death at Dunn Loring metro

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article says you can only have pets (other than service dogs) if they’re in a secured container from which they can not escape. How did he get on with the dog in the first place?

What makes you think it wasn't a service dog?

People abuse regulations regarding pets all the time, everywhere, every day, all day. Every real service dog I've seen has been kept incredibly close--like inches--and within hands reach from its handler. This was likely a pet or an "emotional support animal."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article says you can only have pets (other than service dogs) if they’re in a secured container from which they can not escape. How did he get on with the dog in the first place?

What makes you think it wasn't a service dog?

Wmata statement said “the dog, which does not appear to be a service animal, is in police care.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How tragic.

I wonder if the door was faulty. They won't usually close if something is detected being in the way.

Metro doors aren't elevator doors, they close on things, arms, legs, people.

gosh but haven't you been on a packed train and the doors will. not. close because someone is breathing on it, and they try over and over and the operator threatens us all to step away from the doors or they will unload the train? They seem sensitive to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't you keep your dog close to you if going on the metro with it? Tragic and horrifying. Is there no emergency stop button passengers can press? I guess it's better to lose your dog than to have the leash wrapped so tightly that you can't let go of it in an emergency.

Please don't post these kinds of stories. I don't read the news for a reason but when you post it here it's like click bait. If people want to read the news, they can find the news. You don't have to post it here. This isn't really a news forum.

It’s local news. The title included “death.” If that wasn’t enough to keep you from opening the thread, knowing your own delicate sensibilities, I don’t know what to tell you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article says you can only have pets (other than service dogs) if they’re in a secured container from which they can not escape. How did he get on with the dog in the first place?

What makes you think it wasn't a service dog?

This is how people with a legit medical need move in the world with a service animal.

This was a pet. Tragic, but it could have been prevented if the owner was responsible with their pet. And please let's not pretend like this isn't a growing problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, it sounds like someone with a service dog. Horrible.

That would elevate this from “wow, that sucks” to “holy shit, that is a tragedy”

No, even if it's just a pet dog, this is a horrific tragedy.

No, it’s just a terrible accident. It’s a bummer. But that isn’t by any definition a tragedy.

Someone dying in a freak accident doesn't meet your definition of a tragedy? What is your definition?

Tragedies involve calamities or irony. Someone dying, even in a freak accident, is sad but it isn’t necessarily a tragedy. It just sucks.

Now if it was a service dog, it’s a tragedy because the service dog is presumably supposed to help a disabled person avoid such accidents and that didn’t happen.

I am seriously not trying to be crass. It’s just one of those words that is incorrectly used so frequently.

OMG do you have your priorities mixed up!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad the dog is ok. Are they going to find it a home?

???

Silver lining?

The man is dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article says you can only have pets (other than service dogs) if they’re in a secured container from which they can not escape. How did he get on with the dog in the first place?

What makes you think it wasn't a service dog?

This is how people with a legit medical need move in the world with a service animal.

This was a pet. Tragic, but it could have been prevented if the owner was responsible with their pet. And please let's not pretend like this isn't a growing problem.

Nope. there is no one way of what it is supposed to look like if you are speaking about a service dog.

[Anonymous]

I heard those sirens today as my office is right across the street. How tragic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article says you can only have pets (other than service dogs) if they’re in a secured container from which they can not escape. How did he get on with the dog in the first place?

What makes you think it wasn't a service dog?

This is how people with a legit medical need move in the world with a service animal.

This was a pet. Tragic, but it could have been prevented if the owner was responsible with their pet. And please let's not pretend like this isn't a growing problem.

Nope. there is no one way of what it is supposed to look like if you are speaking about a service dog.

NP
I can absolutely guarantee that a service dog shouldn’t be 450 feet away from its owner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article says you can only have pets (other than service dogs) if they’re in a secured container from which they can not escape. How did he get on with the dog in the first place?

What makes you think it wasn't a service dog?

This is how people with a legit medical need move in the world with a service animal.

This was a pet. Tragic, but it could have been prevented if the owner was responsible with their pet. And please let's not pretend like this isn't a growing problem.

Nope. there is no one way of what it is supposed to look like if you are speaking about a service dog.

By law? No, but any person with a legitimate medical need knows that their service animal should be very close to them to perform the medical task that it is required, by law, to do. It's to the benefit of the person with the medical need to have their animal right beside them at all times.

Now there are people who don't really need animals for a viable medical need and will abuse the circumstances for a want, not a need. I know it, you know it. If you don't need your animal to perform a real medical task, you take greater liberties with it being further away from you. Again--I know it, and you know it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article says you can only have pets (other than service dogs) if they’re in a secured container from which they can not escape. How did he get on with the dog in the first place?

What makes you think it wasn't a service dog?

This is how people with a legit medical need move in the world with a service animal.

This was a pet. Tragic, but it could have been prevented if the owner was responsible with their pet. And please let's not pretend like this isn't a growing problem.

Nope. there is no one way of what it is supposed to look like if you are speaking about a service dog.

NP
I can absolutely guarantee that a service dog shouldn’t be 450 feet away from its owner.

Or 6ft, or 10ft, or tethered to someone's leg.

[Anonymous]

I have to think 450 feet is a typo. That's the height of a tall building. Even 45 feet is an unusually long leash. I wonder if they meant 4-5 feet (which would be plenty far from the train for a safety check to miss).

It's sad no matter who it is, but somebody traveling at midday with a dog lagging on the end of a long leash may not have been fully aware of what was going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article says you can only have pets (other than service dogs) if they’re in a secured container from which they can not escape. How did he get on with the dog in the first place?

What makes you think it wasn't a service dog?

People abuse regulations regarding pets all the time, everywhere, every day, all day. Every real service dog I've seen has been kept incredibly close--like inches--and within hands reach from its handler. This was likely a pet or an "emotional support animal."

This is true.

My neighbors wanted to avoid the rules at our old condo in Arlington, which limited dogs to a reasonable 25 lbs (and just one dog).

So they found some quack psychologist to write a note claiming they "needed emotional support animals".

They then bought 2 very large Rhodesian Ridgebacks.

The whole system is mostly fraud now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have to think 450 feet is a typo. That's the height of a tall building. Even 45 feet is an unusually long leash. I wonder if they meant 4-5 feet (which would be plenty far from the train for a safety check to miss).

It's sad no matter who it is, but somebody traveling at midday with a dog lagging on the end of a long leash may not have been fully aware of what was going on.

It doesn’t say the man was 450 ft from the train, it says the incident happened 450 feet from the operator’s booth, so basically toward the back of the train. At that distance, the operator is not going to see a thin leash in a door so the train would have looked clear to depart from his perspective.