Fake service dogs

[Saeleofu]

Originally Posted by RBark

Regarding the whole "disability" definition thing, basically everyone uses the term "disabled" incorrectly.

http://www.painanddisability.com/dis...valuation.html




To put it simply, people's mental disease, physical impairment, etc etc is defined as a impairment.

It becomes a disability when social forces are set up in such a manner that a person can not function the task required.

In other words, comments like "everyone has a disability these days" are not true. Just having an impairment does not qualify someone to be disabled.

Bolded because you hit the nail on the head. BUT that's not the legal definition of "disabled." This is:

Sec. 12102. Definition of disability

As used in this chapter:

(1) Disability

The term "disability" means, with respect to an individual

(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual;

(B) a record of such an impairment; or

(C) being regarded as having such an impairment (as described in paragraph (3)).

(2) Major Life Activities

(A) In general

For purposes of paragraph (1), major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.

(B) Major bodily functions

For purposes of paragraph (1), a major life activity also includes the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.

(3) Regarded as having such an impairment

For purposes of paragraph (1)(C):

(A) An individual meets the requirement of “being regarded as having such an impairment” if the individual establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action prohibited under this chapter because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.

(B) Paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply to impairments that are transitory and minor. A transitory impairment is an impairment with an actual or expected duration of 6 months or less.

(4) Rules of construction regarding the definition of disability

The definition of “disability” in paragraph (1) shall be construed in accordance with the following:

(A) The definition of disability in this chapter shall be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals under this chapter, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter.

(B) The term “substantially limits” shall be interpreted consistently with the findings and purposes of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.

(C) An impairment that substantially limits one major life activity need not limit other major life activities in order to be considered a disability.

(D) An impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.

(E)

(i) The determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity shall be made without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures such as

(I) medication, medical supplies, equipment, or appliances, low-vision devices (which do not include ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses), prosthetics including limbs and devices, hearing aids and cochlear implants or other implantable hearing devices, mobility devices, or oxygen therapy equipment and supplies;

(II) use of assistive technology;

(III) reasonable accommodations or auxiliary aids or services; or

(IV) learned behavioral or adaptive neurological modifications.

(ii) The ameliorative effects of the mitigating measures of ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses shall be considered in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity.

(iii) As used in this subparagraph

(I) the term “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” means lenses that are intended to fully correct visual acuity or eliminate refractive error; and

(II) the term “low-vision devices” means devices that magnify, enhance, or otherwise augment a visual image.

from http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm#12102

Note that "(C) being regarded as having such an impairment (as described in paragraph (3))." does not qualify someone for an SD, but it does prevent someone from discrimination in employment and the like when people assume someone has a disability.

[CharlieDog]

Originally Posted by release the hounds

is it? I don't know. How many have been prosecuted for a felony? I have to reason that the impersonating a person with disability type stuff that gets prosecuted as a felon is for the more serious stuff, like faking it to hold fundraisers to profit from, or get disability checks and things of that nature.

If it is a felony, it's a ridiculous one. I can't imagine someone being labeled a felon for taking a dog into Walmart, I think it would be pretty easy to do away with that under the 8th amendment

I don't know if it's ever been prosecuted as such, but pretending the dog is an SD, or putting a vest on the dog with SD patches is saying you're disabled, is faking a disability. Therefore, under the law, a felony.

[release the hounds]

it's only a felony if you're charged and convicted of a felony Until then it's just illegal and I know the word felony conveys seriousness, but there's a world of difference between walking into a store with a dog and committing insurance fraud under the guise of a disability

[Saeleofu]

Originally Posted by release the hounds

it's only a felony if you're charged and convicted of a felony Until then it's just illegal and I know the word felony conveys seriousness, but there's a world of difference between walking into a store with a dog and committing insurance fraud under the guise of a disability

However, they're both wrong, and people are jerks for doing it.

[~Jessie~]

Everywhere I'm reading says it can be a misdemeanor, not a felony.

VII. Wrongful Impersonation of a Person Needing a Service Animal

Several states add further penalties for wrongfully impersonating someone who needs accommodations for a service animal. Missouri, for example, makes this a class C misdemeanor and makes the wrongdoer civilly liable for any damages. Should a person commit this same act again, he or she faces a class B misdemeanor for subsequent violations. MO ST 209.204.
In a similar vein in Colorado, a person faces a class 1 petty misdemeanor for using a blaze orange leash on a non-assistance animal. Texas also prohibits a person from using a harness or leash the type of which used by an assistance animal in order to represent that his or her dog is an assistance animal. V. T. C. A., Human Resources Code § 121.006.

The intent of these laws is clear: it is at the very least criminal to attempt to gain access and advantage by impersonating someone who relies on dog guides for his or her daily life. States are not necessarily providing benefits when they enact White Cane Laws or accommodation laws, but rather are putting someone with a disability in the position of a freely mobile person. One who takes advantage of this gains little sympathy in the eyes of the law.

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/d...animal.htm#VII

[frostfell]

Originally Posted by CharlieDog

The problem is it doesn't matter. If the dog isn't an SD, it's still illegal, and breaking the law, and a felony.

It's not speeding. It's not even minor recreational drugs. It's a felony.

The point is, its not actually hurting anyone if the "faker dog" is perfectly well behaved and looks and acts in every way like the real thing, yet isnt. What the **** do you care? Get off your high horse! Your precious sensibilities are not the issue here

[frostfell]

Originally Posted by ~Jessie~

Everywhere I'm reading says it can be a misdemeanor, not a felony.



http://www.animallaw.info/articles/d...animal.htm#VII

weird. blazing orange is a hunt dog collar/lead choice as well. so someone is gonna get arrested because they like neon orange or have a bird dog? sheesh

[release the hounds]

Originally Posted by Saeleofu

However, they're both wrong, and people are jerks for doing it.

and people are jerks for driving slow in the left lane too

[~Jessie~]

Originally Posted by release the hounds

and people are jerks for driving slow in the left lane too

That always drives me nuts. Ugh.

[CharlieDog]

Originally Posted by frostfell

The point is, its not actually hurting anyone if the "faker dog" is perfectly well behaved and looks and acts in every way like the real thing, yet isnt. What the **** do you care? Get off your high horse! Your precious sensibilities are not the issue here

Actually I don't care as long as the dog is well behaved, which I already stated, but thanks for your asinine assumptions.

And since it's only a misdemeanor who cares then? Since it's not a felony and all to fake an SD. That's brilliant.

And really the issue here is that people are being downright douchebags over breaking the law because they don't care about the law? They don't agree with the law because it doesn't affect them?

It's ridiculous and belittling to assume that everyone who "fakes" an SD has a "well behaved" dog. That's not even the issue.