Green Beret Kicked Off Campus For Having Service Dog

[orion5]

Originally Posted by WCH

In order according to who?

It's not a "Veteran status" issue.

Documenting need is not outrageous. Posers are everywhere!

No, that wasn't my point. By Veteran status I meant that the campus policeman had a Veteran in front of him, and a senior citizen on top of that....neither of those "types" or "statuses" are usually troublemakers....why not give benefit of the doubt and let the person proceed to class, follow up later.

I don't know exactly what docs Col Smith had. But if he showed paperwork when asked and seemed diligent in trying to fulfill the correct procedures, why be a hard ass? Use judgment.

Documenting need is not outrageous, but that is not what I said. It is apparently illegal to make someone itemize details of their disabilities, as was stated in the article:

When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, only limited inquiries are allowed. Staff may ask two questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform. Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, REQUIRE MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION, require a specific identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.

[echoes]

Originally Posted by Guy

The BS presented nowadays....

It took me a mere minutes to read through the link and this caught my attention...

Yes Sir!

Reading through those bios was like watching paint dry, and it makes it all the more disgusting to me that an SF Col. was treated with such disdain and disrespect!!!

How dare these bottom feeders with an obvious agenda think they can get away with it? That is what is burning me up inside!

THEY SHOULD BE ASHAMED!!!

Holly

Originally Posted by echoes

Yes Sir!

Reading through those bios was like watching paint dry, and it makes it all the more disgusting to me that an SF Col. was treated with such disdain and disrespect!!!

How dare these bottom feeders with an obvious agenda think they can get away with it? That is what is burning me up inside!

THEY SHOULD BE ASHAMED!!!

Holly

In this situation, he's a student, not an SF Col.

[Lan]

With respect WCH, from a civilians perspective, I believe every current and retired military service member deserves a higher level of respect than Col. Smith was given. I believe the cop was envious of this man's service, and that's why he singled him out. I'd like to think that if the cop was prior service, he would've let Col. Smith go about his business.

Sure, there are plenty of posers out there, but it's not my job as a civilian to weed them out. I believe questioning someone's service, as someone who never served, is disrespectful.

[echoes]

Originally Posted by Lan

Sure, there are plenty of posers out there, but it's not my job as a civilian to weed them out.

Yes. It Is.

Holly

[echoes]

Originally Posted by WCH

In this situation, he's a student, not an SF Col.

Yes Sir,

However, don't you think even if it was a mere student being in compliance with ADA rules, that should have negated the fact that He was subject to this cross examination of producing documentation of his exact disability?

Just know that from first-hand knowledge, as my sister follows all ADA rules in compliance with her disability of being blind and wheelchair bound. (And she REFUSES to let us park her van in the Handicapped Parking! She preferres to roll.)

And Yep, I am the crazy patron in the Wal-Mart parking lots who CONFRONTS the Disabled tag SUV's who park in the "wrong" spots.

Anyway...

Holly

Originally Posted by Lan

With respect WCH, from a civilians perspective, I believe every current and retired military service member deserves a higher level of respect than Col. Smith was given. I believe the cop was envious of this man's service, and that's why he singled him out. I'd like to think that if the cop was prior service, he would've let Col. Smith go about his business.

Sure, there are plenty of posers out there, but it's not my job as a civilian to weed them out. I believe questioning someone's service, as someone who never served, is disrespectful.

How would campus a security guard/police officer(?) know that Smith was a Vet, or what his service record was when he approached him at that table?

The only thing that matters in this case is the ADA, not his military service, or his age (senior citizen).

[GrumpyMedic]

I can certainly see, respect and agree with your point WCH. On a personal level it outrages me that someone that should have the respect of the masses is treated so poorly, but as you said how was the LEO to know?

To me the greater concern is the idea that the COL (Ret.) is required to present a list of his diagnosis, not a document stating his need of a service animal. At what point does this become a violation of HIPAA? How is it the school's business what the animal is needed for? Why isn't the privacy of the person in need of an animal being protected?

Originally Posted by GrumpyMedic

I can certainly see, respect and agree with your point WCH. On a personal level it outrages me that someone that should have the respect of the masses is treated so poorly, but as you said how was the LEO to know?

To me the greater concern is the idea that the COL (Ret.) is required to present a list of his diagnosis, not a document stating his need of a service animal. At what point does this become a violation of HIPAA? How is it the school's business what the animal is needed for? Why isn't the privacy of the person in need of an animal being protected?

I don't place much value in the accuracy of news articles when the reporter doesn't bother to check the basic facts before publishing it.

In this case it states - "Clearly the campus police of St. Petersburg College as well as the campus’s ADA office are in violation of federal law."

SPC is a state college (formally a Junior/Community college) which unlike Florida State Universities, does not have it's own campus police department. It appears in the video that it was campus security guards not LEOs (BIG difference) that initiated the event.

I'll wait till the facts are made public before passing judgment on the situation.

[Guy]

Over the years, I've come to believe in the picture below....

Originally Posted by echoes

Yes Sir,

However, don't you think even if it was a mere student being in compliance with ADA rules, that should have negated the fact that He was subject to this cross examination of producing documentation of his exact disability?

Just know that from first-hand knowledge, as my sister follows all ADA rules in compliance with her disability of being blind and wheelchair bound. (And she REFUSES to let us park her van in the Handicapped Parking! She preferres to roll.)

And Yep, I am the crazy patron in the Wal-Mart parking lots who CONFRONTS the Disabled tag SUV's who park in the "wrong" spots.

Anyway...

Holly

I had to provide the State (FL) DMV with a letter from my 2-1/2 daughter's doctor stating the medical reason for requesting of a handicap parking permit. She used an electric powered wheelchair which we transported in a van with a lift. That was 27 years ago, so I'm not sure of what is required today.

I wouldn't confront anyone in a parking lot, but when I see cars parked in handicapped space I call the PD and report it. They usually respond in time and often have the vehicle towed from the space.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by GrumpyMedic

To me the greater concern is the idea that the COL (Ret.) is required to present a list of his diagnosis, not a document stating his need of a service animal. At what point does this become a violation of HIPAA? How is it the school's business what the animal is needed for? Why isn't the privacy of the person in need of an animal being protected?

I'm not sure why anyone thinks this is a problem.

As a school, we required such information for any students requiring special medical attention, treatements, or provisions to be kept on file with our school nurse and managed under HIPAA guidelines - she maintained the finite health files and we had a 'sanitized' version outlining the generic needs of the student in the student's administrative file for confidential access and use by staff and faculty. The nurse was also available to provide greater guidance to staff and faculty regarding a student's health needs when necessary.

It is not a big deal to manage - unless somebody violates it - and is an important part of a school making informed decisions in its efforts to support students, staff, and faculty with identified health or learning issues.

Richard

[Guy]

Originally Posted by Richard

I'm not sure why anyone thinks this is a problem.

A "public" school is NOT a for profit school hence, the difference.....

Originally Posted by Guy

A "public" school is NOT a for profit school hence, the difference.....

St Petersburg College is a "public" not for profit school.

[GrumpyMedic]

Originally Posted by Richard

I'm not sure why anyone thinks this is a problem.

As a school, we required such information for any students requiring special medical attention, treatements, or provisions to be kept on file with our school nurse and managed under HIPAA guidelines - she maintained the finite health files and we had a 'sanitized' version outlining the generic needs of the student in the student's administrative file for confidential access and use by staff and faculty. The nurse was also available to provide greater guidance to staff and faculty regarding a student's health needs when necessary.

It is not a big deal to manage - unless somebody violates it - and is an important part of a school making informed decisions in its efforts to support students, staff, and faculty with identified health or learning issues.

Richard

As always seems to be the norm, you've shed light for me Richard. I do tend to miss the otherside's point of view sometimes.