Have we got a case?

[Ken-Ohki]

Not really a legal case but I'll run this by you guys and see if you all have suggestions maybe know if there really is a legal precedence.

My friend is handicapped, he has muscular dystrophy and literally cannot walk 5 feet without assistance. He has a handicapped parking pass on his jeep prominently displayed. My apartment has no visitor parking and no handicapped stalls, it is parking by permit only.

When my friend visits he parks in the nearest stall to my door and hobbles to the 4 steps to my apartment by leaning on the front of his jeep. He's parked there for weeks without incident. Last night they booted his jeep and even after he explained that there is no authorized handicapped parking and no wheelchair access they made him pay $50 to get the boot off. He said to me that if he didn't have wheelchair rugby practice in the morning he wouldn't have paid.

I believe these people expect him to park on the street and haul himself to my front door by his hands, use his wheelchair to the curb and then flop himself over and drag himself up the stairs, or not visit.

I told him he'd better park in exactly the same spot when he comes to visit again today. I certainly hope they boot him again so we can call the press and tell them about a story about handicapped discrimination.

Anyway, jerks.

[Old Ape Face]

take pictures and plenty of notes I see a Civil Suit in the making. However since it's land owned by the company they have a say in it.

[Soluzar]

Really? I was thinking that there's no case here. Under what law are they compelled to provide parking for anyone on their own private land? If they say that parking is by permit only, then it sounds to me as though they have every right to do what they did. It's not very nice, but you can't legislate for people to be nice.

[Ken-Ohki]

You know? That's what I thought too. Even so it seems obvious even a 2 year old would know better than to give a handicapped individual no way to visit which is why I mentioned contacting the press. Vilifying them in the media would suit me just fine.

[Old Ape Face]

You know? That's what I thought too. Even so it seems obvious even a 2 year old would know better than to give a handicapped individual no way to visit which is why I mentioned contacting the press. Vilifying them in the media would suit me just fine.

if you file a complaint about it, and enough people agree to it you might get them to think about it.

[Jatz]

I'd a talk to a lawyer first.

[Soluzar]

You know? That's what I thought too. Even so it seems obvious even a 2 year old would know better than to give a handicapped individual no way to visit which is why I mentioned contacting the press. Vilifying them in the media would suit me just fine.
Well... yeah. That's basically your option at this point. What I would do is contact somone in the press, but ask them to hold off on the story until you give the word. Then you can call the owners of your apartment complex, and explain the situation. You can then say that you've got the press on hold if they remain intransigent. You can even give them the number of the reporter to call, if they want to know just how big of a story he's planning.

They probably don't want that kind of publicity.

Legally I don't think you have a case. I could be wrong, but that's how it seems. On the other hand, if you want to pursuade them to get some handicapped parking put in place, then I would say you've got a pretty good chance if you're willing to apply the right pressure. It has nothing to do with the law, and everything to do with their reputation.

After all... it isn't going to cost them that much to set up a few handicapped spots around the complex. They just need to see how it is in their interests.

[DavenIII]

Well... yeah. That's basically your option at this point. What I would do is contact somone in the press, but ask them to hold off on the story until you give the word.

I'd wouldn't trust the press, I'd threaten to bring it to the press first before ever talking to them, with that kind of story they might just go an publish it with or without you're consent.

[Leader Desslock]

Jerks? Yes. But they're probably jerks within their rights to be jerks.

- The ADA doesn't allow them to discriminate against your friend when it comes to housing. But since he's not the tenant, that doesn't apply. The landlord is not under any obligation to modify the property's policies and procedures to accommodate the accessibility needs of the tenants' guests, merely the tenants themselves.

- The building probably isn't brand new, so it probably wasn't required to be built with wheelchair access.

- The building probably doesn't receive federal funding, so it's not required to be retrofitted for accessibility.

In short, I don't see any discrimination here, nor do I see a case. Media hype on this issue would be lame, IMHO - it would reinforce negative preconceptions about "handicapped entitlement" among those prone to perceive accessibility that way, and it would also add to the noise that's already drowning out real cases of discrimination in the media.

My advice: suck it up; people aren't required to be nice in this country.

[Ken-Ohki]

So your solution would be to have him not visit? I will not accept that.

[Leader Desslock]

I didn't say he can't visit. Let him visit all he wants. I'm just saying that the Americans With Disabilities Act does not mandate that your landlord accommodate your guests in any way whatsoever. Hence, your landlord is not guilty of discrimination, and neither you nor your friend has any case, from what I can tell.

Perhaps if you research the matter regarding local statutes that may apply, you might find grounds for a case. I don't see it at the federal level.

If your friend wishes to visit, then there are plenty of options available that do not require him to bring his vehicle. You (or someone else) could give him a ride. He could get a taxi. You could speak to your landlord about getting him some sort of exceptional permit.

Would it be nice if your landlord made an exception to the parking policies for your friend? Sure. But your landlord is under no obligation (so far as I can tell) to be nice. Accept that or not; I'm indifferent.

If I was your landlord, I'd personally be happy to accommodate your friend. That's just me, though. A lot of people are like me. A lot of people aren't.

[Holy Knight]

Maybe you could arrange something with the landlord. Check out if other tenants are having similar problems and maybe the general need of the tenants will be enough to persuade him to do something about it.

Otherwise, if your friend can't come to you, why don't you visit him instead? It might be more of a hassle, but it would at least be easier on him.

[Caine]

LD, you are correct, but Ken has already said thay he doesn't think he has case for legal action. If he wants to try to get a change, why shouldn't he? I don't know where Ken lives, but around here real discrimination stories actually getting play in the media isn't too common.

Ken, if he needs assistance, I think their position (whether you like it or not) will be that you should help him.

[animeotaku99]

Steal your friend a parking permit...

[Caine]

Steal your friend a parking permit...

good answer

[Old Ape Face]

LD, you are correct, but Ken has already said thay he doesn't think he has case for legal action. If he wants to try to get a change, why shouldn't he? I don't know where Ken lives, but around here real discrimination stories actually getting play in the media isn't too common.

Ken, if he needs assistance, I think their position (whether you like it or not) will be that you should help him.

I don't disagree with LD about the landlord not having to support the handicapped, but if this means that the handicapped person isn't allowed to park accessibly to visit his friend just becuase he is handicapped and takes time getting out of his vehicle. That in a way is prohibition for any person, Handicapped or not to visit his apartment. Being nice or not is irrelevant if it is restricting ones personal engagement to the building.

[Leader Desslock]

If he wants to try to get a change, why shouldn't he?
I didn't say he shouldn't, and I gave a couple of suggestions.

There's "trying to get a change", and there's "trying to force a change". I strongly advocate the former, rather than the latter.

That in a way is prohibition for any person, Handicapped or not to visit his apartment. Being nice or not is irrelevant if it is restricting ones personal engagement to the building. Can there be charges on that alone?
Look it up. The Americans With Disabilities Act. An apartment building is not a public access building, nor does it serve a public function. Legally, it's a private residence, so long as it doesn't receive public funding.

Are you required to put wheelchair ramps on your personal home, just in case someone in a wheelchair might wish to visit (say, a Jehovah's Witness?) No? Then neither is a landlord.

A landlord is only obligated to make accessibility accommodations for the people who are paying him rent. So... say I'm blind, and say I have a seeing eye dog. Let's say that the apartment building's normal policy is "no animals on premises, no exceptions". Can the landlord refuse to rent to me, because I have a seeing eye dog? No. THAT would be discrimination. Can the landlord rent to me under the sole condition that I get rid of my dog? No. The landlord must make reasonable exceptions to the building rules to accommodate my needs as his tenant. So I can live there, and I can have my seeing eye dog.

The case we're discussing is different. We're discussing a landlord's obligation to the friend of a tenant, not to the tenant himself.

[Caine]

I didn't say he shouldn't, and I gave a couple of suggestions.

There's "trying to get a change", and there's "trying to force a change". I strongly advocate the former, rather than the latter.


suck it up; people aren't required to be nice in this country.

forgive me if I took that the wrong way, but I didn't see "try to get a change" in there

[Leader Desslock]

forgive me if I took that the wrong way, but I didn't see "try to get a change" in there
Look here: http://www.animenation.net/forums/showpost.php?p=6342157&postcount=11

[Fobb]

Isn't it required by law to have handicapped accessible stuffs like that?

EDIT: Yeah, I believe I'm right. No matter what, if there are parking spots above around 5-10 (depending on the state) you have to have handicap accessible parking. Here's an example of Mass. law, and most other states follow pretty much word for word.

1-14 (ADA only) 1 space

15-25 1 space

26-40 2 spaces

41-75 3 spaces

76-100 4 spaces

101-150 5 spaces

151-200 6 spaces

201-300 7 spaces

301-400 8 spaces

401-500 9 spaces

501-1000 2% of total

[Leader Desslock]

^ If the building serves a public function, or it receives public funding, or it provides public services... yes.

An apartment building is essentially a private residence. There is a difference between the DMV and your house. People HAVE to go to the DMV, so it's required to be made accessible. Nobody has to go to your house except you.

I'll ask again: Are you required to put wheelchair ramps on your home just in case someone in a wheelchair (say, a Jehovah's Witness or a Girl Scout) might someday want to ring your doorbell?

No? Why not? Aren't you discriminating against people in wheelchairs if you don't make your home accessible to them?

Answer: No, you're not. Your house isn't publicly funded, it doesn't serve a public function, nor does it provide services to the public. It's your house.

A privately-owned and funded apartment building is just a house. The landlord must accommodate the needs of his tenant, but not their friends, and not the Jehovah's Witness Girl Scout in a wheelchair that wants to proselytize on Gods Truth In Tagalongs.

[Fobb]

I see your point there. I suppose all you could really say is that its a stupid thing for them to not do.

[Soluzar]

Media hype on this issue would be lame, IMHO - it would reinforce negative preconceptions about "handicapped entitlement" among those prone to perceive accessibility that way, and it would also add to the noise that's already drowning out real cases of discrimination in the media.I do agree, but it's the only option that Ken-Ohki and his friend really have. I don't like it, but it would probably work. I'm giving advice on the basis that they will do whatever they need to do, rather than what is right. I wish I could believe that the landlord might make an exception for Ken-Ohki's friend, but I'm not at all confident of that.

[Ken-Ohki]

This same company received negative press about 5 years ago and they immediately overturned the previous ruling (I can't recall any longer what it was about) mostly because of the public's complaints from the newspaper article. This is another one of those instances I think people will side with us on the issue though we may need to use a different newspaper company since the other one (the university newspaper) probably remembers the article and has no interest in another.

[Soluzar]

The question isn't so much whether it will work, Ken-Ohki. I'm pretty sure it would work. The real question is whether it is somewhat dirty pool. They have no legal obligations, but you can use this method to force them to comply anyway.

[Ken-Ohki]

Certainly something to think about. I'll leave it to my friend to decide what's best but if all else fails and they don't make allowances I'll push the issue.

[Smith]

With the right lawyer(s), I believe anything's possible.

Personally, I'd do something that would cost the landlord more than $50, and make sure he can't tie me to it. Would serve him right for being a 'bully'. Sure, you need a permit, yadayada, but you also need to exercise some courtesy, and not be a total douchebag. Too many people in this country are total douchebags.

I gave this some thought after posting. I would do something only if the landlord had prior knowledge of your friend's disability. If that can be proven, I assume you have a case for negelct or endagerment of health... Still comes down to the lawyer, judge, jury etc and how the law is interpreted.

[Leader Desslock]

I do agree, but it's the only option that Ken-Ohki and his friend really have. I don't like it, but it would probably work.
I'm sure that it would.

I'm giving advice on the basis that they will do whatever they need to do, rather than what is right.
I'm giving advice based on how easy it is for a landlord to justify keeping a portion or all of one's security deposit.

If you win $50 but end up losing $400 to do it, is that really a victory?

There are also quite a lot of ways that a landlord can make his tenant's life miserable, if he chooses to do so. This is a can of worms I would choose not to open.

I gave this some thought after posting. I would do something only if the landlord had prior knowledge of your friend's disability. If that can be proven, I assume you have a case for negelct or endagerment of health...
Nope. Can't use neglect, because the friend isn't the legal responsibility of the landlord. Can't use endangerment of health, because I assume that the friend is mentally functional at a high enough level to understand that a social visit is an optional activity. If the friend chose to endanger his own health after not finding a close parking space, that's his choice. The landlord isn't responsible for saving someone from his own free will.

[Soluzar]

Personally, I'd do something that would cost the landlord more than $50, and make sure he can't tie me to it. Would serve him right for being a 'bully'.
Don't mince words, what are you really suggesting? It sounds like you're suggesting something may in itself be illegal.

Sure, you need a permit, yadayada, but you also need to exercise some courtesy, and not be a total douchebag. Too many people in this country/ are total douchebags.He's acting within his legal rights, and no law prevents him from being a "total douchebag".

[Smith]

I'm handicapped myself, so I take these kinds of things a bit far.
Desslock is better than a lawyer...

If he knew the guy had the disablity and tacked his car anyway.. Douchebag, law or not.

[Soluzar]

I'm handicapped myself, so I take these kinds of things a bit far.
Sure, I know that. My father is handicapped too, so I know how it is. The fact remains that you're not entitled to any help from a private individual. It's not like a store, in which it would be discriminatory for them not to make provisions for the handicapped. It's like someone's house, as Desslock pointed out.

As I pointed out earlier, you can win concessions from people by threatening to make them look bad. Nobody wants to look like they are being mean to the crippled man.

It's dirty pool though, and you have to ask yourself if it's worth sinking to that level. Finding an alternate solution which doesn't involve blackmail is that much more satisfying.

[HSaabedra]

Don't mince words, what are you really suggesting? It sounds like you're suggesting something may in itself be illegal. He's acting within his legal rights, and no law prevents him from being a "total douchebag".

This is exactly why you have no case. The ADA only makes provisions for public property, businesses, and merely sets guidelines for what is considered acceptable when dealing with the disabled. It is not to be interpreted as a shield for demanding accomodation from anyone.

I consider the current version of the ADA to be effective because it only sets broad guidelines that still allow the disabled to function within this country without causing undue stress on the part of the party accomodating the individual.

The ADA does not force the landlord to recognize every disabled guest that comes in and out and parcel out handicapped spaces. That's not how it works and, should never work that way.

[Ken-Ohki]

Last night we went out at 11:45 and noticed the note and the boot on the jeep. He called the company and said, "I'm disabled and there's no other place to park so I parked in front of the house, it's the only place I could go."

Also I need to point out that it used to be visitor parking, all the tenants park downstairs. But the top level was abused by the neighbors in the complex next door because it's closer then their own lot for half the tenants so they enforced a parking by permit only rule. Now the top level is EMPTY. It's not like he took anyone's space, nobody parks there anyway. It's a university approved apartment and it's a university parking enforcement agency.

So he calls and explains his situation, the guy on the phone basically says, we don't care if you're handicapped, we won't remove the boot unless you pay $50. So the guy comes out to the apartment after we wait till 1:00 am. I help my friend outside obviously crippled in front of the guy who's there to take off the boot where he explains, "I'm handicapped, you can see the handicapped permit in my window and on my license. I even park where I want on campus and they don't mind." To which the guy says "I'm sorry, you can't park here without a permit." My friend then asks, "Where am I supposed to park? I can't walk and there's no accessibility for my chair." The guy says "I don't know, you can't park here and I won't take the boot off till you pay $50. Get a parking permit or you can't park here."

Seriously, Smith is right, they were totally not understanding and unwilling to care about the needs of others, douchebags. I'm more pissed about the way he was treated than anything and wanting to fight this more as a matter of principle than money.

[Soluzar]

Go to the University and ask them if they are willing to make an exception. You're saying you'll "fight this", but there's nothing to fight. In the eyes of the law, they did nothing wrong. Your friend isn't entitled to park there, and if he knew that a permit was required but parked there anyway... then he already knew he stood a chance of getting wheelclamped.

It does suck, I won't pretend to like it. It's just that you don't have the rights you obviously believe that you do. If you want to pursue the media option, that's probably going to work, but it is blackmail. There's no nicer word for it. You're going to force them to do something they otherwise have no obligation to do by threatening to make them look bad.

I'd seek alternate solutions before going with that if I were you. Did you even try to go to the University with this? Going to their hired help isn't going to do anything, because they just follow the orders they've been given.

[Leader Desslock]

Also I need to point out that it used to be visitor parking...
Please look at the tense you used there. "Used to be". Past tense.

During the minute of time the boot was applied, was the space designated as visitor parking, or was a permit required to park there? That's what matters.

they enforced a parking by permit only rule.
Did you friend knowingly park in a permit-only spot without the relevant permit?

Now the top level is EMPTY.
If a Fire Lane is empty, can he still park there?

It's not like he took anyone's space, nobody parks there anyway.
Here's a f'rinstance for you. I'm a visitor to ... let's say... a hospital. The hospital parking spaces are full, except for one parking space that's marked "reserved for the hospital CEO". Thanks to a big article in the paper this morning, I know that the hospital CEO is out of town. Maybe I saw him standing in the crowd at the Today show this morning, and it's not physically possible for him to be back in town yet.

Can I park there? I'm not taking his spot, because he's not using it. Can the hospital have my car towed away?

The answers you're looking for are: a) no I can't, and b) yes they can, respectively.

It's a university approved apartment...
Approved or owned? Those are two different things. Is the lot upon which the building rests owned by the university? When you pay your rent, do you make the check out to the university? Even if the university owns the property, is this a public or private university we're talking about?

...and it's a university parking enforcement agency.
The contractor is irrelevant to the issue.

"I'm handicapped, you can see the handicapped permit in my window and on my license. I even park where I want on campus and they don't mind."
Parking where he wants on the campus itself is different than parking on someone's private property, if the campus does not own the land upon which the building sits.

Have your friend read the terms of his handicapped parking permit, as well as the parking guidelines of the college. If there's a case to be made, it's there.

Seriously, Smith is right, they were totally not understanding and unwilling to care about the needs of others...
Yes. Smith is right. Absolutely. And we've all agreed with that. The idea that these guys were jerks has not once been questioned in this thread.

The only thing we're discussing is whether they're exercising their legal rights to be jerks, or whether their jerkdom has in fact crossed into the domain of potential litigation.

Your friend isn't entitled to park there, and if he knew that a permit was required but parked there anyway... then he already knew he stood a chance of getting wheelclamped.
Exactly. The handicapped permit is not a "get out of the rules free" card. There are rules he must follow, even if he has a permit. He can't park in fire lanes. He can't park on lawns. He can't park in loading zones. He can't park in parking spaces that are reserved for campus administration (i.e.: the president).

The question is: what are the terms of his handicapped parking permit? He had to sign something to get one. Have him look over the terms of his agreement.

IF (and this is a big if) the terms of his parking permit state that he would be allowed to park in the designated spot (that is, if the handicapped permit implies the possession of the other permit), then at most, you're talking about a college violating its own internal rules. You still wouldn't be talking about a discrimination case. It'd be a simple small claims civil case, to get a refund of the parking fine. That's if the college refuses to give it back, after having been shown the relevant clause in his handicapped parking permit agreement.

Odds are if you simply go in as a reasonable individual and point out the relevant clause in your friend's parking permit that would allow him to park in that space, they'll refund your money, no questions asked.

No need to make a mountain out of a molehill, if it's a simple rules violation you can point out using your friend's parking agreement.

[Ken-Ohki]

What I'm upset at Dess is they don't go through even the minimum amount of understanding or assistance for the situation. Even a 2 year old would know better than to do what they did. It isn't right even if it's legal.

[Soluzar]

What I'm upset at Dess is they don't go through even the minimum amount of understanding or assistance for the situation.
Why would they? These wheelclamps are a revenue stream for the university. They are entitled to clamp cars which are parked without permission, and they need the money. Universities charge high fees but they also have huge expenses. They generally need the money from programs like this to keep on providing you with the education you're receiving.

[Leader Desslock]

What I'm upset at Dess is they don't go through even the minimum amount of understanding or assistance for the situation.
You're not talking about 'understanding' in terms of comprehension; you're talking about compassion. Odds are they understood the situation, since they explained it to you and your friend. Until you can provide documentation that demonstrates that their explanation is inconsistent with parking rules and the terms of your friend's handicapped parking permit, you have no reason to suspect that they did not understand the situation.

They weren't nice. Every single person in this thread agrees upon that point.

Even a 2 year old would know better than to do what they did.
You've never seen a 2-year-old who chose not to behave in a 'nice' manner? There's a reason they're called 'the terrible twos', you know. :lol:

It isn't right even if it's legal.
It isn't nice, it may have been perfectly legal, and whether it's right or wrong is a question for the philosophisers to debate, in my book.

There are those who would argue that making unnecessary exceptions for the differently abled is demeaning to that population. It implies that they can't compete when held to the same standard as the "normals". Again, that's a topic for the philosophisers.

[Smith]

He was probably just doing his job. A quote from The Green Mile comes to mind.
Paul Edgecomb: When I die and I stand before God awaiting judgment and he asks me why I let one of HIS miracles die, what am I gonna say, that it was my job?
Sure, itt bears very minimal relevance to this situation, but hey, you don't always have to do your job.

[Rain]

Is this naïveté at its finest or what?

[Ken-Ohki]

He was probably just doing his job. A quote from The Green Mile comes to mind.
Paul Edgecomb: When I die and I stand before God awaiting judgment and he asks me why I let one of HIS miracles die, what am I gonna say, that it was my job?
Sure, itt bears very minimal relevance to this situation, but hey, you don't always have to do your job.

Exactly. What you're saying Desslock is the law must be obeyed. What I'm saying is they should have given my friend an exception which they did not even after his condition was thoroughly explained. If we followed your advice on the matter we'd all be subjects to the King of England.

Laws and rules can be given exceptions and one should have been given in this instance. It's the right thing to do, to not have done so proves that the person in question was more interested in his rules and the company earning money than in doing what was right.

We should not, in fact we must not, simply follow the law when the law makes no sense and causes someone distress or harm.

Right now my friend is refusing to return to my home. He said without a parking pass he won't come back again. Basically now this company has won, they've kept my friend from returning and causing them further trouble which is not the right and just thing to have done and it infuriates me.

But as I said earlier, I will defer to my friends judgment and I'm unwilling to pursue the matter until we've talked to the company again and asked them to make an allowance in his case. We can't do that until Monday either way and I'm not going to follow up on it unless my friend decides it's what he wants to do.

Right now I'm just upset and we haven't even exhausted our options yet. It may be that everything is fixed on Monday on an appeal. I don't know.

[Meson]

Ken, there IS one thign you can do: leave. You can find a new appartment that would let your friend visit. If your current landlord doesn't want your money, then that is his problem. Go to someone who does.

[Tenou]

Forget nice, forget compassion, what you're saying is that some people should be above the law. There are provisions made for disabled people. There are provisions for pregnant women. But your friend is breaking the rules but you think he should be forgiven because... why? Just because you're disabled doesn't mean you don't have to follow the same rules and laws as everyone else.

[Smith]

Put yourself in the shoes of a person with muscular dystrophy. At no fault of the person's, he/she has this disablity that is life changing. And when other people push them down, that really is unecessary, and shows a lack of judgment and compassion. Sure that isn't a job requirement, but I'm pretty sure its a life requirement..

Hopefully you can find a soultion on monday with the appeal, Ken. If it is an university apartment etc, I see no reason why you can't use the school paper to write a story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscular_dystrophy
No need to push someone who's already down. It shows a lack of class, job or not.

Also I'm not too sure how long this thread might last. It has somewhat gone SD&D..

[Leader Desslock]

Exactly. What you're saying Desslock is the law must be obeyed.
No, I'm not saying that at all. I said I'd have let your friend slide, 'cause I'm a nice guy. I wouldn't be following the letter of the law, but eh, so be it. I'm not really a stickler for that sort of thing.

What I'm saying is they should have given my friend an exception which they did not even after his condition was thoroughly explained.
What I'm saying is that they were under no obligation to make such an exception (since you asked if you 'had a case'), so when they apparently chose not to make an exception for your friend, that's the way it goes.

You think the world would be a better place if people had a mandate to be nice. I'm not even addressing that issue; I'm merely saying that the current world contains no such mandate.

If we followed your advice on the matter we'd all be subjects to the King of England.
No, if you followed my advice on the matter, you'd be looking up the specific details of your friends parking pass, and you'd be checking state and local laws for additional statutes that might apply. Assuming you found information to support your stance, you would then be following my advice if you brought this information to the attention of the local parking enforcement division to obtain your friend's refund. If no such refund was given, I have advised you to take the matter to small claims court.

Of the lots of advice I've given, none of it has involved capitulation to crown rule.

Laws and rules can be given exceptions and one should have been given in this instance. It's the right thing to do, to not have done so proves that the person in question was more interested in his rules and the company earning money than in doing what was right.
Right and wrong are questions for the philosophers. You think it would be moral to give your friend a special exemption from the rules because of his disability. Other people think it's amoral to treat the handicapped as a special class.

Your friend signed an agreement when he received his parking permit. By which rules did your friend agree to abide in exchange for his extended parking privileges on campus? Couldn't it be seen as amoral for him to violate his own agreement, after having benefited elsewhere from it? It could be said that he wants to have his cake and eat it too, from some perspectives.

I personally think we're all better off leaving nebulous, flamebait concepts like morality straight out of the thread.

We should not, in fact we must not, simply follow the law when the law makes no sense and causes someone distress or harm.
Did the law cause your friend harm, or did he put himself in harm's way?

...your friend is breaking the rules but you think he should be forgiven because... why?
Exactly. His friend presumably knew the rules, and knew that he did not possess the required permit. He made the choice to park there anyway. Handicapped people are subject to the consequences of their actions, just like the rest of us.

[Soluzar]

Put yourself in the shoes of a person with muscular dystrophy.
Will the shoes of a person who was paralysed as a result of a stroke do? I'm telling you now that when I showed this topic to my father, his reaction was that a handicap doesn't put one above the law. He agrees with all of us that it's a terrible thing there isn't any proper provision, but that doesn't entitle anyone to break the rules.

Seems like not all handicapped people want to believe the rules don't apply.

If I were you, Ken-Ohki, I would take the simplest option. Have your friend park outside the complex and then call you on his cellphone. You can then assist him into a wheelchair. It's the best option you have within the current rules. I would try to change those rules, but I wouldn't break them while they remain as they are.

If you choose to take the option of going to the media, be aware that there could be repercussions.

Please don't take this to mean that I don't sympathise. I just don't think your friend has any relevant rights here.

[Smith]

Desslock's signature quote really comes to mind.

Soluzar, you are right, there are ways around it, call Ken on his cell, etc, but that may deter the friend from coming as often as he'd like. Maybe they're studying something for class.
I'm pretty sure your friend can obtain a permit if you talk to the right people and prove his disablity, and the aggravation of getting a $50 fine.

[Soluzar]

Desslock's signature quote really comes to mind.
Then I'd venture that you've misunderstood the meaning of the quote. If you have not misunderstood it, I must have. Unfortunately there is probably no way to be sure. I don't mean any hostility by that. I can see what you're trying to get across, but as a fan of Pratchett, I don't believe that was the intention of the quote at all.

On a more positive note, I suppose that if he can obtain a permit that is the best thing all round. I would expect that he will be charged for it though, there's no reason to expect a handout.

[Justinian]

All law is a joke...If there's no one "threat" to enforce it, it will mean nothing. Find a way to over throw the American government then your friend won't have to go through this. After that you could just point a gun at the ***-hole when he tries to wheel-clamp the car. I bet he would understand then.

[Smith]

I haven't read one Pratchett novel. I'm sure I see it differently. I do have the Postman(?), I just need to get around to reading it.

Hopefully A permit can be issued.

Anyway, I am probably going to lock this thread by the time I go to sleep. It' just has that SD&Dish feel to it. I let it go on because it was civil. Good discussion guys!