Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate - Southwest pilot has confrontation with TSA at MHT

A slight brouhaha erupts at Boston-Manchester airport with a Southwest Airlines pilot and a TSA employee and supervisor.

http://www.newhampshire.com/article/20120811/NEWS03/708119939/0/NEWS0604

TSA is friggin out of control:td:

TSA is friggin out of control:td:

The article basically says nothing, aside from that the pilot felt the supervisor was condescending and the STSO touched him on the arm.

Exactly how does that translate to the conclusion that "TSA is friggin out of control"?


Also, this should be in the debate forum, not in practical issues.

Ahh, the egos of pilots and the TSA. The irresistible force meeting the unmoving object...

Mike

Anyone want to guess that the video tape of the incident gets "lost"?

Anyone want to guess that the video tape of the incident gets "lost"?

Depends whom it favors.

Mike

The article basically says nothing, aside from that the pilot felt the supervisor was condescending and the STSO touched him on the arm.

Exactly how does that translate to the conclusion that "TSA is friggin out of control"?



Well, among other things, the article claims the STSO refused to provide his name. Not a sign of a responsible/accountable agency.

And we have this gem from the article:

“A preliminary review of the situation indicates that the officer followed proper screening protocol,” said Ann Davis, TSA spokeswoman for the Northeast Region.


It would seem that Ann Davis is indicating that being patronizing, being insulting, refusing to provide a name, and battering a flight crew member are "proper screening protocol."

I hope the pilot keeps making a stink demanding charges against the STSO. Not because I think anything will come of it, but because it's good publicity against TSA.

Well, among other things, the article claims the STSO refused to provide his name. Not a sign of a responsible/accountable agency.

While I'd agree that refusing to provide a name is not the mark of an employee that cares about customer service, I've had the same issue before with airlines and credit card companies. I'd hardly use that single piece of evidence to defend the statement "XYZ agency is out of control."


It would seem that Ann Davis is indicating that being patronizing, being insulting, refusing to provide a name, and battering a flight crew member are "proper screening protocol."

I hope the pilot keeps making a stink demanding charges against the STSO. Not because I think anything will come of it, but because it's good publicity against TSA.

Come on now. Battery? Really? Both the pilot and the TSO involved said nothing violent happen. There's no need to go to extremes.

The pilot said the STSO was being condescending. Doesn't mean he actually was. Again, the article really tells us nothing.

As to the idea of making a stink in the name of bad publicity? Imagine if it were determined that the pilot simply over-reacted and showed up looking for an argument (See poster's comment above about huge egos). Then all that happens is the pilot gets some bad press and the TSA comes away looking like the victim. That's certainly not "good publicity against the TSA." That strikes me as having the opposite effect you're looking for.

Any agency that gives its people police uniforms and badges and makes them act like they're cops, even though they have no police powers, then decides that they're not required to prominently display a name tag or identification badge on their chest at all times, is out of control.

While I'd agree that refusing to provide a name is not the mark of an employee that cares about customer service, I've had the same issue before with airlines and credit card companies. I'd hardly use that single piece of evidence to defend the statement "XYZ agency is out of control."


The refusal to provide a means of filing a specific complaint is not an isolated "single" incident; it is quite common among TSA. Hence, "out of control." An in-control agency would penalize and otherwise deter this activity.



Come on now. Battery? Really? Both the pilot and the TSO involved said nothing violent happen. There's no need to go to extremes.


I agree. But I guarantee, and would be willing to be $, that if the situation were reversed and the pilot (or a passenger) had touched the TSO that TSA would have filed an "incident report" and also either (or both) threatened the individual with penalties for interference with screening or attempted to get battery charges against the individual. There have been several cases like this. So yes, no need to go to extremes, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and TSA brought this upon itself.

This looks like a typical "he said/he said" situation and lacking a good video and audio record it will be almost impossible to arrive at the truth about what transpired.

The best I can do is note that I have yet to encounter a Southwest employee who was rude, condescending or abusive while those behaviors are common with TSA. Thus, based on my own experience I'm inclined to believe the pilot's account.

Normally FT'ers can do nothing constructive, other than offering sympathy, when we read these accounts. However; this time there is something we can do. I intend to call Southwest and express my hope that the pilot would be supported, not disciplined, as a result of this encounter. I encourage others here to follow suit.


----- follow up -------

I just got off the phone with Southwest customer relations. I called and told the representative that while I did not know the pilot in question I supported him and I hoped that no negative repercussions regarding his employment would result from the episode.

This is a golden opportunity for FT'ers to get a message to a major carrier that we are fed up with TSA. If enough of us make similar calls, it will be passed up the chain within Southwest and at least one carrier will see that a little back pressure against TSA may have a marketing benefit within their customer base.

The refusal to provide a means of filing a specific complaint is not an isolated "single" incident; it is quite common among TSA. Hence, "out of control." An in-control agency would penalize and otherwise deter this activity.

I'd agree with that and with WillCAD's statement above. Things that are systemic at an agency level are what make the agency out of control. The single incident didn't seem *that* bad (two guys with big egos arguing) and the article really said nothing, however.



I agree. But I guarantee, and would be willing to be $, that if the situation were reversed and the pilot (or a passenger) had touched the TSO that TSA would have filed an "incident report" and also either (or both) threatened the individual with penalties for interference with screening or attempted to get battery charges against the individual. There have been several cases like this. So yes, no need to go to extremes, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and TSA brought this upon itself.

I think it's better to take the high road. If pax keep a level head and TSA is the only group going to extremes, it makes it obvious where the problem is.

I love the beaurocratic inconsistency of the TSA screening pilots for 4 oz. of hotel shampoo, then sends them on to the controls of a commercial airliner with thousands of gallons of jet fuel that could be flown into buildings.

I love the beaurocratic inconsistency of the TSA screening pilots for 4 oz. of hotel shampoo, then sends them on to the controls of a commercial airliner with thousands of gallons of jet fuel that could be flown into buildings.

Or take away a butter knife used for first class meals or nail clippers when the pilot has access to a crash axe in the cockpit.

Exactly how does that translate to the conclusion that "TSA is friggin out of control"?

HA! You're clearly new around here; enjoy your indoctrination.

HA! You're clearly new around here; enjoy your indoctrination.

Heh. :) Nah, I've been around a while... I just prefer a moderate approach.

I love the beaurocratic inconsistency of the TSA screening pilots for 4 oz. of hotel shampoo, then sends them on to the controls of a commercial airliner with thousands of gallons of jet fuel that could be flown into buildings.

It's okay. While in the cockpit, the pilot does not have access to that fuel to mix with shampoo and make a magical explosive.

Mike

Any agency that gives its people police uniforms and badges and makes them act like they're cops, even though they have no police powers, then decides that they're not required to prominently display a name tag or identification badge on their chest at all times, is out of control.

+1

And if I ever touched a TSO on the arm, I'd be sharing a bunk in Gitmo...

A friend of mine who was a flight attendant for a large regional carrier told me a number of years ago about something she personally witnessed when her captain and a TSO got into an argument and it got to the point where one took a swing at the other (I forget which now). So this isn't the first time such a thing has happened. This was at a small airport in the SW.

Depends whom it favors.

Mike

My thoughts exactly. Or more than likely the DHS/TSA will drag their feet until it's forgotten about and nothing will come out of it.

While I'd agree that refusing to provide a name is not the mark of an employee that cares about customer service, I've had the same issue before with airlines and credit card companies. I'd hardly use that single piece of evidence to defend the statement "XYZ agency is out of control."

There is significant difference between a government employee who refuses to provide their name and an employee for a private company.

Come on now. Battery? Really? Both the pilot and the TSO involved said nothing violent happen. There's no need to go to extremes.

Which of your relatives work for the TSA?

A battery is:

1. That defendant touched plaintiff with the intent to harm or offend the plaintiff;
2. That plaintiff did not consent to the touching; and
3. That plaintiff was harmed or offended by defendant’s conduct.

“A battery is any intentional, unlawful and harmful contact by one person
with the person of another. . . . A harmful contact, intentionally done is
the essence of a battery. A contact is ‘unlawful’ if it is unconsented to.”
(Ashcraft v. King (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 604, 611 [278 Cal.Rptr. 900],
internal citations omitted.)

“A battery is a violation of an individual’s interest in freedom from
intentional, unlawful, harmful or offensive unconsented contacts with his
or her person.” (Rains v. Superior Court (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 933, 938
[198 Cal.Rptr. 249].)

The pilot said the STSO was being condescending. Doesn't mean he actually was. Again, the article really tells us nothing.

So, yes, a battery. Really.

A friend of mine who was a flight attendant for a large regional carrier told me a number of years ago about something she personally witnessed when her captain and a TSO got into an argument and it got to the point where one took a swing at the other (I forget which now). So this isn't the first time such a thing has happened. This was at a small airport in the SW.

Happened more recently at JFK, although the pilot was off-duty. I hope it was caught on camera. Interesting that he says it happened because he was trying to look at her ID tags to get her name.

http://overheadbin.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/05/11036687-tsa-agent-arrested-after-allegedly-throwing-hot-coffee-at-pilot?lite

Police say no charges in TSA official-pilot dustup (http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120815/NEWS07/708159922)

The long and short of it:

"...police concluded that Harbaugh's touch did not amount to assault."

TSA's statement once again says they investigated themselves, and found themselves innocent: “The findings demonstrate that our employees acted professionally and followed proper screening protocols in their engagement with Captain Mcghie”.

There is significant difference between a government employee who refuses to provide their name and an employee for a private company.

That wasn't my point. My point was that we don't call credit card companies "out of control" when one employee refuses to give a name. Just because we don't like TSA, we're going to apply a different standard here? The article gave us no information, and the first responder immediately jumped to "They're out of control!!! ZOMG!!111"


Which of your relatives work for the TSA?


Don't be ridiculous. Please leave unproductive comments like this out of this forum. Comments like these are just plain pathetic.


A battery is:

1. That defendant touched plaintiff with the intent to harm or offend the plaintiff;
2. That plaintiff did not consent to the touching; and
3. That plaintiff was harmed or offended by defendant’s conduct.

“A battery is any intentional, unlawful and harmful contact by one person
with the person of another. . . . A harmful contact, intentionally done is
the essence of a battery. A contact is ‘unlawful’ if it is unconsented to.”
(Ashcraft v. King (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 604, 611 [278 Cal.Rptr. 900],
internal citations omitted.)

“A battery is a violation of an individual’s interest in freedom from
intentional, unlawful, harmful or offensive unconsented contacts with his
or her person.” (Rains v. Superior Court (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 933, 938
[198 Cal.Rptr. 249].)

So, yes, a battery. Really.

Except that... it wasn't:


"...police concluded that Harbaugh's touch did not amount to assault."


If you really see harm in the touching of arms, I suggest you stay indoors from now on so you don't become a battered man.

If you touched someone on the arm (perhaps to get their attention, for example) you would likely laugh at the implication that you committed battery.

Jumping to battery here is jumping to extremes.

"...police concluded that Harbaugh's touch did not amount to assault."


I hope this police department remembers that conclusion the next time TSA accuses a passenger at MHT of touching a TSO.

Jones said the security footage taken at the checkpoint area should clear up whether the confrontation amounted to an assault.


If the tables were turned there would be no security footage available.

That wasn't my point. My point was that we don't call credit card companies "out of control" when one employee refuses to give a name. Just because we don't like TSA, we're going to apply a different standard here? The article gave us no information, and the first responder immediately jumped to "They're out of control!!! ZOMG!!111"

Government employees are in a different category. You can choose not to deal with a private company. You're stuck with the government. The story told us the government employee refused to provide their name. What part of that do you not understand?

I have to interact with the TSA. I KNOW they are out of control. Why don't you? Perhaps you are not familiar with the 4th Amendment and the cases that have defined the permissible scope of administrative inspections?

Don't be ridiculous. Please leave unproductive comments like this out of this forum. Comments like these are just plain pathetic.

It is not ridiculous or unproductive at all. The only thing that might be pathetic is your unwillingness to explain your blind support for the TSA. I was venturing a guess as to what it might be.

Perhaps you are too defensive on this issue for a reason?

Except that... it wasn't:

If you really see harm in the touching of arms, I suggest you stay indoors from now on so you don't become a battered man.

If you touched someone on the arm (perhaps to get their attention, for example) you would likely laugh at the implication that you committed battery.

Jumping to battery here is jumping to extremes.

Funny that the pilot believed it was offensive.

In our system, the police are not the final arbiter of what is a crime and what is not. The courts and juries are.

Why is it that if you do not address the issue of why it is a one-way street? If there had been any touching of the TSA employee, you can bet there would have been charges.

It is not ridiculous or unproductive at all. The only thing that might be pathetic is your unwillingness to explain your blind support for the TSA. I was venturing a guess as to what it might be.

Perhaps you are too defensive on this issue for a reason?


Really? That's where you're taking this? Despite my frequent criticism of the TSA, because I happen to not believe that constant bashing of the TSA is productive, or that paranoid and unsubstantiated accusations of other members of this forum are productive, suddenly I have "blind support" for the TSA?

If you want to have a productive conversation, I'm up for it.

If you really see harm in the touching of arms, I suggest you stay indoors from now on so you don't become a battered man.

If you touched someone on the arm (perhaps to get their attention, for example) you would likely laugh at the implication that you committed battery.

Jumping to battery here is jumping to extremes.


Unintentional touching isn't battery, nor is touching that doesn't cause offense to a reasonable person.

This was battery. The fact that you have additional requirements for considering something battery isn't important. Battery is what the law defines it to be.

Unintentional touching isn't battery, nor is touching that doesn't cause offense to a reasonable person.

This was battery. The fact that you have additional requirements for considering something battery isn't important. Battery is what the law defines it to be.

Where did you get that I have additional requirements for battery? I don't. I highlighted what another poster wrote.

Most reasonable people would not allege battery just from someone touching them on the arm and being condescending. The article says nothing about how hard the touch was, how offensive it was, and so on. But given the other facts it did provide, we can safely conclude what it really was.

It was a pissing contest. Nothing more.

My sense is that you and many others on this forum believe that only those with the absolute most extreme anti-TSA views are welcome. That's pretty sad, considering the implication is that you'll drive away those who are generally opposed to TSA's practices and policies, but just happen to be smart enough to be objective and recognize that not every incident is worth crying foul over. And those are the people that you need if you ever want to see the anything change.

That wasn't my point. My point was that we don't call credit card companies "out of control" when one employee refuses to give a name. Just because we don't like TSA, we're going to apply a different standard here? The article gave us no information, and the first responder immediately jumped to "They're out of control!!! ZOMG!!111"

An agency of the US federal government which fields 60,000+ uniformed, badged employees who are not required to prominently display their nametags and supply their names to any citizens who request the name for purposes of complaint, that's out of control.

An agency which requires millions of people per day to obey a set of rules which are secret and not allowed to be disclosed to the people who must obey them - under penalty of an $11,000 fine or even potential arrest - that's out ot control.

An agency whose director was subpoenad to appear before a Congressional hearing but instead sends two flunkies, who then refuse to enter the hearing room until other witnesses who are critical of their agency have left, that's out of control.

An agency which routinely exceeds the legally-defined limits of the administrative search doctrine by using overly-invasive methodologies like sticking their fingers down peoples' pants, running their fingers through peoples' hair, pulling down women's blouses and pants, and using an x-ray device to view nude images of millions of people, all without warrant, probable cause, or articulable suspicion, is out of control.

An agency which fails to police its own ranks and fails to properly vet new employees to filter out convicted felons and sex offenders, that's out of control.

The article says nothing about how hard the touch was, how offensive it was, and so on. But given the other facts it did provide, we can safely conclude what it really was.

Yeah.

Battery.

Like everybody's been trying to point out to you.

An agency of the US federal government which fields 60,000+ uniformed, badged employees who are not required to prominently display their nametags and supply their names to any citizens who request the name for purposes of complaint, that's out of control.

[etc etc]


To be clear, I absolutely agree on all those points (including the ones I cut for space).

But as I understand it (and by all means, point me to data that says otherwise) agents *are* required to display nametags and give their names when challenged. Rogue agents/supervisors just sometimes don't.

The article, however, does not list any of those issues. It cites a condescending agent and a pilot with an over-inflated ego that got into a pissing contest.

Anyone reading more into my comment than is actually there surely is missing the point, and is missing an opportunity to see what the vast majority of people see.

Yeah.

Battery.

Like everybody's been trying to point out to you.

A) "Everyone" has not been saying that.

B) In most states -- and New Hampshire is one -- police don't make the arrest for battery. The victim does. When you have police saying "Sorry, this doesn't rise to the level of battery," that means something. Either it means the "victim" decided not to make the arrest, or the police heard something in the victim's statement that made it obvious it was not battery, and they made that point clear.

Just because you say "it's battery!!!" doesn't mean it is. Why is it so essential to find a criminal offense in this one instance when the TSA commits plenty of other indictable acts worthy of condemnation all the time? Why not focus on those instead of taking the extreme path and thereby alienating every moderate viewpoint there is? Really, you're being obtuse and missing the whole point.

If you go to extremes unnecessarily, you will lose the support of all but the extremists.

It was a pissing contest that the "victim" chose to concede. Nothing more. There's plenty more to criticize the TSA over. Focus on that.

[QUOTE=UshuaiaHammerfest;19162221In most states -- and New Hampshire is one -- police don't make the arrest for battery. The victim does.[/QUOTE]

Another UshuaiaHammerfest "fact".

All of the multiple battery arrests by police in multiple states, including NH, that are easily documented in a simple internet search, are all illusions.

All those mug shots on mugshot.com listed as arrested for battery are of imaginary persons.

If you touched someone on the arm (perhaps to get their attention, for example) you would likely laugh at the implication that you committed battery.
The quoted statute said that battery was touching with the intent to harm or offend. If somebody touches me in the arm with the intent of getting my attention, it isn't battery. If they "poke" me in the arm, that is battery, whether or not they do any harm, because it's being done to cause offense.

If they "poke" me in the arm, that is battery, whether or not they do any harm, because it's being done to cause offense.

One might argue that every action the TSA takes is designed to cause offense.

They certainly have a disconnect between their statements and their actions.

Another UshuaiaHammerfest "fact".

All of the multiple battery arrests by police in multiple states, including NH, that are easily documented in a simple internet search, are all illusions.

All those mug shots on mugshot.com listed as arrested for battery are of imaginary persons.

If you had actually bothered to read any of "the multiple battery arrests by police in multiple states, including NH, that are easily documented in a 'simple Internet search,'" and had bothered to read the arrest reports of any of them, you would've found many in which the citizen involved made the arrest -- not the officer. Yes, the officer takes them in his little car to the jail and takes their picture. That does not mean the officer "arrested" the person.

Better yet, had you bothered to do a "simple Internet search" on the topic, you would've turned up this (PDF):

http://le.alcoda.org/publications/files/CITIZENSARREST.pdf

Notably:


Although people today can quickly summon law enforcement officers from virtually anywhere by simply dialing 911 on their iPhones, citizens’ arrests are still necessary. This is because California and most other states have enacted statutes that prohibit officers from making arrests for misdemeanors and infractions that were not committed in the officers’ presence. As the result, the only people who can make many misdemeanor arrests are civilians, usually victims.

In all the cases you cite on mugshot.com (really now? that's your evidence? :rolleyes:) the citizen made the arrest if the crime was not committed in the officer's presence.

Do a little research before you attack someone, because you'll come off looking like an idiot or a jerk if you don't.

So, yes... another fact. You're welcome.


The quoted statute said that battery was touching with the intent to harm or offend. If somebody touches me in the arm with the intent of getting my attention, it isn't battery. If they "poke" me in the arm, that is battery, whether or not they do any harm, because it's being done to cause offense.

Exactly. Intent is what matters. The article never tells us what the point of the touching was... which was why I said it's silly to conclude whether this was battery without knowing the intent.

Side note: NH doesn't actually have a battery statute. They use "assault" or "assault and battery" even though battery is the proper term when contact is involved. (An "assault" is the threat. "Battery" is the contact.) In the case where minimal harm is done, the crime in NH is called "simple assault."

If you had actually bothered to read any of "the multiple battery arrests by police in multiple states, including NH, that are easily documented in a 'simple Internet search,'" and had bothered to read the arrest reports of any of them, you would've found many in which the citizen involved made the arrest -- not the officer. Yes, the officer takes them in his little car to the jail and takes their picture. That does not mean the officer "arrested" the person.

Better yet, had you bothered to do a "simple Internet search" on the topic, you would've turned up this (PDF):

http://le.alcoda.org/publications/files/CITIZENSARREST.pdf

Notably:



In all the cases you cite on mugshot.com (really now? that's your evidence? :rolleyes:) the citizen made the arrest if the crime was not committed in the officer's presence.

Do a little research before you attack someone, because you'll come off looking like an idiot or a jerk if you don't.

So, yes... another fact. You're welcome.

Untrue. (And by the way, don't smear mugshot.com --- or do you think those mugshots are random persons, not arrestees?).

While many misdemeanors in many states require the citizen to make the arrest if the crime did not occur in the officer's presence, even liberal California (the source of your given reference) requires officers to make the primary arrest for numerous misdemeanors not performed in their presence, including elder abuse by relative or guardian, DUI under multiple circumstances, or if the arrestee is a minor. More than zero of the mugshots are of such persons, so your all assertion is incorrect.

Also, not all battery is a crime ---- it can be a tort, for which one can sue the perpetrator.

It does bring up the most interesting proposition: the traveling public should be ready themselves to arrest TSA employees for assault, battery or theft. This requires a thorough knowledge of applicable law, and most certainly will require time and resources. It might also be a start towards proper behavior at the checkpoint.

Untrue. (And by the way, don't smear mugshot.com --- or do you think those mugshots are random persons, not arrestees?).

I didn't. I implied using mugshot.com as your argument as to whether police officers or citizens technically made an "arrest" was ridiculous. And it was, as was the rest of your post about "imaginary people" and so on.


More than zero of the mugshots are of such persons, so your all assertion is incorrect.

Yes, forgive my hyperbole. There are indeed exceptions to the "in the presence" rule. Forest. Trees. :rolleyes:

Given that was the only fault you found in my post after you accused me of not knowing what I was talking about, I'll assume that's as close to recanting as you get.


It does bring up the most interesting proposition: the traveling public should be ready themselves to arrest TSA employees for assault, battery or theft. This requires a thorough knowledge of applicable law, and most certainly will require time and resources. It might also be a start towards proper behavior at the checkpoint.

It's already been established that nobody has ever done so. By all means please go arrest a TSO after an aggressive grope and let us know how it goes.

(And actually -- and no sarcasm intended here -- I recall a poster getting a single leg feel-up and chop to the testicles after asking why a TSO needed to inspect his wallet. "That's procedure, too," was the response. Would've been interesting to see what happened if he had arrested the TSO in that case, as the TSO was clearly using his power and intending to cause pain.)

This thread reminds me of a visit to RDU where the STSO refused to give a TSO's name. So, I cleared the checkpoint, then left the secure area to re-check. This time the suspect TSO had rotated to TDC. Where I was able to clearly write down their name, and confirm how they pronounced it.

Brilliant idea to refuse the names of screeners wearing name tags. I even told the STSO, he's wearing a name tag, I'll just go back, walk up to him and get it.

I suspect they do this just to infuriate you further.

Given that was the only fault you found in my post --------

No, it wasn't. Are we required to respond to each of your errors - most of us don't have that kind of time on our hands.



It's already been established that nobody has ever done so. By all means please go arrest a TSO after an aggressive grope and let us know how it goes.

It's already been established that the pilot's complaint was not about an aggressive grope but about the supervisory TSA employee's unwanted touch during their conversation. The pilot and others believe this constituted battery/assault, while you and the TSA azz-kissing police did not.

What cops say is so often wrong that we will eliminate them from the discussion. You focus on intent, but tell me --- what benign intent is there in touching someone during an argument? It may not be to physically injure, but it certainly could be an attempt to show domination, in which case a reasonable person would be offended by such touch, therefore battery.

No, it wasn't. Are we required to respond to each of your errors - most of us don't have that kind of time on our hands.

So, let me get this straight. I said "In most misdemeanors, police don't technically make the arrest. Citizens/victims do." You countered with "oh, then who are all these people on mugshot.com, imaginary people?"

Then I posted the actual source that indicated that what I actually said was 100% true.

Then you posted that citizens should arrest TSAs for theft, assault, and so on, since they aren't committed in the presence of police... which would seem to corroborate the fact that upon seeing a source, you agreed what I said was true.

Now... you're still claiming that what I wrote was an error?

Do you even read your own posts?


It's already been established that the pilot's complaint was not about an aggressive grope but about the supervisory TSA employee's unwanted touch during their conversation. The pilot and others believe this constituted battery/assault, while you and the TSA azz-kissing police did not.


Sorry that my level of disapproval of the TSA and its policies isn't extremist enough to rise to the level of bat-s**t insane drivel you require before giving your stamp of approval.

Considering you're the same poster that previously claimed that just because someone was a former LEO, he must surely have beat prisoners on multiple occasions, it looks like I have my first opportunity to use the ignore button.

:D

> Any agency that gives its people police uniforms and badges

If a TSA screener is being an arse, I sometimes ask why they are required to dress
like bus drivers in <InsertAnotherCityHere>?

I so envy my passengers who are able to fly to and from without ever seeing a member of the TSA. Unfortunately for me, I spend far too much time in the public system commuting to and from wherever my trip sequences start/end. (If only my company had a bizjet for the bizjet crews.)

Really? That's where you're taking this? Despite my frequent criticism of the TSA, because I happen to not believe that constant bashing of the TSA is productive, or that paranoid and unsubstantiated accusations of other members of this forum are productive, suddenly I have "blind support" for the TSA?
If you want to have a productive conversation, I'm up for it.


Your posts here have evidenced nothing but plain, unbridled support for the TSA. You are, however, entitled to your opinion, regardless of whether you can support them with any credible facts or not.

Two points:

Let's leave insinuations and outright allegations of "Internet troll" at the door. They are unproductive and unwelcome here.

If you alert a moderator to a rude post or part of post that's rude, please don't add to the mess by replying to it in thread. It just fuels more rudeness and dulls your credibility in the process.

Thanks and have a great rest of your week. :)

--------
essxjay
TS/S moderator

Your posts here have evidenced nothing but plain, unbridled support for the TSA. You are, however, entitled to your opinion, regardless of whether you can support them with any credible facts or not.

Really, you need to read more:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-issues/1125933-how-effectively-complain-about-retaliation-sfo.html#post14649222
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/18812667-post24.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/15664506-post98.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/15655474-post67.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/15653593-post56.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/18959226-post1.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/19148168-post43.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/19162195-post34.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/16857117-post14.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/18807504-post18.html


I'll say this again. If having only moderate disdain for the TSA is enough for you to condemn someone as an "unbridled supporter of the TSA," you will drive away the support that is necessary to actually make things change.

There are so many radical, extreme posts here that it seems most everyone with a moderate, rational, objective approach is gone. When you take an extremist approach, all you're accomplishing is alienating people with sensibility. You take the people that might actually listen and drive them away. You turn a perfectly reasonable goal into a conspiracy theory that's no less pathetic than 911 Truthers, Birthers, and people that don't believe we landed on the moon.

If you want to accomplish a goal, you need the mainstream, not the fringe. Just because someone isn't as extreme as you doesn't mean you aren't after the same goal.

--edited--
If you want to accomplish a goal, you need the mainstream, not the fringe. Just because someone isn't as extreme as you doesn't mean you aren't after the same goal.

Amen bro, amen.

I must agree with your position. I dont fly as much as some here and I fly more than others, but I have been a part of the flying public for over 30-years both before and after the creation of the TSA and I often feel like that I cannot join in the debate here for some of the exact points you bring up.

I have more than a few gripes about the state of air travel in the USA and often look for avenues and ideas to improve my and my fellow flyers lot in life as a frequent traveler, and hopefully influence change.

You are right, some people just stop coming around. Keep fighting the fight. ^

My sense is that you and many others on this forum believe that only those with the absolute most extreme anti-TSA views are welcome. That's pretty sad, considering the implication is that you'll drive away those who are generally opposed to TSA's practices and policies, but just happen to be smart enough to be objective and recognize that not every incident is worth crying foul over. And those are the people that you need if you ever want to see the anything change.

Got it in one. ^

Amen bro, amen.

I must agree with your position. I dont fly as much as some here and I fly more than others, but I have been a part of the flying public for over 30-years both before and after the creation of the TSA and I often feel like that I cannot join in the debate here for some of the exact points you bring up.

I have more than a few gripes about the state of air travel in the USA and often look for avenues and ideas to improve my and my fellow flyers lot in life as a frequent traveler, and hopefully influence change.

You are right, some people just stop coming around. Keep fighting the fight. ^
^^You expressed my thoughts much better than I ever could. I use to be very active in this forum but have been pretty much driven away.

^^You expressed my thoughts much better than I ever could. I use to be very active in this forum but have been pretty much driven away.

I just recently have had the time and opportunity to visit this forum again. It got very difficult to wade through the extreme views and outright exaggeration. I see not much has changed, at least the name calling seems to have for the most part been taken care of. As my time allows, I may try to follow the discussions that interest me, but I have limited time and if it seems that it is being wasted here , well there are other places to spend my time. I do try to add a different perspective, However,, as it was the extreme views and the unwillingness to hear others views and perspectives that had me deciding there were better ways to spend my time. I will give it another go for awhile. I can tell you most often the truth of any controversial event or topic is usually in the middle of the opposing viewpoints.

FB

I can tell you most often the truth of any controversial event or topic is usually in the middle of the opposing viewpoints.
I have long believed precisely that.

I have long believed precisely that.

That's true. Deciding that the truth is somewhere in the middle is an excellent approach. Take the civil rights movement of the 1960s. One side had one viewpoint, another side had a different viewpoint. One way to determine who was correct was to come down somewhere in the middle of the two viewpoints.

Or take an auto wreck case, in which each driver accuses the other of running the red light. One approach is to come down in the middle of the two opposing viewpoints - to decide either that both drivers ran the light, or that neither driver ran the light.

Deciding that the truth lies in the middle of two opposing viewpoints is simple; other ways of getting to the truth are so much more complicated.

Well, let me give an example of what I perceive to be the problem.

Look at the thread entitled "TSA Enforcing 3-1-1 Liquids Rule Now?"

Post 1 is a legitimate question about security procedures.

Post 2 is an attempt to answer it by providing a data point.

Post 3 is sarcastic, mindless TSA-bashing.

Post 4 and 5 are on-topic.

Post 6 is more TSA-bashing, this time about issues that are completely irrelevant to the thread.

Post 7 is speculative and makes no attempt to answer the question.

Post 8 is a sarcastic comment on TSA management.

Post 9 is on topic and attempts to answer the question.

Post 10 is a sarcastic add-on to one of the previous speculative jokes.

So there you have it. Out of the first 10 posts in the thread, around half of them consist of irrelevant TSA bashing while the rest of the posters are attempting to have a sensible discussion. However, it is hard to read the thread and follow the discussion when the TSA-bashing posts keep intervening.

PS I intentionally referred to post numbers rather than names because I didn't want to single anyone out. Please don't be offended if I cited your post. I myself might be guilty of TSA-bashing on occasion as well. I'm just trying to demonstrate the issues that some of us have with the direction of this forum by using an actual example.

Well, let me give an example of what I perceive to be the problem.

Look at the thread entitled "TSA Enforcing 3-1-1 Liquids Rule Now?"

Post 1 is a legitimate question about security procedures.

Post 2 is an attempt to answer it by providing a data point.

Post 3 is sarcastic, mindless TSA-bashing.

Post 4 and 5 are on-topic.

Post 6 is more TSA-bashing, this time about issues that are completely irrelevant to the thread.

Post 7 is speculative and makes no attempt to answer the question.

Post 8 is a sarcastic comment on TSA management.

Post 9 is on topic and attempts to answer the question.

Post 10 is a sarcastic add-on to one of the previous speculative jokes.

So there you have it. Out of the first 10 posts in the thread, around half of them consist of irrelevant TSA bashing while the rest of the posters are attempting to have a sensible discussion. However, it is hard to read the thread and follow the discussion when the TSA-bashing posts keep intervening.

PS I intentionally referred to post numbers rather than names because I didn't want to single anyone out. Please don't be offended if I cited your post. I myself might be guilty of TSA-bashing on occasion as well. I'm just trying to demonstrate the issues that some of us have with the direction of this forum by using an actual example.

First, your referring to comments as "irrelevant," "mindless," and "TSA-bashing" is imprecise. It would be helpful if you explained the ways in which the posts to which you refer fit those descriptions.

Second, any thread related to the War on Liquids is bound to contain numerous comments critical of the TSA. The War on Liquids does nothing to make travel safer; it addresses no threat. It does nothing but inconvenience travelers and provide employment for otherwise unemployable people.

Third, the problem being discussed is a retaliation against the public for the exposure of the criminal behavior of the TSA in Boston. Any discussion of a problem caused by criminals reacting to exposure of their crimes is going to contain discussion of the criminal behavior.

That's true. Deciding that the truth is somewhere in the middle is an excellent approach. Take the civil rights movement of the 1960s. One side had one viewpoint, another side had a different viewpoint. One way to determine who was correct was to come down somewhere in the middle of the two viewpoints.

Or take an auto wreck case, in which each driver accuses the other of running the red light. One approach is to come down in the middle of the two opposing viewpoints - to decide either that both drivers ran the light, or that neither driver ran the light.
Sigh. Obviously, there are exception to every rule and there are indeed situations where the "truth" is at one extreme or another. That doesn't, however, negate the point that FB and I are making, which it that in most cases when people are taking extreme opposing positions the situation is that neither side is "right" and that the best answer is indeed somewhere in between both viewpoints.

Even in your red light example, it isn't as clear as you imply. For one thing, perhaps it was both drivers that ran a red light. And even if onlyone driver did, that doesn't mean the other driver was exercising the proper care. Things in dispute really rarely are as simple as you seem to think they are.

For example, if two people got into a fight, it's almost always that case that one of them made the first contact, but that person is certainly not always the one that took the first swing. So asking "who hit who first" isn't always the right question.

First, your referring to comments as "irrelevant," "mindless," and "TSA-bashing" is imprecise. It would be helpful if you explained the ways in which the posts to which you refer fit those descriptions.

I think it's fairly clear. For example, the thread I cited was about the liquid baggie. Therefore, the reference to Nexus cards in post 6 is irrelevant.


Second, any thread related to the War on Liquids is bound to contain numerous comments critical of the TSA. The War on Liquids does nothing to make travel safer; it addresses no threat. It does nothing but inconvenience travelers and provide employment for otherwise unemployable people.

That may be true, but is it necessary to put such discussion in the same thread? If someone starts a thread asking about whether the liquid bag needs to be taken out of the suitcase, and you want to make a general statement about the wisdom of the liquid restrictions, wouldn't it be better to start a new thread?


Third, the problem being discussed is a retaliation against the public for the exposure of the criminal behavior of the TSA in Boston. Any discussion of a problem caused by criminals reacting to exposure of their crimes is going to contain discussion of the criminal behavior.

By now we all know that certain people think the TSA are "criminals" and everything they do is "criminal behavior". There is really no need to keep repeating this in every thread on this forum.

Sigh. Obviously, there are exception to every rule and there are indeed situations where the "truth" is at one extreme or another. That doesn't, however, negate the point that FB and I are making, which it that in most cases when people are taking extreme opposing positions the situation is that neither side is "right" and that the best answer is indeed somewhere in between both viewpoints.

Even in your red light example, it isn't as clear as you imply. For one thing, perhaps it was both drivers that ran a red light. And even if onlyone driver did, that doesn't mean the other driver was exercising the proper care. Things in dispute really rarely are as simple as you seem to think they are.

For example, if two people got into a fight, it's almost always that case that one of them made the first contact, but that person is certainly not always the one that took the first swing. So asking "who hit who first" isn't always the right question.

Ummmm, you do know how traffic signals work, right? You do understand that when the light is red for one direction, it's green for the cross direction. I'm not sure how both drivers are supposed to be running the red light.

And it isn't true that in most cases the truth is somewhere between two "extreme" viewpoints. Look at it this way. Suppose you have viewpoints A and B. Midway between them is C. So you take position C. Now, the extremes are A and C. Obviously the truth can't be at either extreme, so the correct position must be D. Well, now the extremes are A and D, so the correct position is E. And so on.

One determines truth by analysis, not by balancing between advocates of various positions. Of course, analysis may be difficult and complicated, and it's certainly easier to decry "extremists" on both sides and present oneself as the moderate voice of reason.

I think it's fairly clear. For example, the thread I cited was about the liquid baggie. Therefore, the reference to Nexus cards in post 6 is irrelevant.

No, the thread was about the circumstances under which the TSA follows its standard operating procedures, and the reference to NEXUS cards was made in order to provide information about whether it is possible to expect the TSA to follow its standard operating procedures in any particular case.

Ummmm, you do know how traffic signals work, right? You do understand that when the light is red for one direction, it's green for the cross direction. I'm not sure how both drivers are supposed to be running the red light.

And it isn't true that in most cases the truth is somewhere between two "extreme" viewpoints. Look at it this way. Suppose you have viewpoints A and B. Midway between them is C. So you take position C. Now, the extremes are A and C. Obviously the truth can't be at either extreme, so the correct position must be D. Well, now the extremes are A and D, so the correct position is E. And so on.

One determines truth by analysis, not by balancing between advocates of various positions. Of course, analysis may be difficult and complicated, and it's certainly easier to decry "extremists" on both sides and present oneself as the moderate voice of reason.

Ummmm, you do know that not all traffic signals are at perfect 4-leg perpendicular intersections, right? You do understand that multi-leg intersections will always have more than one leg on the red phase at any given time, making it perfectly possible for two people on different legs to both run the run light at the same time? I'm not sure how you've never encountered an intersection with left turn arrows, or more than 4 legs, or 3 oddly-shaped legs that each have their own individual red/green phases. Besides - even a perfect perpendicular 4-leg intersection still has two legs red at the same time, exactly opposite each other, and it's still possible for people on both red legs to run the light and hit cross traffic or even each other.

Ummmm, you do know how traffic signals work, right? You do understand that when the light is red for one direction, it's green for the cross direction.
False.

There are many intersections (e.g., in south Florida) where there are three traffic patterns: only n/s traffic is moving, only e/w traffic is moving, and only two left turns are permitted. At those intersections, two of the three traffic patterns will both have red lights. (Plus, even with only two traffioc patterns, some lights are timed so both will be red for a short period.)

I'm not sure how both drivers are supposed to be running the red light.
A very simple example: take the intersection I described above. It's in the "two left turn" mode. But there are no drivers making lefts turns at the moment. So a driver going north and a driver going west simultaneously decide to run the red light after they see the last turning driver go by and forget about each other. Both have run a red light and the accident occurred only because both did.

And then, of course, you have cases where only one person did run the red light, but the other person was speeding and the accident wouldn't have occurred if the other driver were able to stop in time.

And it isn't true that in most cases the truth is somewhere between two "extreme" viewpoints. Look at it this way. Suppose you have viewpoints A and B. Midway between them is C. So you take position C. Now, the extremes are A and C.
No, the extremes are still A and B. The fact that you took position C didn't change the position of the people at either extreme.

One determines truth by analysis, not by balancing between advocates of various positions. Of course, analysis may be difficult and complicated, and it's certainly easier to decry "extremists" on both sides and present oneself as the moderate voice of reason.
First of all, you're assuming that there's some absolute "truth". In the sorts of social and political debates we're talking about, that's almost never the case. As to your second comment, it sounds like you're agreeing with me!

First of all, you're assuming that there's some absolute "truth". In the sorts of social and political debates we're talking about, that's almost never the case. As to your second comment, it sounds like you're agreeing with me!


Well, depends on how you look at it. Analysis can be hard work. Just balancing between viewpoints is easier. If you care about truth, you do analysis, even if it yields an "extreme" position.

If you don't care so much about truth, balancing works fine.

I do admit that my earlier analysis didn't mirror yours. Let me try it again.

A and B, with C intermediate. C is obviously the correct position. OK, let's suppose that all the people who formerly advocated position B abandon it in favor of C. C is now wrong, because it's an extreme position, so the correct position is now D (until position C is abandoned in favor of D).

Well, depends on how you look at it. Analysis can be hard work. Just balancing between viewpoints is easier. If you care about truth, you do analysis, even if it yields an "extreme" position.

If you don't care so much about truth, balancing works fine.

I do admit that my earlier analysis didn't mirror yours. Let me try it again.

A and B, with C intermediate. C is obviously the correct position. OK, let's suppose that all the people who formerly advocated position B abandon it in favor of C. C is now wrong, because it's an extreme position, so the correct position is now D (until position C is abandoned in favor of D).

The number of people who accept a position has nothing to do with the extremity of the position. If everybody abandons B in favor of C, that doesn't change B to non-extreme and C to extreme. A and B are still the extremes, and C is still the moderate - only the population numbers have changed, but the positions haven't.