[blindlaw] Text of a pending complaint

[Mike Freeman]

Mark:

With respect, I will opine that "personal honor" does not and ought not to 
have anything to do with the issue at hand. We aren't faced with Hamilton 
vs. Burr here! The unfortunate fact when dealing with the law is that you're 
as likely to emulate Mr. Hamilton as Mr. Burr. dueling went out-of-fashion 
shortly after the Civil War.

I submit that what you really want -- or ought to want -- is for the 
situation to be ameliorated in the sense that it will be less likely to 
happen to others in the future. Omar-Khayam is right: the moving finger has 
already writ; you can't undo what has happened to you and revenge as a 
motive is not conducive to progress in the realm of civil rights.

I submit that mediation and working toward increased opportunities for 
training for BART personnel is a better choice for long-term improvement 
even though it may not give you the emotional high that "getting" those 
workers whom you perceive to have done you wrong would do.

Personally, I'd find it enfuriating in the extreme if what happened to you 
happened to me. But IMO, as I said above, a better option would be to work 
toward increased training and mediation. It might not be a bad idea if you 
don't get anywhere to befriend a reporter to the point that she/he will give 
you a sympathetic story with few distortions. But it would have to be well 
and clearly done as I suspect that the reporter, like most of the general 
public, thinks that all blind persons wander through the world constantly 
beset by hazards and threats. That's where our public education initiatives 
come in.

Mike Freeman

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark BurningHawk" <stone_troll at sbcglobal.net>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Text of a pending complaint


Thanks for that; I don't see an opportunity for change or a way in which to
convinced the station personnel involved to tone it way down and take my
word for it when I say I'm fine.  It's, as I said in another post, "he said,
she said."  The agent and the cop will corroborate each other.  I have no
witnesses to their rudeness to me, and I will be seen as just another blind
man with a chip on his arm.  I see no way, other than raising public outcry,
to press my point.  However, since my personal honor has been insulted, I
cannot let this just drop.  Is there an effective way for me to convince
someone that this did indeed happen as I say, without witnesses to back up
my story?  I do not know of a way to keep from being dismissed out of hand.

----- 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 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Text of a pending complaint


> Angie,
>
> First year student or not, your observation makes me feel a little better.
> Mark, if you are still reading, you don't seem to
> understand that most of us are agreeing with your feelings of frustration
> and we've been there.  All we are trying to do is
> to figure out where the most likely opportunity for change is.
>
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:23:40 -0400, Angie Matney wrote:
>
>>Steve asked:
>
>>>Couldn't a hotel claim that a blind person must accept a given room, on
>>>the first floor for example, for safety reasons
> countering our right to refuse?  Has that ever
>>>been tested?
>
>>It probably has happened somewhere. That is similar to the airline
>>personnel refusing to tell me which way to go
> because I might hurt myself if I walked 30 feet on my own. (grin) I don't
> know of cases about this, but it is interesting.
> Having said that, the case I referred
>>to was much more clear-cut. The person had a liver condition that was
>>going to be exacerbated by the chemicals
> where he wanted to work. I think a hotel would have a hard time proving in
> court that they *had* to give a blind person
> a room on the first floor for
>>safety reasons. All of that is about a conjectured risk, whereas this case
>>involved a much higher probability of danger.
>
>>Just my first-year law student opinion, not worth much at all. (grin)
>
>>Angie
>
>
>
>
>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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