[blindlaw] Text of a pending complaint

[Mark BurningHawk]

Thank you for this; yes, the sobriety test," analogy is one that came 
immediately to mind; had I to do it over again, I would refuse to do the 
"trained seal," act, and let her arrest me (a thing she was not herself 
capable of doing; she would have had to call for backup).  I understand why 
they were alarmed.  As I say, i repeatedly and calmly said that I already 
had the assistance I needed, I did not need anything; it is their insistence 
that robs me of personhood.  I have told the BART officials who have 
contacted me that I stand ready to assist in better or more focused training 
efforts.  This woman was out of control and she needs to be re-trained or 
additionally trained so that she doesn't do this to someone less capable 
even than I am of dealing with it.  What she did might have reduced anyone 
else to tears; that's how aggressive and pushy she was. Anyway, thanks for 
the information.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Jacobson" <steve.jacobson at visi.com>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Text of a pending complaint


> Mark,
>
> I am not a lawyer, and I monitor this list as one of those who tries to 
> help Dave Andrews with technical problems.  However, not being a lawyer 
> does not prevent me
> from having opinions.  <smile>
>
> First, if I had experienced what you did, I would also have felt both 
> angry and frustrated.  Nothing I say here should be taken to mean that I 
> don't understand your
> feelings or that you shouldn't raise a fuss.  I also don't believe it is 
> always our job to understand the other guy.  Some of the responsibility of 
> the other guy is to
> understand us, especially when we are his or her customers.  Still, the 
> purpose of filing a complaint is to correct a problem or bring about 
> change.  Therefore, I'd like
> to point out a couple of things that I hope will increase the chances for 
> success.
>
> It is my understanding that nothing in the ADA implies that someone else 
> is responsible for your safety.  In fact, the NFB worked hard to get a 
> provision added that
> gives us the right not to accept an "accommodation."  Someone more 
> familiar with the law can probably point out where this can be found or 
> maybe you are already
> familiar with that part of the law.  Having said that, though, the public 
> doesn't have that kind of a view of the ADA.  To the public, the ADA 
> generally means they
> have to be careful of how they deal with us.  There is generally some 
> effort put into employee training that might mention the ADA, but the 
> specific message received
> will depend upon the training given and not the actual content of the law.
>
> The offering of an elbow is also a big deal in a lot of training courses 
> on dealing with blind people.  It is often portrayed as "the way" to guide 
> us.  There is too often
> no talk of the fact that we may prefer to follow, or that it might even be 
> awkward to carry a briefcase, control one's dog, and take an elbow.  It is 
> a mixed bag.
> Explaining in a training session to offer an elbow helps avoid someone 
> guiding us by pushing us, taking the end of a cane, or touching us in 
> other ways that invade
> our space.  However, I have seen more than once that offering an elbow is 
> a sort of script that people are told to follow.  When a blind person 
> prefers not to accept
> the elbow, the person offering it has no idea what to do because the 
> script has been thrown out.
>
> Finally, the public often understands less about guide dogs than even 
> those of us who use canes.  They think that the dog does all the thinking 
> and knows where
> everything is.  Therefore, the process of searching for the escalator is 
> probably one that would appear very alarming to someone who doesn't 
> understand the
> relationship between human and dog.  The assumption was probably that the 
> dog was somehow impaired, or possibly that you had been drinking.  In 
> fact, your
> description of being made to walk up and down the platform fits this 
> possibility in my mind.
>
> My point here, therefore, is to be aware of the fact that Kenny's training 
> might be at fault as much as he is.  The same might be true of the police 
> officer who clearly
> did not treat you as an adult.  Both may have thought you had been 
> drinking but were at least smart enough not to make that accusation, but 
> that could have had
> an effect as well.  If you complain about the individuals only, they will 
> get written up and a note placed in their files and that will be the end 
> of it.  However, if you
> raise questions about the training they received, even if they do deserve 
> a good deal of the blame, someone might take a look at the training that 
> is offered or
> whether there should be more training.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Steve Jacobson
>
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:36:26 -0700, Mark BurningHawk wrote:
>
>>On re-reading, I apologize for my use of the terms "disgusting," and
>>"spineless."  They were too subjective, and I'm sorry.  Let me clarify the
>>salient points of why I posted this here:  I want to know what the ADA
>>*DOES* say about what measures such bodies as BART police or others have 
>>the
>>right to take,, and in what situations,,. The BART cop in this instance
>>stated, "Your ADA gives me the right to protect you," and I want to know 
>>if,
>>as I suspect, she's just full of it.  Second:  Was the BART station not in
>>compliance with the ADA because its voice announcement system was not
>>working, making it much more difficult if not impossible for me to know
>>which trains were arriving on what tracks.  This was the sole purpose of 
>>my
>>post.  I apologize again for the inflammatory nature of my remarks; I have
>>no wish to start a flame war or even an intellectual debate about 
>>anything;
>>I was merely looking for knowledge.
>
>
>>_______________________________________________
>>blindlaw mailing list
>>blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>