Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - STSO Robert Jenson (DVL in ND) Arrested for "Felony Terrorizing"

The assault charge alleges that Jensen came home from the bar July 13 and pushed and shoved his roommate during an argument, leaving him with a fat lip and red marks on his cheeks.

After the domestic dispute, Jensen allegedly threatened the man with a gun, causing him to fear for his life and leave the residence, according to the terrorizing charge.

http://www.parkrapidsenterprise.com/event/article/id/33519/group/homepage/

As an STSO (Supervisory Transportation Security Officer), this man not only molested your children, the elderly, and everyone in between, but also supervised the molesting.

--Jon

The terrorists are screening us as possible terrorists?
We're doing it wrong!

The unacceptable behavior of this individual in no way reflects the dedication of our thousands...umm, hundreds...umm, tens...umm, few...umm... how about Jim in Effingham, IL who works tirelessly to keep our skies safe. Let's hear it for Jim.

:D

Maybe his room mate resisted a 'patdown'?

I'm relieved -- we've had a dry spell for a while. Here are some interesting facts:

He remains employed by the federal Transportation Security Administration, said John Hursey, TSA federal security director.

Authorities alleged his urine tested positive for THC, the active chemical in marijuana.

Wow -- a charter member:

Jensen is a supervisory transportation security officer who has been employed by the TSA since 2002

Another really good background investigation:

In his previous domestic violence case, Jensen was charged with simple assault last September after he allegedly pushed a woman against the wall and grabbed her arm, causing bruising. He also was accused of pushing a 12-year-old child to the ground, injuring the child’s ankle.

The state agreed to defer prosecution for one year if Jensen followed certain conditions, including following the recommendations of an alcohol and drug evaluation. He also was required to remain law abiding.

Forgive me, but ... other than schadenfreude, is there any point in discussing this incident in this forum?

I don't see anything in the article that indicates that he performed his felonious acts under the color of authority as a TSA employee --- or that there's any relationship whatsoever between his employment and his activities.

Yes, it shows the character of the type of people that work for the TSA. This man did not have a single incident, but had a history of violence, which fits right in with the TSA's search techniques.

Forgive me, but ... other than schadenfreude, is there any point in discussing this incident in this forum?

I don't see anything in the article that indicates that he performed his felonious acts under the color of authority as a TSA employee --- or that there's any relationship whatsoever between his employment and his activities.

--Jon

I am curious. How many more criminal assault issues till he is relieved of his official duties? I suspect that my employer would not allow me so many chances, and I don't even have a position that permits me to impose physical contact on members of the public.

Forgive me, but ... other than schadenfreude, is there any point in discussing this incident in this forum?

.

Yes. Would you want a man touching you when he clearly cannot control himself? Would you him going through your stuff? And finally, do you want him accusing your of terrorism when he himself cannot follow the law (the weed)?

Forgive me, but ... other than schadenfreude, is there any point in discussing this incident in this forum?

I don't see anything in the article that indicates that he performed his felonious acts under the color of authority as a TSA employee --- or that there's any relationship whatsoever between his employment and his activities.


Since TSA supporters (gee, ain't that a play on words) claim that because doctors can feel up your private parts, it's no different than letting TSA clerks do it. Think of this creep handling your johnson or our children's next time someone advances that argument.

Forgive me, but ... other than schadenfreude, is there any point in discussing this incident in this forum?

I don't see anything in the article that indicates that he performed his felonious acts under the color of authority as a TSA employee --- or that there's any relationship whatsoever between his employment and his activities.

You really don't have a problem with a TSO with a history of physical abuse and drug use being on the federal payroll?

Wow.

You really don't have a problem with a TSO with a history of physical abuse and drug use being on the federal payroll?


You mean like the President we elected --- twice --- who admitted to drug use (although he "didn't inhale")?

You mean like the President we elected after him, who admitted to being a drug abuser (admittedly, a legal drug) until age 40?

You mean like Congressman Charlie Wilson (D-OH), who was elected to office years after his wife sought and obtained a divorce because of his horrible physical abuse of her?

If you want to disqualify all physical abusers and drug users from working for the federal government, feel free to pursue that line of questioning. You'll probably end up eliminating half of the federal payroll in the process. (Of course, there are those who could claim that as a good thing.)

This guy committed felonies, and the courts will deal with him. I just don't see how bringing his employer into it is relevant. (Other than the schadenfreude, of course.)

You mean like the President we elected --- twice --- who admitted to drug use (although he "didn't inhale")?

You mean like the President we elected after him, who admitted to being a drug abuser (admittedly, a legal drug) until age 40?

You mean like Congressman Charlie Wilson (D-OH), who was elected to office years after his wife sought and obtained a divorce because of his horrible physical abuse of her?

If you want to disqualify all physical abusers and drug users from working for the federal government, feel free to pursue that line of questioning. You'll probably end up eliminating half of the federal payroll in the process. (Of course, there are those who could claim that as a good thing.)

This guy committed felonies, and the courts will deal with him. I just don't see how bringing his employer into it is relevant. (Other than the schadenfreude, of course.)

That this guy is accused of committing serious felonies and has a job of providing security functions for TSA automatically makes his employer relevant. If TSA had no prior history of having employees with questionable backgrounds perhaps it would not matter.

Finally it matters when I as a traveler might have chance to encounter this guy during security screening, a person with a known history of violence and apparent drug abuse.

Forgive me, but ... other than schadenfreude, is there any point in discussing this incident in this forum?

I don't see anything in the article that indicates that he performed his felonious acts under the color of authority as a TSA employee --- or that there's any relationship whatsoever between his employment and his activities.

Maybe not for the instances he has been charged with, but his actions in these instances very much bring into question his conduct while working as a TSA screener. He is apparently prone to violence and seeking subservience over people he has no authority. I find it highly unlikely that he didn't exhibit these behaviors while working and actually having a position to verbally and physically demand subservience. The fact that, so far, there have been no reports of his actions at the TSA makes a huge statement about the acceptance of bad behavior in the TSA.

He has had 3 instances of physical violence in the past 10 months. He has worked for the TSA since 2002. Take from that what you will.

Did anyone else note this was his second arrest for domestic abuse? So he was still on the job after the first one then? Lovely.

You mean like the President we elected --- twice --- who admitted to drug use (although he "didn't inhale")?

You mean like the President we elected after him, who admitted to being a drug abuser (admittedly, a legal drug) until age 40?

You mean like Congressman Charlie Wilson (D-OH), who was elected to office years after his wife sought and obtained a divorce because of his horrible physical abuse of her?

If you want to disqualify all physical abusers and drug users from working for the federal government, feel free to pursue that line of questioning. You'll probably end up eliminating half of the federal payroll in the process. (Of course, there are those who could claim that as a good thing.)

This guy committed felonies, and the courts will deal with him. I just don't see how bringing his employer into it is relevant. (Other than the schadenfreude, of course.)

I do think it's relevant. We have an example here of someone vetted and retained by the TSA whose personal behavior has clearly exceeded boundaries. This opens the question again of whether there are employees in these positions who are at risk of going too far (or who have actually done so) in their work behavior.

I take no particular pleasure in his arrest, but I don't want him anywhere near touching my mother, my sister, my son, my husband, myself (or anyone else) when we're trying to get on a plane.

Actually, Mr. Huggins, I think it may be relevant and useful to bring up these malfeasances of TSO clerks. Many folks assume that the normal distribution applies to every company and every organization. InkUnderNails implied this awhile back when he noted that in his training experience, 30% got the training, 30% forgot it and had to be retrained once more, and 30% could never be retrained. Ink then applied this to the TSA.

In my experience, such an assumption is unwarranted. I've worked in a company (just one thank g-d, and I got out very quickly) with a high percentage of *ssholes, jerks, and outright incompetents (http://www.amazon.com/The-.......-Rule-Civilized-Workplace/dp/0446526568). In contrast, highly successful and wonderful companies I've worked for had a very low percentage of these--so much so they were hard to run into, with most everyone being very smart, competent, and helpful.

In other words, lousy organizations tend to recruit, attract, and hold lousy employees. Behavior and performance that is unacceptable in good orgs are considered acceptable in bad orgs.

Most of us who consider TSA dysfunctional and evil may not have started out with that opinion, but have arrived at it through observation of how TSA employees tend to act, and by employee I mean everyone up to and including John Pistole. Noting evil behavior in TSA employees may perhaps result in fundamental changes.

You mean like the President we elected --- twice --- who admitted to drug use (although he "didn't inhale")?

You mean like the President we elected after him, who admitted to being a drug abuser (admittedly, a legal drug) until age 40?

You mean like Congressman Charlie Wilson (D-OH), who was elected to office years after his wife sought and obtained a divorce because of his horrible physical abuse of her?

If you want to disqualify all physical abusers and drug users from working for the federal government, feel free to pursue that line of questioning. You'll probably end up eliminating half of the federal payroll in the process. (Of course, there are those who could claim that as a good thing.)

This guy committed felonies, and the courts will deal with him. I just don't see how bringing his employer into it is relevant. (Other than the schadenfreude, of course.)

I don't recall the presidents you mentioned used drugs in office.

I believe TSA's own rules prohibit drug use (I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was asked about prior drug use during the hiring process). This guy was clearly using during the course of his employment, whether or not he was actually stoned during work hours.

When he plea-bargains out of trouble the Union will make sure he's back at work with no pay penalty.

As for the previous Presidents' use/abuse of substances they were never accused of use during their time in office.
As for the actions of the other elected officials, what they did was horrible, but they were elected officials and the TSOs are not. They're hired to do a job and are held to a certain standard. They hold us to standards.. we hold them to standards also.

You mean like the President we elected --- twice --- who admitted to drug use (although he "didn't inhale")?

You mean like the President we elected after him, who admitted to being a drug abuser (admittedly, a legal drug) until age 40?

You mean like Congressman Charlie Wilson (D-OH), who was elected to office years after his wife sought and obtained a divorce because of his horrible physical abuse of her?

If you want to disqualify all physical abusers and drug users from working for the federal government, feel free to pursue that line of questioning. You'll probably end up eliminating half of the federal payroll in the process. (Of course, there are those who could claim that as a good thing.)

This guy committed felonies, and the courts will deal with him. I just don't see how bringing his employer into it is relevant. (Other than the schadenfreude, of course.)

My husband gets caught illegally using drugs (legal or illegal), he loses his job. He gets caught beating me, he loses his job. Ok, technically he loses his clearance, but in his case, if he loses that, he's pretty much toast. So this TSO's employer certainly is relevant. He has access to the secure area. His character and lack of respect for the law show that he should not be trusted with any kind of security position.

In fairness, I wouldn't consider the fact that marijuana was in his system as evidence of "drug abuse." Personally, I think the TSA could benefit from a bit of medicinal marijuana to treat their systemic anxiety disorder.

...a person with a known history of violence and apparent drug abuse.

--Jon

In other words, lousy organizations tend to recruit, attract, and hold lousy employees. Behavior and performance that is unacceptable in good orgs are considered acceptable in bad orgs.
+1000

Or as a former colleague put it, "First-rate people hire first-rate people. Third-rate people hire fifth-rate people.";)

If you want to disqualify all physical abusers and drug users from working for the federal government, feel free to pursue that line of questioning. You'll probably end up eliminating half of the federal payroll in the process. (Of course, there are those who could claim that as a good thing.)

This guy committed felonies, and the courts will deal with him. I just don't see how bringing his employer into it is relevant. (Other than the schadenfreude, of course.)

Federal employment is not a right, it is a privilege. I don't think we ought to have physical abusers and drug users on the federal payroll, and would gladly see them gone. I especially don't think it's proper to have someone like that in a position that involves constant access with the public and supposedly charged with air transportation safety.

But I guess we know where you stand on the concept. :rolleyes:

If you want to disqualify all physical abusers and drug users from working for the federal government, feel free to pursue that line of questioning. You'll probably end up eliminating half of the federal payroll in the process. (Of course, there are those who could claim that as a good thing.)

This guy committed felonies, and the courts will deal with him. I just don't see how bringing his employer into it is relevant. (Other than the schadenfreude, of course.)


The answer to your question is, yes; I want to see all physical abusers and illicit drug users removed from federal (or any) government position. The very idea that somehow it might be acceptable for "half of the federal payroll" to be abusive and/or users of illicit drugs is abhorrent to me -- and it's truly shocking to me that such a thing might be even vaguely and tacitly acceptable.

I work in a local governmental position with confidential and protected material and so my job is classified as a "position of trust". The public that pays my salary and places its trust in my discretion and reliability has a right to get what it's paying for.

Maybe I'm just an old-fashioned broad, but I truly believe, like Caesar's wife, I owe it to my constituents to be above suspicion.

~~ Irish

Federal employment is not a right, it is a privilege. I don't think we ought to have physical abusers and drug users on the federal payroll, and would gladly see them gone. I especially don't think it's proper to have someone like that in a position that involves constant access with the public and supposedly charged with air transportation safety.

But I guess we know where you stand on the concept. :rolleyes:

No, you don't.

Last time I checked, TSA had suspended this person from his position, which is usually code for "we're trying to fire his @$$ but there's a ton of paperwork to do first". He's not going to last long at TSA --- and appropriately so.

I just wonder if this item would've made the news if the person in question was a construction foreman or a union electrician. You could make the same argument that the performance of those jobs affects public safety, and that there's a public interest in knowing that they're capable of exercising good judgment. Yet, somehow, I don't think the headline "Construction foreman arrested for abusing roommate" makes the front page of the newspaper, like "TSO arrested for abusing roommate" does.

But that's just me. Your mileage may vary.

No, you don't.

Last time I checked, TSA had suspended this person from his position, which is usually code for "we're trying to fire his @$$ but there's a ton of paperwork to do first". He's not going to last long at TSA --- and appropriately so.

I just wonder if this item would've made the news if the person in question was a construction foreman or a union electrician. You could make the same argument that the performance of those jobs affects public safety, and that there's a public interest in knowing that they're capable of exercising good judgment. Yet, somehow, I don't think the headline "Construction foreman arrested for abusing roommate" makes the front page of the newspaper, like "TSO arrested for abusing roommate" does.

But that's just me. Your mileage may vary.


My tax dollars don't pay for construction foremen or union electricians. It's the repsonsibility of the persons or entities who employ them to police them. And around here, there might well be such a headline as abuse has been much in the public consciousness lately. If it the construction foreman or union electrician was a government worker, it absolutely would be a headline.

Federal workers, national headlines. Local workers, local headlines. That some low-level public works personnel were caught drinking on the tax-payers dime while on duty WAS, in fact, quite the local headline around here just very recently. A highly-placed appointed official around here WAS, in fact, removed from his job not so very long ago following very prominent headlines quoting a 911 call placed by an abused spouse -- even though no charges actually followed the call.

Workers paid by tax dollars at any level should absolutely be held to a higher standard, whether on or off duty.

~~ Irish

You mean like the President we elected --- twice --- who admitted to drug use (although he "didn't inhale")?

You mean like the President we elected after him, who admitted to being a drug abuser (admittedly, a legal drug) until age 40?

You mean like Congressman Charlie Wilson (D-OH), who was elected to office years after his wife sought and obtained a divorce because of his horrible physical abuse of her?

If you want to disqualify all physical abusers and drug users from working for the federal government, feel free to pursue that line of questioning. You'll probably end up eliminating half of the federal payroll in the process. (Of course, there are those who could claim that as a good thing.)

This guy committed felonies, and the courts will deal with him. I just don't see how bringing his employer into it is relevant. (Other than the schadenfreude, of course.)
The three examples you listed were elected officials, which speaks more on the voter, then the elected. Also, those elected officials can be removed, either laterally by judicial/legislative/adminstrative methods (impeachment, trial, etc), or from below by methods of democracy (recall elections, etc). It appears it's almost impossible to "fire" a member of the TSA, once they are a full-employee.

In almost all industries, a firing occurs to protect the employer, not the employee or the consumer. I'm guessing TSA is now trying to protect itself.

My tax dollars don't pay for construction foremen or union electricians. It's the repsonsibility of the persons or entities who employ them to police them. And around here, there might well be such a headline as abuse has been much in the public consciousness lately. If it the construction foreman or union electrician was a government worker, it absolutely would be a headline.

Federal workers, national headlines. Local workers, local headlines. That some low-level public works personnel were caught drinking on the tax-payers dime while on duty WAS, in fact, quite the local headline around here just very recently. A highly-placed appointed official around here WAS, in fact, removed from his job not so very long ago following very prominent headlines quoting a 911 call placed by an abused spouse -- even though no charges actually followed the call.

Workers paid by tax dollars at any level should absolutely be held to a higher standard, whether on or off duty.

~~ Irish

Having been on active duty (now retired) and currently serving as a federal civilian, I absolutely agree. We ought to be, and are, held to a higher standard than the private sector. Tax dollars pay our salary, and we (at least in the federal service) work for the President as either the Commander in Chief or Chief Executive in the Executive Branch. We (in theory) are executing the governmental responsibilities and services that the people, through Congress and the President, believe is a legitimate government function.

You're on the taxpayer's clock 24/7 and you represent the U.S. government 24/7. You simply can't compartmentalize on-duty and off-duty behavior in any type of public service. Many private sector firms are more strict than the government, because off-duty behavior can have a negative affect upon corporate image.

If this guy had a security clearance (a real one; not simply access to SSI), off-duty behavior is absolutely in-bounds for granting a clearance and for keeping it. Could this guy have sold secrets to support his drug habit? You bet. Selling secrets is less risky than robbing a liquor store. Could a bad guy have used his penchant for domestic violence as a means to blackmail him into giving away secrets? You bet. Every espionage case of which I personally am aware for the last 40 years with 1 or 2 exceptions was motivated by greed and not ideology. Even Jonathan Pollard, the guy who spied for Israel, was motivated by greed, although sympathizers try to get him released from prison by playing the ideology card.

Break - Break...

To clarify a couple of comments upstream:

As of Tuesday afternoon, Jensen was being held on $5,000 bail in the Lake Region Correctional Center in Devils Lake.

I wonder if he's burning his annual leave while he's in the slammer???

He remains employed by the federal Transportation Security Administration, said John Hursey, TSA federal security director.

A TSA spokeswoman said in an email that Jensen has been removed from screening operations pending the outcome of the case.

He's not been suspended or placed on administrative leave without pay. He's just been reassigned. I'm not sure what "removed from screening operations" means. My guess is that he is out of the public eye, so as to avoid embarrassment to the TSA if someone recognizes him from his mugshot.

I wonder if he's burning his annual leave while he's in the slammer???

He's not been suspended or placed on administrative leave without pay. He's just been reassigned. I'm not sure what "removed from screening operations" means. My guess is that he is out of the public eye, so as to avoid embarrassment to the TSA if someone recognizes him from his mugshot.

I wouldn't be certain he has been 'removed from screening operations'. (Slightly OT, but as a taxpayer, I would like to know what non-screening position at his paygrade is currently open and unfilled, or is he just sitting in the breakroom, collecting taxpayer dollars for doing nothing).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/27/thomas-harkin-tsa_n_1548841.html

PHL TSA supervisor Thomas Harkin is a former priest who was defrocked for molesting young girls (and we all know how quick the Catholic Church is to defrock a priest for sexual misconduct). A new lawsuit has been filed against him for molesting an 11-year-old girl (two lawsuits have already been settled). When asked about this, TSA's response was:

"Yet a TSA official told the station that his title reflects that he deals mostly with luggage, not people."

Except when CBS went the to the airport

"The station saw Harkin working as a checkpoint supervisor between terminals D and E at the airport." (They posted a photo).

In fairness, I wouldn't consider the fact that marijuana was in his system as evidence of "drug abuse." Personally, I think the TSA could benefit from a bit of medicinal marijuana to treat their systemic anxiety disorder.
--Jon

What would you consider it then? Keep in mind that in the U.S., under federal law, there is no legal use of mj.

I would differentiate between drug use and drug abuse in the same way that I would differentiate between alcohol use ("drinking") and alcohol abuse ("being an alcoholic"), regardless of whether the government considers any use whatsoever to be "abuse."

I learned about a year ago that crystal meth is actually an FDA approved drug (http://www.drugs.com/pro/desoxyn.html) for the treatment of ADHD and weight loss. Meth is neurotoxic, is one of the most addictive substances on the planet, and has devistating societal effects, yet the government allows for "use" of it as long as you're paying big pharma more than the street value of the drug for it. The same government says any use of marijuana is abuse and illegal, even though it is not at all neurotoxic or addictive and has many more medicial uses. That government, in my mind, has lost all credibility when it comes to deciding what we should put in our bodies.

I say the above noting that I'm not a fan of marijuana. I support its legalization notwithstanding.

What would you consider it then? Keep in mind that in the U.S., under federal law, there is no legal use of mj.

--Jon

What would you consider it then? Keep in mind that in the U.S., under federal law, there is no legal use of mj.
Illegal drug use, but not abuse.

One can abuse legal drugs (alcohol, opiods, etc). One can also use illegal drugs w/o being an abuser (an occosional toke, grabbing an Oxycotin out of your spouses cabinate, etc).

Not in any way trying to defend the subject of this thread. But I do think we need to end this nonsense that makes any drug use that the Fed does not like a major crime.

I just wonder if this item would've made the news if the person in question was a construction foreman or a union electrician.

It wouldn't, because they aren't in a job wielding the authority of the government. Big difference.

You could make the same argument that the performance of those jobs affects public safety, and that there's a public interest in knowing that they're capable of exercising good judgment.

You can make any argument you want. The key is making an argument that makes sense, and yours doesn't.

Actually, Mr. Huggins, I think it may be relevant and useful to bring up these malfeasances of TSO clerks. Many folks assume that the normal distribution applies to every company and every organization. InkUnderNails implied this awhile back when he noted that in his training experience, 30% got the training, 30% forgot it and had to be retrained once more, and 30% could never be retrained. Ink then applied this to the TSA.

In my experience, such an assumption is unwarranted. I've worked in a company (just one thank g-d, and I got out very quickly) with a high percentage of *ssholes, jerks, and outright incompetents (http://www.amazon.com/The-.......-Rule-Civilized-Workplace/dp/0446526568). In contrast, highly successful and wonderful companies I've worked for had a very low percentage of these--so much so they were hard to run into, with most everyone being very smart, competent, and helpful.

In other words, lousy organizations tend to recruit, attract, and hold lousy employees. Behavior and performance that is unacceptable in good orgs are considered acceptable in bad orgs.

Most of us who consider TSA dysfunctional and evil may not have started out with that opinion, but have arrived at it through observation of how TSA employees tend to act, and by employee I mean everyone up to and including John Pistole. Noting evil behavior in TSA employees may perhaps result in fundamental changes.

Actually, my reference is to the rule of 1/3's that many outside trainers, like me, will agree is pretty close. Roughly stated, in any training session in which people are sent for training by their employers, 1/3 will take an interest and learn the material, 1/3 could not care less and will do whatever they can to not learn anything, and 1/3 are incapable of learning the material no matter how hard they try or want to. Although I did not say at the time, I do not train government employees, I have industrial customers that have a profitable interest in the success of their employees. Also the training sessions are often done in public venues in which several employers will each send a few people generating a cross section of people.

The relation to the TSA is weak but it too can be simply stated. If they are truly a cross section of the general population, only a 1/3 will get the training, a 1/3 don't care whether they get trained or not, and a 1/3 can not get trained no matter how hard they try. As I said at the time, this pretty much matches my very non-random observation of the TSA at the CP's I traverse.

Now, back on subject. If the TSA is going to pretend to be a quasi law enforcement organization, they need to have at least the appearance of discouraging and punishing lawlessness. The organization should demand of their employees no less than they demand of us. There are rules, follow them. If you do not, you do not get to go to work today. If you do not like the rules, there are other places to work.

In private industry, very often simply getting arrested for a serious crime will get you terminated. If that seems unfair, consider that the result of the arrest will likely lead to considerable absenteeism or restrictions on the times that one can be at work. If it is a public matter, it reflects on the public image of the company.

As for the construction worker or electrician mentioned up thread, no, it will not make the news. It will make them unemployable as real safety is involved. But, they are not in a public occupation, employed by the government, supervising people that are supposed to be in the process of preventing people from committing crimes and are in contact with thousands of people every day in a public manner.

I found this part of the article to be particularly interesting:

In his previous domestic violence case, Jensen was charged with simple assault last September after he allegedly pushed a woman against the wall and grabbed her arm, causing bruising. He also was accused of pushing a 12-year-old child to the ground, injuring the child’s ankle.

The state agreed to defer prosecution for one year if Jensen followed certain conditions, including following the recommendations of an alcohol and drug evaluation. He also was required to remain law abiding.

So, basically, the state decided that if he kept his nose clean for a year, they wouldn't prosecute for the incident last September.

But his nose is not clean any more. His nose is now filthy. This means that the state can, and very well might, prosecute him for the incident(s) last September, along with the new incident, thus adding two more charges of simple assault, including assault on a 12-year-old child.

This is a man who (allegedly) assaulted a child. TSA should fire him, plain and simple. No re-assignment to sniffing luggage, no failing upwards to an administrative position, no lateral transfer to some central office - fire his butt, immediately. And no, in this case, with multiple, independent accusations of assault over less than a year, coupled with evidence of illegal drug use, alcohol abuse, and a documented history of violence, I don't think this guy deserves the benefit of the doubt or to suspended pending the outcome of the case. Fire him now, Out of an Abundance of Caution.

Whether TSA actually does this, of course, is anybody's guess.

The terrorists are screening us as possible terrorists?
We're doing it wrong!

The Con man would spot a scam instantly so that they hire the terrorists to screen terrorites seems very logical. :td::td::td:

Polar Bear

The Con man would spot a scam instantly so that they hire the terrorists to screen terrorites seems very logical. :td::td::td:

Polar Bear

Terrorites. I love the term.

And the title of the thread keeps making me think of Harold and Kumar Escape from Gitmo, where they run into George W. Busch and he says, "They thought you two guys was terrorizers!?"

I don't care about the marijuana. Unless it impacts his performance at work, it's a red herring, IMO. If they want to use the marijuana as a technicality to fire him, that's fine with me.

I do care about the history of violence. I don't care if my plumber is violent. I don't care if my DMV clerk or my IRS agent is violent. But when someone has the power/authority to karate chop your testicles with impunity, a history of violence should be an automatic disqualification.

TSA screeners are required to make physical contact with the general public in a high-stress environment. A person who has been charged on multiple occasions with violence against men, women, and children should not be in this position. Period.

I don't care about the marijuana. Unless it impacts his performance at work, it's a red herring, IMO. If they want to use the marijuana as a technicality to fire him, that's fine with me.

I do care about the history of violence. I don't care if my plumber is violent. I don't care if my DMV clerk or my IRS agent is violent. But when someone has the power/authority to karate chop your testicles with impunity, a history of violence should be an automatic disqualification.

TSA screeners are required to make physical contact with the general public in a high-stress environment. A person who has been charged on multiple occasions with violence against men, women, and children should not be in this position. Period.
We have a few supervisors and managers like this.... Don't worry, they've only gotten violent with/ and sexually harass the TSOs... There's just a high enough number of them going high enough up that they can't be fired... but those they harass are. Why should you care? I know you think that we're the degenerate untermensch of society, but with no way to remove the out of control management -that'll never improve (plus, we are held to the STSO+TSM interpretations of rules; rather than what's written...ergo... unpredictable unpredictability).

If you'd like to expose this in the national news media, please contact me. :)

We have a few supervisors and managers like this.... Don't worry, they've only gotten violent with/ and sexually harass the TSOs... There's just a high enough number of them going high enough up that they can't be fired... but those they harass are. Why should you care? I know you think that we're the degenerate untermensch of society, but with no way to remove the out of control management -that'll never improve (plus, we are held to the STSO+TSM interpretations of rules; rather than what's written...ergo... unpredictable unpredictability).

--Jon

I know you think that we're the degenerate untermensch of society, but with no way to remove the out of control management -that'll never improve (plus, we are held to the STSO+TSM interpretations of rules; rather than what's written...ergo... unpredictable unpredictability).

And you choose to continue to "work" for such an organization... why?

And you choose to continue to "work" for such an organization... why?
I've been trying hard not to... But I can't afford to have no income for months like the last job I quit on moral grounds. I'd love to go into many of the other reasons, but they might make me more identifiable.