[nagdu] Up date on PA HB 123

[Passle Helminski]

Hi Marion,

As I posted to Ginger, as it was explained to me, the part about 
"knew or should have known" is required for a second degree 
misdemeanor (under the provisions of the PA Crimes Code in general), 
and the "without provocation" is so that there cannot be any backlash 
against the service animal's owner.  I agree that it establishes 
criminal intent.  I am not happy that they took out lost wages and 
medical expense.  Lets see what the House will do with it.

Passle



>Passel,
>    This provision establishes criminal intent. No crime is committed 
>unless the perpetrator has criminal intent. This is one of the 
>reasons I always tell people that, when they are denied access to a 
>place of public accommodation the very first thing one should say is 
>"I am disabled; this is my service animal." Once this fact has been 
>established, such a denial is then done with intent.
>    We had a case in Florida in which a taxicab driver denied access 
>to a blind person with her guide dog. The case was thrown out 
>because the blind person admitted that she had not told the driver 
>she was blind and the dog was her service animal. The driver 
>contended that he did not know this fact and his attorney argued 
>there was no criminal intent. Without knowing he was denying access 
>to a disabled person with a service animal, how could he have 
>intentionally violated her civil rights?
>
>Fraternally yours,
>Marion Gwizdala
>
>
>
>