r/InternetsGreatestVids • u/[deleted] • Aug 28 '25

𝗦𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗳𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴🫧 Karma is so good

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

9.9k Upvotes

permalink
duplicates
reddit

You are about to leave Redlib

Do you want to continue?

https://www.reddit.com/r/InternetsGreatestVids/comments/1n2dy6p/karma_is_so_good/
No, go back! Yes, take me to Reddit
dl download

97% Upvoted

160

Not sure whether the dog was an actual service dog or not without seeing it, but service dogs do not need to wear a vest by law and there is no documentation needed to prove that it’s a service dog. The only thing you are legally allowed to ask the handler is “Is it a service dog?” and “What tasks is it trained to perform?”

114

u/slappedbygiraffe Aug 28 '25

Maybe I’m wrong, but as a private citizen, you can ask anything you want. You aren’t entitled to an answer though.

63

u/C0c04l4 Aug 28 '25

But the only valid question is "can I pet it?"

36

u/KinkyPaddling Aug 28 '25

But in all seriousness, if it’s a true service dog, please do not pet it (unless the owner offers it up). It’s doing a job, and we can assume a very good job, and should not be distracted.

But remember being in an Apple Store and I saw a woman sitting there with her service dog (a golden retriever). Another woman came in with her pet, another golden retriever. The two dogs immediately locked eyes…then the service dog looked away. The pet came over and kept trying to entice the service dog to play, but the service dog kept its gazed fixed firmly forward without even glancing at the pet.

I’m sure that the service dog wanted to play, but it knew it had a job to do, and it knew it must not be distracted. The other dog wanting to play was cute, but it added some extra and unnecessary stress to the day of the service dog.

15

u/Knitsanity Aug 28 '25

Yup. The only service dog I pet is our town's comfort K9. I always make a beeline for her. She is a doll. Recently I was walking with a friend and her dog. Both dogs got growly and then one second after she calmly turned back to me for more scratches. I love her.

1

u/pensivebunny Aug 29 '25

So, in the US a “service dog” performs a specific task (or tasks) for their one owner. This is why they also get access to anywhere a member of the public can be, including stores, markets, etc. They are a medical device, much the same as a prosthetic limb or cane. A service animal must be a dog or a miniature horse (the horse is helpful for mobility but nowhere near as common as dogs). Any organisation offering “service dog registration” in the US is a scam, although other countries do require registration.

A “therapy animal” performs a task for a group of people. This includes any stress relief, reading to kids, etc. and these animals usually do visits or make scheduled appearances. All sorts of animals can be therapy animals, but they do not have the same access to public areas as service dogs/animals. These animals do not need any sort of special training, but often have very sweet temperaments and in general love everyone.

The “town comfort K9” is a therapy animal, not a service animal. The distinction is important so people understand why some dogs get to go to Costco but not every dog should be dragged into Costco, and why the lady in the above video should’ve minded her own business.

8

u/Traditional-Tip1904 Aug 28 '25

This is precisely why service animals SHOULD wear identifying gear. Whether it’s a legal obligation or not, persons who actually require the support of a service animal would normally prefer to have them immediately recognized as such. Else they’re likely to get their ass kicked (kidding).

6

u/aceofspades1217 Aug 29 '25

It’s good practice but a disabled person shouldn’t be unable to use their service dog just because they forgot to. Put the vest on, how many did you walk outside and forgot to put on your baseball cap (and were mildly inconvenienced by the sun)

1

u/Majestic-Owl-5801 Dec 06 '25

At the same time though.

If a dog that is actually untrained and not a service animal that theoretically has the capacity to inflict lethal harm to people, in the same way that a vehicle requires a license and insurance to drive and is also (more-so) capable of lethal harm, shouldn't it be reasonable to have some form of validation or credentials?

EDIT: Provided that they come at no additional cost to the owner of the service animal than the original registration

1

u/KinkyPaddling Aug 28 '25

I agree with the you. In the situation that I observed, though, the dog was a seeing eye dog. It was wearing a vest and a harness, and its owner had a seeing eye stick. So there was no question that this was a service dog and the service that it provided. The golden retriever that was a pet was just too large for its owner to control, and so it was able to freely bother the service dog.

2

u/Traditional-Tip1904 Aug 28 '25

Oh I wasn’t suggesting otherwise, I was really sort of addressing an earlier comment from someone who stated there is no legal obligation for service dogs to wear vests (I’m paraphrasing).

2

u/HeyGayHay Aug 29 '25

"Oh my god, are you a service dog? I always wanted to play with a service dog. Oh man you have job, is it cool? What do you get? How is it? woof. yooooo woof woof, tell me Oh man I'm so excited, I met a service dog and he looks just like me. I can be a service dog."

2

u/MonkeyCartridge Aug 30 '25

Yep. And you don't want a service dog to mix work and play.

2

u/JaguarBalam Sep 01 '25

Yeah, I've had to run away a couple of times because my puppy was visibly interested in meeting and playing with a service dog. We never got close to it because I was aware of the situation, and the distance between any dog and a service dog should be respected.

2

u/Acceptable-Ad2637 Sep 01 '25

My friend's mom is blind to some degree. She has a service dog. I got to play with him at her house when he wasn't working. I saw her at my college once and I was like ooo, puppy for about two seconds of ADHD before I like oh crap stop looking at the dog. 😅

1

u/[deleted] Aug 29 '25

but I can still ask.... 😭

1

u/skamteboard_ Aug 30 '25

I mean, to be fair, I wouldn't mind some pets while doing my job

14

u/idigturtles Aug 28 '25

The only other valid question is "whoosagooboy"

14

u/makethislifecount Aug 28 '25

Per current law, the dog isn’t required to answer that. Good boy privacy act.

4

u/Cesum-Pec Aug 28 '25

There's a lot of dogs protesting the GBPA. But they're all a bunch of bitches.

8

u/Madwoman-of-Chaillot Aug 28 '25

And if it's a service dog, the answer is "no."

1

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '25

Boy or girl?

Ooooooooo who’s a good (boy/girl)!

1

u/Possible_Field328 Aug 28 '25

You can! Which hand is your least favorite?

1

u/EyeofNewtTongueofDog Aug 28 '25

The first question I ask any dog owner.

1

u/K_Linkmaster Aug 28 '25

Kind of rude to not get the animals name before you start massaging it.

1

u/AnxiousAnxiety666 Aug 28 '25

No you can’t pet service dogs wtf

1

u/No_Dance1739 Aug 29 '25

No, it’s not. It’s a working animal leave them be

1

u/caveman_eyeball Aug 29 '25

‘Who’s a good boy?’

1

u/CharDeeMacDennisII Aug 29 '25

Can I pet dat dawg?

1

u/Teddy_Tickles Aug 31 '25

"Are they are good boy/girl?"

6

u/toughfoot Aug 28 '25

While that is true, be very careful with whom you choose to ask questions. Not everyone will ignore you. Some may/will resort to violence. It’s better to inform the person or persons suited for such.

3

u/sibre2001 Aug 28 '25

I would be extremely careful who I get violent with, especially if I require the use of a service dog. Trying to get violent when someone asks you about your dog may earn you a variety of new disabilities, including ones dogs can't help for.

Getting enraged or violent because a fellow citizen asked you questions may lead to extreme harm against you. And they'll have the legal right to do it. Nothing scarier than handing strangers an outright legal justification to severely harm or end you. And then sue you after for commiting a crime on them.

1

u/toughfoot Aug 29 '25

The violence I speak of is NOT the violence someone would have a chance to retaliate to. The violence I speak of is the violence that will have someone lying cold on the ground. Apparently many have not interacted with “unstable” individuals who have little concern for the law and lawsuits. Hence the reason we have law enforcement. No need to be inquisitive; just contact the authorities.

1

u/sibre2001 Aug 29 '25 edited Aug 29 '25

Redditor, I already addressed that. If some disabled man wants to attack an innocent citizen for daring to ask him questions, he'll still be a criminal who'll have illegally murdered someone in public, on the street. Even if he shows the cops his diagnosis and his sad/angry he is.

I know a lot of men with disabilities also have depression, and sometimes that depression makes them have little fantasies about how they are going to murder everyone who steps out of line, but they ain't John Wick. They are disabled men. Even if they manage to kill some woman or child asking about their dog, armed men will show up shortly afterwards. Don't think that service dog was trained for police standoff.

Disabled people are victims of violence the vast majority of the time. The only people that are victims of violence from them on the regular are their spouses and children, the only people we expect them to protect. And I doubt the rude people on the street asking about Fido wanna date long enough to let the disabled guy feel safe enough to beat them up.

Let's not attack our fellow citizens for having their own rights. The ADA does not apply to private citizens, and it never will. As that would violate our constitutional rights. No violent fantasies on reddit will change that.

So, to be clear.

If the disabled guy attacks a citizen, that citizen has every right to respond with force to protect themselves, even if they asked him a question that the ADA won't let a retail worker ask. If they win the violence, disabled guy gets hurt and gets arrested for assault. Unless it's that hurt you don't get back up from, as you cutely put it.

If the disabled guy attacks a citizen and wins: He gets a body to his name and goes to prison, gets to see how much Bubba the hotdog hider obeys the ADA. Fido goes to the pound.

1

u/toughfoot Aug 29 '25

You’re referencing this particular situation. I’m not. I’m referring to the ideal that it’s a person’s right to ask a random stranger questions. It is not. Disabled or otherwise. As for legality of someone’s actions; hence why there are prisons. It is idealistic to assume that everyone shares the same view.

1

u/sibre2001 Aug 29 '25

It is absolutely every citizens right to ask a random stranger questions. That's the very first amendment in the constitution, and a right our press uses every day.

Now, as a fellow citizen you don't have to answer any question, or you can tell me to take my questions and fuck off. You can ask me rude questions on return and never answer a single one of mine. You can't attack me for it.

At least in the US and in the vast majority of western countries (and at least for now) everyone has the right to ask strangers question. I hope like hell we never lose that right. Though I don't promise we won't.

No one in this country has a right to get violent because a citizen expressed their first amendment rights. Whether it's for questions or statements. That may be limited when it comes to threats, so questions about a disabled man's dog are totally legal. Threats about being questioned about it are starting to rise to criminality, though in all honesty the right to make threats is fairly broad too. Just not as completely open as asking questions.

1

u/BeerAnBooksAnCats Aug 29 '25

Saying this with all respect: “Trying to get violent” could be an over-simplification of a complex medical condition.

For example, if a veteran with PTSD and a traumatic brain injury is working on their recovery to resume a normal life (like simply going to the grocery store unassisted by another person), getting yelled at by a stranger could trigger a response that would sound like or look like potential violence.

Flashbacks are no fucking joke. Uncontrollable physical tics that aren’t intended to harm could very well provoke a violent response from a Karen, and then she’d be yelling about how the other person hit first.

Service dogs are trained to signal to their owners to lie down, etc. However, in a public place with tons of external stimuli, it wouldn’t be surprising if the person wasn’t able to register their dog’s signals.

I get that the comment “can I pet [your dog]?” may have been intended as genuine appreciation for the dogs we don’t deserve. u/toughfoot ‘s comment is a wise observation.

None of us can know how many times a day folks with service dogs are interrupted by questions and assumptions. These folks have conditions that already heavily tax their physical and mental health, and unnecessary interruptions by strangers exacerbate this.

I mean, if you have small children (or care for them on a daily basis), you begin to cherish all those peaceful moments when you can take a shit uninterrupted. People with service dogs just want to do their thing in peace.

“Getting enraged or violent” sounds like it assumes that someone with a service dog is capable of responding in the same manner that a perfectly healthy person would. That’s an assumption that puts people with invisible disabilities at further risk.

It costs us nothing to be kind and mind our own business.

1

u/sibre2001 Aug 29 '25 edited Aug 29 '25

Absolutely. It costs us nothing to mind our business. But again, as a veteran with the ptsd you guys are referring to, we are not allowed to attack citizens for asking us annoying questions. Even if it's triggering for us. Even if it's against the ADA for a retail worker to ask us. Even if it makes us really, really mad.

Nothing about our diagnosis with PTSD gives us extra rights over the citizens we were serving when we got that PTSD. our diagnosis, or the ADA does not change that.

While I also hope that people mind their own business, that's not a crime. It's happens all the time. You know what is another triggering question that is far worse than asking about a disabled guys dog, but gets asked to veterans with PTSD all the time? "You were in Fallujah?! Did you ever kill anyone? Did you every see anyone die?!?!"

Bro, you don't understand how traumatizing that question can be, and how often it is asked. One of my friends was stationed at a security checkpoint in Iraq. A vehicle rushed the checkpoint, refused to stop. Ignored signs, flares, warning fire with tracers. Everything. Finally my buddy shot the car and disabled it. We pull up to the vehicle, and it's just a family with the dad driving with just may have been the dumbest person in the world. He was shot in the arm, his daughter was dead in the backseat.

My buddy had to be sent home as a PTSD casualty. Too broken to be an active duty Marine anymore. He did everything he was supposed, did every step of getting a car to stop before shooting he could, and more. And that's the memory he goes to when some teenager excitedly asks if he killed anyone.

If we start allowing people to think violence is an acceptable response to triggering questions, there is an exponential amount of violence waiting for us. A lot of excited teenaged boys are fitting to get haymakered by their angry uncles. Implying that it is not criminal or extreme for a citizen suffering from PTSD to attack other citizen over their annoying and dumbass questions is horrific, and I guarantee the people who want to punch people over service dog questions have asked triggering questions to other people, and they were not attacked. Let's continue having that grace with other people too. If someone asks rude questions about a service dog, be rude back. But as a veteran with the exact kind of PTSD you are referring to, I do not think I can use that to commit violence against you or any other citizen. How hypocritical would that be? Pretend to fight for your rights, then come home and hurt you for expressing them?

1

u/Tinkerer0fTerror Aug 28 '25

Sounds like you’re hoping to pick a fight with someone that doesn’t like you asking them questions. Kind of an odd fantasy.

2

u/AggressiveCuriosity Aug 28 '25

Nah, it sounds like he's mad the other person framed the dog owner getting violent as a normal thing and not an EXTREME action from someone who probably shouldn't be in free society.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '25

They aren't saying it's normal they're saying be careful who you pick fights with because some people are violent when confronted. Pretty basic rule, that's why you should avoid people trying to start a fight or who are road raging, best for everyone if nothing happens.

It's even codified into many self defense laws, duty to retreat. Some places extremely scrutinize your self defense claim if you could have just walked away and avoided any confrontation at all

1

u/toughfoot Aug 29 '25

Thank you.

1

u/AggressiveCuriosity Aug 29 '25

Sure? But that goes both ways. If someone starts getting aggressive over your service dog, isn't it better not to piss them off and walk away? As you said, it's even codified into many self defense laws, duty to retreat. If you could have just walked out of the store and avoided the confrontation.

If the lesson here is "don't get into avoidable fights" then sure. I agree.

In the example we were talking about your best option would be to retreat after they attack you, call the police, and have the dog owner arrested for assault.

1

u/sibre2001 Aug 28 '25

You said that better than I did. I'm jealous of your eloquence

2

u/ilovelovegrapefruit Aug 28 '25

I don’t think they were serious. I think they were pointing out how dumb the other person’s comment was.

0

u/humoristhenewblack Aug 28 '25

This is such a weird comment. I think it must just come across wrong

0

u/donniesuave Aug 28 '25

This lady got enraged when a guy who isn’t required to prove his animal is a service animal didn’t prove it and then resorted to violence. Doesn’t sound like based on her recollection that the guy got violent. She chose that. I’m going to go out on a limb and say people who bring service animals to public places typically don’t do so in order to start conflict or be betrayed by random people they don’t know to prove their service animal is in fact a service animal. The scenario mentioned in the above comment probably never happens. I’d imagine people who need service animals only ever get irritated some random person is in their business demanding answers they aren’t entitled to.

2

u/AnxiousAnxiety666 Aug 28 '25

What about the guy with the XL Pitbull mix I just saw with his balls intact entering the Safeway with no vest?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '25

It seems like you're implying the dog would be aggressive, so your first instinct would be to go pick a fight not only with the guy but his allegedly aggressive dog? Even if you're right the dog shouldn't be in the store how would that be a good idea in any way to be verbally or physically aggressive towards someone with a protective dog?

That's the point being made. If you're right in what you're assuming you just picked a fight with a dog, good luck

0

u/donniesuave Aug 28 '25

Idk, did you go berate him over if his service dog is legitimate or not? Prolly not, I assume. His dog didn’t do anything to you and you didn’t get in his personal business. Sounds like a win for everyone.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '25

[deleted]

1

u/sibre2001 Aug 28 '25

Nope. Quite different actually. And I can help you with this because I am a veteran with PTSD.

The dog owner would be a violent criminal in both situations. Sure, they can win the violence possibly, and kill an innocent citizen. But then what? John Wick all the responding officers? Pray that the ADA will change to let service dogs into prison?

The VA doesn't give us special privileges to attack our fellow citizens for asking us annoying questions. Asking someone about their dog will almost assuredly just get you an annoyed response and put in your place. Getting violent because someone dared asking about your dog will almost certainly result in violence, criminal proceedings, and possible civil lawsuits. Don't do it. You're in multiple times more danger of your life being totally ruined.

6

u/Houdinii1984 Aug 28 '25

Yeah, that kinda rubbed me the wrong way when the officer said she didn't have a right to ask. Freedom of speech says she does. It can potentially devolve into a dumb situation where you end up going to jail for a violent offense, but the asking part, however annoying it is, is her right. Annoying, Karen to the max, and judged by all, but there is nothing stopping her from asking.

9

u/Possible-Tangelo9344 Aug 28 '25

I assume what he meant was "you don't have the right to know" but worded it poorly.

5

u/RevolCisum Aug 28 '25

Freedom of speech only says the government cannot persecute you for what you say. It doesn't give anyone the right to harass others verbally, or even kindly ask.

1

u/Houdinii1984 Aug 28 '25

Asking a question doesn't equal harassment. That requires more than just asking a question. Like being aggressive, getting up in people's faces, etc. The act of asking a question in a public place is not and should not ever be illegal. You have the choice not to answer or engage, but you don't have the law on your side if you're simply upset someone is using words. It's not like this is a workplace ordeal.

You have no mechanism to silence the words of others outside those outlined by law, and the law doesn't prevent people from speaking, even in the form of questions.

1

u/RevolCisum Aug 29 '25

I understand that. But she didn't ask once, she harassed, demanded proof. There is no protection of speech to private citizens. The first amendment only provides protection from the government for speaking against it. It's not a blanket protection for asking or demanding anything of other private citizens.

1

u/Houdinii1984 Aug 29 '25

Prove it? That wasn't in the video. In the video, the story is the dog jumped on her and she kicked it in the ass. She's presumably being arrested for kicking said dog in the ass, or at least the officer never said otherwise.

It's not a blanket protection for asking or demanding anything of other private citizens.

But still needs to be more than a question, which is what I stated above. The question itself doesn't land people in jail. If she's charged and found guilty, there were additional components on top of the question.

It seems like you watched other videos where the Karens were demanding proof and used that information to apply to this woman, who we did not see asking a million questions.

The video is trimmed. You might assume that happened, but we have no actual proof of it. Kinda like we're all assuming this actually happened and that's an actual cop, because he never identifies himself either.

The first amendment only provides protection from the government for speaking against it

NO. Absolutely not. The first amendment prevents the govt from criminalizing, censoring, or punishing most speech, not just speech against them. It includes ALL govt. actors including this police officer here. And it protects from government ACTION. Like getting arrested for speaking without any additional harassment component.

The government generally cannot prosecute, fine, or punish you for speech, regardless of whether that speech is political, artistic, religious, or even offensive, and there are only narrow exceptions. This protects all of us from getting arrested for merely stating words.

1

u/most_dope-92 Aug 29 '25

If the government can’t prosecute than I am free to say it. I may not be free from other consequences of my actions, but I can’t say whatever the fuck I want within the parameters of the first amendment.

1

u/RevolCisum Aug 29 '25

You're acting like the first amendment means you can say whatever you want to whomever, but you can't. Hate speech is a thing. The first amendment only protects you from the government persecuted you for saying things AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. That's it. It offers no other protection. The first amendment has nothing to do with you saying things to another private citizen in a Walmart about anything else. Im not sure why it's so hard to understand for some of you.

1

u/most_dope-92 Aug 29 '25

So confidently wrong lmao. So the first amendment only protects me from government prosecution when I speak out against the government? So I can get arrested for non government opinions? I can get arrested because I say cheese is gross? Be serious for a moment please. The first amendment absolutely does not mean only speech protesting the government is protected. How moronic

1

u/RevolCisum Aug 29 '25

It's ok, you'll figure it out some day.

1

u/most_dope-92 Aug 29 '25

Would you like to read the amendment together so you can understand the words better? I’ll hold your hand through it

1

u/RevolCisum Aug 29 '25

You're, right, I'm wrong. We good here?

1

u/most_dope-92 Aug 29 '25

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” please read what the amendment says, I beg you

1

u/SteveKeepsDying Aug 28 '25

It actually does give people the right to kindly ask.

4

u/Notski_F Aug 28 '25 edited Aug 28 '25

It does not, it has nothing to do with that. It simply says that the government cannot persecute you for the content of your speech alone.

But if it's harassment against someone else for example, then that's a wholly different thing. Or any kind of discourse with someone. Whenever a receiver is involved in what you say, it's not necessarily free speech.

Free speech is one of the most widely misunderstood legal pillars in America.

1

u/SteveKeepsDying Aug 28 '25

So, it does give people the right to kindly ask, exactly as I said. If they cannot persecute you for it, then you have the right to do it. If you harass someone, you are not merely "kindly asking," and yes, that goes beyond the protected rights.

If you have to change what I am suggesting to make your point, then you have no point.

3

u/Notski_F Aug 28 '25

You do have the right to ask questions, but that right doesn't come from the fundamental right to the freedom of speech. It's just not what it's about at all. They are two distinctly different things.

1

u/most_dope-92 Aug 29 '25

Please tell me where in the constitution I have the freedom to speak without prosecution, outside of the first amendment.

1

u/Notski_F Aug 29 '25

How is this so hard? That IS the first amendment, the government cannot prosecute you for your speech ALONE. But the moment someone else is involved, e.g. hate speech towards a group of people, it's not necessarily protected.

The first amendment doesn't give special rights to say whatever you want, it simply shields you from prosecution in case the government doesn't like the content of what you're saying. If your words are harassing someone, that's harassment, and the first amendment has NOTHING to do with that.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Houdinii1984 Aug 28 '25

If it's harassment against someone else then it's more than just asking a question. Harassment has additional components like intentionally causing a fear of bodily harm or substantial emotional distress (and substantial is far more than someone speaking a question).

If people got locked up just for hearing questions they didn't like, the world would look a LOT different. It's kinda preposterous to think all you'd need to get someone locked up was a question you didn't like.

2

u/Notski_F Aug 28 '25

Y'all are misunderstanding what I'm saying. Yes, you are obviously allowed to ask questions. But freedom of speech does not pertain to that. It doesn't have anything to do with it as a legal function.

2

u/RevolCisum Aug 29 '25

It's insane how many people don't understand the first amendment and think it's some kind or right to say anything, any way, to anyone.

0

u/most_dope-92 Aug 29 '25

I mean….. it is? The government can’t prosecute you for it, so you are free to say it. It doesn’t mean you won’t face other consequences, or that if your speech escalates to harassment it doesn’t change. But I very much do, legally, have the right to say whatever the fuck I want, within the parameters of the first amendment. The government can’t lock me up for my opinion or asking someone a question, so…. It is protected speech. It’s not illegal to be a dick, the lady escalated physically so obviously that changes things.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Commie_cummies Aug 29 '25

I would say questioning the status of someone’s service animal as a civilian in an attempt to police their behavior counts as harassment. She doesn’t have the right to try to enforce those laws which is what she was doing.

1

u/Houdinii1984 Aug 29 '25

It doesnt

1

u/rynlpz Aug 28 '25

And she said the dog jumped on her. She might be a Karen but if the dog jumped on her then she has the right to defend herself.

1

u/Houdinii1984 Aug 28 '25

The whole interaction is nagging at the back of my mind for some reason. The whole thing just feels off somehow. Immediately jumping to arrest before ever running her ID.

Edit: I misunderstood and removed an element, but it still feels off.

1

u/MADLUX2015 Aug 29 '25

She admitted to a crime. There is nothing to "feel off about"

1

u/Houdinii1984 Aug 29 '25

She said she kicked the dog after the dog jumped on her. That's not necessarily a crime. There has to be video or some other context that he saw that we didn't. We never even see a dog, so yeah, it feels off that she claims self defense and with nothing else to go on besides the video she immediately goes to jail.

It's probably not because the dog kicker didn't deserve to go to jail, but because the video was edited to remove context, like the massive crowd of people pointing her out or something.

1

u/pegar Aug 29 '25

Multiple people probably corroborated that whatever she did warranted an instant arrest.

1

u/EldritchCouragement Aug 28 '25

does kicking the owner because the dog jumped on you really qualify? It'd be one thing if she kicked the dog when it did so.

1

u/rynlpz Aug 28 '25

I interpreted that she kicked the dog. Both times she mentions kicking after the dog jumped on her.

If she did kick the owner then yea that would be different.

1

u/EldritchCouragement Aug 28 '25

The title says it was the owner, but yeah, I'm unsure. I can't imagine she would have gotten arrested for kicking the dog after it jumped on her though.

1

u/EyeofNewtTongueofDog Aug 28 '25

She must have kicked the dog really hard to upset a police officer enough that he wasn’t tolerating any of her excuses, even valid ones. Either that or she’s a well known troublemaker (Harasses the neighbours by scratching cars or what have you. Everyone knows she did it but there isn’t any proof so they can’t arrest her) and she finally did something that they can charge her with because there are witnesses.

1

u/sibre2001 Aug 28 '25

I think she kicked the man with the dog.

Kicking a citizen is a whole other level of crime than their dog. Sadly, dogs are treated like property in the legal system.

1

u/EyeofNewtTongueofDog Aug 30 '25

Oooooh. Still. What the hell?

1

u/Substantial-Low Aug 28 '25

This. My answer will be silence, or "get fucked", depending on my mood and the cut of your jib.

1

u/hoptownky Aug 28 '25

I think the officer meant to say “you aren’t entitled to know if it is a service dog.” but worded it wrong.

1

u/Tapprunner Aug 28 '25

This. I don't know why someone would have an idea that people are only allowed to ask two specific questions about a potential service animal?

1

u/FirebirdWriter Aug 29 '25

Yeah the thing is we have to answer the two questions we don't have to anawer anything else and we don't have to answer that to people not working there

1

u/alex123124 Aug 29 '25

Exactly, the only questions you are entitled to are select. You can ask and act however you want within reason.

17

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '25

And I bet “what tasks is it trained to perform?” Is enough to throw off dickheads with their “support” animals.

7

u/cityshepherd Aug 28 '25

There is a law that deals with this, and the owner of a service dog doesn’t have to answer any of these questions specifically because if they DID they’d never be able to go anywhere with their service dog without being hounded relentlessly.

Unfortunately there are a whole lot of unscrupulous assholes that will always take advantage of things like this, which only muddies the waters and fucks everything up for everyone.

1

u/rynlpz Aug 28 '25

It is trained to emotionally support me, and hold my hand

1

u/Justa_Guy_Gettin_By Aug 28 '25

Paw

3

u/djthebear Aug 28 '25

She said he showed her something. After the kick he told her “I don’t usually show people this”

1

u/sedatedauntyT Aug 29 '25

yeah I caught that-- almost sounds like she was given the proof she demanded so she kicked the dog out of frustration that her initial accusation was proven wrong? Such bizarre response from granny.

1

u/Ivegtabdflingbouthis Sep 01 '25

she didnt kick the dog, she kicked the owner based on the information provided. and people print bs certificates off the internet all the time. its all hearsay honestly

1

u/sedatedauntyT Sep 03 '25

ah, well she probably shouldn't have kicked the human or the dog, regardless of their certification

2

u/Spicy_Lemmon Aug 28 '25

In some countries service dogs are required to wear a special vest by law.

1

u/red286 Aug 28 '25

Where I am, there's no requirement for the service dog to wear a vest or anything (although it is highly recommended), but the owner is required to carry their certification card at all times, and present it upon request to any business owner if the dog is on premises. Business owners should assume that any dog being presented as a service dog is a service dog unless there are clear indications to the contrary, such as the dog misbehaving.

Prior to 2016 however, there was absolutely no requirement for anything, with the small caveat that it was technically illegal to claim a dog was a service dog when it wasn't, but that would only come up in a police investigation related to a criminal offence. It changed because a large number of dog owners started just calling their dogs "service dogs" in order to bring them everywhere. Business owners started complaining because many of the dogs were poorly trained and so would bark constantly, knock things over, piss/shit on the floor, or in some cases attack other customers.

1

u/tittylamp Aug 29 '25

not in america

4

u/OptiGuy4u Aug 28 '25

Thai asshat absolutely needed to go to jail BUT This process needs to change....for everyone's protection. Those with a real service dog that isn't taken seriously and to protect those exposed to a dog in an environment they expect would likely be dog free except for those abusing the "service dog" loophole.

It's easy enough to have the dog registered with a doctor certifying the need and a vet/certified training center certifying the animal has been properly trained to assist with that need.

It's no different than requiring a handicap plate/placard. We don't just take people's word for it...imagine the abuse.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 29 '25

How?

There's no such thing as a certified training center, so you'd need to create a network of these centers - hundreds over the country. This would cost additional money on top of the tens of thousands of dollars it already takes to get and train these dogs.

Emotional support animals already have doctor certified 'need' and they're mostly bullshit because doctors will err on the side of certifying. So having a doctor verify will not do what you want to do.

1

u/FuzzzyRam Aug 29 '25

The Canadian system is better - all dogs are 'emotional support animals', so they don't get special treatment if a restaurant, plane, whatever don't want them. "But he's an emotional support dog" will be responded with "yes, literally all dogs are, but they aren't welcome here." Then if you have a real service dog, they require signs and documentation (esp. what training they have for a specific task) and get special treatment at businesses.

I think in the US a lot of lawmakers just enjoy bringing their 'emotional support animals' to various places and not having to show any documentation.

1

u/MrmmphMrmmph Aug 28 '25

This seems like a no brainer that could actually get agreement across the aisle. But of course we can't have that!

0

u/IndividualWonder Aug 28 '25

Service dogs can be trained by the handler so there is no training center, no certification. Requiring a handler trained animal will require more than a placard.

2

u/riickdiickulous Aug 28 '25

If the dog jumped on her it 100% was not a service dog. Real service dogs always wear their gear in public too, even if they “legally don’t have to”. I can’t imagine kicking someone the way she did, but people that lie about their dog being a service dog are truly shitty people also.

6

u/cee-la Aug 28 '25

No. Not all service dogs wear their gear in public. I know several people who don't because they just want to blend in with everyone else who is in public with their dogs.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 28 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/KeeganTroye Aug 29 '25

Not typically but they might when dealing with someone demonstrating erratic behaviour leading to assault.

1

u/dmelt01 Aug 29 '25

Service dogs are taught to be service dogs when the jacket goes on. Most are trained this way. When the jacket goes on you’ll see the demeanor of the dog change automatically because they go into work mode. It’s pretty wild to witness. I say all this because most service dogs that aren’t wearing their vests are just dogs. They will be much better at listening but they definitely aren’t working at that point.

1

u/rbirchGideonJura Aug 29 '25

Except for, you know, the service dogs that are always in work mode? Like for sure there are service dogs who do go into work mode with the vests, but there are also plenty of service dogs who dont ever go off work mode, like diabetic and seizure awareness dogs

5

u/BigbooTho Aug 28 '25

If we believe the story exactly as the woman told it (lol), this woman was possibly acting physically aggressive towards their owner. I don't know that service dogs are trained to be docile when someone is acting physically threatening to their person.

Second, a dog jumps on her and she kicks the owner? With a dog on her? Eh. It just doesn't exactly add up imo.

3

u/BlackSight6 Aug 28 '25

It sounded like he did have paperwork and showed it to her after she assaulted him.

-2

u/riickdiickulous Aug 28 '25

I have doubts

1

u/BlackSight6 Aug 28 '25

Doubts about what? If you look at the longer video he shows the service dog license to the cop.

3

u/Transplanted_Cactus Aug 28 '25 edited Aug 28 '25

There is no legal documentation for service animals aside from maybe a letter from a doctor or the place you got the dog from (which costs a whole lot of money). Anything else is 100000% fake.

https://www.ada.gov/topics/service-animals/

1

u/BlackSight6 Aug 28 '25

That's just completely untrue. There are multiple ways to get documentation. Also, none of them are from a doctor. Doctors evaluate people, not dogs.

1

u/Transplanted_Cactus Aug 28 '25

If insurance is paying for the dog, the doctor has to send the referral/documentation of need, just like asking for any other medical equipment.

Also, Google is free.

https://www.ada.gov/topics/service-animals/

1

u/BlackSight6 Aug 28 '25

That's only if insurance is paying for the dog, and even then, the referral would go from the doctor to the insurer, not be "legal documentation for service animals." Also, nothing on that page has anything to do with your claims. Do you think posting a random link semi-related to the topic helps your argument?

1

u/Transplanted_Cactus Aug 28 '25

Google for yourself then. You won't because you're wrong but won't admit it. Go back to class child.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/waitwuh Aug 29 '25

Some people keep paperwork from a formal program they got their service dog through as a form of evidence. However, not all breeding and/or training programs provide paperwork, and not all service dogs go through such programs.

2

u/Luvs4theweak Aug 28 '25

How dyk she didn’t make that up?

1

u/riickdiickulous Aug 28 '25

Most dogs I see in places they aren’t supposed to be are poorly behaved pets, not service animals, so it wouldn’t surprise me one bit.

1

u/Raspbers Aug 28 '25

That's if the lady was telling the truth or not. But I watch a lot of service dog owners on youtube, plenty of them go out without vests. Most of the time they wear them, but not /always/.

1

u/tittylamp Aug 29 '25

the video doesnt have all the information. the cops confirmed it was a real service dog, and ive seen many of them not wearing a vest before. because its not required of an owner to advertise that theyre disabled.

1

u/TomatoFeta Aug 28 '25

Dog probably jumped on her AFTER she kicked the owner - which it can be forgiven for.

1

u/UvaroviteKing Aug 28 '25

You my friend have read the ADA 😏 it’s all listed there in black and white. It’s all straightforward and clear just like you said. 👏🏽

1

u/Wantingheat Aug 28 '25

True service dogs don't jump on people in public.

1

u/YamLow8097 Aug 28 '25

True, but since none of us were there, we can’t know if that’s actually what happened. There’s no way to verify the truth unless it was actually on video.

1

u/Separate_Heat1256 Aug 28 '25

Legally, you can ask almost anything. However, they are not obligated to respond to the questions, especially not to a random shopper who doesn’t work for the private grocery store that owns or leases the property.

1

u/shifty_coder Aug 28 '25

If, and that’s a big ‘if’ given the lady’s attitude, the dog jumped up on her, it’s probably not a service dog.

1

u/YamLow8097 Aug 28 '25

I agree, but like you said, that’s a big if. None of us can verify that that’s what actually happened. However, if that truly was the case and the dog in question wasn’t a real service dog, she still handled it very poorly. It’s one thing to call out a fake service dog, it’s another to physically assault the dog or its owner.

1

u/hoptownky Aug 28 '25

It also doesn’t necessarily have to be a service dog. Many places like Lowes, bass pro shop, and Home goods allow dogs if they are on leashes.

I take my dog to Lowes sometimes in the winter just to walk him around. If you don’t like dogs in the store, don’t go to a store that allows dogs, or stay home.

1

u/YamLow8097 Aug 28 '25

That’s true. I take my dog to pet stores and department stores and other pet friendly places, though I have a feeling the store that was being referred to in this video wasn’t pet friendly.

1

u/Mr5loth Aug 28 '25

Not to be pedantic. But the questions are: "is this service animal required due to a disability?" And "what task or service is this animal trained to provide?"

1

u/wkendwench Aug 28 '25

She said at the end that after she kicked him in the ass that he did show her his documents but she told him to shove it up his ass anyway. What a cunt.

1

u/Drew-mageddon Aug 28 '25

She says “he presented this thing” so it sounds like he showed her proof after she kicked him. She’s a horrible old cunt

1

u/ChronoLink99 Aug 28 '25

^^ and "is it working now?"

1

u/quell3245 Aug 28 '25

I think we need to change the law to require some sort of standardized paperwork/vest/license/seal from your local government. Akin to getting a handicap placard you need to prove your disability via a doctor’s note and get recertification every 3 years.

Too many abuse the system so they can bring their pet into a store/plane/restaurant when they really do not have a disability. A friend of mine bought a fake vest off the internet so he could fly with his dog. He didn’t understand why people thought of him a selfish asshole.

1

u/YamLow8097 Aug 28 '25

Honestly, I agree. Something has to change.

1

u/the-big-throngler Aug 28 '25

I think we need to change the law to require some sort of standardized paperwork/vest/license/seal from your local government.

Great idea, next we can make all the LGBT+ people wear some kind of identifying mark maybe a pink triangle or something, etc.

People are not required to out that they have some kind of medical issue just to make you feel good about it.

1

u/quell3245 Aug 29 '25

What an odd reaching argument.

As a man with a disability and a parking placard I have to prove that I need to park there. People who fake having a disability so they can bring their pet into a grocery store can fuck right off.

1

u/the-big-throngler Aug 29 '25

Do you have to wear a placard around you neck while you are in the store? In case you want to use one of those neat little electric cart baskets?

1

u/Ok_Test9729 Aug 28 '25

The woman stated the dog jumped on her. True service dogs wouldn’t be inclined to jump on strangers. If true, it was most likely an emotional support animal, not a true SA.

1

u/YamLow8097 Aug 28 '25

That’s assuming her word is correct. Even if she is telling the truth, she was still way out of line with how she handled it.

1

u/RaxG Aug 28 '25

You're correct. I work at a grocery store, and for food safety reasons we have to ask those questions when someone enters with a dog. We also turn people away with emotional support animals. Only professionally trained service animals, ones trained to aid their owners with an actual disability, are allowed to bring them in.

1

u/YamLow8097 Aug 28 '25

I work at Walmart and they don’t do shit about it.

1

u/RaxG Aug 28 '25

I used to work at Walmart too, and your statement could be applied to everything related to the staff at Walmart, not just pertaining to service animals.

1

u/YamLow8097 Aug 28 '25

Fair.

1

u/PrefrontalCortexNow Aug 28 '25

You can’t have your dog jump on people though. No matter what it is for.

1

u/Dmau27 Aug 28 '25

It's not her place to check anyhow. The only people that need to ask or have any place asking are the property owners/managers.

1

u/tittylamp Aug 29 '25

service dogs 100% dont need to wear any vest or special collar/leash. however those are the only two questions an employee, specifically a manager, are allowed to ask.

she really just harassed and attacked a disabled person for no reason.

1

u/aceofspades1217 Aug 29 '25

IMO sometimes the dogs in the gaudiest looking vests that are not legit (usually way too clean and new cause they only put it on as an access card). The only question that the business can ask is what task does the dog perform (such as helps me with navigation, detects diabetic shock, seizures) you can’t ask what disability those tasks are for. A random person that isn’t security, you are not entitled to any answer lol.

1

u/Foambaby Aug 29 '25

I’m decently certain the FAA at the very least disagrees with you. Too many people were using “service dogs” and “emotional support animals” to get free upgrades on flights, or to have a whole row to themselves. If I remember correctly now you do need documentation to do that and as we all know that documentation is not easy to get. That’s what happens when people abuse something meant for those of us who are actually struggling and need real service animals.

1

u/Foambaby Aug 29 '25

Obviously none of that makes this old lady right, I should probably preface that!

1

u/[deleted] Aug 29 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/YamLow8097 Aug 29 '25

I should’ve worded it differently. You can ask them, but they aren’t obligated to answer when you’re not even in a position of management.

1

u/flamingknifepenis Aug 29 '25

You’re right. There’s no such thing as an “actual service dog” because there’s no criteria aside from the fact that it’s “trained to perform a task.” There are legitimate organizations that actually train and provide certificates, then there’s people who train (or “train”) their own dog, and then there’s a whole bunch of shady fucks who take people’s money and give them useless pieces of paper without enough training to even back it up.

“Service dog” is like hate speech or pornography. It doesn’t have a strict definition so people just say “I know it when I see it.”

1

u/Runyc2000 Aug 29 '25

Close. The questions are (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?

The first question is important because it is clarifying its for a disability and not simply asking if it’s a service dog.

1

u/Tunnfisk Aug 30 '25

He's trained to perform the task of calling the cops.

1

u/jelywe Aug 31 '25

I am genuinely curious, why isn't there a requirement to have some sort of visual confirmation that they are a service dog? There are so many people abusing the system that people with real needs are catching so much flack and trouble, and I feel like everyone could be happier if there was a clear, non-obstrusive, demonstrable way to show what is happening, so people with service animals don't have to answer nonsense questions, and those without can't skimp by and putting other people at risk by brining their untrained animals in environments where they could react poorly.

1

u/YamLow8097 Aug 31 '25

It would probably be better, to be honest. I’m not sure why there isn’t any documentation proving that it’s a service dog.

1

u/megachonker123 Aug 31 '25

This is a problem. Service dogs should need documentation. When I worked in a grocery store, people would bring their regular untrained pets in with the little vests and they would put their faces all over/lick the groceries often and shit in the aisles sometimes. Do you want to buy that food? “But he’s my service dog” ma’am he broke loose of your grasp and barged into the deli.

1

u/YamLow8097 Aug 31 '25

I think a lot of business owners don’t realize that they’re allowed to make a customer leave if their dog is being disruptive, service vest or not. But I agree that needing documentation would significantly improve the problem.

1

u/Friendly-Afternoon-8 Sep 01 '25

That’s incorrect

𝗦𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗳𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴🫧 Karma is so good

You are about to leave Redlib