[blindlaw] Text of a pending complaint

Wed Oct 25 12:53:21 CDT 2006

Mark,

I understand exactly how you feel and I don't doubt your description at all.  Probably every one of us have experienced behavior that in other circumstances would 
not be believed nor accepted.  My intent was strictly to look at how to make your complaint most likely to result in real change.  Sometimes that course is different 
from the course that makes one feel the best.  Again, good luck.

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:25:01 -0700, Mark BurningHawk wrote:

>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
>> 

>_______________________________________________
>blindlaw mailing list
>blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw