant shade canopy. Chucker picked up a rock and tossed it at Bleeder to shut him up. Bleeder went down. Men gathered around him. He wasn't moving. I watched for a couple minutes. I walked over and looked at him. He had a giant lump above his left eye with blood dripping. "He's dead," I said. I $hit you not, two seconds later every troop under that canopy was now outside on the perimeter looking in. I knelt next to Bleeder by myself for a few seconds examining him(I'm not a medic, no medics on site either). I hollered at Chucker to come help with CPR. I did the closed chest massage. Chucker did mouth to mouth. Within a couple minutes Bleeder had gotten pumped up with air and brown bile flowed from his mouth and into Chuckers mouth. Chucker started vomiting. I hollered at him to keep going. I hollered at other troops to help. Finally a sergeant from my "2" shop got on the scene and we got his mouth cleaned up and we switched off taking turns mouth to mouth and chest compressions. It took a half hour for dust off. A long half hour.

The San Bernardino Sheriffs wanted him on Murder charges. The Army had a different take. We all got the $hit interrogated out of us. We basically rallied around one of out own, Chucker. The NCOs and CID didn't dig the outsiders from the Sheriffs. Not sure the dynamics.

We saluted Bleeder boots on the battalion mall. I went to his funeral and watched Bleeders wife with three kids and parents sob. I watched Chucker bawl the whole time. Chucker was not a bad guy.

Why this story hits home for me!

I had my orders flagged when I was posted at Baumholder Germany. Why?

I was in a bar with a friend. It was a horseshoe shaped bar. A guy at the other side of the horseshoe kept talking crap to me. I was in an intense conversation with my roommate. I wasn't in the mood for fighting the jackass. So I threw my beer mug at this head. It knocked him off his stool and knocked him out. Ever see the size of a German beer mug? Anyhow, he shut up. The MPs arrested me and tried to charge me with attempted murder. They told me I was going to Mannheim(Europe's version of Fort Leavenworth). I was smug and knew it was bullcrap. That really pissed them off.

One year later I watched the scene under the GP medium and realized how close I had been to going to Mannheim only one year earlier.

I got lucky!

Don't be so quick with the fists boys and girls. You may not get lucky!


j

[Shorty Cox]

I think this is an interesting topic. “Passed by Congress in 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is the nation's first comprehensive civil rights law addressing the needs of people with disabilities, prohibiting discrimination in employment, public services, public accommodations, and telecommunications.”

At the time, paranoia of being sued ran rampant among those entities that fall under the guidelines/rule of the Act which resulted in collectively millions being spent based on assumptions of things needed as opposed to what was needed. (To illustrate, I could tell several stories of things I witnessed at the time) Among a multitude of requirements, equal access to facilities was one of the mandates of the Act. That requirement could be accomplished many ways. A business could just hire an individual to stand outside of their business and physically aid ALL patrons to access the facility, but the cheapest and easiest was to designate specific parking spaces. The key objective is to “accommodate”.

When one examines the initial photo above, the individual is not parked in the handicapped parking spaces, (there are two available) but in the “commons” approach to the building. No foul as to the handicap parking issue.

What I think is so interesting, WE THE PEOPLE (society, public) have taken it on ourselves to be the enforcer of that portion of the ADA Act. Our neighbor can be beating his wife and kids, but we ignore and don’t get involved it that. The house down the street can be a crack house, and again, we won’t get involved in that, but let someone, WE think is not intitled, park in a handicapped space, and WE are in an uproar.

WE are strange!

[CG]

Handicapped spaces are required to have a striped access space of a minimum of 60 inches, and up to 96 inches if doubled up or for van parking. The slope is to be no greater than 1:48. So whether you want to believe it or not that guy is parked in the handicapped zone.

And maybe YOU don't report an abuse when you see it, or maybe YOU don't report a home in the neighborhood that has obvious illegal activities going on. That's not ME, so don't include ME in your WE scenario ... And I think a lot of us here are like ME.

[In The Ten Ring]

Lots of replies on this thread , So what is your opinion on the recent case in Florida

Where a man approched a car at a convience store and told the passenger in the car, that the car was parked in a handicap zone and to move the car ,just then the driver of the car came walking up, confronted the man they had a few heated words, the driver of that car then pushed the man to the ground as the man fell to ground he rolled took out his leagly bought hand gun and shot the man who parked in the handicap zone to death

At first the police said it was a jusified shooting because Florida has a law that clearly states if your life is indanger you have the right to prtect yourself with deadly force. but as weeks gone by the police and DA decided to charge the man in question.

Actually Florida law, the much-debated "Stand Your Ground Laws" merely removed the previous "duty to retreat" requirement. SYG means you do not have to run away when threatened with lethal force since it places undue burden upon the victim. Further, evil has never been stopped by fleeing it. But also (and this is what's important here) SYG laws include "the shooter cannot be involved in the altercation that led to the use of lethal force." The jury will have to decide that. I personally doubt the shooter meant to be physically attacked. I think he (like some in this thread) meant to verbally correct the parking offender and never expected to be sucker punched / sucker pushed (that was a powerful "push" after all as it knocked the shooter several feet to the pavement) and thus, never thought arguing with the offender would led to anything more than words.

I think all states have a "self defense" statute, it is that one that generally allows the use of deadly force if faced with the immediate threat of grave bodily harm or death. "Self Defense" is legally separate from "duty to retreat" and "Stand Your Ground" laws.

This very case was discussed at great length on various firearm discussion forums, weeks before it hit the national news. The justification of the shoot has merits on either side but the simple fact remains: IT'S BEST NOT TO ARGUE WITH PEOPLE. And remember, the jury will be made up by people that would never say anything at all to anyone that breaks a rule. *And one big rule of carrying a gun, "don't get into arguments or fights because it may escalate and if it does, it might turn deadly."

These days, a growing number of people are entitled, YOU OWE THEM SOMETHING and some of those, such as the deceased in the Florida case, have no problems answering words with violence.

Even if the shooter wins his case, his life has taken a turn for the worst. He's a marked man, he'll be watching his back for decades, he can kiss his savings good bye, even his friends and family will treat him differently. If he loses, he'll do some hard time, never legally be in the presence of a gun, or legally vote again. Oh and he'll still have people that want him dead, only then he cannot legally defend himself.

Get this little experience!

This happened to me last Tuesday. I am at the drugstore and walk to my car to leave. I notice a buggy left in front of another car with who appears to be the lazy person just one car away. I NEVER SAID A WORD. I just walked over, got the buggy, and began pushing it to a buggy area. BOOM. The lazy person half-way gets out of her car and BEGINS SCREAMING PROFANITY AND MAKING OFFENSIVE GESTURES. She's not alone either but her two companions never look up from whatever they have below the sides of the doors they are looking at. "THAT'S RIGHT M****F***, THAT'S WHERE THAT GOES! YOU GO TO ****!" and on and on.

It was hard to keep my cool but I knew I had to. I stayed calm and even courteous and apologized to her (to which she flicked me off and screamed more profanities).

Had I argued back, at the very least I'd have an unpredictable nutcase/dope head being even more upset! At the very worst, I'd have her two friends being as unpredictable or worse.....

Don't argue with people........even if you are in the right. Take a pic of the offending parker, forward to police. I doubt they'll do anything but it's better than the possible alternative.

[mongocanfly]

Reading special-k post about Lowe's and h.d. I noticed the other day at Lowe's that they had to put up chains across the loading area to keep people from using it as a parking lot...if you need loaded they let the chains down so you can pull in...

[Grumpy old man]

Originally Posted by In The Ten Ring

Lots of replies on this thread , So what is your opinion on the recent case in Florida

Where a man approched a car at a convience store and told the passenger in the car, that the car was parked in a handicap zone and to move the car ,just then the driver of the car came walking up, confronted the man they had a few heated words, the driver of that car then pushed the man to the ground as the man fell to ground he rolled took out his leagly bought hand gun and shot the man who parked in the handicap zone to death

At first the police said it was a jusified shooting because Florida has a law that clearly states if your life is indanger you have the right to prtect yourself with deadly force. but as weeks gone by the police and DA decided to charge the man in question.

Actually Florida law, the much-debated "Stand Your Ground Laws" merely removed the previous "duty to retreat" requirement. SYG means you do not have to run away when threatened with lethal force since it places undue burden upon the victim. Further, evil has never been stopped by fleeing it. But also (and this is what's important here) SYG laws include "the shooter cannot be involved in the altercation that led to the use of lethal force." The jury will have to decide that. I personally doubt the shooter meant to be physically attacked. I think he (like some in this thread) meant to verbally correct the parking offender and never expected to be sucker punched / sucker pushed (that was a powerful "push" after all as it knocked the shooter several feet to the pavement) and thus, never thought arguing with the offender would led to anything more than words.

I think all states have a "self defense" statute, it is that one that generally allows the use of deadly force if faced with the immediate threat of grave bodily harm or death. "Self Defense" is legally separate from "duty to retreat" and "Stand Your Ground" laws.

This very case was discussed at great length on various firearm discussion forums, weeks before it hit the national news. The justification of the shoot has merits on either side but the simple fact remains: IT'S BEST NOT TO ARGUE WITH PEOPLE. And remember, the jury will be made up by people that would never say anything at all to anyone that breaks a rule. *And one big rule of carrying a gun, "don't get into arguments or fights because it may escalate and if it does, it might turn deadly."

These days, a growing number of people are entitled, YOU OWE THEM SOMETHING and some of those, such as the deceased in the Florida case, have no problems answering words with violence.

Even if the shooter wins his case, his life has taken a turn for the worst. He's a marked man, he'll be watching his back for decades, he can kiss his savings good bye, even his friends and family will treat him differently. If he loses, he'll do some hard time, never legally be in the presence of a gun, or legally vote again. Oh and he'll still have people that want him dead, only then he cannot legally defend himself.

Get this little experience!

This happened to me last Tuesday. I am at the drugstore and walk to my car to leave. I notice a buggy left in front of another car with who appears to be the lazy person just one car away. I NEVER SAID A WORD. I just walked over, got the buggy, and began pushing it to a buggy area. BOOM. The lazy person half-way gets out of her car and BEGINS SCREAMING PROFANITY AND MAKING OFFENSIVE GESTURES. She's not alone either but her two companions never look up from whatever they have below the sides of the doors they are looking at. "THAT'S RIGHT M****F***, THAT'S WHERE THAT GOES! YOU GO TO ****!" and on and on.

It was hard to keep my cool but I knew I had to. I stayed calm and even courteous and apologized to her (to which she flicked me off and screamed more profanities).

Had I argued back, at the very least I'd have an unpredictable nutcase/dope head being even more upset! At the very worst, I'd have her two friends being as unpredictable or worse.....

Don't argue with people........even if you are in the right. Take a pic of the offending parker, forward to police. I doubt they'll do anything but it's better than the possible alternative.

There's more to that story , The shooter has been looking for a reason to use the stand your ground law and he's not going to walk away from this ...

His arrest warrant notes three out of four of the prior cases. Two were road rage incidents documented by law enforcement in which he was accused of showing a gun. A third was an argument a few months ago over the same parking space in which Drejka confronted another man, Richard Kelly, who said Drejka threatened to shoot him.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/public...case_170853729

[In The Ten Ring]

Originally Posted by Grumpy old man

There's more to that story , The shooter has been looking for a reason to use the stand your ground law and he's not going to walk away from this ...

His arrest warrant notes three out of four of the prior cases. Two were road rage incidents documented by law enforcement in which he was accused of showing a gun. A third was an argument a few months ago over the same parking space in which Drejka confronted another man, Richard Kelly, who said Drejka threatened to shoot him.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/public...case_170853729

That's your opinion but a popular one.

Being accused of brandishing is different from being proven to have brandished. Brandishing is illegal, even a felony in many or perhaps all states, and since he apparently wasn't arrested for it, I doubt there was proof.

Threatening to shoot someone is a felony, but only where proven to have done so. He apparently wasn't arrested so I doubt there is proof.

What there is proof of however, is previous run-ins with the law involving altercations with people where a gun was alleged to have been involved. This may be enough to convince a jury he was "looking for an excuse." *And that is all that matters.

The video showed he fired after the attacker had stopped the attack and had begun to move away. I think that's going to be the shooter's biggest hurdle. Drawing and pointing was enough to stop the attack but then he fired anyway.

*I think that was the result of a lack of training. Most people don't plan ahead for this sort of thing, so when it happens they aren't mentally prepared for the challenge.

Something discussed about his case on a gun forum was "tunnel vision." The shooter wasn't processing information such as we are. We see the video, we haven't been attacked without warning, we haven't been knocked several feet to the ground, we haven't had our lives threatened (video had no sound, did the attacker threaten to kill the shooter?), so we are going to see things differently than the shooter. I suspect the defense will bring that up in detail along with expert witnesses on just what happens to one's mind when life is in danger. *I doubt the shooter has the financial resources for such a witness though, since I think he has a public defender.

Whether or not the shooter was "involved in the altercation that led to the shooting" has me wondering. He wasn't involved at all with the BF as the BF was inside the store. He was only arguing with the GF. Words are never a reason to resort to physical violence yet the BF immediately went to violence. I'm very curious how arguments will be presented and how the jury will rule on that point.

General lessons for us:

1). Don't argue with people.
2). Don't bring your fists to a gun fight.*

*Punching old dudes is a bad idea....they are often too young to die but too old to take a beating. See rule number 1.

There is a further thing to consider, have we, as a society, moved so far away from decency that we can no longer safely tell someone "hey buddy, don't do that, you know that's wrong" that we get argued with and punched for it? That's where it seems we are. In times past, most people didn't act like they owned the world and you'd better let them get their way.