# Passing of pets as service dogs - from the law enforcement side



## Rerun

To pre-empt - I'm looking for actual case law, etc.

A scenario:

A poster on GSD.com has posted that they take their dog into local stores that are not pet friendly, only service dog friendly, and marked as such. The poster admits the dog isn't a service dog, but does it anyway and lies to store employees and customers if questioned or looked at too hard. Someone that knows who this person and dog are and happens to frequent the same areas sees them in a store.

Lets make it a bit more interesting and say the person who sees them and knows they aren't a service team is with law enforcement.

What, if anything, can be done? I understand the laws pertaining to questioning the average joe, but even with understanding that, I'm not clear on the law here given that the person knows the dog isn't a service dog, and the person handling the dog isn't in need of a service dog by their own admission. Is there actual case law, can citations be issued, or is the worst that happens is that they are told to leave the store?


----------



## CassandGunnar

*Minnesota*

I popped over the Mn Revisor of Statutes web sit. I'm not a lawyer, but I worked in law enforcement for 25 years so I have a pretty good knowledge of reading statutory language. I also looked at some legal opinions, both published and unpublished.
Very confusing. The law in Mn (and I beleive it mirrors Federal law, but not totally) is that the dogs have to "receive training from a legitimate service training program." However, it is noted that the law does not define what a legitmate service training academy is.
It also refers to Federal Fair Housing and Access act. It also defines in MN when service animals can be excluded from any location. It is not common for exclusions to occur.
There are also a series of opinions that say that PWD have a right to access, but that service animals do not enjoy the same rights.
Go figure. My guess is that it is going to take a case going all the way to the US Supreme Court to define these issues.
I can tell you that in 25 years, I never had a call, nor do I know of a call about a service dogs legitimacy.

I e-mailed a friend of mine who is a County Attorney here in MN, but have not heard back from him yet.
My guess is that the best way to find an answer is to contact the State Attorney General in your state. Each state also has some sort of human services commission that could help out.
It appears that this is one of those laws that no one really did a lot of follow up on. I think because of the apparent "loopholes" a lot of people have taken advantage of weak language to claim status for their animals.

Good Luck.


----------



## Rerun

CassandGunnar said:


> There are also a series of opinions that say that PWD have a right to access, but that service animals do not enjoy the same rights.
> Go figure.


Yes, what that means is that the PWD and the dog as a TEAM have the right to enter, but that the dog itself doesn't have the right. For example, husband and wife - wife is disabled and the dog is her service dog. She decides she doesn't want to go grocery shopping that day, so the husband can't take the dog shopping just because it's a service dog.

Ref: no runs to check to see if the dog is actually a service dog with a PWD - I understand. Haven't heard one around here either. Yet.

Regarding training - here, at least, not sure about nationally, a dog isn't required to be trained at an actual facility. I'm just trying to understand if there is any actual LAW being broken, and if so what that specific law is. Is there a federal law that specifies to this in particular, or would this have to be a local city ordinance?


----------



## KZoppa

was at walmart yesterday and a woman was in there with her little toy poodle. She merely couldnt leave the house without her 'baby' that day so the dog is riding around in shopping carts and all that and not a service dog. NOBODY said anything or did anything. I brought it up to a manager at the store and she basically said they couldnt do anything about it. They could ask if the dog was a service dog but couldnt ask for proof. The dog was just along for the ride.


----------



## Rerun

Going to clarify again.

If a law enforcement officer sees a dog and person that they know are not a service team, can anything be done.

I know the laws pertaining to what the store employees can do (which is basically nothing beyond asking if the dog is a service dog). What I want to know is if there is an actual LAW about what can be done if a person has admitted their dog isn't a service dog and admitted that they lie to employees about it when questioned.


----------



## CassandGunnar

Same thing here. Does not have to be trained in a facility, just has to perform a service for a PWD.
As far as Federal laws...........I cannot even begin to find basic information about Federal laws. It is very complicated and difficult (for me) to decipher and understand.
That's why I suggested your State Attorney General.
I've dealt with the MN AG on several issues and their office is always helpful and eager to provide assistance.


----------



## Denali Girl

KZoppa said:


> was at walmart yesterday and a woman was in there with her little toy poodle. She merely couldnt leave the house without her 'baby' that day so the dog is riding around in shopping carts and all that and not a service dog. NOBODY said anything or did anything. I brought it up to a manager at the store and she basically said they couldnt do anything about it. They could ask if the dog was a service dog but couldnt ask for proof. The dog was just along for the ride.


Hey, I've seen far worse things in Walmart than Toy Poodles lol


----------



## Rerun

CassandGunnar said:


> Same thing here. Does not have to be trained in a facility, just has to perform a service for a PWD.
> As far as Federal laws...........I cannot even begin to find basic information about Federal laws. It is very complicated and difficult (for me) to decipher and understand.
> That's why I suggested your State Attorney General.
> I've dealt with the MN AG on several issues and their office is always helpful and eager to provide assistance.


Will look further into it certainly. 

There are a few here, ILGHAUS (sp) for example, that know service dog law far better than anyone you could possibly imagine. I am hoping she will chime in. And AbbyK9 seems to have pretty good working knowledge of it as well.


----------



## CassandGunnar

I would say, in MN at least that I would advise the officer to take the information about the person.....basic ID information and refer the matter to local prosecutors.
It is so touchy about what you are even allowed to ask a PWD about their condition and limitations.
If a law enforcement officer suspects or is given information that a law is being broken, they have the right gather information or investigate. Since it is considered to be a misdemeanor in MN and a property crime, I would recommend this course of action.
In an extreme case, or if there was any urgency, I would contact a prosecutor on spot and seek guidance.


----------



## KZoppa

Denali Girl said:


> Hey, I've seen far worse things in Walmart than Toy Poodles lol


 
oh i have too but i was still mad about it. 

OP as far as laws around MY area, the max they would get is a fine. I contacted an officer who is going to put me in touch with a local attorney who may be able to find a case i can post. But to the officers knowledge a fine is all they can do here.


----------



## Rerun

KZoppa said:


> oh i have too but i was still mad about it.
> 
> OP as far as laws around MY area, the max they would get is a fine. I contacted an officer who is going to put me in touch with a local attorney who may be able to find a case i can post. But to the officers knowledge a fine is all they can do here.


That would imply there is a local ordinance against falsley identifying ones dog as a service dog and one as a PWD and entering a store. I haven't been able to find that here yet, which is why I'm asking. One can't just make up a fine for something deemed wrong. There has to be an actual law against it, which I can't seem to find.


----------



## KZoppa

i did find this, though i'm not sure if it helps answer what you're asking. 

Service Dogs: A Way of Life: September 2008


----------



## wildo

While there may or may not be a federal or state law, wouldn't it come down to the company's store (corporate) policy since it is private property? For example, Walmart's policy on service animals can be found here:

Walmartstores.com: Service Animals for People with Disabilities Policy

It interestingly states:


> Service animals come in all breeds and sizes, *may be trained either by* an organization or by *an individual* with a disability, *and need not be certified or licensed*. Service animals do not always have a harness, a sign, or a symbol indicating that they are service animals. *A service animal is not a pet.*


While the "not a pet" part eliminates most people, it certainly wouldn't eliminate a person who is recently disabled and is personally training their pet to become a SA. As Walmart's own policy states that the animal can be unlicensed/certified and trained by an individual, then such a situation could be allowed.

I get your question. If there is such a law, then I would think that an officer can rightly investigate. But if they are both in private property with a policy allowing the animal under certain conditions, then I'm not sure how the law would be applicable. Someone with more experience with how private property policy rights apply to state laws could probably offer some interesting perspective.


----------



## Rerun

Fraud would probably be almost impossible to get filed here, given that the person isn't taking anything from the business.

Impersonation isn't illegal here, unless it's a police officer, etc.


----------



## AbbyK9

A store is a private or corporate business and, to some extent, has the ability to make its own rules as to whether dogs who are not Service Dogs are allowed inside the store, as long as allowing the animal does not interfere with other laws, such as, for example, health codes.

Gander Mountain is a very good example for a corporate business that allows dogs that are not Service Dogs inside their stores. Even Gander Mountain stores that are part of a mall allow dogs inside their stores, BUT they can not go from the Gander Mountain store into the rest of the mall because the policy for the rest of the mall is different.

And it's either Borders or Barnes & Noble (I do not recall which) that makes a good example of a store that will allow dogs if the presence of the dog does not violate any other laws. Their stores allow dogs only inside stores where there is no cafe or where the cafe is on the second floor (and dogs would then only be allowed on the first floor), because to allow the dog in the cafe area would be a violation of the health code.

Corporate businesses such as Walmart have rules regarding Service Dogs in place because they have previously been faced with situations where people claimed their dog was a Service Dog and Walmart kicked them out, or where real Service Dogs were excluded due to a lack of training on the part of the store associate or manager.

I do not think Walmart's rules are ambivalent or leave room for interpretation. It very clearly allows for owner/handler trained animals, just as the ADA does, and it points out that no official certification is required, just as the ADA does. Walmart's policy is essentially just a mirror of the ADA.

However, you will note that Walmart's policy does not include or address Service Dogs in Training (SDITs) and only refers to already trained Service Dogs. The ADA also does not specify access rights for handlers (or trainers) with SDITs whose dogs are not yet fully trained Service Dogs. Those are covered under your state's laws, which are often very specific about whether SDITs are allowed or not, under what circumstances they are allowed, and who is allowed with them (handler or trainer), etc.

You will also notice that there is nothing ambivalent about Walmart's page on Service Animals. It states very clearly that "Service animals are individually trained to work or perform tasks for individuals with disabilities." This is very important because it legally defines what a Service Animal is. It would be nice if it also defined what an "individual with a disability" is because in order to have a Service Dog, you need to be legally disabled, not just medically disabled.

If you are not legally disabled and your dog is not trained very specific tasks to mitigate your disability, then your dog is not a Service Dog and you are not entitled to having a Service Dog with you, regardless of what the dog has been trained to do. 

My German Shepherd would pick up items from the ground, bring them to me, throw them in the trash or hamper as indicated, and I was working on teaching her to open the refrigerator and turn off the light. These tasks, which many Service Dogs do, would not make her a Service Dog by any stretch of the imagination because I am not legally disabled.

From what I can tell, most states consider bringing a fake Service Dog to be misdemeanor fraud and the punishment in most states I've read about is a $1000 fine and up to six months in jail.


----------



## Lin

wildo said:


> While there may or may not be a federal or state law, wouldn't it come down to the company's store (corporate) policy since it is private property?


Not necessarily. When it comes to stores that carry food, such as a walmart that carries food, it is illegal to bring a non service animal inside regardless of what the individual store would allow. It has to do with laws on food sanitation and health codes. Restaurants that allow dogs are only allowed to have them in outdoor seating, cannot allow them inside. And it doesn't matter if the person with the dog doesn't go near the food, just being inside the restaurant or the store is illegal. 



wildo said:


> As Walmart's own policy states that the animal can be unlicensed/certified and trained by an individual, then such a situation could be allowed.


Walmarts policy is taken from federal laws. Federal laws do not require certification of a service dog. The reason for this is to allow the maximum benefits to the PWD. However, during training the dog is NOT a service dog but is a service dog in training which has NO protection under federal laws. Service dogs in training are only offered protection under state laws, and that differs from state to state. In Indiana, the law is quite ambiguous stating that the service dog in training has the same public access rights as a service dog when accompanied by "a service dog trainer." Service dog trainer is never defined, so that can be interpreted as someone from a training organization, or possibly the owner trainer. When my service dog was in training, I called individual stores to ask if they would allow a service dog in training. 

I am not familiar with how to go about prosecuting someone who is breaking the law. I DO know that the individual store can take someone to court if there is any doubt over the dog being a service dog. In court you must prove to the judge that the animal is indeed a service animal. This entails proving your disability and medical need for a service animal. Proving at least the minimum of obedience, public access, and service task training under federal law. Most with service dogs have incredibly detailed logs of the training to present if ever needed. If the judge determines the animal to NOT be a service dog, then the handler is under the full penalty of the law.


----------



## ILGHAUS

Looks like Chris and Lin gave some great info. So if I repeat with they have already posted it is only to link that info to a few more bits that I can offer.

As already said, the rights go to the owner/handler. The dog itself has no legal rights. An easier way to think of this is to think of the dog as a piece of medical equipment that allows the handler to go out and about into the community. Yes, hard for us dog lovers to think of a dog in the same way as a cane or a wheelchair but remember the law is about *logic* and not *emotion*. At this point there is many times someone that pops up with "well they don't refuse someone with a wheelchair into the store." (That was in some cases only resolved because of the ADA but that is another thread topic.) At this point the best answer would be that wheelchairs don't affect others' health but it is possible that a dog might, thus the health codes concerning animals in certain places.

And has been posted, a dog trained as a SD is only considered a SD when being used by PWD. 

The ADA is a civil rights law and as such is handled differently than criminal law.

If a merchant calls the local police dept to report a dog in their store the most the police can do is ask the owner to leave with their dog. They will only do this if the merchant has reported the dog is being very disruptive or presenting a danger or the condition of the dog is such that it alters the purpose of the business. Examples would be the dog is distroying merchandise or damaging furnishings, the dog is lunging at or otherwise acting aggressively toward customers, or the dog is so dirty or vermin laden that customers leave. Imagine a filthy stinking dog sitting near your table while you tryiing to eat your meal. This last example is *not* the many times one given: a dog hair *may* float in the air and land on my table. Many times a request by a merchant is in a grey area and the police officer may be hesitent to get in the middle as they are unsure if the handler is legally disabled, the dog has been trained to mitigate this disability, or possibly the merchant is blowing the situation up because they just for some reason don't want the dog there. Different depts may have instructed their officers how to handle these situations or they may not. This part is a training issue of indiviual departments and of the officers themselves but again - a topic of its own. 

Most times the person when ask will leave quietly and of course they then have the option to make a complaint to corporate if they feel their rights were violated. If they don't leave quietly or they themself become aggressive then the police officer(s) can take further actions under criminal law if warranted.

Police officers deal with criminal law not civil rights law. (Sometimes instances are a combination of both and that makes it harder to understand.)

So hold on to these thoughts ....


----------



## ILGHAUS

As a customer the only option you really have that may bring any result is to report your knowledge to management. Will the store do anything - probably not as it is your word against the person claiming their dog is a SD. You may get a staff member who acts on it but there is the big chance their manager will not be happy with them. The whole thiing can open up mega problems for the store owners from lawsuits to public opinion outcrys. 

If you report your knowledge, that report coupled with the action of the team may move the store manager to question the individual themself. Here they are limited in what they can ask. Store employees and management are walking into potential troubled waters here with what they say or do. _(Here is a reason true SD handlers are so upset with fakers. So many untrained pet dogs are drug around that their actions leave bad feelings with store staff so when a legit team enters they may be viewed in a bad light just be stepping into the store.)_

_Saying all of that, you may get a staff member ready to jump at the chance to tell the individual to leave but probably that would be because of the staff member themself either through a lack of education on the matter or the push needed if they already are wanting to eject the person and their dog. _



> Is there actual case law, can citations be issued, or is the worst that happens is that they are told to leave the store?


Remember the ADA, of which Section III dealing with the Public Access Rights of a disabled person, is a Civil Rights Law. 

In the most accurate sense a citation is in many locations only issued for traffic violations though some locations will have an officer issue one instead of arresting someone for a minor criminal offense if other criteria is met. 

But strict terminology aside, a police officer does not deal with civil rights law but only the criminal law side. Here it can be confusing if you think back on civil rights violations of say the 60s where the police had such a huge presence. In these situations they were not dealing with the actual violations of a person's civil rights but with issues such as trespassing, holding large public meetings that violated municiple codes and the like. So bottom line is no the police will not force someone to leave a place of business because that individual may have lied that their dog was trained to mitigate their disability. 

The answer to if there is any case law based on a customer vrs. individual lying to take their dog into a place of business - in my opinion NO_._ In order to bring someone to criminal court there has to have been a criminal statute broken. And in criminal law it is not an individual taking someone to court (that is a small claims court situation) but a bench warrant issued by a judge, a charge made by the state's atty. office, or a parole office violation. Here going into more details about arrests being different from court actions or other legal procedures would be just tossing in topics not dealing with the OPs question. 

To sum this part up, lying in itself is not a criminal law violation. 

But there is case law where *a business* has taken an individual to court on the matter if a dog was in truth a SD.


----------



## ILGHAUS

On Rerun explaining about the handler's rights vrs. dog's rights.



> Yes, what that means is that the PWD and the dog as a TEAM have the right to enter, but that the dog itself doesn't have the right. For example, husband and wife - wife is disabled and the dog is her service dog. She decides she doesn't want to go grocery shopping that day, so the husband can't take the dog shopping just because it's a service dog.


Good example. :thumbup:
Remember, the ADA is a Civil Rights Law which is under the jurisdiction of the Dept. of Justice, Civil Rights Division. So it is the wife's disability that is being addressed in that the Service Dog mitigates her disability in a manner that allows her the ability to access a location that is available to the public. 



> I would say, in MN at least that I would advise the officer to take the information about the person.....basic ID information and refer the matter to local prosecutors.


My experience is somewhat different than yours and not quite as many years but if you are refering to a customer calling in a complaint that someone is in a store with a dog I don't even see law enforcement responding. Where is it going to go? Not an arrestable situation unless it happens in one of the states addressing this in their statutes and chances are if the management didn't place the call they are not going to proceed in a formal process anyway. I would just say the call center would log it in as a citizen complaint call and nothing further would happen. Of course if someone called in and reported a dog in the store growling and trying to bite people that is a different matter but not the question asked by the OP. 



> I contacted an officer who is going to put me in touch with a local attorney who may be able to find a case i can post. But to the officers knowledge a fine is all they can do here.


Police officers don't give out fines based on health code violations. Police officers don't give out fines based on someone's word that they know someone and they know that the person is lying. There is a legal process that must be gone through before any action could be taken. And you should keep in mind that not all states have statues against falsely claiming a dog is a Service Dog. 

Rerun posted


> That would imply there is a local ordinance against falsley identifying ones dog as a service dog and one as a PWD and entering a store. I haven't been able to find that here yet, which is why I'm asking. One can't just make up a fine for something deemed wrong. There has to be an actual law against it, which I can't seem to find.


This goes along with the statement above where I posted that false impersonation of a SD is only against the law in some states. And then the penalties vary by those states. In some cases are there not only fines & fees, but jail time, and the possibility of having the dog taken from the owner. The State of MO also has the option to take away some of the person's state benefits - those given by the state apart from those given by the Fed. government. 

Remember this whole thread was based on someone *knowing* that the individual in question is lying. 
~ Is this person going to be willing to go to court on the matter of someone lying to store staff? 
~ Is the store owner going to get involved? 
~ Is the state attorney's office going to take on the case? 
~ Who is going to pay for court costs and lawyer fees? 
~ What proof does the individual have against the other? Are they going to be able to convice the judge to order to make availble to the court the medical files of the person who claims to be disabled?


----------



## ILGHAUS

Rerun, sorry for the length of time and the wordiness to my answering you but I was just wanting to show that as far as I know there is no case law on the subject of a customer or *someone who knows* vrs. a faker. But we do have case law where a store or place of business has won against someone claiming their public access rights were violated when the place of business refused the dog inside. My only advice would be to someone who knows someone is a faker is to inform the store manager if they are in the store or place of business at the time when the faker and their dog is present.

Thompson v Dover Downs, which was first ruled in favor of the business in the State of Deleware and then again in appeal with the Superior Court of the State of Delaware. 11-03-05.

Grill v Costco, where the court system confirmed the legality of store staff questioning a customer if her dog met the DOJ reg. law given in their Business Brief. This final decision was given by the United States District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle, by Judge Thomas Zilly dated 01-22-04. 

Yes, a great many of us who already spend time to educate and advocate and in some cases even lobby wish there was more we could do as individuals against those fakers or even people who post on the Internet about abusing the system. It is a slow battle and one that at times we sometimes get very discouraged. 

It would be of a major help if there was enough public outcry to those with the power to make the laws tighter and the punishments more severe. Until the punishment outweighs whatever benefit these fakers get by breaking the law then these scums will continue thumbing their nose at authority. And many will continue to say, but it is only one dog and it is well-behaved and not causing any problems for anyone.


----------



## CassandGunnar

ILGHAUS said:


> My experience is somewhat different than yours and not quite as many years but if you are refering to a customer calling in a complaint that someone is in a store with a dog I don't even see law enforcement responding. Where is it going to go? Not an arrestable situation unless it happens in one of the states addressing this in their statutes and chances are if the management didn't place the call they are not going to proceed in a formal process anyway. I would just say the call center would log it in as a citizen complaint call and nothing further would happen. Of course if someone called in and reported a dog in the store growling and trying to bite people that is a different matter but not the question asked by the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> Police officers don't give out fines based on health code violations. Police officers don't give out fines based on someone's word that they know someone and they know that the person is lying. There is a legal process that must be gone through before any action could be taken. And you should keep in mind that not all states have statues against falsely claiming a dog is a Service Dog.
> 
> .
> 
> Remember this whole thread was based on someone *knowing* that the individual in question is lying.
> ~ Is this person going to be willing to go to court on the matter of someone lying to store staff?
> ~ Is the store owner going to get involved?
> ~ Is the state attorney's office going to take on the case?
> ~ Who is going to pay for court costs and lawyer fees?
> ~ What proof does the individual have against the other? Are they going to be able to convice the judge to order to make availble to the court the medical files of the person who claims to be disabled?


Agreed. I received a return e-mail from a County Attorney here in MN. Off the top of his head, said that in the example given, he's not even sure how they would proceed with the case. Further research would be needed to see what, if anything would be done.
In MN at least, it would be a misdemeanor, and they are handled by the City Attorney, not State or County prosecutors. 
In think, at least in the County where I worked, an officer would be dispatched to take the "complaint", but even if it were a store manager that was complaining, any offense would be a misdemeanor and the officer would probably not issue any citations. As I said in my earlier post, as a sergeant, I would have advised any officer to take the information and refer it to the prosecutor. 
I have a feeling that there would have to be some pretty compelling circumstances in order for anything to actually come to Court.

I would also encourage you people to contact Local and State legislators to address concerns and maybe actually clarify what's going on.
I can also say that unless a business owner wanted a person removed, there is little that I would be able to do about a person claiming to have a SD. If an owner wants someone removed from their property, LE can do it. Any dispute between the PWD and the business owner would be civil.

Thanks ILGHAUS. It's only 6:00 am and I've already learned something today........lol.

Sorry if I butchered my spelling. Not feeling so great the last couple days and didn't sleep very well.


----------



## CassandGunnar

I forgot to add that the sheriff's office where I worked was smaller, about 100 deputies. The PD's in our area were all smaller and would be dispatched. I can think of several larger departments that would probably not send an officer.

I have to say that this whole "trend" of claiming to have a SD is really kind of pissing me off. I really had no idea that it was such a big issue (I mean that people are doing it so often, not anyone being upset by it).
I haven't seen it happen anywhere that I know of. I don't see a lot of service animals at work around here.
My last experience involving a SD was some drunken idiot that kicked a woman's black lab outside of casino in the area. We were dispatched on this and the guy was arrested. We did him a favor getting him out of there, several people were ready to kill the guy.


----------



## ILGHAUS

> It's only 6:00 am and I've already learned something today........lol.


I enjoy these discussions because they do make you stop and think and recheck what you *know* is correct. I'm finding that the old regulars here who use to just post simple little questions that I could answer without much thought are getting harder to stay up with. We have a good group here that ask questions with an open mind, listen to others, verify the info before accepting everything at face value, and then come back with new pieces of info to share. I don't think some of them realize how much my own education on the topic expands because of them. 



> Not feeling so great the last couple days and didn't sleep very well.


Same with me. Twelve hour shifts, a virus?, and waiting for the vet's office to open to see if I can get one of my dogs in to have his ear looked at. I gave him a shower late yesterday afternoon and during the evening noticed that he was holding his ear down somewhat. I thought I might have gotten water down the ear canal and so was going to use some ear cleaner on it that I had from the vet. When I went to look inside of his ear I noticed the tip of the ear flap was enlarged and soft spongy to the touch. I'm thinking he knocked his ear on something - maybe when shaking or possibly just being goofy and running into something later. During the night it has gotten slightly worse. He doesn't seem to be in any pain but if I wait to see then something more serious will come up for sure when I'm not at home. 

To make everything even better it started raining a couple of hours ago and doesn't sound like it is going to stop anytime soon. So here I'm hoping the vet can see him first thing today and then I get a chance to go out into the cold rain with my sore throat and cough. 

Man what we do for these dogs ...


----------



## CassandGunnar

Ok, stop, you're making me cry. RAIN....boohoo. LOL
It's snowing here.......again. I'm just coming down with the crud. A couple of days ago, MY dog, Cass was all over me and wouldn't leave me alone. That usually means I'm getting sick. Sure enough.
I posted in the Stories section yesterday about being a "Bad Doggy Daddy" yesterday.

I'm new to the forum, but I love it here. I've learned a lot in the last month or so. I like the passion of a lot of the members, even if it gets a little testy at times. I had a total of 4 K9 partners over my career and I'm continually amazed at the variety of changes in the training/behavioral management of dogs.
When I got my first K9 in 1986, we were told absolutely no food treats, pinch collars or e-collars. They all seem to be accepted, common methods of dealing with different behaviors and desired outcomes. I have a lot of reading to do.


----------



## wildo

ILGHAUS said:


> Many times a request by a merchant is in a grey area and the police officer may be hesitent to get in the middle as they are unsure if the handler is legally disabled, the dog has been trained to mitigate this disability, or possibly the merchant is blowing the situation up because they just for some reason don't want the dog there. Different depts may have instructed their officers how to handle these situations or they may not. This part is a training issue of indiviual departments and of the officers themselves but again - a topic of its own.





ILGHAUS said:


> Until the punishment outweighs whatever benefit these fakers get by breaking the law then these scums will continue thumbing their nose at authority.


If the officers themselves find the law to be a gray area, then why would anyone assume that a normal "joe schmoe" citizen has a better grasp on it? That logic doesn't make any sense. Calling these otherwise ignorant law breakers "scum" is hardly helping your case.

[EDIT- I do want to give a big thanks to ILGHAUS for the info though. I learned a lot in this thread. Many thanks to you!]

As someone who recently posted doing this, and someone who was shown the legal error of my ways by some forum members (AbbyK9, comes to mind) it's a no brainer for me to not do it any longer. I didn't realize it I was breaking the law by doing it. Assuming that anyone realizes they are breaking the law by simply taking their puppy into the store is more than a stretch. If law enforcement aren't sure- then don't blame normal citizens.

In the hypothetical situation posted in the original thread- if the person who "knows" that the dog team is lying has such access to the dog team's medical history, then they either have a relationship where they could simply walk up and explain to the dog team that they are breaking the law- or they are a stalker and have no right interacting. Although there are certainly cases out there where people _purposefully and knowingly_ break the law, I suspect people bringing their little toy poodle into the store have no such malice intent. FFS- just go say something to them. It worked in my case. And if you aren't willing to go say something to a person that you intimately know their medical history, then mind your own business. The same ADA rights that you claim they are breaking limit *you* from questioning their medical deficiencies, no?

(This post is not directed at Rerun, rather to the person in the hypothetical situation originally posted)


----------



## SchDDR

The "grey area" being referred to is not whether or not it is legal to lie about being disabled and/or having a service dog. It's whether or not LEOs or merchants have the authority to DO anything about it.

Ignorance of the law isn't a defense for the guilty.


----------



## wildo

SchDDR said:


> The "grey area" being referred to is not whether or not it is legal to lie about being disabled and/or having a service dog. It's whether or not LEOs or merchants have the authority to DO anything about it.
> 
> Ignorance of the law isn't a defense for the guilty.


I never said ignorance was a defense for the guilty. What I said is that calling the guilty "scum" because they are ignorant of the law is over the top. I still hold to the fact that the countless times we've all seen puppies in carts at walmart hardly warrants law enforcement action. A simple conversation could easily rectify the situation while letting our tax paying dollars go to work with "real" criminal escalations.


----------



## SchDDR

That's not the topic being addressed here, though.
The issue is *deliberate *misrepresentation of pets as Service Dogs.


----------



## Rerun

ILGHAUS said:


> As a *customer* the only option you really have


I wasn't coming at this from the viewpoint of the average joe customer. I was asking, specifically, that if a police officer is aware the pair isn't a service team, and sees them out in public posing as one, if there is any actual caselaw regarding what the officer can do.

It doesn't appear that currently, there is. It doesn't fit the fraud statue here, nor impersonation.

One doesn't need access to ones medical records when one has already admitted they are lying to the public and employees when questioned about taking their non-service dog into stores that are very clear that only working service dogs are permitted to enter. And I can assure you that you won't ever meet a police officer not willing and ready to testify. Incidently, there are also other people who could and would testify to the fact that the pair isn't a service team.


----------



## Rerun

ILGHAUS said:


> In the most accurate sense a citation is in many locations only issued for traffic violations though some locations will have an officer issue one instead of arresting someone for a minor criminal offense if other criteria is met.


This is not accurate. There are COUNTLESS local ordinances which are enforced through citations, and I was thinking/hoping there was something I was missing regarding a criminal law or local ordinance about service dog impersonation to the extent of taking them into a store that doesn't allow pets, vs someone just telling the neighbors their dog is a service dog in an effort to make it sound "cool."


----------



## Rerun

wildo said:


> In the hypothetical situation posted in the original thread- if the person who "knows" that the dog team is lying has such access to the dog team's medical history, then they either have a relationship where they could simply walk up and explain to the dog team that they are breaking the law- or* they are a stalker* and have no right interacting.


The police, investigating a possible crime, are not stalkers. You should probably research the Indiana criminal code to better understand what the *legal* definition of stalking is.


----------



## SchDDR

You know what I get in Pierce County, WA if I own 80 dogs and no one can demonstrate any signs of neglect?

A citation.


----------



## wildo

Rerun said:


> The police, investigating a possible crime, are not stalkers. You should probably research the Indiana criminal code to better understand what the *legal* definition of stalking is.


Oh for crying out loud... Your original post stated:



> A scenario:
> A poster on GSD.com has posted that they take their dog into local stores that are not pet friendly, only service dog friendly, and marked as such. The poster admits the dog isn't a service dog, but does it anyway and lies to store employees and customers if questioned or looked at too hard. Someone that knows who this person and dog are and happens to frequent the same areas sees them in a store.
> 
> Lets make it a bit more interesting and say the person who sees them and knows they aren't a service team is with law enforcement.


So where in there did you state that the dog team knows the police officer? If some random police officer (*or anyone who I don't know*) walks up to me and tries to issue me a citation based on my private medical history- I'd say that is stalking. Not to mention that he would have had to intuit my identity based on posts here. Someone who attempts to discover my identity and medical history based on forum posts in order to issue me a citation is absolutely stalking me (and pretty pathetic, at that).


----------



## Lin

I don't think it would be stalking, at least not the way it was outlined in the OP. It said that if someone knew someone had admitted that their dog wasn't a service dog. 

If I knew someones dog was not actually a service dog I would definitely say something or try to do something about it. I'm the manager where I live, and a couple recently moved in with 2 pits. They asked if we had a breed ban, and then said they were BOTH "certified service dogs." I told them you cannot have more than one service dog.. So is one in active duty and the other in training? Then they mentioned how they're both crated when they leave. I asked how that works, because a service dog goes everywhere with you and a dog that only performs tasks in the home is a companion dog which doesn't have the same housing rights. Well it came out that they ordered two certifications from online to use when people have problems with the breed. I don't think they ever expected to run into someone who actually was informed on service dog law and had a SD themselves. But now they know that they were scammed and could get in to a lot of trouble if they were caught by someone wanting to take them to court. They mentioned that they took one of the dogs in to Kroger with a backpack, and the dog pooped in the middle of the isle... 

I've personally been harassed due to fakers so its quite a hot button issue. Even when it comes to a well behaved dog, there is so much more that someone with a real SD wouldn't think about. SD handlers are very aware that every time they go into public with their dog they are representing ALL SD handlers. Someone who doesn't care about breaking the law, isn't going to care about that. 

Tessa gets weekly baths, to make sure she is EXTRA clean. She gets brushed extra well before going to a grocery store or restaurant. She knows she is not allowed to sniff food in a grocery store, even when I'm leaning way over a display case and its a half inch from her face. She is not allowed to shake inside a store, any store. She shakes on command in the parking lot to adjust her harness after the car ride, and then we enter. I keep her nails dremeled short to not scratch floors or make clacking noises inside stores. 

I understand that people who haven't been on the other side wouldn't understand how bad it is. When the topic of lying about a SD came up in another thread, someone mentioned how their grandmother doesn't get upset when people fake for a disability parking space. But from my point of view, every time I have to turn around and go home, or sit in my car waiting for a space because there are no disabled ones open and its one of those days where I absolutely couldn't make it inside the store, I can't help but get angry at those that don't really need them. I have one, and I don't use it on days I don't need it.


----------



## ILGHAUS

> Calling these otherwise ignorant law breakers "scum" is hardly helping your case.


My case? I never called anyone who is *ignorant* of the law scum and I did not know I was presenting a case. I was giving my opinion and that of many disabled people who suffer because of these people. 

Who I do call scum or scumbags are those people who order capes and patches and have fake ID made for their dogs. When a sign is posted on the door that says *No Pets - Service Dogs Only*. When such an individual is stopped by a staff member or a manager in the store or place of business and questioned if they are disabled and if the dog has been trained to mitigate their disability then there is no way the person is ignorant of the law since they know how to get around it. 



> if the person who "knows" that the dog team is lying has such access to the dog team's medical history, ... a person that you intimately know their medical history, then mind your own business. The same ADA rights that you claim they are breaking limit *you* from questioning their medical deficiencies, no?


As to access to a person's medical records I did not say the person bringing the charge against the faker had such access. What I listed was if making a charge against an individual would the case be strong enough for the judge to do a court order for the handler's medical records. 



> Remember this whole thread was based on someone *knowing* that the individual in question is lying.
> ~ Is this person going to be willing to go to court on the matter of someone lying to store staff?
> ~ Is the store owner going to get involved?
> ~ Is the state attorney's office going to take on the case?
> ~ Who is going to pay for court costs and lawyer fees?
> ~ What proof does the individual have against the other? *Are they going to be able to convice the judge to order to make availble to the court the medical files of the person who claims to be disabled?*


When a person goes before a judge to prove that their dog is in fact a Service Dog under the regs of the Dept. of Justice one of the first things that a Judge normally does is make a decision if the person is indeed disabled per the ADA/DOJ. This is why we talk about medically disabled and legally disabled. A doctor themself can not proclaim a person legally disabled - what they do is document the person's medical disability and the medical files are a source showing if the person is also legally disabled. 

When an individual themself brings suit against a business for violating their rights per the ADA then they are expected to submit documentation at the beginning of the process. If the lawsuit was started by a place of business against the individual then the judge will often have requested the individual to bring such documentation to prove their claim of a right to take their dog into the business. If the individual does not compley then the judge can order the individual's medical records. This is why I stated that when making a charge against someone the facts need to be strong enough that a judge would order medical records if necessary. If they are not then there really isn't any reason to even try to make a charge against the individual.

The legal decision of if the individual is legally disabled is the first step. If the person does not meet the qualifications there then it is a moot point if the dog was individually trained to assist the person.


----------



## middleofnowhere

OK, I'm not reading to the end of this -- Rerun, for anything to be done by LE on private property for something like this, I believe that store management would have to request it. I am seeing it as a trespass issue and unless it is publicly owned posted property, I don't think LE just hops to it to evict trespassers. I am not even sure that LE in a store for another reason or off-duty could arrest someone, on private property (say Home Depot for example) hauling around a marijuna plant in their cart without a search warrant unless they were called by management. Now if you are growing pot on public land, yes. If you are growing it on private land I think they need a search warrant.
So back to pet in SD disguise -- LE on private property, not requested by management to remove SD, owner not requested to remove SD by management, person and pseudo SD spotted by LE -- Just say "Hi."


----------



## selzer

I do not know.

I used to take my dogs to Lowe's. I had a puppy in there. The store used deputies as security officers. One came up to me and talked about the dog, etc. Then he went to a cachier to ask if I was allowed to have the dog in there. The cacheir said yes.

A couple of weeks later a guy back in fixtures asked me if it was a service dog. I said, no, it is a puppy. He informed me only service dogs are allowed in the store. I had asked someone prior if I could bring the dog in, and they said yes. But I guess I felt that if someone objects to her presence we will wipe the dust off of our feet.

I never pretended to be a service dog team. But the deputy would have asked me to leave if the cacheir had told him I could not be in there with the dog. 

I do not know what they can do to you for impersonating a service dog team. I just figure that I am very fortunate NOT to NEED a service dog. Being kind of supersticious, I figure if I do something like that and pretend, maybe down the line, I will NEED a dog. And, maybe idiots pretending their dogs are service dogs will ruin it for people who do need the dogs.

So, while I do not know if they can really do anything, anyone who pretends ought to have their name in the paper under Zero of the Day. They should be ashamed.


----------



## CassandGunnar

middleofnowhere said:


> OK, I'm not reading to the end of this -- Rerun, for anything to be done by LE on private property for something like this, I believe that store management would have to request it. I am seeing it as a trespass issue and unless it is publicly owned posted property, I don't think LE just hops to it to evict trespassers. I am not even sure that LE in a store for another reason or off-duty could arrest someone, on private property (say Home Depot for example) hauling around a marijuna plant in their cart without a search warrant unless they were called by management. Now if you are growing pot on public land, yes. If you are growing it on private land I think they need a search warrant.
> So back to pet in SD disguise -- LE on private property, not requested by management to remove SD, owner not requested to remove SD by management, person and pseudo SD spotted by LE -- Just say "Hi."


In your example above, if an off duty officer is in Lowes and witnesses a crime being commited, (guy with the pot plant in his cart) they can make an arrest or take enforcement action. However, most states do not have a CRIMINAL statute that covers lying about the status of a SD. It is, in effect, a civil matter and the officer cannot make an arrest.
To carry your thought process to the extreme, about an officer needing a warrant to act on private property, if I was on duty in a Perkins eating lunch and someone came in with a shotgun and was robbing the place, I couldn't act without a warrant. (Kind of extreme, but just trying to make the point as clear as I can)
They key is whether or not it is a violation of a criminal statute.

Hope this helps clear up some of this.


----------



## adamdude04

Lin said:


> When the topic of lying about a SD came up in another thread, someone mentioned how their grandmother doesn't get upset when people fake for a disability parking space. But from my point of view, every time I have to turn around and go home, or sit in my car waiting for a space because there are no disabled ones open and its one of those days where I absolutely couldn't make it inside the store, I can't help but get angry at those that don't really need them. I have one, and I don't use it on days I don't need it.


Wonder what would happen if you went into walmart and entered through the west doors, only to find out checkout is on the east doors. That extra 200' can kill you! Same as parking 200' from a handicap zone. 

Sorry.. I understand the whole handicap thing (father had MS). But really?? I think you should treat it like a gift instead of taking it for granted. What if no one ever made the handicap spot? 

It angers me when people complain about special items when they don't get what they want. Sometimes I have to walk 500'. Other days 50'. And i never complained when I had to lay off my leg for 6 months.


----------



## SchDDR

middleofnowhere said:


> OK, I'm not reading to the end of this -- Rerun, for anything to be done by LE on private property for something like this, I believe that store management would have to request it. I am seeing it as a trespass issue and unless it is publicly owned posted property, I don't think LE just hops to it to evict trespassers. I am not even sure that LE in a store for another reason or off-duty could arrest someone, on private property (say Home Depot for example) hauling around a marijuna plant in their cart without a search warrant unless they were called by management. Now if you are growing pot on public land, yes. If you are growing it on private land I think they need a search warrant.
> So back to pet in SD disguise -- LE on private property, not requested by management to remove SD, owner not requested to remove SD by management, person and pseudo SD spotted by LE -- Just say "Hi."


Warrants relate to your Constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures when you have a reasonable expectation to privacy. You don't have a reasonable expectation to privacy if you're doing something in plain view of the public. Once a LEO has witnessed an unlawful act in progress, provided he was otherwise lawfully present to do so [not trespassing, etc, which obviously, in a store, he is not], probable cause has been established.

Unless the open fields doctrine has been overturned, growing marijuana in an open field, even if that field is private property, does not entitle you to a reasonable expectation of privacy.


----------



## Lin

adamdude04 said:


> Wonder what would happen if you went into walmart and entered through the west doors, only to find out checkout is on the east doors. That extra 200' can kill you! Same as parking 200' from a handicap zone.


Once you're inside the store, they have motorized carts :thumbup:


----------



## SchDDR

adamdude04 said:


> I think you should treat it like a gift instead of taking it for granted. What if no one ever made the handicap spot?
> 
> It angers me when people complain about special items when they don't get what they want. Sometimes I have to walk 500'. Other days 50'. And i never complained when I had to lay off my leg for 6 months.


I don't consider it "special items" to request the same access to a facility as an able-bodied person.


----------



## adamdude04

Lin said:


> Once you're inside the store, they have motorized carts :thumbup:


Not all the time. Been there, done that. 

I remember one time tho one died half way through the store.


----------



## adamdude04

SchDDR said:


> I don't consider it "special items" to *request* the same access to a facility as an able-bodied person.


exactly. Request is different then require. And if you require a spot, you should probably order online.


----------



## AbbyK9

adamdude - do yourealize that Lin is _legally disabled _and has a Service Dog? I hardly think you can compare you injuring your leg (temporary disability) with her situation or that you truly understand her situation.


----------



## Lin

He's just a troll.


----------



## SchDDR

Ah, but in most cases, they are required. By law.


----------



## adamdude04

AbbyK9 said:


> adamdude - do yourealize that Lin is _legally disabled _and has a Service Dog? I hardly think you can compare you injuring your leg (temporary disability) with her situation or that you truly understand her situation.


I'm not trying to compare. But honestly, I mean come on. I know they are there to make life easier, and I'm all for that. But to turn around and go home when you can just park a few more spaces down?


----------



## SchDDR

It's not always as simple as parking a few more spaces down. It could be, parking at the far end of the lot, which for people with mobility issues, could be beyond what they can physically muster.


----------



## AbbyK9

> But to turn around and go home when you can just park a few more spaces down?


Maybe not everyone has the ability to just "park a few more spaces down". Some people with disabilities require wider parking spaces to accommodate their wheelchair-accessible van or to load/unload their Service Dog from the side of the vehicle. They can not park "a few more spaces down" because their vehicle will not fit. They would have to park way at the end of the lot.

You also don't know about the dimensions of this particular parking lot or how commonly there are (or aren't) spaces further down.

I think you assume that "it's not a big deal" but the reason these spaces are larger or have extra space next to them and are close to the door is because it is not the same for a disabled person and they often can not just "park a few spots down" or in a regular spots because of the type of accessible vehicle they drive and such.

You are assuming way too much.


----------



## adamdude04

AbbyK9 said:


> Maybe not everyone has the ability to just "park a few more spaces down". *Some people with disabilities require wider parking spaces to accommodate their wheelchair-accessible van or to load/unload their Service Dog from the side of the vehicle.* They can not park "a few more spaces down" because their vehicle will not fit. They would have to park way at the end of the lot.
> 
> You also don't know about the dimensions of this particular parking lot or how commonly there are (or aren't) spaces further down.
> 
> I think you assume that "it's not a big deal" but the reason these spaces are larger or have extra space next to them and are close to the door is because it is not the same for a disabled person and they often can not just "park a few spots down" or in a regular spots because of the type of accessible vehicle they drive and such.
> 
> You are assuming way too much.


Right. So they can't park at the end of the parking lot where no one wants to park, and park in the middle of two parking spaces or better yet in the middle of two spaces by a curb? Please. If a wheel chair, the they can just roll on into the store with no issues. 

Unloading a service dog?? They driving a school bus? Any standard spot will allow a service dog out of the vehicle unless that dog is special and needs 10' of space...

Face it. There is no goof excuse. People are just lazy and expect too much. And I hate those people who feel their blue tag means they are only allowed to park in specific areas and we should take pitty on em if they can't have their great parking spot.


----------



## Lin

adamdude04 said:


> If a wheel chair, the they can just roll on into the store with no issues.


:rofl:


----------



## SchDDR

Yeah, someone tell this lazy SOB to stand up and quit expecting so much pity already.
Sheesh, people these days... with their demands and sense of entitlement and what have you.
Selfish punk. How dare he want to go to the store!


----------



## adamdude04

Lin said:


> He's just a troll.


And you're just ignorant. Sorry if you can't wrap your head around the truth that there are other options. And the whole van needs larger spaces to unload a wheel chair. Okay, I get that. But if there is a need for a large space for a chair.. Well there they go. Let the chair do the work from the end of the parking lot. And you call me a troll?? 

Face it, facts are facts. There are options. Plus I agree with half the stuff. I just stated what I thought. If you don't agree with it, then find a way to deal with it. Because that's not trolling if I have different views than you


----------



## adamdude04

SchDDR said:


> Yeah, someone tell this lazy SOB to stand up and quit expecting so much pity already.
> Sheesh, people these days... with their demands and sense of entitlement and what have you.
> Selfish punk. How dare he want to go to the store!


Lol way to take what I'm saying out of context to try and make a point (though degrading a service member to make yourself look better.. Yep you're really fighting the cause)


----------



## SchDDR

SchDDR said:


> Yeah, someone tell this lazy SOB to stand up and quit expecting so much pity already.
> Sheesh, people these days... with their demands and sense of entitlement and what have you.
> Selfish punk. How dare he want to go to the store!


And you know what else?

Someone should tell this selfish, lazy slug to take off those silly clothes. When he's busy rolling on into the store with no issues from the far end of the parking lot where his van fit, doesn't he know those silly camouflage clothes will make it hard for drivers to see him? It's his own stupid fault if he gets run over.

All the other people in wheelchairs have no trouble being seen by drivers as they sit below the general range of view from the drivers seat, but *this* guy, with his camouflage... He's just asking to get hurt. Probably wants to, so he can get more pity.


----------



## adamdude04

SchDDR said:


> And you know what else?
> 
> Someone should tell this selfish, lazy slug to take off those silly clothes. When he's busy rolling on into the store with no issues from the far end of the parking lot where his van fit, doesn't he know those silly camouflage clothes will make it hard for drivers to see him? It's his own stupid fault if he gets run over.
> 
> All the other people in wheelchairs have no trouble being seen by drivers as they sit below the general range of view from the drivers seat, but *this* guy, with his camouflage... He's just asking to get hurt. Probably wants to, so he can get more pity.


Calm down. You're only making yourself look worse with this degrading point you're trying to prove.

Clearly if you had ANY point to prove, you wouldn't have taken what I said out of context to try and create a situation in order to get a response you are looking for.

And as for a vehicle vs wheel chair.. uhh hello?? what about them fiberglass polls with that orange flag on the top? I've seem em a few times on wheel chairs, ATVs, kids bikes...


----------



## SchDDR

adamdude04 said:


> Lol way to take what I'm saying out of context to try and make a point (though degrading a service member to make yourself look better.. Yep you're really fighting the cause)


Why, I'm just agreeing with you Adam!
Like you said, people are lazy, and expect too much. He just wants pity.


----------



## Lin

adamdude04 said:


> Because that's not trolling if I have different views than you


No, trolling is


> In Internet slang, a *troll* is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.


And I am not interesting in taking your bait.


----------



## ILGHAUS

At this point everyone pause for a moment. Now those that want to discuss the various topics that came up in this thread in a civil manner please continue.

Rerun, I hope we here have answered your original question that no as far as anyone here knows and I also checked with other sources -- no one has seen any case law on an individual bringing a charge against someone claiming their dog is a SD and taking it into a store or other place of business. There were additional posts giving information that the only thing that you can really do is inform management of a store if you know someone is on their property lying about the status of their dog. If you still have a question on the matter please just ask again. I can try to poke a few more people that I know and see if they have heard of anything. The problem of researching for examples of case law is that many of those cases are not easy to get to by the general public. There are law libraries that would of course have ways of looking that info up on-line but most require membership such as attending a specific law school campus or belonging to a legal organization. Usually only the biggest cases are published to the Internet. The only other option would be to find a law library in your area and inquire if the general public is allowed to look over their books. 

As to the sub topics that developed I believe that there were some very good discussions on an educational level going on pertaining to SD law.


----------



## SchDDR

Can I just say... I'm completely baffled?

Handicapped Parking Stalls are the devil, apparently, but passing a pet off as a SD is totally kosher? Who exactly is asking for special treatment, privilege, and pity if you can't have your pick of location?


----------



## adamdude04

SchDDR said:


> Can I just say... I'm completely baffled?
> 
> Handicapped Parking Stalls are the devil, apparently, but passing a pet off as a SD is totally kosher? Who exactly is asking for special treatment, privilege, and pity if you can't have your pick of location?


Who said parking spots are the devil? If they are all used up, there are other options, right??

Passing off pets as SD is kosher? No not at all. But like every situation there are choices. 

For example, if you just lost your home because your partner was laid off months ago, and you were foced to move into an apartment, however you felt it was better for the kids to stay in their current school instead of switching them making life even more stressfull, and the only safe, decent apartment you could get had a breed restriction against GSD, would you lie to keep your dog, or give your dog up? Now I'm all for bending the rules because sometimes you just need a lil give in life. Esp when you risk to loose a family member (to some, it may be just a pet). Now if you're sick of your current place that allows GSD, but you want a bigger place, lying about your breed or hiding the dog just so you can live in a specific apartment is too far out there to be proper I think. Esp if you have plenty of time spend the time searching for a new place that meets your requirments.

What if you're driving down the highway on a road trip, and you had carls jr. about 80 miles back. Now you're starting to get the bubble guts! You try to hold it in from crapping all over yourself as you drive down the highway. First exit you come to, a walmart. You're about ready to just let loose. Now me personally, I'd park in a handicap spot. Better than parking in the middle of the road or on the sidewalk infront of the doors. And as a responsible person, I'd pay my ticket if I got one. If not, I'd just let it be. But to park in there when I only need to run in to grab a thing of milk. Nope, not proper. 

So like I said, each situation is different. Just gotta take it as they come.


----------



## SchDDR

No, that's the problem, *you* seem to think there are other options. But do you really think this guy:









Has the option of just "parking farther away", in this lot?:


----------



## Lin

SchDDR, I love that you're defending the disabled  But this poster doesn't want to "get it." (personally I believe he is playing dumb to incite emotions) There has been an informal warning from a mod in the thread already, so don't get yourself in trouble.


----------



## SchDDR

adamdude04 said:


> Passing off pets as SD is kosher? No not at all. But like every situation there are choices.
> 
> For example, if you just lost your home because your partner was laid off months ago, and you were foced to move into an apartment, however you felt it was better for the kids to stay in their current school instead of switching them making life even more stressfull, and the only safe, decent apartment you could get had a breed restriction against GSD, would you lie to keep your dog, or give your dog up? Now I'm all for bending the rules because sometimes you just need a lil give in life. Esp when you risk to loose a family member (to some, it may be just a pet).


First, this thread is about passing pets off as SDs to take them into stores and other public places, not to dupe a landlord into allowing your pet into the rental.

To answer your question, however? If I found myself in that highly unlikely situation, I would first not accept a blanket "NO GSDs" rule as a final answer. I would attempt to work with the property owner to accommodate my pet by virtue of my being a responsible pet owner who can demonstrate adequate training and socialization via the Canine Good Citizen certificate and other training documentation. 

Often, if you're willing to work directly with a property manager and address the basis of the rule, you will find it is a matter of their property insurance not covering those animals. Many insurance providers accept a CGC as proof that a dog on the "dangerous breed list" can be exempted from their ban. Carrying your own liability insurance can also go a long way toward satisfying a landlord's need to protect his interests while still enabling an exemption for your dog. The landlord needn't worry about complaints from others who have been denied their animals, because he can clearly produce documentation in the form of the above to demonstrate why your dog is receiving different treatment from theirs.

Second, if my child is already enrolled in the school, I have the option of leaving him in that school and providing my own transportation, while still having the choice to move outside of the district boundaries. Since my partner in this scenario is unemployed, I'm sure they can spend manage to find the time to provide that transportation if I cannot, without it interfering with their ability to look for a new job.

Third, as someone who purchased their dog from a responsible, reputable breeder, whom I remain in regular contact with, I have the option of asking my breeder to temporarily house my dog while I make more permanent arrangements in an emergency. We both signed a contract agreeing that in the event I was unable to care for my dog, the dog was to be returned to her until such time as I either could care for the dog, or agreed to relinquish ownership of the dog to her.

Finally, as a parent, while it would pain me to have to rehome my dog, I have an obligation to demonstrate sound, consistent morality to my child. I would be setting a very poor example indeed if I was deceitful. In the long run, I would do far my damage by teaching my child to disrespect the law, the rights of others, the basic principles of honesty and demonstrating myself to be a liar to him, than I ever would by switching him to another school so that we could keep our family, and our integrity, intact.

As an Army brat, I attended schools in six separate states growing up. While it was an unpleasant experience, it did not *harm* me, and in fact in many ways, I benefited from it. Had my father shown himself to be a dishonest, deceitful person, it would have had a very lasting impact on me; just as his refusal to ever compromise his morals or his integrity did.


----------



## adamdude04

SchDDR said:


> No, that's the problem, *you* seem to think there are other options. But do you really think this guy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has the option of just "parking farther away", in this lot?:


You're right.. a snow covered parking lot is so rough. Be it 50' or 500'. Oh lets just let him pull his car through the doubble wide sliding doors and park next to the shopping carts inside. He might slip and fall if he even needs to walk two feet on a snow covered ground!!


----------



## adamdude04

SchDDR said:


> First, this thread is about passing pets off as SDs to take them into stores and other public places, not to dupe a landlord into allowing your pet into the rental.
> 
> To answer your question, however? If I found myself in that highly unlikely situation, I would first not accept a blanket "NO GSDs" rule as a final answer. I would attempt to work with the property owner to accommodate my pet by virtue of my being a responsible pet owner who can demonstrate adequate training and socialization via the Canine Good Citizen certificate and other training documentation.
> You fail to realize, most apartment communities are company owned, policy placed money making greeds. Much easier to work with Joe who owns his property, vs a property managment company who either is in managment of the property it doesn't own, or the property they do own. You may think they are "highly unlikley" situations but regardless it does happen. Peoples houses burn down. People loose their jobs/home. People divorce. People want to move to a safer neighborhood.
> 
> Often, if you're willing to work directly with a property manager and address the basis of the rule, you will find it is a matter of their property insurance not covering those animals. Many insurance providers accept a CGC as proof that a dog on the "dangerous breed list" can be exempted from their ban. Carrying your own liability insurance can also go a long way toward satisfying a landlord's need to protect his interests while still enabling an exemption for your dog. The landlord needn't worry about complaints from others who have been denied their animals, because he can clearly produce documentation in the form of the above to demonstrate why your dog is receiving different treatment from theirs.
> Really? All three companies I worked for, policy was always the same, and insurance wouldn't "exempt" any breed for any reason.. Hmm interesting.
> 
> Second, if my child is already enrolled in the school, I have the option of leaving him in that school and providing my own transportation, while still having the choice to move outside of the district boundaries. Since my partner in this scenario is unemployed, I'm sure they can spend manage to find the time to provide that transportation if I cannot, without it interfering with their ability to look for a new job. Depends. Maybe spouce doesn't make much? Perhaps all their money goes to bills. Maybe they both own full size suv's instead of hybrid hondas. Perhaps they just flat out, can't afford the gas. Maybe they have to see one vehicle because they can't afford the car payments. Other spouse needs vehicle..who knows?
> 
> Third, as someone who purchased their dog from a responsible, reputable breeder, whom I remain in regular contact with, I have the option of asking my breeder to temporarily house my dog while I make more permanent arrangements in an emergency. We both signed a contract agreeing that in the event I was unable to care for my dog, the dog was to be returned to her until such time as I either could care for the dog, or agreed to relinquish ownership of the dog to her. Not everyone has got their dog from a breeder. Some BYB. Some shelters. Some breeders. Some found on side of road. Friends litter mishap.
> 
> Finally, as a parent, while it would pain me to have to rehome my dog, I have an obligation to demonstrate sound, consistent morality to my child. I would be setting a very poor example indeed if I was deceitful. In the long run, I would do far my damage by teaching my child to disrespect the law, the rights of others, the basic principles of honesty and demonstrating myself to be a liar to him, than I ever would by switching him to another school so that we could keep our family, and our integrity, intact. Maybe you need better parenting skills. Depending on the age of the child, how would they know? Child is moved into a new setting. Then looses their family member under stressfull situations? Which is better? There is no right or wrong answer...
> 
> As an Army brat, I attended schools in six separate states growing up. While it was an unpleasant experience, it did not *harm* me, and in fact in many ways, I benefited from it. Had my father shown himself to be a dishonest, deceitful person, it would have had a very lasting impact on me; just as his refusal to ever compromise his morals or his integrity did.
> Some people can live with moving all the time. Others not so much. Every person is different, so don't assume everyone to follow the same path as you can handle it just as well or better.


lots of blue...


----------



## SchDDR

I'm sorry, my choice of wording was poor.
The situation itself is not highly unlikely. Sudden, unforeseeable things happen all the time. Like a partner having a cardiac arrest in the middle of the night, and dying. 

When I made the decision to accept responsibility for another living creature, I did so with the understanding that things can suddenly change in an instant. I used that understanding to shape the choices I made, to include where I obtained my animal from, and the type of training I engage in.

You feel that your choice to be an irresponsible pet owner, or otherwise make poor lifestyle choices allows you the moral authority to trample the rights of others? 

If you cannot afford gas, you probably *should* be giving serious consideration to re-homing your animal, as you clearly cannot afford to keep the animal any longer.

The age of the child in your scenario is at least five, since you stipulate that the child is school age. If you think a five year old misses that sort of thing... I'm not sure you're qualified to question my parenting ability.

Do you think that the other kids in the apartment complex aren't going to say, "How come you get to have a dog? My daddy said we can't have a dog because they aren't allowed here."

Certainly, when the landlord becomes suspicious of the fact that the animal remains home all day while the "disabled" person is away, the child is going to become acutely aware that something is seriously wrong when you find yourself in the middle of eviction proceedings.

In fact, as virtually any parent can tell you, nosy neighbors and landlords will use your child as a source of "intel" and essentially get your kid to reveal that the dog is merely a pet. I don't know about you, but good parenting to me doesn't involve making my child complicit in illegal actions.


----------



## AbbyK9

> So they can't park at the end of the parking lot where no one wants to park, and park in the middle of two parking spaces or better yet in the middle of two spaces by a curb? Please. If a wheel chair, the they can just roll on into the store with no issues.


You are absolutely ridiculous. Have you spent any time in a manual wheelchair? Do you know how hard it is to move such a wheelchair across uneven ground and/or for long distances? How taxing that is on the upper body even if you're in decent shape? How every little crack in the road or curb makes it difficult? Obviously not if you'd have the disabled park at the far end of the parking lot because the disabled spots are taken (and much of the time by non-disabled persons).

And no, they can't just park across two spaces like some jerks do with their new vehicles - because that would be illegal. And a lot of folks see vehicles double-parked like that and then are complete jerks and park close to them on purpose. You've seen it done. I've seen it done. You probably get as annoyed by people double-parking in a lot as I do.



> Unloading a service dog?? They driving a school bus? Any standard spot will allow a service dog out of the vehicle unless that dog is special and needs 10' of space...


Again, it depends on the vehicle. If you are a person in a wheelchair and you need to unload your dog from the side of the van, you need to have enough room for your wheelchair between your vehicle and the next AND enough room for the dog to come out of the side of the van, for the door to open all the way without hitting the next vehicle over.

Clearly, you lack the thought process to understand what sort of issues face disabled people if you figure they can just "park across two spaces" and "roll into the store". I certainly hope you are never in a situation where you have to rely on a wheelchair or other "special" access in your life. Lest you might become one of those "lazy" people who don't want to park on the far end of the lot when all the spaces in front are taken by people who may not even be disabled.



> What if you're driving down the highway on a road trip, and you had carls jr. about 80 miles back. Now you're starting to get the bubble guts! You try to hold it in from crapping all over yourself as you drive down the highway. First exit you come to, a walmart. You're about ready to just let loose. Now me personally, I'd park in a handicap spot. Better than parking in the middle of the road or on the sidewalk infront of the doors. And as a responsible person, I'd pay my ticket if I got one. If not, I'd just let it be.


This is not a good comparison with people bringing their dogs and claiming they are Service Dogs because those people do it with full intent to bring their dog into the store, not because they "have no choice".

That said, I am someone who has a weak stomach. So, first of all, I wouldn't have some greasy junk food on a road trip. Second of all, this type of scenario has happened to me many times and I have NEVER EVER EVER parked in a handicapped spot in this situation. I would pull into the junk food restaurant near Walmart (I have yet to see a Walmart without some junk food place in front of it) and go there, or I would pull over by the side of the road and go behind a bush. (I keep toilet paper in the car, in case you're wondering.)

Amazingly, you ALWAYS have options other than taking access from the disabled, no matter how much you want to justify taking their access away.


----------



## Kris10

Don't you see? The handicapped parking spots and laws that allow SD's in apartments aren't really there to help people with disabilities-they exist to create conveniences and loopholes for people to take advantage of! After all, some people are more important than others.
I hope this guy is a troll-the alternative is just too sad to imagine.


----------



## Jax08

pssstt...if everyone ignores him, he will lose interest and go away. He likes it when you respond to him...

Rerun - I hope you found an answer and will share it. Though it might be hard to see your post in all the BS.


----------



## adamdude04

Lol wow really?

So I'm in the wrong because I don't like lazy disables?? I remember from a movie, "they are old, not pathetic" and that comes to my mind when I see disable people.

I hate the ones who feel the world revolves around them because they can't do anything in life without the help of others. Yet, as examples of photos on here, the wheel chair vet, there are wheel chair basketball teams. I see people all the time in wheel chairs roaming around as if they were walking. I seen on tv the wheel chair races around a track. 

Or the guy missing half his leg. I have met a couple in my life that walk normal and I would have never known. Or seen the races, or people running. 

And you want to assume I am the bad guy because I have a thing against disabled folk who think the world should set aside their life for someone who clearly is just looking for an easy ride??

You are some judgmental folk who need to rethink your thoughts here. And do go back on my posts, you'll see a couple times I did state my argument is about the lazy ones. 

I have nothing against disables who aren't looking for pity everywhere they go.


----------



## Kris10

Imposterservicedogarticle

Here is an article that expands on the types of things a store/facility can look for and questions that may legally ask a SD handler.

Unfortunately it seems that laws that are in place to protect disabled people from unnecessary intrusion in their daily lives are being taken advantage of by dishonest people. There was a thread not long ago about creating a license or some other certification that can be displayed easily on the animal and not as easily forged. Since this is a federally enforced law penalties for forgery would reflect that. 
I think the question that the OP raised is an excellent one. The only thing that can be done right now it seems is to make sure the store isn't violating any sanitation rules depending on the type of store,restaurants certainly have these rules, and pressure them to train their employees on how to approach and question someone they think is a fraud and discourage these people in that way.


----------



## adamdude04

Kris you raise a good point. I was talking to my girl the other day about this issue and she said her boss got a vest online to put on her dog so the dog could come to work. 

I did a quick google search and found a few websites sell the vest and service dog ID with laws and such. 

I was quite surprised by this and thought it was odd how they dont regulate. It seems the laws are in place to protect everyone. Not just a specific group.


----------



## Xeph

> You are some judgmental folk who need to rethink your thoughts here.


Pot calling the kettle...



> I have nothing against disables who aren't looking for pity everywhere they go.


Calling people "disables" is reaaaalllllly pretty derogatory, IMO. And you seem to be assuming that handicapped people that do have trouble walking 50' all want pity. I think the vast majority just want to get where they're going without killing themselves or injuring themselves further.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

adamdude04 said:


> Lol wow really?
> 
> So I'm in the wrong because I don't like lazy disables?? I remember from a movie, "they are old, not pathetic" and that comes to my mind when I see disable people.
> 
> I hate the ones who feel the world revolves around them because they can't do anything in life without the help of others. Yet, as examples of photos on here, the wheel chair vet, there are wheel chair basketball teams. I see people all the time in wheel chairs roaming around as if they were walking. I seen on tv the wheel chair races around a track.
> 
> Or the guy missing half his leg. I have met a couple in my life that walk normal and I would have never known. Or seen the races, or people running.
> 
> And you want to assume I am the bad guy because I have a thing against disabled folk who think the world should set aside their life for someone who clearly is just looking for an easy ride??
> 
> *You are some judgmental folk who need to rethink your thoughts here. And do go back on my posts,* you'll see a couple times I did state my argument is about the lazy ones.
> 
> I have nothing against disables who aren't looking for pity everywhere they go.


Maybe you should other people's posts too and not be so quick to judge them.

Sorry but you are pretty much generalizing in your posts and don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## Jessiewessie99

Kris10 said:


> Don't you see? The handicapped parking spots and laws that allow SD's in apartments aren't really there to help people with disabilities-they exist to create conveniences and loopholes for people to take advantage of! After all, some people are more important than others.
> I hope this guy is a troll-the alternative is just too sad to imagine.


He is just trying to instigate things.


----------



## selzer

Wow. 

I am glad I have the use of my legs, so I do not need the closer handicap spots.

Our post office, though, has six spaces and two of them are handicapped. That becomes a pain. 

Still, parking in those spots would be totally wrong. 

As for people being able to park further down the line. I did not see this mentioned, but I park my car with plenty of space for me to open my door and get myself in and out of my car. But while I am in the store, the guy next to me moves away, and some yayhoo parks there right up against my door.

Now, I would really hate so see a person with a wheel chair waiting around for some idiot to come out of the store and move their car away from them so they can load up their wheel chair and get going. That would be crappy. 

It is not always that they are not mobile, but there is also the problem with circulation, they cannot really take getting cold, more dangerous than for others of us. And sloshing through slush and snow to get to the door because some spoiled yuppy couldn't take an ordinary spot and had to park in a handicapped spot illegally, that is enough to get your blood boiling. 

And I do not have anyone even close to me that has a handicapped designator. I think leaving people with diabilities alone, thankful that you do not face the same set of problems makes sense.


----------



## SchDDR

The people with disabilities that impact mobility, use special adaptive equipment to engage in sports activities. Do you think every amputee owns a carbon fiber running prosthetic? Do you think those runners with lower limb amputations are running on standard prosthesis? 

They're also healthy enough to engage in those activities, and have disabilities that permit them to do so.

I guess Stephen Hawking is lazy because he doesn't play wheelchair basketball, and has a chair that cannot cross a curb or pass through deep snow?


----------



## adamdude04

Sorry. I guess you're all right. If a handicap spot is not open, they should turn around and go home. They are NOT allowed to park in a normal parking space. If all spaces are full, they are SOL.


----------



## Lin

Great points brought up 

Adaptive equipment is very expensive, and often not covered by insurance. Especially when it comes to government insurance which is frequently the only option for the disabled. Power wheelchairs or scooters can cost as much as a car, without even going into the expense of a car that is able to transport them. 

Manual wheelchairs are very hard on the upper body. And as I recently learned on another board, the fit of a wheelchair is a huge difference on how much stress is placed on the upper body. Unfortunately it can cost a fortune for a custom fit wheelchair. And as mentioned its hard to use a wheelchair when you're not on perfectly level smooth ground. Its also hard for a SD to pull a wheelchair, when you have a SD you also have to be concerned about your dogs health and fitness and making sure your dog is able to last for the years you need their service. Mobility assistance is very difficult. 

Weather also makes a big difference. In the heat there are people with heart conditions that could cause them to collapse if needing to walk a long ways to enter the store, but once inside the store and the a/c they are more mobile. Or with cold influenced conditions such as arthritis or reynauds. 

Being disabled is all about having to think about things others don't, make choices others don't. Choosing to park further away in the parking lot and walk in to the store, could also be choosing to not go to a family or friends birthday party later that afternoon because of recovering from the added hassle of a necessary grocery run. Someone who is physically able to do both without a slight hesitation, may have a very difficult time trying to understand what its like to stop and have to make those choices every moment of every day. And equal access to the disabled is about helping that, assisting the disabled to be able to live a more functional life.


----------



## ILGHAUS

"So I'm in the wrong because I don't like lazy disables??"
"I have nothing against disables who aren't looking for pity everywhere they go."

**********

"The game of life is the game of boomerangs. Our thoughts, deeds and words return 
to us sooner or later, with astounding accuracy."
_Florence Shinn_


----------



## CaseysGSD

Silly question, does she have a service dog or service dog in training vest on the dog or is she just randomly walking around with her pet dog on a leash and just claiming he's a service dog?


----------



## adamdude04

CaseysGSD said:


> Silly question, does she have a service dog or service dog in training vest on the dog or is she just randomly walking around with her pet dog on a leash and just claiming he's a service dog?


Who? I think this thread is a "what if" deal..


----------



## CaseysGSD

Oh sorry, I thought the original poster was asking about a real situation...


----------



## adamdude04

CaseysGSD said:


> Oh sorry, I thought the original poster was asking about a real situation...


No worries lol

This thread derailed like crazy :crazy:

What are your thoughts about the topic?


----------



## SchDDR

On Topic:

Is there any case law regarding the same circumstances as the OP describes in a Fair Housing Act context rather than an ADA one?


----------



## Lin

CaseysGSD said:


> Oh sorry, I thought the original poster was asking about a real situation...


It doesn't really matter if its a real situation or not, so valid question! We have discussion topics frequently in this section. 

For now, lets say the person puts a plain vest or backpack on the dog, no patches; or just walks around with collar and lead.


----------



## SchDDR

CaseysGSD said:


> Silly question, does she have a service dog or service dog in training vest on the dog or is she just randomly walking around with her pet dog on a leash and just claiming he's a service dog?


I'm curious as to what distinction you perceive here.


----------



## AbbyK9

> Oh sorry, I thought the original poster was asking about a real situation...


The OP was, sort of. There had been another thread on the forum where a non-disabled person said s/he was taking their dog into stores such as Walmart and, if asked if the dog was a Service Dog, would answer "yes" and continue on their way. I believe the dog in that thread wore a backpack but without any specific "Service Dog" insignia on it.

I have a backpack for my dog as well, we use it hiking. When I first trained her to it, I've had A LOT of people ask me if she was a Service Dog because she was carrying a backpack. A lot of people assume if anything is on a dog (harness, vest, backpack) they are working.

adamdude - nothing will change your opinion, however ignorant it is. When you learn more about what people with disabilities have to deal with, from the cost of devices that are not covered by insurance to how hard it is to get from one and of the parking lot into a store in a wheelchair, maybe your opinion will change. But the fact that you call the rest of us judgmental because we think you're out of line is just ridiculous.

For the record, you know those spiffy c-legs (computerized prosthetic legs) you see on the news quite a lot? They cost between $30,000 and $40,000 depending on the type of the socket and the type of foot. That is for ONE. Active amputees who run and play sports usually need several prostheses for different things.


----------



## adamdude04

AbbyK9 said:


> adamdude - nothing will change your opinion, however ignorant it is. When you learn more about what people with disabilities have to deal with, from the cost of devices that are not covered by insurance to how hard it is to get from one and of the parking lot into a store in a wheelchair, maybe your opinion will change. But the fact that you call the rest of us judgmental because we think you're out of line is just ridiculous.


Hey, like I stated before: According to you all, they are *NOT* allowed to park in any normal parking space.

My views are based on the lazy ones *who seek pity from EVERYONE* and refuse to park anywhere else if no handicap spots are open. There are options. And to clear things up, this does NOT include anyone with any specific needs that 100% require a handicap spot based on condition and situation of the area. This is based to the people who think the world revolves around them. If you wish to support these people, then go ahead. I think it's just selfish and rude.


----------



## AbbyK9

> According to you all, they are *NOT* allowed to park in any normal parking space.


Maybe you ought to go back and actually *read *the posts.

*Nobody* said that persons with disabilities are *not allowed *to park in normal parking spaces. People said that persons with disabilities often *can not *park in normal parking spaces because they do not provide enough room for their accessible vehicles, loading/unloading wheelchairs and the like. Parking across two spots, which many of them would have to do, *is illegal*. And parking at the back of the lot may not be *an option* for many persons with disabilities due to the nature of their disability, the quality of their adaptive equipment, the weather, etc.

If there are no handicapped spots open, some people* do not have an option* but to either wait in the parking lot until one opens up or go home. It depends on their disability, the nature and type of their equipment, etc.

I don't see why that is so hard to understand. It's real simple - disabled people need those parking spots. If you park in one because it's up front and you "just need to run in real quick" for whatever reason, you're both a jerk *and *breaking the law, not to mention making life harder for someone whose life is already difficult enough. This has nothing to do with being "lazy" or "seeking pity from everyone." This is about being able to do *the same things everyone else does *without additional inconveniences from jerks who figure it's okay to use the disabled spot because "disabled people can just park somewhere else."

If you don't get that, the only person who is selfish and rude is you. I hope you will be in their shoes someday and experience it first hand. Hey, why not borrow a wheelchair for a day and see how that goes?


----------



## adamdude04

AbbyK9 said:


> Maybe you ought to go back and actually *read *the posts.
> 
> *Nobody* said that persons with disabilities are *not allowed *to park in normal parking spaces. People said that persons with disabilities often *can not *park in normal parking spaces because they do not provide enough room for their accessible vehicles, loading/unloading wheelchairs and the like. Parking across two spots, which many of them would have to do, *is illegal*. And parking at the back of the lot may not be *an option* for many persons with disabilities due to the nature of their disability, the quality of their adaptive equipment, the weather, etc.
> 
> If there are no handicapped spots open, some people* do not have an option* but to either wait in the parking lot until one opens up or go home. It depends on their disability, the nature and type of their equipment, etc.
> 
> I don't see why that is so hard to understand. It's real simple - disabled people need those parking spots. If you park in one because it's up front and you "just need to run in real quick" for whatever reason, you're both a jerk *and *breaking the law, not to mention making life harder for someone whose life is already difficult enough. This has nothing to do with being "lazy" or "seeking pity from everyone." This is about being able to do *the same things everyone else does *without additional inconveniences from jerks who figure it's okay to use the disabled spot because "disabled people can just park somewhere else."
> 
> If you don't get that, the only person who is selfish and rude is you. I hope you will be in their shoes someday and experience it first hand. Hey, why not borrow a wheelchair for a day and see how that goes?


When did I say I ever parked in the parking spaces? Don't put words in my mouth...

All I said, again was there are options. I have nothing against a handicap person. Just the ones who expect the world to bend over backwards for them. 

I just stated there are other options. You are all embracing the fact that if no handicap spots, then there are no other options? If that person doesn't WANT to take the other options, then that's fine and their choice. But to the folk who see, "oh no open handicap spots. I'm going home. This bugs me!"..those are the people I have a problem with. Now the ones who say "Oh no open spots..well I could park over there by that curb in the back. But it's raining..I think I'll just come back" then fine..that's good and I have no problem with that.

So quit trying to put words in my statements and act like I'm the bad person.


----------



## middleofnowhere

sigh. calling one another names just doesn't come across very well. "civility challenged" wasn't a recognized disability the last I knew.


----------



## Lin

adamdude04 said:


> I just stated there are other options. You are all embracing the fact that if no handicap spots, then there are no other options? If that person doesn't WANT to take the other options, then that's fine and their choice. But to the folk who see, "oh no open handicap spots. I'm going home. This bugs me!"..those are the people I have a problem with. Now the ones who say "Oh no open spots..well I could park over there by that curb in the back. But it's raining..I think I'll just come back" then fine..that's good and I have no problem with that.
> 
> So quit trying to put words in my statements and act like I'm the bad person.





adamdude04 said:


> Lin said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the topic of lying about a SD came up in another thread, someone mentioned how their grandmother doesn't get upset when people fake for a disability parking space. But from my point of view, every time I have to turn around and go home, or sit in my car waiting for a space because there are no disabled ones open *and its one of those days where I absolutely couldn't make it inside the store, *I can't help but get angry at those that don't really need them. *I have one, and I don't use it on days I don't need it.*
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder what would happen if you went into walmart and entered through the west doors, only to find out checkout is on the east doors. That extra 200' can kill you! Same as parking 200' from a handicap zone.
> 
> Sorry.. I understand the whole handicap thing (father had MS). But really?? I think you should treat it like a gift instead of taking it for granted. What if no one ever made the handicap spot?
> 
> It angers me when people complain about special items when they don't get what they want. Sometimes I have to walk 500'. Other days 50'. And i never complained when I had to lay off my leg for 6 months.
Click to expand...

I really don't see where people put words in your mouth.


----------



## SchDDR

middleofnowhere said:


> sigh. calling one another names just doesn't come across very well. "civility challenged" wasn't a recognized disability the last I knew.


The ADA specifically excludes some psychiatric disorders, like kleptomania. I'd imagine if a legal challenge were brought, Axis II Personality Disorders and "civility deficits" would equally be found ineligible for protection.


----------



## adamdude04

Lin said:


> I really don't see where people put words in your mouth.


Of course you wouldn't


----------



## Larien

My grandfather spent the later part of his life in wheelchair because he lost BOTH legs due to a hospital mishap. Since he had also had a stroke that destroyed his coordination and strength as well as his speech, prosthetic legs were not an option. He was in his late 60s, and living with his long time girlfriend of the same age. She was also arthritic and had a hard time pushing him across parking lots, especially in winter. So no, there were NOT other options for him.

My mother broke her femur in 06 - she's had four surgeries on it since because it is non-union, the most recent one was last October. For the first 4 months after each operation, she is bedridden completely - I mean no getting out at all. The next 5 months are spent in a wheelchair. After that, it's a walker and 10% of weight on the leg. Do you have any idea how hard it is for her to walk at all, let alone in an icy parking lot? Do you realize that helping a person like her out of a car with a walker and wheelchair requires TWICE the space of a normal parking spot? Do you know that if she fell on ice, she would catastrophically break the leg again?

People with disabilities have enough to worry about, your pity is the last thing they need or want. So no, these are not people who go around desiring pity from everyone, nor do they want the world to revolve for them. They just want to be normal, and have access to normality. I can assure you that if the tables were turned, and you were faced with shuffling a great distance on ice with a walker at a snail's pace while in extreme pain, you'd also wait for a handicap space to open. To suggest they have "other options" is both ignorant and insulting because it's far from true.

Would you bend over backwards to help a disabled person in need of assistance, or would you walk away, angered by their outrageous display of pity-seeking nonsense? Because I feel that people like that SHOULD have people willing to bend over backwards for them, especially the elderly and veterans, like my grandfather. I was picking up ribs at a restaurant last year when an elderly couple came out, he was very slow and on a walker, and his wife was having trouble herself. Since the handicap spots were full, they had to walk far to the car. Not only did I hold the door open for this man, a veteran (he had a veteran hat on) but I also volunteered and went and pulled his car around for him. He was not "lazy," he just needed a helping hand from someone compassionate, and I was more than happy to oblige and thank him for his service - it was the least I could do.


----------



## katieliz

appears that adamdude just likes to debate, yes???


----------



## Larien

I wouldn't call it "debate" so much as troll. Well and other words, but those would just get me banned.


----------



## adamdude04

Lol really? Y'all are still going at it? 

I guess I really am in the wrong.. I unfortantly can't control if their handicap spots are full. Sorry for offering options. I didn't know they weren't allowed to seek other options incase this situation was to arise...

Intriguing.


----------



## Larien

Now folks, do you see what's going on here, the troll is exhibiting very characteristic behavior in an attempt to incite more anger, as he is quite pleased with himself, by bringing up the same tired line he knows will get responses: "they're _not allowed_ to park elsewhere/there are other options." He knows it's bull, we all know it's bull, so now after having said my peace, I for one am done with him, because I have recently erected a sign beside my computer that reads, "Do Not Feed the Trolls."


----------



## Lin

^ yep. And he attempted to bait me into an argument after I posted. However I was not posting for him, I was posting for anyone that might actually believe his tired "you put words in my mouth" card.


----------



## adamdude04

Larien said:


> Now folks, do you see what's going on here, the troll is exhibiting very characteristic behavior in an attempt to incite more anger, as he is quite pleased with himself, by bringing up the same tired line he knows will get responses: "they're _not allowed_ to park elsewhere/there are other options." He knows it's bull, we all know it's bull, so now after having said my peace, I for one am done with him, because I have recently erected a sign beside my computer that reads, "Do Not Feed the Trolls."


Right. How about this, slander is clearly happening here against me. Because YOU can't for see any other options. 

Just because you're close minded doesn't mean I need to be


----------



## Larien

Trust me, no one believes it. 

Oooooh now have a look at this, we're now witness to another rage inciting tactic - the dreaded winking emoticon, the epitome of condescension!


----------



## adamdude04

And wouldn't calling someone a troll be considered name calling? How rude!


----------



## SchDDR

Larien said:


> Now folks, do you see what's going on here, the troll is exhibiting very characteristic behavior in an attempt to incite more anger, as he is quite pleased with himself, by bringing up the same tired line he knows will get responses: "they're _not allowed_ to park elsewhere/there are other options." He knows it's bull, we all know it's bull, so now after having said my peace, I for one am done with him, because I have recently erected a sign beside my computer that reads, "Do Not Feed the Trolls."





Lin said:


> ^ yep. And he attempted to bait me into an argument after I posted. However I was not posting for him, I was posting for anyone that might actually believe his tired "you put words in my mouth" card.


Whatever you do, don't read your post aloud!
You might be guilty of slander instead of libel.

Source: Fifth Grade Civics (although I imagine they teach it in Criminal Justice programs too.)


----------



## ILGHAUS

If anyone has anything to add to the subject of people trying to take their pet dogs into places of business, fakers & the law, etc. please do so now. Very shortly this thread is going to be closed.


----------



## adamdude04

Aren't both words under the same meaning? I think one defines spoken and the other a document?? Not exactly sure..


----------



## ILGHAUS

Slander is an untrue spoken statement against a person to damage their reputation.


----------

