Now the violator is the victim. :lol:

 

I didn't say that. If nobody was denied a parking spot, NOBODY is the victim...

I didn't say that. If nobody was denied a parking spot, NOBODY is the victim...

 

Since the spots were blocked for probably a hour chances are real good someone was denied, we will never know.

 

And you said thrown under the bus. So now the issue is the violator has been thrown under the bus.

Since the spots were blocked for probably a hour chances are real good someone was denied, we will never know.

 

And you said thrown under the bus. So now the issue is the violator has been thrown under the bus.

 

Did they say anything to the owner who allowed their spots to be occupied by non-handicapped occupants? If not, then that's on them. If no one spoke up then no one was hurt too bad in my book.

Since the spots were blocked for probably a hour chances are real good someone was denied, we will never know.

 

And you said thrown under the bus. So now the issue is the violator has been thrown under the bus.

 

Without any proof of someone being denied of a parking spot, I don't have a real problem with the parking job. There is no victim in that regard.

 

If the business owner, right or wrong, told me to park there, I would do the same thing. Are you all going to get on here and bash every person that speeds down highway, cheats on their taxes, and files false insurance reports? No... So lay off this guy.

Without any proof of someone being denied of a parking spot, I don't have a real problem with the parking job. There is no victim in that regard.

 

If the business owner, right or wrong, told me to park there, I would do the same thing. Are you all going to get on here and bash every person that speeds down highway, cheats on their taxes, and files false insurance reports? No... So lay off this guy.

 

We have to agree to disagree about a lot of things.

We have to agree to disagree about a lot of things.

 

Fair enough. :thumb:

Since the spots were blocked for probably a hour chances are real good someone was denied, we will never know.

 

And you said thrown under the bus. So now the issue is the violator has been thrown under the bus.

 

That's why I asked about any other handicapped spots that were not visible in the picture. With those (that were not shown) being closer to the building, I would think those would be the ones used first by the handicapped. If what you said was true (that one of the two spaces up front was open)...then it would at least allow for the possibility that perhaps these 4 across, were not needed at the time.

 

And perhaps (just theorizing here), the owner has a pretty good working knowledge of when/how many his handicapped spots are utilized by his clientele...that he knew it would be okay (and not interfere) to have this driver park his vehicle/trailer there for this one special instance. I don't know....just a total guess on my part. But, I think his business could make this is a different scenario than when talking about normal retail parking (Kroger's, Walmart, etc.)

 

However, it did seem like you had a couple of other options that would have been viable as an alternative. (Although I don't like the street one, if you're talking about kids helping load the trailer)

I change like the seasons and honestly I feel like if the truck being parked there had became an issue then he would have moved the truck. I'm taking up for the dude who parked there because I feel he is being unfairly vilified on here for no good reason in my eyes. If he would have moved the truck if asked or if needed then what is the harm? Please explain that to me. Who was hurt by him using that available area albeit handicapped parking? Quite frankly the fact that he asked the owner if he could use that parking to load/unload is setting a good example to the kids. We can debate that all day as I feel like too much emphasis is put on what people feel is setting a good example to kids. That whole thought process is hypocrital.

I'm not out to vilify him. I'm just stating that it's wrong to do. A far worse violation than speeding in my opinion.

I just live. What happens happens. I just find it funny that people cry about one thing being morally reprehensible but they do morally reprehensible things as well. If you can't live your life 100% morally acceptable then there is no point trying to tell others they aren't morally acceptable. Pot meet kettle.......

Again, some violations are worse than others, especially morally. You simply can't equate speeding to parking in a handicap zone any more than you can equate stealing food to shooting someone.

It's a bad example to any kid to break the law in front of them Be it speeding, parking in a handicap zone, fire zone, etc...

Making light of it makes you seem a bit heartless. Frankly, I'm surprised you feel this way. You usually seem more responsible than this.

 

And yet, I'd be willing to bet you sped almost every time you drove with your kids in the car....

So based off of this one instance where he violated the worst law known to man he isn't setting a good example to the kids he is volunteering his time to? Gotcha.:thumb:

The worst law known to man? I love selfish people who can't see past their own noses. Yes, he is setting a bad example for breaking a law that is critical to the daily livelihoods of a large percentage of the U.S. population. Perhaps you will join us one day, and your selfish tune will be forever changed.

My final post in this thread.

 

Was what the driver did wrong? Yes. Would I do it? No. Having said that, I 100% agree wholeheartedly with Deuce, if no one was denied a handicap spot that needed one (and I'd have to assume they weren't considering there were two other spots available), than no one was harmed in any way, and this is a complete non-issue. Regardless, I'm not going to get on here and villify and bash someone because they listened to what the owner of an establishment told them to do. I know I've broken laws many times before (don't worry nothing worse than traffic violations), so I'm not going to be a hypocrit and criticize this guy, and that's what I believe those who are criticizing him are.

 

Again, as Deuce said, if no one was harmed, it isn't a big deal at all.

Why is the guy who owned the truck at fault? Should the owner of the store who gave him permission to park in those spots be the true person at fault?

No, the owner is just as much at fault.

I love selfish people who can't see past their own noses.

 

Interesting.

My final post in this thread.

 

Was what the driver did wrong? Yes. Would I do it? No. Having said that, I 100% agree wholeheartedly with Deuce, if no one was denied a handicap spot that needed one (and I'd have to assume they weren't considering there were two other spots available), than no one was harmed in any way, and this is a complete non-issue. Regardless, I'm not going to get on here and villify and bash someone because they listened to what the owner of an establishment told them to do. I know I've broken laws many times before (don't worry nothing worse than traffic violations), so I'm not going to be a hypocrit and criticize this guy, and that's what I believe those who are criticizing him are.

 

Again, as Deuce said, if no one was harmed, it isn't a big deal at all.

 

There was only one other spot available when I left. Again, spots 1 though 4 were blocked, spot 5 was taken, and spot 6 was open for that moment in time but remember we are talking about much longer than a moment in time.