I know, it's hot.

 

Did u happen to ask why they were parked at that certain spot?

 

uh if i saw them i would have punched them in the face... they were preventing my freedom of movement so i would have punked them in self defense

 

actually, your rights were not violated... your ability to drive, which is a privelege and not a right, was hindered.

so were you parked in the lexus douches spot?

 

driving is a privelledge, but it is a tool i use to exercise my right to freedom of movement. walking is not a right, it biomechanical action that is not mentioned in the preamble, constitution, or bill of rights. however, preventing someone from walking out a door by force (such as moving a 4000lb object into their path?) violates their freedom of movement and is thus illegal


QED *****

 

ok... were you in his spot?

 

yup, but i know what your thinking. because im 4 steps ahead of you and 5x smarter.



i just ctrl+x'd the rest of this diatribe into Word for later... question me if you must.

 

lmfao. so tell me, what was i thinking cuz i sure as hell don't know.

i was just wondering if you were parked in his spot or not cuz i'm too dense to figure that out by reading the rest of the thread.

but please, post the rest of the diatribe since you spent the time to type it out...

 

I'm so confused....Irrational X parked in the dude's reserved spot, so the dude blocked him in, and the Senior X called the cops?

Yeah, someone tried to pull that **** on my boss one time. He blocked them in and they went up to his office all pissed and said he had to move his car or the guy would call the police and my boss looked at him and said "don't worry, see that 'no parking sign?' well I've already called the cops and a tow truck....or you can just apologize"

 

see below


sucks the dude in question never went to college. education is a mother****er.




to define the act against me by the lexus:

"The tort of wrongful physical confinement of an individual is not restricted to physical confinement but includes any unjustified limitation of another's freedom of movement via force, intimidation, etc."

• The illegal confinement of one individual against his or her will by another individual in such a manner as to violate the confined individual's right to be free from restraint of movement.
  
• Restraint upon a person's liberty of movement without legal justification. Actual physical contact is not necessary; a show of authority or a threat of force is sufficient.

While I did occupy the space reserved by the property manager for this individual, I in no way inhibited them from the free exercise of their civil liberties, or caused, or threatened to cause, loss of freedom or physical damages to the individual responcible for the safe operation of the vehicle (lexus).

"trespass n. - entering another person's property without permission of the owner or his/her agent and without lawful authority (like that given to a health inspector) and causing any damage, no matter how slight. Any interference with the owner's (or a legal tenant's) use of the property is a sufficient showing of damage and is a civil wrong (tort) sufficient to form the basis for a lawsuit against the trespasser by the owner or a tenant using the property."

As my parking in the reserved spot does not consitute a trespas (i have permission to park on the premise, and my actions did not interfere with the owner/tenant permission to use of the property) there is no legal fault. Technically speaking, as an agent of the property manger with expressed right to use the premiss, my rights were infirnged upon as i was prevented from exiting the property freely.

trespass, in addition to kidnapping (per the legal definition) both apply here, but only to the operator of the lexus, as i took no forceful action preventing their free useage of the property (though i did considder pulling a valve stem on their tires) provided by the management, nor did i inhibit their free movement in or about the property.



****in a... took me 5 minutes to dumb this down to 3rd grade level... and i still dont think RussB and Mbassile will understand.

 

quod erat demonstrandum. matris prolapsus

illegitimi non carborundum.

 

oh, i fully understand what you posted. i'm just trying to comprehend why, in a "completely empty lot", you would park in a reserved spot vs. a non reserved spot?

 

ive parked there every sunday since ive worked there? its the closest to the door and i dont get wet when it rains.

 

ahh ****. i thought this was at an appartment complex or something.

why wouldn't you park there, it's close and it's not normal business hours.

 

So what is your job at the apartment complexe? I'm surprised they don't have Employee Parking spots.

I don't understand how the tresspassing tort applies to the Lexus owner.

"trespass n. - entering another person's property without permission of the owner or his/her agent and without lawful authority and causing any damage, no matter how slight.
Am I failing to see, or did you forget to mention, any damages caused by the Lexus owner?

Any interference with the owner's (or a legal tenant's) use of the property is a sufficient showing of damage and is a civil wrong (tort) sufficient to form the basis for a lawsuit against the trespasser by the owner or a tenant using the property."
Weren't you the one interfering with the Legal Tenant's "use of the property"?

But now I have to ask, do people pay extra in rent for these reserved spots or does each Apartment get X number of reserved spots?