132 replies to this topic

[Snakeye]

Been my experiance this past five years that people treat me with more favor than before I was in the chair. Don't quite know what to think of that. Suppose they feel pity for someone in a chair and that doesn't sit well with me but I just smile and go about my business when someone opens a door or pats my shoulder....I wouldn't want to stifle anyones gesture of kindness since theres not enough of that to go around...As for people being uncivil; I only venture from my little village to go to Walmart or the Veterans Hospital and between the three I have never had a problem. Of course I'm known far and wide in these parts as "colorful" and a bit on the unpredictable side..

Edited by Snakeye, 02 November 2011 - 11:49 PM.

[A trophy guy]

All the abuse in the world from people who use other people's placards to park illegally in handicap parking does not give a police officer a right to ask a person parked in handicap parking, with a valid placard, how they are disabled. The most it gives the cop the right to do is verify the placard against the driver's license of the driver of the vehicle parked in the spot.

To me, anything more is an invasion of privacy.

[greybeard]

A trophy guy, on 03 November 2011 - 12:12 AM, said:

All the abuse in the world from people who use other people's placards to park illegally in handicap parking does not give a police officer a right to ask a person parked in handicap parking, with a valid placard, how they are disabled. The most it gives the cop the right to do is verify the placard against the driver's license of the driver of the vehicle parked in the spot.

To me, anything more is an invasion of privacy.

OK.

[richo]

A trophy guy, on 01 November 2011 - 06:32 AM, said:

And what I meant is, the only time the disability is relevant whatsoever is when a person is parked and getting out of their vehicle. That is the whole point of handicap parking spots; the extra space given and their proximity to the entrance. So the only time a person's physical disability even comes into the equation is when it comes to getting out. That's when it comes time to identify yourself as handicapped and needing access to the restricted parking areas. Areas legally restricted to those possessing the legal documents.

i recon most that have comented on this should take a chill pill,and its great too read you can drive and get aroundin sutch a nice car odewell by

[tsh3406]

Snakeye, on 02 November 2011 - 11:41 PM, said:

Of course I'm known far and wide in these parts as "colorful" and a bit on the unpredictable side..

the HELL you say.... hehe...

[Snakeye]

tsh3406, on 03 November 2011 - 01:06 AM, said:

Snakeye, on 02 November 2011 - 11:41 PM, said:

Of course I'm known far and wide in these parts as "colorful" and a bit on the unpredictable side..

the HELL you say.... hehe...

Yep, my old grandad always said it was good to be a little bit "teched" in this life and I damn sure lived up to exspectations......

Edited by Snakeye, 03 November 2011 - 02:37 AM.

[A trophy guy]

How about this scenario: Everything in my OP situation was exactly the same except I wasn't handicapped due to a SCI, but rather some sort of nerve damage in one of my legs that caused me to limp when I walked.

Now this cop sees a young, fit guy in a sports car parked in handicapped parking and he immediately thinks something stinks. It doesn't matter to him that the car is displaying an up-to-date placard in clear view, because this cop is convinced that such a young, fit man must be using a friend or relative's placard illegally in order to scam a good parking spot.

After lighting the parked car up, he approaches the young man and asks him, in very mocking and doubting tones, "C'mon now, how are you really disabled?

The young man answers truthfully and says "I walk with a limp." Now, this cop, who entered into the situation convinced that the young man was guilty, is not going to buy such an answer; despite it's honesty and accuracy. So is he going to now make him prove his disability to him? This is judge, jury and executioner power to the cop.

My case was easy; I had a wheelchair in the backseat. Not every situation is like that however, as I have tried to illustrate. Subjective judgement calls have no place in situations that merit objective determination.

[edlee]

Sorry TG,, but I believe the opposite.,,, it is often a cop's DUTY to use subjective judgement. It is part and parcel of his function. And I believe that in the VAST majority of cases, it is well founded and well used,,, particularly in this case.
ed

[KayDub]

A trophy guy, on 03 November 2011 - 06:17 AM, said:

How about this scenario: Everything in my OP situation was exactly the same except I wasn't handicapped due to a SCI, but rather some sort of nerve damage in one of my legs that caused me to limp when I walked.

Now this cop sees a young, fit guy in a sports car parked in handicapped parking and he immediately thinks something stinks. It doesn't matter to him that the car is displaying an up-to-date placard in clear view, because this cop is convinced that such a young, fit man must be using a friend or relative's placard illegally in order to scam a good parking spot.

After lighting the parked car up, he approaches the young man and asks him, in very mocking and doubting tones, "C'mon now, how are you really disabled?

The young man answers truthfully and says "I walk with a limp." Now, this cop, who entered into the situation convinced that the young man was guilty, is not going to buy such an answer; despite it's honesty and accuracy. So is he going to now make him prove his disability to him? This is judge, jury and executioner power to the cop.

My case was easy; I had a wheelchair in the backseat. Not every situation is like that however, as I have tried to illustrate. Subjective judgement calls have no place in situations that merit objective determination.

First fallacy- I don't recall the cop in your original story walking past an expired placard. Dramatic flair?

Second fallacy- The legal issue of one's disability is never based legally on a mere conversation or the cop believing someone's story and not another person's. All disabled people have to provide the legal registration with their placard and a valid ID proving s/he is the individual listed on that placard. A cop has every right to ask a quad on a vent this question, a grandmother of 90 or a young teenager. Of course most individuals are not asked this based on their visible disabilities, but nevertheless, a cop has a right to ask anyone in a handicap spot this question.

The cop's use of subjectivity to the best of his/her judgement ends when the black and white law begins (aka both the judiciary and legislation have a supervisory role over the police). It does not go beyond like it does in your fictional scenario where some how what this parking cop believes or feels influences a court of law. The cop surveys a parking lot. Every car has a placard. There's a few vans, a few old Caddies (another one of those stereotypical truths, a greater percentage of old people drive older and larger domestic sedans, no ALL but more than the general population) and a hot rod. He uses his subjective deduction to approach the owner of the hot rod and ask if he were disabled. Since many people say "Yep," particularly when confronted by a cop he then has the legal authority to ask you to display your identification. He has every legal right to exercise these actions. Then, regardless of whether the cop "believes" you're disabled or not, you provide the proper and legal documentation and there is no further repercussions. If there is, that's an entirely different issue. It's not an issue of "rights" because of the legal technicality here is that you are subjecting yourself to law enforcement the second you actively and willingly pull into a handicap spot. If you do not want to be subjected to these (in this case) valid profiling tactics, park in another spot where a cop has no right to demand answers to these questions.

Everything the cop is doing is within the law. If you do not agree with his means, unlike many of us who see him of doing a much needed and lacking service for the disabled community, then the route you'll have to go is to write your local rep to make a law outlining what sort of individuals a police officer can approach. Or a law about the tone of their voice. Whatever the biggest issue is. As it stands, your accusations won't stand under any sort of existing profiling statutes or cases. More realistically, like mentioned before, you can call your local police department and file a complaint about this officer. And like someone mentioned earlier, one of the few cops who actually does anything about potential handicap spot violators, would be reprimanded and much less likely to approach a person misusing a spot in the future. Unless your town is full of young make paras with a strong upper build who drive flashy cars. But statistically I doubt this is the case.

It sucks when cops are rude to you. It sucks when anyone is rude to you. But outside his attitude (perhaps) it doesn't seem like anything else was wrong with this situation.

[A trophy guy]

KayDub, on 04 November 2011 - 05:13 AM, said:

A trophy guy, on 03 November 2011 - 06:17 AM, said:

How about this scenario: Everything in my OP situation was exactly the same except I wasn't handicapped due to a SCI, but rather some sort of nerve damage in one of my legs that caused me to limp when I walked.

Now this cop sees a young, fit guy in a sports car parked in handicapped parking and he immediately thinks something stinks. It doesn't matter to him that the car is displaying an up-to-date placard in clear view, because this cop is convinced that such a young, fit man must be using a friend or relative's placard illegally in order to scam a good parking spot.

After lighting the parked car up, he approaches the young man and asks him, in very mocking and doubting tones, "C'mon now, how are you really disabled?

The young man answers truthfully and says "I walk with a limp." Now, this cop, who entered into the situation convinced that the young man was guilty, is not going to buy such an answer; despite it's honesty and accuracy. So is he going to now make him prove his disability to him? This is judge, jury and executioner power to the cop.

My case was easy; I had a wheelchair in the backseat. Not every situation is like that however, as I have tried to illustrate. Subjective judgement calls have no place in situations that merit objective determination.

First fallacy- I don't recall the cop in your original story walking past an expired placard. Dramatic flair?

Second fallacy- The legal issue of one's disability is never based legally on a mere conversation or the cop believing someone's story and not another person's. All disabled people have to provide the legal registration with their placard and a valid ID proving s/he is the individual listed on that placard. A cop has every right to ask a quad on a vent this question, a grandmother of 90 or a young teenager. Of course most individuals are not asked this based on their visible disabilities, but nevertheless, a cop has a right to ask anyone in a handicap spot this question.

The cop's use of subjectivity to the best of his/her judgement ends when the black and white law begins (aka both the judiciary and legislation have a supervisory role over the police). It does not go beyond like it does in your fictional scenario where some how what this parking cop believes or feels influences a court of law. The cop surveys a parking lot. Every car has a placard. There's a few vans, a few old Caddies (another one of those stereotypical truths, a greater percentage of old people drive older and larger domestic sedans, no ALL but more than the general population) and a hot rod. He uses his subjective deduction to approach the owner of the hot rod and ask if he were disabled. Since many people say "Yep," particularly when confronted by a cop he then has the legal authority to ask you to display your identification. He has every legal right to exercise these actions. Then, regardless of whether the cop "believes" you're disabled or not, you provide the proper and legal documentation and there is no further repercussions. If there is, that's an entirely different issue. It's not an issue of "rights" because of the legal technicality here is that you are subjecting yourself to law enforcement the second you actively and willingly pull into a handicap spot. If you do not want to be subjected to these (in this case) valid profiling tactics, park in another spot where a cop has no right to demand answers to these questions.

Everything the cop is doing is within the law. If you do not agree with his means, unlike many of us who see him of doing a much needed and lacking service for the disabled community, then the route you'll have to go is to write your local rep to make a law outlining what sort of individuals a police officer can approach. Or a law about the tone of their voice. Whatever the biggest issue is. As it stands, your accusations won't stand under any sort of existing profiling statutes or cases. More realistically, like mentioned before, you can call your local police department and file a complaint about this officer. And like someone mentioned earlier, one of the few cops who actually does anything about potential handicap spot violators, would be reprimanded and much less likely to approach a person misusing a spot in the future. Unless your town is full of young make paras with a strong upper build who drive flashy cars. But statistically I doubt this is the case.

It sucks when cops are rude to you. It sucks when anyone is rude to you. But outside his attitude (perhaps) it doesn't seem like anything else was wrong with this situation.

You've totally misunderstood my whole point. Of course the cop has every right to approach me and ask for identification and inspection of the placard, in order to ensure that I am not parked illegally. As you have pointed out, many people just take "Grandma's" placard and park illegally and if they are asked if they are disabled, they just say "yep". That is why a cop must check the identification of the person.

However; as I've tried to point out in the example I used, not every genuine disability is as obvious (or as easily prove-able) as a SCI. A young, fit girl driving a sports car; who happens to also walk with a limp; is not going to show any outward signs of her disability from the front seat of her car. Now when this cynical, prejudical cop comes up and asks her how she's really disabled, how do you think the cop is going to react when the girl answers honestly with "I walk with a limp, officer."

He is going to assume that answer is B.S., just as if she had said nothing more than "yep" when asked if she was really disabled. Now is that cop going to make her now prove her disability to him? Make her get out and walk? That is most definitely out of bounds.

No, what the cop has a right to do is validate that the girl has a right to be parked in the handicap spot. And he validates this not by asking such a personal question open to individual subjectivity, but by simply checking the documents of the girl.

I want spots to be enforced just as much as anyone; if not more. But there is no reason why they can't be enforced the right way. Now I really am enjoying this rather heated thread, because it has sparked quite a discussion. Of course, the real life incident itself was a non-incident, something that rolled off my shoulders 6 seconds after it happened. It's simply the larger meta-issue that I find compelling and I thank you all for sharing your opinions.

[KayDub]

A trophy guy, on 04 November 2011 - 05:56 AM, said:

KayDub, on 04 November 2011 - 05:13 AM, said:

A trophy guy, on 03 November 2011 - 06:17 AM, said:

How about this scenario: Everything in my OP situation was exactly the same except I wasn't handicapped due to a SCI, but rather some sort of nerve damage in one of my legs that caused me to limp when I walked.

Now this cop sees a young, fit guy in a sports car parked in handicapped parking and he immediately thinks something stinks. It doesn't matter to him that the car is displaying an up-to-date placard in clear view, because this cop is convinced that such a young, fit man must be using a friend or relative's placard illegally in order to scam a good parking spot.

After lighting the parked car up, he approaches the young man and asks him, in very mocking and doubting tones, "C'mon now, how are you really disabled?

The young man answers truthfully and says "I walk with a limp." Now, this cop, who entered into the situation convinced that the young man was guilty, is not going to buy such an answer; despite it's honesty and accuracy. So is he going to now make him prove his disability to him? This is judge, jury and executioner power to the cop.

My case was easy; I had a wheelchair in the backseat. Not every situation is like that however, as I have tried to illustrate. Subjective judgement calls have no place in situations that merit objective determination.

First fallacy- I don't recall the cop in your original story walking past an expired placard. Dramatic flair?

Second fallacy- The legal issue of one's disability is never based legally on a mere conversation or the cop believing someone's story and not another person's. All disabled people have to provide the legal registration with their placard and a valid ID proving s/he is the individual listed on that placard. A cop has every right to ask a quad on a vent this question, a grandmother of 90 or a young teenager. Of course most individuals are not asked this based on their visible disabilities, but nevertheless, a cop has a right to ask anyone in a handicap spot this question.

The cop's use of subjectivity to the best of his/her judgement ends when the black and white law begins (aka both the judiciary and legislation have a supervisory role over the police). It does not go beyond like it does in your fictional scenario where some how what this parking cop believes or feels influences a court of law. The cop surveys a parking lot. Every car has a placard. There's a few vans, a few old Caddies (another one of those stereotypical truths, a greater percentage of old people drive older and larger domestic sedans, no ALL but more than the general population) and a hot rod. He uses his subjective deduction to approach the owner of the hot rod and ask if he were disabled. Since many people say "Yep," particularly when confronted by a cop he then has the legal authority to ask you to display your identification. He has every legal right to exercise these actions. Then, regardless of whether the cop "believes" you're disabled or not, you provide the proper and legal documentation and there is no further repercussions. If there is, that's an entirely different issue. It's not an issue of "rights" because of the legal technicality here is that you are subjecting yourself to law enforcement the second you actively and willingly pull into a handicap spot. If you do not want to be subjected to these (in this case) valid profiling tactics, park in another spot where a cop has no right to demand answers to these questions.

Everything the cop is doing is within the law. If you do not agree with his means, unlike many of us who see him of doing a much needed and lacking service for the disabled community, then the route you'll have to go is to write your local rep to make a law outlining what sort of individuals a police officer can approach. Or a law about the tone of their voice. Whatever the biggest issue is. As it stands, your accusations won't stand under any sort of existing profiling statutes or cases. More realistically, like mentioned before, you can call your local police department and file a complaint about this officer. And like someone mentioned earlier, one of the few cops who actually does anything about potential handicap spot violators, would be reprimanded and much less likely to approach a person misusing a spot in the future. Unless your town is full of young make paras with a strong upper build who drive flashy cars. But statistically I doubt this is the case.

It sucks when cops are rude to you. It sucks when anyone is rude to you. But outside his attitude (perhaps) it doesn't seem like anything else was wrong with this situation.

You've totally misunderstood my whole point. Of course the cop has every right to approach me and ask for identification and inspection of the placard, in order to ensure that I am not parked illegally. As you have pointed out, many people just take "Grandma's" placard and park illegally and if they are asked if they are disabled, they just say "yep". That is why a cop must check the identification of the person.

However; as I've tried to point out in the example I used, not every genuine disability is as obvious (or as easily prove-able) as a SCI. A young, fit girl driving a sports car; who happens to also walk with a limp; is not going to show any outward signs of her disability from the front seat of her car. Now when this cynical, prejudical cop comes up and asks her how she's really disabled, how do you think the cop is going to react when the girl answers honestly with "I walk with a limp, officer."

He is going to assume that answer is B.S., just as if she had said nothing more than "yep" when asked if she was really disabled. Now is that cop going to make her now prove her disability to him? Make her get out and walk? That is most definitely out of bounds.

No, what the cop has a right to do is validate that the girl has a right to be parked in the handicap spot. And he validates this not by asking such a personal question open to individual subjectivity, but by simply checking the documents of the girl.

I want spots to be enforced just as much as anyone; if not more. But there is no reason why they can't be enforced the right way. Now I really am enjoying this rather heated thread, because it has sparked quite a discussion. Of course, the real life incident itself was a non-incident, something that rolled off my shoulders 6 seconds after it happened. It's simply the larger meta-issue that I find compelling and I thank you all for sharing your opinions.

You're completely missing, not my point, but the point. This is less of a lively discussion and more of a continual distortion of facts. If your disability is not as "visible" or even if it is, you show your valid government ID along with the valid registration with your placard when asked by a law enforcement official. In my state, it's the law to carry the registration with the placard, and the person who it is issued to has to be in the vehicle. It's not unlike having to carry the registration for your car, even if it really is your car. So no cop needs to ask you to hop around or stand or two feet or walk or anything that's been suggested. A cop may not ask you for your paperwork right away, much like when you're pulled over and a cop asks a more general question. If a cop asks you what your disability is, you don't even have to answer. You can if you would like or you can give him or her your ID, your placard registration and say, "I don't feel like disclosing my disability sir/ma'am." Or whatever it is you'd like to say. I don't know how on earth you got the idea a person is required by law to disclose their disability to a cop, or a cop is the one who goes to court to say a person misused a handicap spot or anything that's been mentioned in this thread. The DMV tells you all these details when you submit your doctor's paperwork and pick up your placard (and the registration card). If, for whatever reason, you missed it then and live in my state, you can read all the details on the back of the placard. It's really straightforward and the only time a cop's subjectivity comes into play is when s/he chooses to approach someone who has a placard and ask whether or not it belongs to them. And as established by the other posts, this is often done with valid reason. Beyond that, there's no subjectivity involved (except maybe that of doctors who think their patient's every whine constitutes issuing a permanent handicap parking permit, but that's an entirely different issue).

[A trophy guy]

KayDub, on 04 November 2011 - 06:07 AM, said:

A trophy guy, on 04 November 2011 - 05:56 AM, said:

KayDub, on 04 November 2011 - 05:13 AM, said:

A trophy guy, on 03 November 2011 - 06:17 AM, said:

How about this scenario: Everything in my OP situation was exactly the same except I wasn't handicapped due to a SCI, but rather some sort of nerve damage in one of my legs that caused me to limp when I walked.

Now this cop sees a young, fit guy in a sports car parked in handicapped parking and he immediately thinks something stinks. It doesn't matter to him that the car is displaying an up-to-date placard in clear view, because this cop is convinced that such a young, fit man must be using a friend or relative's placard illegally in order to scam a good parking spot.

After lighting the parked car up, he approaches the young man and asks him, in very mocking and doubting tones, "C'mon now, how are you really disabled?

The young man answers truthfully and says "I walk with a limp." Now, this cop, who entered into the situation convinced that the young man was guilty, is not going to buy such an answer; despite it's honesty and accuracy. So is he going to now make him prove his disability to him? This is judge, jury and executioner power to the cop.

My case was easy; I had a wheelchair in the backseat. Not every situation is like that however, as I have tried to illustrate. Subjective judgement calls have no place in situations that merit objective determination.

First fallacy- I don't recall the cop in your original story walking past an expired placard. Dramatic flair?

Second fallacy- The legal issue of one's disability is never based legally on a mere conversation or the cop believing someone's story and not another person's. All disabled people have to provide the legal registration with their placard and a valid ID proving s/he is the individual listed on that placard. A cop has every right to ask a quad on a vent this question, a grandmother of 90 or a young teenager. Of course most individuals are not asked this based on their visible disabilities, but nevertheless, a cop has a right to ask anyone in a handicap spot this question.

The cop's use of subjectivity to the best of his/her judgement ends when the black and white law begins (aka both the judiciary and legislation have a supervisory role over the police). It does not go beyond like it does in your fictional scenario where some how what this parking cop believes or feels influences a court of law. The cop surveys a parking lot. Every car has a placard. There's a few vans, a few old Caddies (another one of those stereotypical truths, a greater percentage of old people drive older and larger domestic sedans, no ALL but more than the general population) and a hot rod. He uses his subjective deduction to approach the owner of the hot rod and ask if he were disabled. Since many people say "Yep," particularly when confronted by a cop he then has the legal authority to ask you to display your identification. He has every legal right to exercise these actions. Then, regardless of whether the cop "believes" you're disabled or not, you provide the proper and legal documentation and there is no further repercussions. If there is, that's an entirely different issue. It's not an issue of "rights" because of the legal technicality here is that you are subjecting yourself to law enforcement the second you actively and willingly pull into a handicap spot. If you do not want to be subjected to these (in this case) valid profiling tactics, park in another spot where a cop has no right to demand answers to these questions.

Everything the cop is doing is within the law. If you do not agree with his means, unlike many of us who see him of doing a much needed and lacking service for the disabled community, then the route you'll have to go is to write your local rep to make a law outlining what sort of individuals a police officer can approach. Or a law about the tone of their voice. Whatever the biggest issue is. As it stands, your accusations won't stand under any sort of existing profiling statutes or cases. More realistically, like mentioned before, you can call your local police department and file a complaint about this officer. And like someone mentioned earlier, one of the few cops who actually does anything about potential handicap spot violators, would be reprimanded and much less likely to approach a person misusing a spot in the future. Unless your town is full of young make paras with a strong upper build who drive flashy cars. But statistically I doubt this is the case.

It sucks when cops are rude to you. It sucks when anyone is rude to you. But outside his attitude (perhaps) it doesn't seem like anything else was wrong with this situation.

You've totally misunderstood my whole point. Of course the cop has every right to approach me and ask for identification and inspection of the placard, in order to ensure that I am not parked illegally. As you have pointed out, many people just take "Grandma's" placard and park illegally and if they are asked if they are disabled, they just say "yep". That is why a cop must check the identification of the person.

However; as I've tried to point out in the example I used, not every genuine disability is as obvious (or as easily prove-able) as a SCI. A young, fit girl driving a sports car; who happens to also walk with a limp; is not going to show any outward signs of her disability from the front seat of her car. Now when this cynical, prejudical cop comes up and asks her how she's really disabled, how do you think the cop is going to react when the girl answers honestly with "I walk with a limp, officer."

He is going to assume that answer is B.S., just as if she had said nothing more than "yep" when asked if she was really disabled. Now is that cop going to make her now prove her disability to him? Make her get out and walk? That is most definitely out of bounds.

No, what the cop has a right to do is validate that the girl has a right to be parked in the handicap spot. And he validates this not by asking such a personal question open to individual subjectivity, but by simply checking the documents of the girl.

I want spots to be enforced just as much as anyone; if not more. But there is no reason why they can't be enforced the right way. Now I really am enjoying this rather heated thread, because it has sparked quite a discussion. Of course, the real life incident itself was a non-incident, something that rolled off my shoulders 6 seconds after it happened. It's simply the larger meta-issue that I find compelling and I thank you all for sharing your opinions.

You're completely missing, not my point, but the point. This is less of a lively discussion and more of a continual distortion of facts. If your disability is not as "visible" or even if it is, you show your valid government ID along with the valid registration with your placard when asked by a law enforcement official. In my state, it's the law to carry the registration with the placard, and the person who it is issued to has to be in the vehicle. It's not unlike having to carry the registration for your car, even if it really is your car. So no cop needs to ask you to hop around or stand or two feet or walk or anything that's been suggested. A cop may not ask you for your paperwork right away, much like when you're pulled over and a cop asks a more general question. If a cop asks you what your disability is, you don't even have to answer. You can if you would like or you can give him or her your ID, your placard registration and say, "I don't feel like disclosing my disability sir/ma'am." Or whatever it is you'd like to say. I don't know how on earth you got the idea a person is required by law to disclose their disability to a cop, or a cop is the one who goes to court to say a person misused a handicap spot or anything that's been mentioned in this thread. The DMV tells you all these details when you submit your doctor's paperwork and pick up your placard (and the registration card). If, for whatever reason, you missed it then and live in my state, you can read all the details on the back of the placard. It's really straightforward and the only time a cop's subjectivity comes into play is when s/he chooses to approach someone who has a placard and ask whether or not it belongs to them. And as established by the other posts, this is often done with valid reason. Beyond that, there's no subjectivity involved (except maybe that of doctors who think their patient's every whine constitutes issuing a permanent handicap parking permit, but that's an entirely different issue).

Ok, I see how this convo is going so I will keep this short and sweet.

First, this quote of yours...
"I don't know how on earth you got the idea a person is required by law to disclose their disability to a cop, or a cop is the one who goes to court to say a person misused a handicap spot or anything that's been mentioned in this thread."

There is obviously a bit of miscommunication going on somewhere because nowhere did I assert or imply that it was required by law to disclose one's disability to a cop. Quite the opposite, in fact. Now, of course I am not obliged to answer to cop's question but let's just be realistic here. That would have turned an already ridiculous waste of time into a decidedly hostile situation. The last thing I would want is a pissed off cop now looking for any little reason to write me a ticket or even arrest me.

[KayDub]

A trophy guy, on 04 November 2011 - 06:29 AM, said:

KayDub, on 04 November 2011 - 06:07 AM, said:

A trophy guy, on 04 November 2011 - 05:56 AM, said:

KayDub, on 04 November 2011 - 05:13 AM, said:

A trophy guy, on 03 November 2011 - 06:17 AM, said:

How about this scenario: Everything in my OP situation was exactly the same except I wasn't handicapped due to a SCI, but rather some sort of nerve damage in one of my legs that caused me to limp when I walked.

Now this cop sees a young, fit guy in a sports car parked in handicapped parking and he immediately thinks something stinks. It doesn't matter to him that the car is displaying an up-to-date placard in clear view, because this cop is convinced that such a young, fit man must be using a friend or relative's placard illegally in order to scam a good parking spot.

After lighting the parked car up, he approaches the young man and asks him, in very mocking and doubting tones, "C'mon now, how are you really disabled?

The young man answers truthfully and says "I walk with a limp." Now, this cop, who entered into the situation convinced that the young man was guilty, is not going to buy such an answer; despite it's honesty and accuracy. So is he going to now make him prove his disability to him? This is judge, jury and executioner power to the cop.

My case was easy; I had a wheelchair in the backseat. Not every situation is like that however, as I have tried to illustrate. Subjective judgement calls have no place in situations that merit objective determination.

First fallacy- I don't recall the cop in your original story walking past an expired placard. Dramatic flair?

Second fallacy- The legal issue of one's disability is never based legally on a mere conversation or the cop believing someone's story and not another person's. All disabled people have to provide the legal registration with their placard and a valid ID proving s/he is the individual listed on that placard. A cop has every right to ask a quad on a vent this question, a grandmother of 90 or a young teenager. Of course most individuals are not asked this based on their visible disabilities, but nevertheless, a cop has a right to ask anyone in a handicap spot this question.

The cop's use of subjectivity to the best of his/her judgement ends when the black and white law begins (aka both the judiciary and legislation have a supervisory role over the police). It does not go beyond like it does in your fictional scenario where some how what this parking cop believes or feels influences a court of law. The cop surveys a parking lot. Every car has a placard. There's a few vans, a few old Caddies (another one of those stereotypical truths, a greater percentage of old people drive older and larger domestic sedans, no ALL but more than the general population) and a hot rod. He uses his subjective deduction to approach the owner of the hot rod and ask if he were disabled. Since many people say "Yep," particularly when confronted by a cop he then has the legal authority to ask you to display your identification. He has every legal right to exercise these actions. Then, regardless of whether the cop "believes" you're disabled or not, you provide the proper and legal documentation and there is no further repercussions. If there is, that's an entirely different issue. It's not an issue of "rights" because of the legal technicality here is that you are subjecting yourself to law enforcement the second you actively and willingly pull into a handicap spot. If you do not want to be subjected to these (in this case) valid profiling tactics, park in another spot where a cop has no right to demand answers to these questions.

Everything the cop is doing is within the law. If you do not agree with his means, unlike many of us who see him of doing a much needed and lacking service for the disabled community, then the route you'll have to go is to write your local rep to make a law outlining what sort of individuals a police officer can approach. Or a law about the tone of their voice. Whatever the biggest issue is. As it stands, your accusations won't stand under any sort of existing profiling statutes or cases. More realistically, like mentioned before, you can call your local police department and file a complaint about this officer. And like someone mentioned earlier, one of the few cops who actually does anything about potential handicap spot violators, would be reprimanded and much less likely to approach a person misusing a spot in the future. Unless your town is full of young make paras with a strong upper build who drive flashy cars. But statistically I doubt this is the case.

It sucks when cops are rude to you. It sucks when anyone is rude to you. But outside his attitude (perhaps) it doesn't seem like anything else was wrong with this situation.

You've totally misunderstood my whole point. Of course the cop has every right to approach me and ask for identification and inspection of the placard, in order to ensure that I am not parked illegally. As you have pointed out, many people just take "Grandma's" placard and park illegally and if they are asked if they are disabled, they just say "yep". That is why a cop must check the identification of the person.

However; as I've tried to point out in the example I used, not every genuine disability is as obvious (or as easily prove-able) as a SCI. A young, fit girl driving a sports car; who happens to also walk with a limp; is not going to show any outward signs of her disability from the front seat of her car. Now when this cynical, prejudical cop comes up and asks her how she's really disabled, how do you think the cop is going to react when the girl answers honestly with "I walk with a limp, officer."

He is going to assume that answer is B.S., just as if she had said nothing more than "yep" when asked if she was really disabled. Now is that cop going to make her now prove her disability to him? Make her get out and walk? That is most definitely out of bounds.

No, what the cop has a right to do is validate that the girl has a right to be parked in the handicap spot. And he validates this not by asking such a personal question open to individual subjectivity, but by simply checking the documents of the girl.

I want spots to be enforced just as much as anyone; if not more. But there is no reason why they can't be enforced the right way. Now I really am enjoying this rather heated thread, because it has sparked quite a discussion. Of course, the real life incident itself was a non-incident, something that rolled off my shoulders 6 seconds after it happened. It's simply the larger meta-issue that I find compelling and I thank you all for sharing your opinions.

You're completely missing, not my point, but the point. This is less of a lively discussion and more of a continual distortion of facts. If your disability is not as "visible" or even if it is, you show your valid government ID along with the valid registration with your placard when asked by a law enforcement official. In my state, it's the law to carry the registration with the placard, and the person who it is issued to has to be in the vehicle. It's not unlike having to carry the registration for your car, even if it really is your car. So no cop needs to ask you to hop around or stand or two feet or walk or anything that's been suggested. A cop may not ask you for your paperwork right away, much like when you're pulled over and a cop asks a more general question. If a cop asks you what your disability is, you don't even have to answer. You can if you would like or you can give him or her your ID, your placard registration and say, "I don't feel like disclosing my disability sir/ma'am." Or whatever it is you'd like to say. I don't know how on earth you got the idea a person is required by law to disclose their disability to a cop, or a cop is the one who goes to court to say a person misused a handicap spot or anything that's been mentioned in this thread. The DMV tells you all these details when you submit your doctor's paperwork and pick up your placard (and the registration card). If, for whatever reason, you missed it then and live in my state, you can read all the details on the back of the placard. It's really straightforward and the only time a cop's subjectivity comes into play is when s/he chooses to approach someone who has a placard and ask whether or not it belongs to them. And as established by the other posts, this is often done with valid reason. Beyond that, there's no subjectivity involved (except maybe that of doctors who think their patient's every whine constitutes issuing a permanent handicap parking permit, but that's an entirely different issue).

Ok, I see how this convo is going so I will keep this short and sweet.

First, this quote of yours...
"I don't know how on earth you got the idea a person is required by law to disclose their disability to a cop, or a cop is the one who goes to court to say a person misused a handicap spot or anything that's been mentioned in this thread."

There is obviously a bit of miscommunication going on somewhere because nowhere did I assert or imply that it was required by law to disclose one's disability to a cop. Quite the opposite, in fact. Now, of course I am not obliged to answer to cop's question but let's just be realistic here. That would have turned an already ridiculous waste of time into a decidedly hostile situation. The last thing I would want is a pissed off cop now looking for any little reason to write me a ticket or even arrest me.

Then why the continued use of hypothetical situations with various disabled people being asked what their disability is by a police officer. If it's been established that no one is required to answer that question then... well you have an answer.

It also goes back to the domain issue. Walking down the street (with possibly exceptions) you don't have to even respond if a cop asks what your disability is, unless it's in the course of questioning commenced by an earlier situation. Once you park in a handicap spot? While you don't have to say specifically what your disability is, you ARE required to provide proof, not of your disability, but that your disability has been registered with the DMV and the placard being used has been issued to you. It's a very specific process with a very straightforward response, regardless of a person's disability. So when you park in a disabled spot, of course you are required to respond to the cop's concerns, you just don't have to specifically state your disability if you don't want to (if that's where you were going with the disabilities that do not involve wheelchairs, are complicated, etc.) If it's a matter of a visible disability vs. a more "invisible" disability, then while you're more likely to be approached in the latter situation for obvious and rational reasons, the same procedure applies.

When you park in a handicap spot and a cop approaches you and asks if you're disabled you have a few very simple options. 1) You tell him your disability, he believes you, he moves on. 2) You tell him your disability, he is skeptical, you provide the placard registration and your ID, he believes you, he moves on. 3) You tell him you are disabled, not what the disability is, provide the placard registration and your ID... you're sensing a pattern here right? It's a very simple way to avoid any sort of confrontation with a cop in the aforementioned situation. You're in a disabled car park, he, knowing people who aren't disabled misuse the spots, approaches you and you politely and quickly give him a way that legally erases his doubt and addresses the very reason he was concerned in the first place. Win-win-win-win-win.

Any other unwanted discourse between yourself and the officer can be avoided by this process, unless some sort of violation is taking place. Then it's no longer an issue of you feeling discriminated against, which I believe was the origin of this entire thread, instead it is police misconduct and there are a multitude of other avenues to take to address that. Otherwise have a pleasant attitude and know that the majority of cops are just trying to do their jobs, and especially in regards to enforcing handicap spots, are doing us a massive favour loads of crips in other areas would beg for. If he has a bad attitude to begin with, you can respond with an equally bad attitude which won't get you anywhere or you can try to be positive. Perhaps he's sick of people misusing spots (like the rest of us, a point you can sympathise with him on) or is just having a bad day. It's not your job to be pleasant with him either, but you can at least respond respectfully. Everyone has the right to be treated with respect but everyone is human as well. If you did and he was still a bit of a jerk, just brush it off and know at the end of the day he was performing a service that benefits the disabled community and doesn't hurt us.

[A trophy guy]

I thought it was clear but I know sometimes my thoughts can get somewhat convoluted:

I know the cop was well within his legal authority in posing the question that he did. I am not disputing it's legality. I am disputing the ethics, necessity, and usefulness of it. It basically struck me as wrong. That's the totality of the issue for me. And it wasn't about "me" or what happened to me; like I said, the actual incident itself was nothing, it was insignificant to the point of being trivial. It just brought up certain thoughts.

Edited by A trophy guy, 04 November 2011 - 06:55 AM.

[KayDub]

A trophy guy, on 04 November 2011 - 06:48 AM, said:

I thought it was clear but I know sometimes my thoughts can get somewhat convoluted:

I know the cop was well within his legal authority in posing the question that he did. I am not disputing it's legality. I am disputing the ethics, necessity, and usefulness of it. It basically struck me as wrong. That's the totality of the issue for me. And it wasn't about "me" or what happened to me; like I said, the actual incident itself was nothing, it was insignificant to the point of being trivial. It just brought up certain thoughts.

Didn't really seem that way when issues of cops misusing authority and forcing answers and the like was brought up, but let bygones be bygones provided we have that established.

Many, many posters have responded to you saying that they would be glad to have a cop approach them and ask if they're disabled, myself included.

It would be unnecessary if the majority of handicap parking misuse was done by individuals not hanging a placard at all, rather those using one that doesn't belong to them. But it's not and because of that the best way for the police to do this is to approach individuals with valid placards.

It would be unnecessary if people who are visibly very elderly and/or disabled were the ones misusing these placards. However, these people have their own valid placards. It's people who lack these "visible" disabilities that use it, making it necessary to approach people who look as though they don't have a major disability when they park.

It would be unnecessary to go beyond asking if the person was in fact disabled. The people misusing the placards are already lying and while I'm not a police officer, when I've asked these people they suddenly start limping and stop when they believe they're out of eye shot or claim they're a doctor and know what disabilities are, etc. It's their dishonesty that then requires police to ask for the proper registration or more stringent details to help figure out who the fakers are.

I find it to be the most useful way to accomplish enforcement as well. Standing in the parking lot can only tell if a car has a tag or not. If the cops were to run the registration number of the placard and get a name and then compare that the the car's number plates it would mean nothing. It could be that person's car or much more likely it's their friend's or neighbour's or family member's who may or may not be giving them a ride. You won't know who if the person who is in the car is the person that the placard is registered to without approaching the car as soon as it's parked, to see all the occupants and check then. While it might seem better to do it without people present, unfortunately it really is the most useful way for enforcement to be legally valid. The exceptions would be a few people may say they just dropped grandma off, but that could be fact checked. Still at the current time and with methods of legally valid verification, it seems like the most useful method. No special training or technology is required either and the duty could be given to cops already enforcing other traffic violations and public works, requiring no extra tax burden. Any money spent would be more than compensated by the fines racked up, particularly at the beginning.

The ethics of it are based on the benefits and harms, in my opinion. I believe the benefits of opening up handicap parking to those who rightfully and legally deserve it is a good thing. To allow some of us to go to concerts, crowded stores, downtown areas and even school every day, which wasn't always able to be done before, is a good thing. The harms, in my opinion, seem minimal if at all. It might take a minute out of your busy day, if you're one of the individuals likely to be stopped for "not looking disabled". But compare that to the time lost if you cannot find a spot at all because they're full. No one likes to feel singled out too, so perhaps there's a miniscule chance of emotional harm, but as someone who would be stopped, I don't feel like I'd be subject to emotional harm. I'm more likely to feel harmed if other civilians make remarks about my disability (or lack there of) even when I am in a wheelchair. Unfortunately since in many areas cops do nothing about handicap parking enforcement, people take it on themselves. And while this is better than nothing, people don't have access to the proper legal information. I think the damage from civilian discrimination could be worse, not just emotionally but physically. It's quite possible if another civilian thinks you're not disabled they'll key your car, scream at your or who knows...

The most important benefit is that once people know that lots are enforced, there will be less people misusing the placards. For example, in my state it's a $250 fine to park in a handicap spot without a tag at all and $5,000 to misuse someone's placard. More people avoid parking without one because of the stigma and the higher likely hood a cop will catch them. If people start getting caught and fined the much larger amount, hopefully more people will be afraid to misuse grandma's placard to run to the grocery store. With less people misusing placards, there will be less encounters by cops about the issue as it slowly becomes under control.

So I still fail to see why this isn't a positive thing, even when factoring my own pros and cons and those mentioned previously on this thread. At the worst, you have a cop approach you once you park. If you're polite and immediately show your registration and ID, you can be off and on your way. S/he might be a jerk but that's the worst potential, and most unlikely, problem. Otherwise we gain a system where cops actually regulate the laws and while stereotyping is done, it's done solely because of necessity in the situation. And with more enforcement, the positive benefits continue to emerge, with higher rates of parking spots available for those who need them, less civilian interference in the issue which lacks the same information and system of control as police and a potential for a system working like it should.

I'd be thrilled to be stopped tomorrow after parking (if I can get one at the grocery store with 10 handicap spots) and I'm not saying this to make a point or in exaggeration.

Edited by KayDub, 04 November 2011 - 07:21 AM.

[Edinburgh Colin]

This thread has grown out of all proportion.
If you guys were a couple of dogs worrying a stick you'd be into toothpick territory.
Maybe time to agree the cop was doing his job and it's the right of the individual to accept that or take offence, you choose. Much bigger issues in his life me thinks!
EC

[greybeard]

Edinburgh Colin, on 04 November 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

This thread has grown out of all proportion.
If you guys were a couple of dogs worrying a stick you'd be into toothpick territory.
Maybe time to agree the cop was doing his job and it's the right of the individual to accept that or take offence, you choose. Much bigger issues in his life me thinks!
EC

Agreed. If I want to read a book, I'll pick one up.

[KayDub]

You're definitely right on that. I stopped getting involved in silly online tiffs like this years ago, but insomnia got the best of me. My apologies.

I know I can be pretty wordy as well, I'm trying to be more concise. However if you didn't like it enough to make a pretty backhanded comment about it in that regard, you really could have read a book instead. This just hits a bit closer to home because almost everything I post here is really long. So I hope those aren't your sentiments about all of it because that stings a little. Mostly because a lot of my other posts are me baring a lot myself personally. And it's hard to get a quip about those things I write. I try to be honest about my mistakes, forthcoming with my apologies when they're due and have a hard skin about any criticism but in those cases where I'm opening up a lot I hope I don't have to apologise for my excessive verbiage. Hopefully I'm just being a little overly sensitive because it's been a rough couple days for me. Because there I go, ironically being long-winded about that, ha ha.

[greybeard]

KayDub, on 04 November 2011 - 01:24 PM, said:

You're definitely right on that. I stopped getting involved in silly online tiffs like this years ago, but insomnia got the best of me. My apologies.

I know I can be pretty wordy as well, I'm trying to be more concise. However if you didn't like it enough to make a pretty backhanded comment about it in that regard, you really could have read a book instead. This just hits a bit closer to home because almost everything I post here is really long. So I hope those aren't your sentiments about all of it because that stings a little. Mostly because a lot of my other posts are me baring a lot myself personally. And it's hard to get a quip about those things I write. I try to be honest about my mistakes, forthcoming with my apologies when they're due and have a hard skin about any criticism but in those cases where I'm opening up a lot I hope I don't have to apologise for my excessive verbiage. Hopefully I'm just being a little overly sensitive because it's been a rough couple days for me. Because there I go, ironically being long-winded about that, ha ha.

What? You mean we were supposed to read all that stuff? (only kidding) I think most of us have got used to your style KD.

All the repeated quotes were a bit over the top, though, don't you think?

[KayDub]

greybeard, on 04 November 2011 - 02:18 PM, said:

KayDub, on 04 November 2011 - 01:24 PM, said:

You're definitely right on that. I stopped getting involved in silly online tiffs like this years ago, but insomnia got the best of me. My apologies.

I know I can be pretty wordy as well, I'm trying to be more concise. However if you didn't like it enough to make a pretty backhanded comment about it in that regard, you really could have read a book instead. This just hits a bit closer to home because almost everything I post here is really long. So I hope those aren't your sentiments about all of it because that stings a little. Mostly because a lot of my other posts are me baring a lot myself personally. And it's hard to get a quip about those things I write. I try to be honest about my mistakes, forthcoming with my apologies when they're due and have a hard skin about any criticism but in those cases where I'm opening up a lot I hope I don't have to apologise for my excessive verbiage. Hopefully I'm just being a little overly sensitive because it's been a rough couple days for me. Because there I go, ironically being long-winded about that, ha ha.

What? You mean we were supposed to read all that stuff? (only kidding) I think most of us have got used to your style KD.

All the repeated quotes were a bit over the top, though, don't you think?

Yes you are. Every single word! And you better remember all of it too, because I will test you on it after. And there will be consequences for poor marks! :-p After all, I plan on submitting everything I write on App and creating the next great literary novel, and I have every intention of it being longer than 'War and Peace'. Nah I'll spare you all and promise someday something will be under a 200 word count... something beside the thread on what I just ate that was tasty. Or maybe I'll just start writing a basic outline of everything I post so people can just go over that ha ha.

Yeah, I didn't scroll up after to see all that until now to be honest. I really did think only a certain number of quotes we're posted on a reply, like they were capped. Another silly technical thing I did without looking at. I have to remember 'reply' isn't just a reply to what the person directly above you said, it's a list of every single post that's been involved in replies as quotes. My brother is a computer programer. I'm the only 23 year old to not even own a iPod or mp3 player. Even my mum does! I'm that technologically dumb and the website I have the most skill with is facebook, where hitting reply is just a way to open a text box. Combine that with my bad habit of quickly doing/writing things, especially without going back to read them sometimes (bad lawyering skill, bad!) it definitely makes for some oversight. Next technical back and forth I get in with someone stubborn for fun, I'll skip the reply button. It's pretty obvious that it's a reply.

---------------------

Oh and damn, there go all the quotes again.

But see! A regular reply. I think I'm onto something (next thing I plan to do it get on an kick of an annoying overuse of emoticons )

---------------------
Wait... it put it back on my last post instead of a new one. Whatever, I think we all get the point.

Edited by KayDub, 04 November 2011 - 03:43 PM.

[A trophy guy]

Ok, this thread is like the dishes, and it's done man! lol

I only wanted to say one last thing. When I questioned the usefulness of the officer's question, my example of the disabled guy with a limp is of value here. What good does it do for an already suspicious officer to ask a, by all outward appearances from his vehicle, fit young person how they are disabled, if their answer is going to be dismissed as dishonesty anyway? He is ultimately going to be checking this young man's I.D., so why not bypass the pointless, and intrusive, question, and simply go right to the actions that are going to be performed anyway?

My case was easy, I had a wheelchair right behind me to grab; making it easy for the officer to "believe" me. But for all the times when such convincing isn't as easy and smooth, such a question really serves no purpose. I mean, if a cop is determined enough to the point where he lights up a person for the purpose of checking to see if they are parked illegally or not, he/she should bypass such a question and simply go directly to the action of checking I.D.s



*my hypothetical situation of having the officer make the person "prove" their disability was only "hypothetical". I know such a situation would never actually happen, I only used it to show the problem with the question.


All in all, I think I have found a fellow board member who enjoys arguing just like I do ;)

[tsh3406]

[A trophy guy]

tsh3406, on 04 November 2011 - 07:45 PM, said:

How apropos...lmao. Seriously. ;)

[Ohiokitten4]

Wow..... let it go already... find something else to bitch about.

[A trophy guy]

Ohiokitten4, on 05 November 2011 - 07:34 AM, said:

Wow..... let it go already... find something else to bitch about.

smh

[Charlie-boi]

This storey reminds me of the other day...

I had the top down I'n my BMW! Admittedly looking like a flash dick! I was sitting I'n the disabled spot when a guy smiling at me says "are you sure you don't need a hand" me thinking he was being nice said " no thankyou I'm fine" he then with a horrible tone said "you just looked like you mite have needed a hand" and began to walk off!!

My temper being a little short had my throw my car I'n reverse boxing this guy I'n a space! I pointed to my chair I'n the back visible to everybody as the hood was down and then gave him a few words I don't want to put on here!

I felt afterwards I probly couldn't be bothered to do that again if anyone tried being a clever dick with me!

Think is man when your young, with a good physique people do think your ab and take it as a compliment! Downside i don't like the steryotype if your I'n a chair your old, fat or look physically or mentally difformed

[paul1404]

I think only quads should be allowed to park in disabled bays! Then it should be the lower the legion the further away you have to park, with limpers and quads in electric chairs right at the end.

Edited by paul1404, 05 November 2011 - 07:37 PM.

[A trophy guy]

paul1404, on 05 November 2011 - 07:23 PM, said:

I think only quads should be allowed to park in disabled bays

I think we've found our resident funnyman here on the board. ;)

[Charlie-boi]

I'n stead of a disabled symbal as Paul said the order should be labelled c1,c2,c3,........all the way to l5 ;) lol

[Ginny]

Now, where was that cop the other day when I had to park in a regular spot because the only disabled spot was taken by a guy in a truck who hopped spryly from his high perch to the ground and walked into the building...fine...no problems at all? Meanwhile, I had to go an extra 35 feet with my hiking poles, wonky balance and paralysis. WHERE are the cops at a time like THAT!?