Yesterday as I was leaving a local grocery store I saw an older gentleman in a handicapped space with both the trunk lid and hood up. I stopped by to ask of I could help. He said yes, his battery was dead. He had one of the "jump boxes" that will normally jump off a dead battery but it wouldn't work (its battery was dead). I pulled my truck into the handicapped spot immediately in front of his, installed my jumper cables, and had him start his car. He was thankful and I put his "jump box" back in his truck, closed the trunk lid and his trunk and watched him drive away. I loaded my groceries in my truck and returned the cart to the front of the store. While I was gone a "lady" pulled into the space next to mine and as I got to my truck I heard her say "You don't look handicapped to me" and huffed off. Oh well, I know I did right even if she didn't.
Andy
From her point of view, she was perfectly correct. From yours, you were correct. I'd just be glad she wasn't law enforcement and writing you a $100 ticket.
That's a $500 ticket in California, don't even let your tire touch the blue paint in an adjoining spot.
Best and safest course of action would be to remove your vehicle from the spot as soon as done jumping the other vehicle.
Jumping is dangerous. One day I was pushing the stroller with Jameson in it down a nearby street when two people positioned two vehicles for jumping across the street. I beat it out of there as fast as I can in case they are knuckleheads and cross the terminals. I don't want to get caught in a battery acid shower.
The fallacy of our structured world
(as I wrote this I wondered what Nearly Normal would have to say 😉 )
If our civil laws and mores were software, things would have crashed long ago.
Andy's event is a perfect example.
Let's say Andy was ticketed for parking in a handicapped space. Up to this point everyone involved had exhibited predictable, logical and lawful behavior.
Was Andy guilty of parking in a handicapped space? Yes, by his own admission.
So the only one that was punished in this scenario was the person attempting to help his fellow man. An act of compassion.
And as Andy has observed, No Good Deed Goes Unpunished.
Here's where it gets weird. Lets say that Andy attempts to reason with the ticketing officer or goes to court to plead his case. In my experience in this world, all of the "after the fact" opinions concerning Andy's actions would focus on that fact that he actually had parked in a handicapped designated space. Guilty as charged!
******************
No wonder our society is crumbling from its foundation. We can't act on compassion without fear of repercussions or litigation. I watched a video some time back of a fellow that got hit by a taxi and laid there and died on a public street. Dozens of folks stepped over him on there way about their business.
Such actions are the only way the societal software will actually work. No one wanted to suffer the persecution of acting with compassion and damning the norm.
We're truly doomed. :pinch:
Oh boy
And there I thought Saturday in the park was for soapbox speeches. Or is OK that repressive?
There is a Good Samaritan tenet in law that the police or courts weigh in these matters.
I'm sure that he would not even get a ticket upon explanation of the occurrence.
The fallacy of our structured world
Everyone should go sit in the traffic court gallery for a few hours, it's enlightening.
Generally, if it's your word against the officer's word then you lose (unless you have some solid tangible, uncontroverted evidence that he is wrong which is rare).
No matter how good your explanation, if one word in your 200 words speech admits you did it, you lose.
Out of 10 cases, 8 were guilty, 1 got continued (the defendant asked to see the video the officer said he had but didn't bring), 1 not guilty because the Sheriffs deputy showed up in old blue jeans, t-shirt and the judge clearly didn't like him and the defendant had a good story and photos of the scene. All the other officers were all spit and polish.
My case, no. 11, got dismissed because the city motor sergeant didn't show up.
Oh boy
> There is a Good Samaritan tenet in law that the police or courts weigh in these matters.
> I'm sure that he would not even get a ticket upon explanation of the occurrence.
I would hope someone would listen. Oklahoma actually has the same laws, thank goodness. Just musing Robert, just musing....;-)
**********
Actually Oklahoma's "Good Samaritan" Law came about recently out of fear of being sued by donating out-of-date foodstuff to the homeless shelters (wtf?!).
Lord knows we wouldn't want to give some starving homeless fella a tummy-ache....
Your story is actually a very good surveying metaphor, if you get past the sting of such a rebuke in the face of doing a good deed. Maybe we should make more effort to hold off on passing judgment based on a cursory assessment of a particular situation, when all of the facts may not yet be revealed? Easier said than done in this age of instant gratification. 🙂
Traffic Court
Last time I went to traffic court (and it's been years) the first thing all of us defendants did was listen to the judge explain his position.
He said, "I'm going to ask you how you plead. Before we go into any explanations, you have to answer my question. There are only two possible answers, guilty or not guilty. There is no such plea as "guilty, but...". Does everyone understand?"
We all mumbled and nodded.
He called the first case. It was some bubble-headed Buffy chickie that approached the bench and identified herself. He read the complaint against her and asked if she understood the charges. She did. Then he asked her what was her plea.....
"Well, guilty, BUT...." was her reply. The judge's forehead hit the bench in front of him and he covered his head up with his arms. We all kinda giggled but the bailiff looked like he didn't want any chuckling. After the judge raised his head back up, he repeated verbatim what he had originally told us. Then he asked the defendant at the bench again what was her plea.
As soon as she uttered the word "guilty" he slammed the gavel down and told her to pay the court clerk. He then smiled and told the court today would be a good day if we all did as well as the first girl.
Traffic Court
I don't understand going down there just to plead guilty. Why not just mail it in?
The Traffic Referee has no discretion on the fine at least California.
Google street view got you too
What would you expect when you park like this?
Next time walk with a limp and respond to the woman with a slurred voice saying your trophy wife took the car with handi plates to the moon.
Traffic Court
> I don't understand going down there just to plead guilty. Why not just mail it in?
>
> The Traffic Referee has no discretion on the fine at least California.
What is a traffic referee? I took a ticket to court in California once, pleaded guilty and requested that the court have compassion on me and lower the fine because I couldn't afford it (I was young and poor).
I guess I was respectful enough because the judge asked me "what CAN you afford?"
Man time slowed down and I quickly thought about it...it needs to be low but not too low or he will not go along with this....I said "I can afford $50??" Time sped back up and the judge loudly stated "Clerk, send the young man a bill for $50, NEXT CASE!"
The fallacy of our structured world
"Generally, if it's your word against the officer's word then you lose (unless you have some solid tangible, uncontroverted evidence that he is wrong which is rare)."
I proved mathematically that the lie that the officer testified to under oath could not possibly have happened. The judged fined me $186 based on the fact that it was "my word against the officer's". When I stated that the officer had just perjured herself I was told that I would be charged with contempt of court if I said another word. I paid the fine, went home, and wrote the judge a letter of apology. I told her that I was sorry that I had not realized that the officer would lie under oath, and that next time I would just plead guilty so as not to waste the court's valuable time.
Last man on earth
Do you watch the new comedy, The Last Man on Earth? She is a nag who insists on following all of the rules, so he can't park in a handicapped spot, while he realizes that one of the few advantages of their situation is there are no rules and he can park anywhere he wants. Including, as he then demonstrates, inside the store.
Last man on earth
The wife did not care for the show, however I am hooked. Thank you for the tip.
The fallacy of our structured world
In most traffic courts, the officer must show up if the defendant decides for an appearance in front of the Judge.
No show and it is over and you go your merry way.
Only if you have made the Judge's radar by some statement in court or thru reputation will they continue the case to a later date.
