We are an entitled, petty, barbaric country: Handicapped parking shooting

#502
#502
Rasputin_Vol said:
I didn't say it was "for" the lazy, nor am I suggesting that since it is being taken advantage of, that it invalidates the law.

Let me say it one more time so that you can understand:

It should be a courtesy.

Nothing more. Nothing less. But now, you get entitled individuals like this guy (or likely far less as aggressive as this guy) that feel like they can confront people over an arbitrary parking spot. Or, feel compelled to call the police overy a parking spot.

It's that sort of mentality in this country that hits at the very heart of this entire shooting incident. A parking spot is not worth having laws written for it, nor worthy of police action, nor worthy of confronting people, nor worthy of back talking and chicken necking with a stranger, nor worth losing your life over.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It should be left up to the business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#503
#503
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Indeed. It should be left up to the business.
Click to expand...

It is......the business can choose not to put in handicap accessibility......of course that would also be choosing to not be able to open their doors in a society that does not penalize a person for being in a chair.....
 
#504
#504
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Indeed. It should be left up to the business.
Click to expand...


Well in that case folks just need to shut up and get their darn cakes and crap somewhere else. Right to refuse service, descriminate for any reason and all that jazz ;)

If not for the law many business owners would not provide accessibility parking as it costs money they would chose not spend.
 
#507
#507
DynaLo said:
Well in that case folks just need to shut up and get their darn cakes and crap somewhere else. Right to refuse service, descriminate for any reason and all that jazz ;)

If not for the law many business owners would not provide accessibility parking as it costs money they would chose not spend.
Click to expand...

this is where I am different. Business owners should be able to deny services to specific individuals, for whatever reason. But blanket denials should not be allowed.

As I specified the handicap should have access to the place of business, so that they can go in and interact, and if they are denied service at that time fine. But access to that service, the ability to get service, is what the government should enforce.

basically its the governments job to make sure it CAN happen, not that it does.
 
#509
#509
LouderVol said:
this is where I am different. Business owners should be able to deny services to specific individuals, for whatever reason. But blanket denials should not be allowed.

As I specified the handicap should have access to the place of business, so that they can go in and interact, and if they are denied service at that time fine. But access to that service, the ability to get service, is what the government should enforce.

basically its the governments job to make sure it CAN happen, not that it does.
Click to expand...

Not according to Ras and Defend.......
 
#511
#511
Orange_Crush said:
You've ignored the vast chasm between the concept of "anybody", and the guy that just blindside attacked you.
Click to expand...


Ok,

"A guy knocked me down, I was scared, assumed he might have had a weapon so I shot him."

Had he backed away and was in fact continuing to retreat and there was no visible weapon, or even an object that could be perceived as a weapon, when you fired?

"Hey man, I told you I was scared, right? What difference should that make?"

I carry myself so if anything I have to fight the bias to be sympathetic towards anyone involved in a self-defense shooting. I've got precious little sympathy to offer the shooter in that video.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#512
#512
T-TownVol said:
It is......the business can choose not to put in handicap accessibility......of course that would also be choosing to not be able to open their doors in a society that does not penalize a person for being in a chair.....
Click to expand...

Nope. They have too. It's the law.

Americans with Disablities Act (ADA) requires them. It also prescribes length, width, type (standard or van accessable), location, signage, and how many HC parking spots for the firecode maximum building occupation. Failure to provide ADA required accessability features in a business facility open to the public can and does result in the disabled suing for damages above court ordered facility remediation to bring it into ADA compliance.

ADA Handicapped Parking Rules – Access Signs Regulations | MyParkingSign.com Blog
 
#514
#514
hndog609 said:
Ok,

"A guy knocked me down, I was scared, assumed he might have had a weapon so I shot him."

Had he backed away and was in fact continuing to retreat and there was no visible weapon, or even an object that could be perceived as a weapon, when you fired?

"Hey man, I told you I was scared, right? What difference should that make?"

I carry myself so if anything I have to fight the bias to be sympathetic towards anyone involved in a self-defense shooting. I've got precious little sympathy to offer the shooter in that video.
Click to expand...

That's a much more honest argument to discuss and debate than saying that to let this guys off would be a license to just go shoot anyone you want to and claim fear as the motive.

I don't completely agree with you on it, but it's at least intellectually honest enough that a healthy debate could be had around it.
 
#515
#515
hndog609 said:
Ok,

"A guy knocked me down, I was scared, assumed he might have had a weapon so I shot him."

Had he backed away and was in fact continuing to retreat and there was no visible weapon, or even an object that could be perceived as a weapon, when you fired?

"Hey man, I told you I was scared, right? What difference should that make?"

I carry myself so if anything I have to fight the bias to be sympathetic towards anyone involved in a self-defense shooting. I've got precious little sympathy to offer the shooter in that video.
Click to expand...

I agree.

But... we've all heard the meme below.

Old folk...many have painful partial disabilities they have to live with where walking hurts, badly. I do. I met a guy several days ago who'd had half a dozen back surgeries with another coming because metal bars with spacers had screw fasteners that were no longer holding. Walked liked I do. Slow, deliberate, without a cane.

Point? Well, ...
 
#518
#518
Orange_Crush said:
That's a much more honest argument to discuss and debate than saying that to let this guys off would be a license to just go shoot anyone you want to and claim fear as the motive.

I don't completely agree with you on it, but it's at least intellectually honest enough that a healthy debate could be had around it.
Click to expand...


I'll admit to a previous skosh of hyerbole for effect but continue to advance the opinion that if the shooter in that video can be afforded immunity under SYG then the mesh scale on the sieve is so large things no sane person would want is going to be allowed through.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#519
#519
Orangedogsrule said:
Nope. They have too. It's the law.

Americans with Disablities Act (ADA) requires them. It also prescribes length, width, type (standard or van accessable), location, signage, and how many HC parking spots for the firecode maximum building occupation. Failure to provide ADA required accessability features in a business facility open to the public can and does result in the disabled suing for damages above court ordered facility remediation to bring it into ADA compliance.

ADA Handicapped Parking Rules – Access Signs Regulations | MyParkingSign.com Blog
Click to expand...

Read my entire post again.......
 
#522
#522
SpaceCoastVol said:
To which I say. :eek:lol:

Actually I read an interesting article in (I believe) Guns and Ammo that talked about how bangers use cheap ammunition that doesn't kill. If they actually used quality stuff, lots more would be dead. I say we donate free stuff to their cause. I couldn't care less if they kill each other.
Click to expand...

They don’t want to catch a murder charge unless they have to. This is basically how they “fight” without using their hands. Much easier to run up and shoot sometime as opposed to throwing punches and running away. Below the waist is aggravated assault so they stick to that mostly, as well as .25/.32/.380 guns.
 
#523
#523
We see this old saw play out in front of our eyes in the video.
Personally, in this case, I would have not have completely unlimbered and aimed straight at my attacker. HE WAS NOT ADVANCING!!!!!

He should have only partially drawn, leaving only the tip of the muzzle near his holster, but cleared.
 
#524
#524
Orangedogsrule said:
We see this old saw play out in front of our eyes in the video.
Personally, in this case, I would have not have completely unlimbered and aimed straight at my attacker. HE WAS NOT ADVANCING!!!!!

He should have only partially drawn, leaving only the tip of the muzzle near his holster, but cleared.
Click to expand...

Now this brings up an interesting (albeit separate, since it isn't what actually happened) take on what could have happened.

Let's say the shooter in this case catches a glimpse at the last fraction of a second and starts, even as he's going down, drawing his weapon. As the shover continues his advance (which did actually happen) the guy on the ground continues his draw and immediately fires at point blank range. I think it more than likely this thread doesn't exist and that video does little more than justify the shooting.

It's the pull the gun and watch the guy back away and THEN fire that makes this story what it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#525
#525
Looks like the victim's attorney may lead with this...humm, this might be the prosecution's best angle.

“You cannot provoke a fight, and then stand behind Stand Your Ground," Attorney Michele Rayner, who is representing the deceased's family said. “He’s hiding behind the law of stand your ground.”

For the legal scholars, or wanna-be's in the room:

Statutes & Constitution
:View Statutes
:

Online Sunshine

There are a whole lot of other parts to the law (see above), explaining when force can be used in protection of home or property, what kind of immunity people get when claiming a Stand Your Ground defense, and so on.

Most of that isn’t relevant to the topic at hand, but there is a part that could come into play. Florida law states that a person does not have a Stand Your Ground claim if that person “initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force or threat of force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use or threatened use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use or threatened use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use or threatened use of force.”
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top