Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This story is horribly tragic.

Service dogs stay religiously by their owners side with little to no distance between them. I don't think this was a true service dog, likely a "mental support" animal. A true service animal would have followed him out the door.

This. A "service animal" is not the same as a Service Animal. No person with a legitimate medical need for a service animal would use a waist leash.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it were an actual service animal, the family would have very likely disclosed the reasoning among other details. Ie, "grandfather of 4 with history of seizures."

This was almost certainly a pet that someone decided to call their "service animal." And regardless, the animal was transported improperly on the train--even if it was a legitimate service animal.

That is wildly untrue. The family shouldn't have to disclose the specific disability in order to be believed. They said it was a service animal. Why do you require disabled people to disclose medical information to you in order to believe them?

Because so many people abuse laws and regulations regarding service animals, and it negatively affects people who really need service animals for legitimate medical assistance. And there's zero indication that the man was disabled - where are you getting this information?

All the articles are reporting that his family is saying it's a service dog.

Just because the family says it's a service dog, doesn't mean that it is. It almost certainly was not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it were an actual service animal, the family would have very likely disclosed the reasoning among other details. Ie, "grandfather of 4 with history of seizures."

This was almost certainly a pet that someone decided to call their "service animal." And regardless, the animal was transported improperly on the train--even if it was a legitimate service animal.

That is wildly untrue. The family shouldn't have to disclose the specific disability in order to be believed. They said it was a service animal. Why do you require disabled people to disclose medical information to you in order to believe them?

Because so many people abuse laws and regulations regarding service animals, and it negatively affects people who really need service animals for legitimate medical assistance. And there's zero indication that the man was disabled - where are you getting this information?

All the articles are reporting that his family is saying it's a service dog.

Anonymous wrote:This was not a service dog. Read the latest news stories.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it were an actual service animal, the family would have very likely disclosed the reasoning among other details. Ie, "grandfather of 4 with history of seizures."

This was almost certainly a pet that someone decided to call their "service animal." And regardless, the animal was transported improperly on the train--even if it was a legitimate service animal.

That is wildly untrue. The family shouldn't have to disclose the specific disability in order to be believed. They said it was a service animal. Why do you require disabled people to disclose medical information to you in order to believe them?

Because so many people abuse laws and regulations regarding service animals, and it negatively affects people who really need service animals for legitimate medical assistance. And there's zero indication that the man was disabled - where are you getting this information?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it were an actual service animal, the family would have very likely disclosed the reasoning among other details. Ie, "grandfather of 4 with history of seizures."

This was almost certainly a pet that someone decided to call their "service animal." And regardless, the animal was transported improperly on the train--even if it was a legitimate service animal.

That is wildly untrue. The family shouldn't have to disclose the specific disability in order to be believed. They said it was a service animal. Why do you require disabled people to disclose medical information to you in order to believe them?

Is the family going to give the service animal to another person who needs one?

The story I read said the daughter found a family to adopt it because she couldn’t keep it because she has other pets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it were an actual service animal, the family would have very likely disclosed the reasoning among other details. Ie, "grandfather of 4 with history of seizures."

This was almost certainly a pet that someone decided to call their "service animal." And regardless, the animal was transported improperly on the train--even if it was a legitimate service animal.

That is wildly untrue. The family shouldn't have to disclose the specific disability in order to be believed. They said it was a service animal. Why do you require disabled people to disclose medical information to you in order to believe them?

Is the family going to give the service animal to another person who needs one?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it were an actual service animal, the family would have very likely disclosed the reasoning among other details. Ie, "grandfather of 4 with history of seizures."

This was almost certainly a pet that someone decided to call their "service animal." And regardless, the animal was transported improperly on the train--even if it was a legitimate service animal.

That is wildly untrue. The family shouldn't have to disclose the specific disability in order to be believed. They said it was a service animal. Why do you require disabled people to disclose medical information to you in order to believe them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it were an actual service animal, the family would have very likely disclosed the reasoning among other details. Ie, "grandfather of 4 with history of seizures."

This was almost certainly a pet that someone decided to call their "service animal." And regardless, the animal was transported improperly on the train--even if it was a legitimate service animal.

That is wildly untrue. The family shouldn't have to disclose the specific disability in order to be believed. They said it was a service animal. Why do you require disabled people to disclose medical information to you in order to believe them?

Anonymous wrote:If it were an actual service animal, the family would have very likely disclosed the reasoning among other details. Ie, "grandfather of 4 with history of seizures."

This was almost certainly a pet that someone decided to call their "service animal." And regardless, the animal was transported improperly on the train--even if it was a legitimate service animal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NBC4 says: the leash was tied around the man’s waist. They were in the 6th car. The man got out of the train but the dog remained inside the car. Operator did two door checks. All confirmed on video.

Family claiming it was a service dog. But I’ve never seemed a service dog that was on a very long leash or that wasn’t next to the owner.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/metro-rider-dies-after-being-dragged-by-train/3280412/

I’ve seen those waist-tied leashes outdoors on walks/runs. They aren’t safe on trains for anyone, service dog or not. Gravely irresponsible of the owner that resulted in his tragedy.

Do we know the manufacturer / brand of the leash?

Sounds like a negligent leash design.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NBC4 says: the leash was tied around the man’s waist. They were in the 6th car. The man got out of the train but the dog remained inside the car. Operator did two door checks. All confirmed on video.

Family claiming it was a service dog. But I’ve never seemed a service dog that was on a very long leash or that wasn’t next to the owner.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/metro-rider-dies-after-being-dragged-by-train/3280412/

I’ve seen those waist-tied leashes outdoors on walks/runs. They aren’t safe on trains for anyone, service dog or not. Gravely irresponsible of the owner that resulted in his tragedy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is so troubling. I am D-O-N-E with Metro. Absolutely done. Used to be a daily rider. I haven’t taken it since COVID and will never take it again if I can help it.

They need to disband WMATA and sell it all off to a private company to operate.

Dramatic, much? This accident was patron error, and had nothing to do with Metro. You expect a train operator to see a thin dog leash from hundreds of feet away? The owner was negligent, and his accidental negligence resulted in his death.

The rubric currently seems to be that someone does something dumb on a bicycle and dies and it is a horrible tragedy and we as a society need to derisk every potential situation so that people don’t do dumb things on bicycles and get themselves killed because “doing dumb things on a bike should not be a death sentence”.

However, if someone does something dumb and gets themselves killed on Metro, we should just shrug it off as “patron error”.

I don’t care to debate this, just noting the difference.

One can simultaneously believe that "doing dumb things should not be a death sentence, but you also cannot idiot proof the world."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NBC4 says: the leash was tied around the man’s waist. They were in the 6th car. The man got out of the train but the dog remained inside the car. Operator did two door checks. All confirmed on video.

Family claiming it was a service dog. But I’ve never seemed a service dog that was on a very long leash or that wasn’t next to the owner.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/metro-rider-dies-after-being-dragged-by-train/3280412/

I’ve seen those waist-tied leashes outdoors on walks/runs. They aren’t safe on trains for anyone, service dog or not. Gravely irresponsible of the owner that resulted in his tragedy.

Can you not read?

The dog caused this. If the dog had not stubbornly refused to get off the train, this innocent man would be alive today.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is so troubling. I am D-O-N-E with Metro. Absolutely done. Used to be a daily rider. I haven’t taken it since COVID and will never take it again if I can help it.

They need to disband WMATA and sell it all off to a private company to operate.

Dramatic, much? This accident was patron error, and had nothing to do with Metro. You expect a train operator to see a thin dog leash from hundreds of feet away? The owner was negligent, and his accidental negligence resulted in his death.

The rubric currently seems to be that someone does something dumb on a bicycle and dies and it is a horrible tragedy and we as a society need to derisk every potential situation so that people don’t do dumb things on bicycles and get themselves killed because “doing dumb things on a bike should not be a death sentence”.

However, if someone does something dumb and gets themselves killed on Metro, we should just shrug it off as “patron error”.

I don’t care to debate this, just noting the difference.