From the Daily Journal of some city in New Jersey (the newspaper's website hides the city name):
BRIDGETON – A Vineland man’s anti-social behavior at a Social Security office landed him in jail, authorities said.
The trouble began Thursday when 53-year-old Jeffrey Kuss became “irate” because he was unhappy with the long wait time while in line at the Social Security office on West Broad Street, according to police Lt. James Battavio. A security officer at the office contacted police because Kuss was acting up, he said.
The guard told Kuss that his appointment had been canceled due to his inappropriate behavior and asked him to leave the premises. Kuss responded by shouting obscenities in front of a crowd of 40 people, including children, police said.
Police informed Kuss he had to leave, but he refused and insisted he had an appointment, Battavio said. Officers then escorted him outside the building,
That’s where Kuss began blocking patrons from going inside as he made threats and used profanities, police said.
He was arrested on a charge of disorderly conduct and taken to the police station, where he refused to be processed and subsequently charged with obstruction, Battavio said.Kuss was held on $1,000 bail in Cumberland County Jail.
8 comments:
It was the Vineland Daily Journal and the District Office was the Bridgeton New jersey District Office.
Frankly, given the level of service that particular office is famous for, I am surprised that this doesn't happen more often.
Ban him from person to person contact with local offices. We don't people making stupid threats when we don't have enough competent employees to do the minimum work necessary on a daily basis. I don't care what his issue is or was. If he had shut his mouth and waited like he was supposed to, he would have been seen eventually. If he can't control himself in public, then I'm back to supporting the ban from in person contact.
If the employees in that particular office are that bad, then I'm all for releasing them from employment. However, because we have that ridiculous joke of a union protecting slackers, good luck!!!
12:26 - I am so glad that its all about the claimant for you. The man is obviously mentally ill and has a "low frustration tolerance". A little compassion would have gone a long way. He is upset about waiting so lets make him wait even longer. Then we wonder why he went off. Brilliant! You sound like a typical SSA manager, all stick no carrot and no compassion for anyone. Why don't you release yourself from employment and do us all a favor.
So because he can't control himself, I'm the one with the issue? You are part if the problem. There's no doubt the man has problems. Now a days everyone has "issues" so acting out is acceptable, right? Suppose he wanted to physically assault someone next time? That okay too.
Now, having said all that, we have no idea what the man's appointment was for. The assumption is it was disability but it doesn't say.
I'm very good at my job but I'm not a social worker or a counselor. They pay me to process the most difficult claims in the office. I do it to the best of my ability. I'm not a manager, probably never will be. They like to give those to the "yes men" in the agency.
I'm part of the problem because I encourage compassion for the claimant's. That's lovely. I also process the most difficult cases in the office and I never forget (no matter how difficult these claimant's can be) that each is a person who is seeking help from our Agency. If I need to call security (and I have) then I always request that they use sensitivity with the claimant. The objective is to calm down the claimant, not throw them out and ban them from the office. Our processes are incredibly complex and trying for even some of the most intelligent and stable claimant's, never mind someone who has a low frustration point as part of their cluster of problems, regardless of what benefits they are seeking. I am not saying that acting out is acceptable or that anyone should be allowed to go the point that another person is assaulted. I am saying that we have an obligation to use compassion especially when we are dealing with the most marginalized members of society.
Personally, I've never had to call security over. They've come over a few times over the years but I've always been able to diffuse the situation on my own. I've never had anyone thrown out. Sounds like that guy was given ample opportunity to calm down and he didn't or couldn't. Either way, banning him from face to face contact doesn't seem unreasonable. He isn't being denied future service, just barred from coming into the office. Nit sure what the big deal is with the idea.
Assuming that the person's acting out was a symptom of mental illness (we have no way of knowing), this raises the issue of accommodation for mental illness at field offices. What if a claimant knows that going into a crowded room with 40 people and waiting is likely to make their mental illness symptomatic?
As per Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, there should be accommodations in place allowing that person to receive services. In this case, it appears the person didn't ask for those and began acting out in a highly confrontational manner, so I couldn't blame security and office staff for acting as they did.
What I would like to see is training for office and security staff for dealing with and de-escalating such situations. Without a doubt, we know that people with severe mental illness will be coming to SSA local offices at a comparatively high rate because SSA administers disability programs. Given the certainty that SSA local offices will be dealing with claimants with symptomatic mental illness that seems important. Some police forces have developed good trainings along those lines that help them deal with people with mental illness and reduce the need for use of force. Those would be effective and useful for security staff. I hope they already do that, and if they don't they should.
Of course he was shouting obscenities...his last name is Kuss.
Post a Comment