Jump to content

      



























Photo

Robbins Parking


  • Please log in to reply
171 replies to this topic

#21 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 82,943 posts

Posted 26 July 2011 - 08:08 AM

I still don't understand the need to give up your camera until trial. Wouldn't the photos be sufficient, or were they going to use the camera as evidence of the parking attendant throwing your camera to the ground?

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#22 ChrisA

ChrisA
  • Member
  • 108 posts

Posted 26 July 2011 - 08:22 AM

VHF, I encourage you to press charges. This is surely not the first time this guy has been violent, nor is it likely to be the last. Even if your case is dismissed, previous charges may help in eventually bringing him to justice. Even if you have to give up your iPod for a few months, perhaps the temporary loss of $250 would be worth it? (Although chain of custody on the photos is broken, so I don't know if the photos can now be used at trial.)

I am not a lawyer and I am just speculating, but perhaps Robbins refuses to do anything about the incident because doing something would be tacit admission that their employee wronged you, and that could be used against them in a civil case.

#23 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 26 July 2011 - 09:07 AM

I had a long conversation with Mo Jessa, operations manager at Robbins this morning. He has no interest in a meeting to discuss.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#24 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 13,088 posts

Posted 26 July 2011 - 09:37 AM

In my opinion NO ONE has the right to physically touch, push, shove, punch, hit or restrain another person for any reason other than self defence.

That person should have called the authorities if he thought you were acting inapropriately.

If I were in your shoes, I would file a complaint for the assault including a request for restitution for any damaged equipment and clothing. If you are unsuccesful at that point then I would file a small claims suit for the restitution of the damaged equipment and clothing.

The small claims suit costs $100 to file and you can serve the writ personally. Ask one of your lawyer buddies if the small claims suit should be against the person, the company, or both.

You should receive a certain amount of satisfaction (at least $100 worth) of hearing them explain themselves in front of a judge.

#25 coolhandluke

coolhandluke
  • Member
  • 2 posts

Posted 26 July 2011 - 01:13 PM

VHF, I have read the whole string of posts, there seems to be the question of the actions of the police. If the police attended, why did they not recommend charges against the guy that pushed you. Did you get a file number? If you felt the police did not act accordingly then maybe you should be questioning them to why they felt that charges were not warranted. I have had my phone used for evidence and they gave it back the next day once they removed the pictures. They have to make sure that the pictures are originals. It was well worth my time. What are you looking for in response to this action, the guy to be charged, free parking or just a new phone. I think your motive should be to find out why the police did not act.

#26 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 26 July 2011 - 03:27 PM

VHF, I have read the whole string of posts, there seems to be the question of the actions of the police. If the police attended, why did they not recommend charges against the guy that pushed you. Did you get a file number? If you felt the police did not act accordingly then maybe you should be questioning them to why they felt that charges were not warranted. I have had my phone used for evidence and they gave it back the next day once they removed the pictures. They have to make sure that the pictures are originals. It was well worth my time. What are you looking for in response to this action, the guy to be charged, free parking or just a new phone. I think your motive should be to find out why the police did not act.



The police await my further actions. They made it clear it was up to me, they do not want to spend time on the file to see I don't follow through. I'm a big boy, Ican handle the physical assault, I just want a new phone and an apology.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#27 kenjh

kenjh
  • Member
  • 310 posts

Posted 27 July 2011 - 06:27 AM

good luck getting it resolved...or at least an apology...glad he didn't get to carried away..are you alright?

#28 davek

davek
  • Member
  • 670 posts

Posted 27 July 2011 - 09:04 PM

Of course, if your right to self-defense hadn't been curtailed by this country's backward firearms regulations, this assault wouldn't have occurred despite the inability/unwillingness of the police to help.

#29 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 27 July 2011 - 09:13 PM

^ great - then VHF would have been pistol whipped, not just jabbed in the chest.

#30 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,221 posts

Posted 27 July 2011 - 09:16 PM

Of course, if your right to self-defense hadn't been curtailed by this country's backward firearms regulations, this assault wouldn't have occurred...


How do you come to that conclusion? More lax firearms regulations might very well have resulted in two bodies lying in the parking lot rather than just someone with a grease mark on their shirt and a bad taste in their mouth from an indifferent police response.

#31 sebberry

sebberry

    Resident Housekeeper

  • Moderator
  • 21,502 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 27 July 2011 - 09:26 PM

How do you come to that conclusion? More lax firearms regulations might very well have resulted in two bodies lying in the parking lot rather than just someone with a grease mark on their shirt and a bad taste in their mouth from an indifferent police response.


If VHF was packing heat with that iPod, then Mr. Greasy Fingers might not have responded to the picture taking.

Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network

Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams

 


#32 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,221 posts

Posted 27 July 2011 - 10:02 PM

If VHF was packing heat with that iPod, then Mr. Greasy Fingers might not have responded to the picture taking.


And what would stop "Mr. Greasy Fingers" from also packing heat? I suspect VHF should be grateful that we have laws that restrict firearms for just such incidents as that with "MGF". As I said above, if guns had been involved this might have been so much worse.

#33 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 28 July 2011 - 03:12 AM

^ Maybe the "logic" is that all hot headed jackasses would have killed each other off a few generations ago?

#34 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 82,943 posts

Posted 28 July 2011 - 07:33 AM

^Did that work in the US?

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#35 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 28 July 2011 - 08:17 AM

^ Are you under the impression that there are fewer assaults in the US because handgun laws are more lax? A 10 s google search contradicts that hypothesis http://www.nationmas...ults-per-capita

#36 yodsaker

yodsaker
  • Member
  • 1,280 posts

Posted 28 July 2011 - 08:33 AM

^ Are you under the impression that there are fewer assaults in the US because handgun laws are more lax? A 10 s google search contradicts that hypothesis http://www.nationmas...ults-per-capita


Does murder count as an assault?

#37 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 13,088 posts

Posted 28 July 2011 - 08:54 AM

Getting back to VHF's original post about the Robbins employee that took offence to being photographed, this has made me wonder why.

I must admit that I do not have the faintest idea about "booting" or "wheel clamping", so I tried to familiarize myself with the paractce and how it is applied within the city of Victoria.

There is a clear "Towing Bylaw" in the city that addresses how much an operator can charge, the maximum distance from city hall where the vehicle can be towed to, the hours of operation of a towing compound, and even the lighting levels that must be present during nightime hours. These bylaws would appear to govern the behaviour of towing companies with respect to how they handle your vehicle and your wallet. The bylaws probably came about as the result of complaints from citizens regarding less than respectful business practices.

There does not appear to be any bylaws pertaining to booting or wheel clamping. There does not appear to be any information about this on the Robbins web page.

So now I am wondering, what's the deal with this practice? Do you not get an envelope under the wiper anymore if your car has overstayed it's welcome, in order to pay a fine? Is the wheel clamping only used for repeat offenders? Are some lots different than others? What is the cost to have the boot removed? Is this practice legal?

If a person fails to return to a vehicle within the allotted prepaid period.....does that give the right to someone to start bolting things to your property?

This procedure is nowhere close to having to tow a vehicle that is impeding tradfic during rush hour....I get that.

Maybe that employee was doing something that he should not legally be permitted to do?

#38 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 28 July 2011 - 09:32 AM

^ Interesting questions. The couple that had the car I was photographing, the female was a 911 call-taker from Saanich. She is looking into it. We are in touch.

A second vehicle was also booted in that lot. I don't know if either of them are repeat offenders. I believe the removal cost was in the neighbourhood of $80. More than enough to make you never want to go downtown again.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#39 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 13,088 posts

Posted 28 July 2011 - 09:46 AM

^ The Towing Bylaw indicates that the maximum allowable charge for towing is $40.00

With there being no bylaw regulating "wheel clamping" I guess the sky is the limit. Sounds like it's time for another bylaw.

Good luck VHF....keep us posted.

#40 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 28 July 2011 - 09:47 AM

Some discussion here:

http://www.psyc3d.co...1/#comment-2620

I have called the bylaw department at City Hall to get some info. I see that the boot is not covered in the towing bylaw. Stay tuned.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users