Comments on: Daily News: Is There a Person in Your Parking Spot? Kill Them.

By: zach

zach — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:43:54 +0000

I think we need a campaign to rename the current law to intoxicated vehicular assault, in order to use vehicular assault for people who assault with their vehicles while sober. The words are clear, and if what Peter G says here is true, and I believe it's been mentioned here again, the category needs to be renamed.

By: Peter G

Peter G — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:51:05 +0000

Another frustrating aspect of our current vehicular laws is that the offense that you think would be most applicable for such a situation, Vehicular Assault, is not available here because the driver (as far as I know) was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Yup, an element of the offense is that the defendant is in violation of VTL 1192, the section of the VTL dealing with influence. "Regular" old assault is of course available, but the law says it is impossible to charge someone with vehicular assault unless you also happen to be under the influence.

By: Kaja

Kaja — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:42:17 +0000

> Unless, you want to hire me to represent you....

You _are_ the best poster in this thread. Link to your site, I may in fact hire you, I am certain I'll need a criminal defense attorney some day (simply because so many reasonbale parts of my daily routine are illegal, and there are so many cops paid to bust me for them...)

By: Jason A

Jason A — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:03:18 +0000

Larry's comment says it all.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:55:38 +0000

And what should the driver have done? block the spot with his car and call the cops. self help like this is a big no-no.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:51:07 +0000

As an attorney in NYC, I can tell you that it is illegal to do any kind of spot holding short of having a car parked in the spot.
It is also probably a D felony to deliberately strike someone with your vehicle. Its assault and the car would be considered a weapon.
Also, if the spot holder did have a gun, it would be illegal for him to use it. Under NY law, you have a duty to retreat unless you are in your home.
And WTF? this car was coming and the guy didnt get out of the way?
I don't have sympathy for any of these people- the holder, the boss, or the driver.
Unless, you want to hire me to represent you....
I do criminal defense and civil litigation!

By: Ian Dutton

Ian Dutton — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:43:31 +0000

The owner of the restaurant sent out his employee to engage in illegal behavior. In conducting said illegal action, he was assaulted by a driver in a vehicle.

I don't have sympathy for any of these characters, nor do I think that it's worthy of a Streetsblog article, except to point out the continued ills of driving abuse and parking abuse (by the owner of the restaurant and the driver involved).

By: Kaja

Kaja — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 05:57:48 +0000

It's Daily News for christ's sake, quit paying attention to it.

By: beng722

beng722 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 04:03:59 +0000

kapes is right about street parking rates. there shouldn't even be such a thing as free parking in Manhattan.

By: Katie

Katie — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:45:26 +0000

Columbia City, MO just amended its city code to prohibit the harassment of pedestrians. Sounds like NY could use something similar. Imagine what the city would be like if "honking, shouting, or any conduct with the intent of intimidation or injury" aimed at pedestrians was illegal.

Katie

P.S. Bicyclists receive the same protections under the amended law.

********
http://wherethesidewalkstarts.blogspot.com/

By: t

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:40:18 +0000

"What do you guys suggest the driver should have done to be able to park in the spot that was rightfully his to park in?"

Almost anything short of causing physical injury to another person. Why is this such a hard concept to understand? It's called proportionate response.

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:36:40 +0000

Here is a luxury people are willing to kill for, and the city is giving it away for free?

By: Cap'n Transit

Cap'n Transit — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:26:34 +0000

What do you guys suggest the driver should have done to be able to park in the spot that was rightfully his to park in?

I've been told that the City government has staff that can be called in to sanction people who break these rules. In fact, I believe their central office is just a few blocks from that parking space.

Oh, sorry, I forgot, in the Daily News universe, it's impossible for TEAs to actually fulfill any useful function.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:53:58 +0000

nanterking - driver should roll down his/her window and speak to the person, not run over their foot or threat them with bodily harm.

By: nanterking

nanterking — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:48:46 +0000

What do you guys suggest the driver should have done to be able to park in the spot that was rightfully his to park in?

By: kapes

kapes — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:28:14 +0000

"one," "own" - same thing, right?

By: kapes

kapes — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:26:25 +0000

This is not a case of auto vs. pedestrian, and it has nothing to do with reclaiming street space from cars for people.
One cannot reserve a parking space for their boss. I had to try to do it with cones when PAing on a shoot years ago (parking had not been held) and a motorist rightly drove over the cone. Sushi restaurants don't one the spaces in front of their establishment, and neither do Park Avenue apartment buildings (though they put out signs implying they do).

Yes, one shouldn't run over other people's feet with ones car.
But it seems that you are implying Du had a moral or legal right to reserve the spot for what is just a different motor vehicle.

Perhaps this conflict is a good case for increased on street parking rates.....

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:41:13 +0000

Totally irrelevant, anon. If the two had an argument about saving a parking space, I'd side with the driver over the guy standing in the spot.

But once it moves into the world of assault it's crossed a line. As someone mentioned above, can I punch someone for having too many items in the express checkout lane? Once I do that, it doesn't matter where the person had 13 items or 130 items. I've crossed a line, a point of departure from the earlier, now irrelevant offense.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but in this case one of the wrongs far outweighs the other.

By: Anon

Anon — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:35:14 +0000

All of the above being true, it is also arrogant to send an underling out to reserve a parking spot for you, as if somehow that is your personal plot of asphalt. If we assume that the street is public space, and the curbside parking rules are for parking, it is for whatever driver gets there first -- not for someone who can send their employee out as a valet. The chef and his boss weren't exactly siezing the space for pedestrians in a Parking Day action.

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:24:21 +0000

There is clearly a double standard for autos vs. pedestrians in our society. However this is a clear case of assault and the driver should be charged and persecuted for his idiotic antics.