Practical Travel Safety Issues - Someone who's HAPPY to get a hand wanding

I laughed hard when I saw this:

http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/Permitted_Prohibited_Brochure.pdf

Look at how happy the woman getting the wand on page 2 is. :rolleyes:

Look at how happy the woman getting the wand on page 2 is. :rolleyes:She's just expressing what we all feel. It's such a thrilling patriotic experience.

;)

We know that isn't a picture of Lumpy. :D

Glad to be 'notorius', Superguy. I also bet that was her response to the announcement of her mother having really had children who lived...

That was either...

A) A TSAer dressed in civvies.
B) A compensated stand-in.
C) Noticing her palms up, she's essentially saying "I don't get this."

they're probably using the special vibrating wand... :p

Lol, eastwest! A rarity for me on these boards, except when reading those Sacrosanct Sufferin' Screener Scribbles!

That was either...

A) A TSAer dressed in civvies.
B) A compensated stand-in.
C) Noticing her palms up, she's essentially saying "I don't get this."
The palms up position is the proper position to have the pax stand in. We once had a pax stand in that position flipping off the whole world with both hands. She was subject to an interview by the LEO for her action! What I don't know about is why the screener is leaning her arm on a counter.

The palms up position is the proper position to have the pax stand in. We once had a pax stand in that position flipping off the whole world with both hands. She was subject to an interview by the LEO for her action!
You can burn an American flag as free expression but you are subjected to additional legal processing for disrespecting the TSA screening process? Give me a break comrade.

Maybe she was well I won't say here!

You can burn an American flag as free expression but you are subjected to additional legal processing for disrespecting the TSA screening process? Give me a break comrade.

Once when a TSA screener threatened to summon an LEO when I voiced dissent about procedure, I mentioned the First Amendment. The screener earnestly informed me that passengers do not have rights at a checkpoint. If passengers accept this mindset, we as a free country are lost. Reminds me of the apocryphal saying about the village in Viet Nam: "We had to destroy it to save it."

You can burn an American flag as free expression but you are subjected to additional legal processing for disrespecting the TSA screening process? Give me a break comrade.Nice try but, there are little kids on the checkpoint. It had nothing to do with TSA.

Nice try but, there are little kids on the checkpoint. It had nothing to do with TSA.

1. Where in the string was it said about kids standing around? Or is this something you just made up?

2. So, The First Amendment is omitted when kids are around? Flipping the bird is a threat to a TSAers ego, not to airline security.

I find the suggestion that the TSA regulations somehow superceding the constitution to be mildly amusing.

When exactly did the extension of the middle finger become illegal? Too bad it isn't--the traffic problems in Boston would be gone within days, while the city's coffers would be filling from the cash coming in to pay off the fines.

These threads are getting increasingly depressing each day. I'm not sure when "retaliatory" screenings, interviews, etc. became the norm.

Mike

Nice try but, there are little kids on the checkpoint. It had nothing to do with TSA.

What was the result of the interview with the LEO for use of the middle fingers? Not illegal in Colorado to flip off a screener, is it?

Once when a TSA screener threatened to summon an LEO when I voiced dissent about procedure, I mentioned the First Amendment. The screener earnestly informed me that passengers do not have rights at a checkpoint.

Obviously a screener who has never heard of Cohen v. California (decided by the SCOTUS in 1971).

It's a fun case -- Google knows it. I'd quote the three-word phrase Cohen was wearing on the back of his jacket when he walked into municipal court, but it would probably violate the TOS for this bulletin board, I'm afraid to say.

Nice try but, there are little kids on the checkpoint. It had nothing to do with TSA.
I keep looking at the Constitution and I just cannot find the right to never be offended that so many people seem to believe exists.

If an anti-war protestor in Washington made the same gesture at the White House, should he be subjected to persecution by law enforcement? After all, there are always children in the vicinity waiting in line for tours.

President Bush is reported to have made that same gesture at reporters more than once. Should the secret service have detained and interviewed him or is it OK for people inside the government to do that to outsiders, just not vice-versa?

Nothing to do with the TSA? It is all about government officials subjecting a citizen to harassment because they do not feel like they were properly respected. The passenger's actions were one of the purest forms of political expression - demonstrating to government officials that you find their actions to be contemptuous. While we might all wish the citizen could find a more pleasant way to express such sentiments, sometimes the reaction is just spontaneous and rather pointed. But there was absolutely nothing about that gesture that represented a threat to an airplane or to any other passenger. Petty officials on power trips disgust me.

Obviously a screener who has never heard of Cohen v. California (decided by the SCOTUS in 1971).

It's a fun case -- Google knows it. I'd quote the three-word phrase Cohen was wearing on the back of his jacket when he walked into municipal court, but it would probably violate the TOS for this bulletin board, I'm afraid to say.

(Duplicate)

Obviously a screener who has never heard of Cohen v. California (decided by the SCOTUS in 1971).

It's a fun case -- Google knows it. I'd quote the three-word phrase Cohen was wearing on the back of his jacket when he walked into municipal court, but it would probably violate the TOS for this bulletin board, I'm afraid to say.

Thank you for the case citation. Right on point, except the slogan should be "(Frack) the TSA". :D

Colorado state law:18-9-106. Disorderly conduct.
Statute text
(1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:

(a) Makes a coarse and obviously offensive utterance, gesture, or display in a public place and the utterance, gesture, or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace; or

There is another one that is a Federal Charge. It escapes me at this time.

Colorado state law:18-9-106. Disorderly conduct.
Statute text
(1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:

(a) Makes a coarse and obviously offensive utterance, gesture, or display in a public place and the utterance, gesture, or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace; or

There is another one that is a Federal Charge. It escapes me at this time.

(emphasis added above)

So, now our enforcement officers are trying to justify harassing citizens for expressing political dissent? We are not talking about an attempt to incite a riot here. You believe he is guilty of Disorderly Conduct because he exposed one finger to a government official? Seriously? I now find myself with less confidence than ever in the TSA and its petty tyrants. I suppose I need to back out of this discussion to prevent it from potentially becoming personal but let me end by saying that I vehemently disagree. There was no threat, only an ego driven desire to intimidate a citizen who was within his rights in expressing his criticism of one of the worst agencies of the federal government.

Deleted

For a long time now, I believe "sheeple" just do whatever they are told to do, no offense.
You see the security line, in the US anyway, people are automatically removing shoes and doing anything and everything that they are told. This is happening not just in airports, but in everyday life. Why put my photo on my visa card? I am covered if my visa card is stolen, with maybe a $50 deductible. If I give my cc to my son to buy something, he most likely will be refused because it has my picture on it, even though visa and mastercard are transferrable, AMEX is not.
Perhaps this has become habit, I know I do it just because it's what I'm used to doing after so many flights. It is such a pleasure to see security in other countries respecting people's rights to privacy and such, while maintaining flight safety.
The most strictest screening I have ever seen was in CDG. You have to go through many screenings, questions, and such. Just different than in the US.
I personally prefer to maintain my rights, at any cost. Let our immense para-military machine sort it out.

Deleted

Colorado state law:18-9-106. Disorderly conduct.
Statute text
(1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:

(a) Makes a coarse and obviously offensive utterance, gesture, or display in a public place and the utterance, gesture, or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace; or

There is another one that is a Federal Charge. It escapes me at this time.

And someone fresh out of law school could challenge that based on the words 'public place,' as the GENERAL PUBLIC is not allowed in the 'sterile' area (without a boarding pass).

And as stated before, the only 'breach of peace' would be the how big of a stink the TSAer would raise, because of the blow to the ego that it would be.

However, there are other instances when rude behavior simply cannot be tolerated. A lady screamed ugly racial epithets at my screeners. I'm talking about very offensive remarks specifically directed at my screeners as obvious racial slurs. The supervisor simply kicked her off the checkpoint and told her she would need an airline supervisor before being allowed back through the checkpoint. (Southwest Airlines has a very specific policy regarding this behavior; she was denied boarding that day. This wasn't an LEO situation as it was an airline policy situation. The supervisor, in this case, was astute enough to put the ball in the airlines' court, and the airlines responded appropriately.)

Then there's the man who slapped one of my screeners. The LEOs arrested him. Once you cross the line and decide to physically strike my screeners, the ball game is over; I call in the guys with the guns; I press charges; that's the end of your little travel experience for the day. I have zero-tolerance, zero-patience with people who believe they can physically assault my screeners.

Speaking purely in law, the racial slurs should be protected under The First Amendment. If the person did not try to cause civil unrest, it should be protected.

That said, as a human being, the guy is a moron and I'm glad they denied that person boarding and hope he learned his lesson.

And there's obviously no call for unprovoked physical assaults.

However, if a screener inappropriately touched me, I would, grab the hand and probably cause injury to his hand and/or wrist in a self-defense way.

1. Where in the string was it said about kids standing around? Or is this something you just made up?

2. So, The First Amendment is omitted when kids are around? Flipping the bird is a threat to a TSAers ego, not to airline security. I was relating a story about an incident that happened in Denver. There was nothing prior to that about kids. When someone asked why it was that this lady was flipping off the checkpoint got talked to by a LEO, because there is nothing wrong with dissenting opinion, I pointed out that there are children on the checkpoint at almost all times. Once again, I say that it had nothing to do with TSA or our ego. And someone fresh out of law school could challenge that based on the words 'public place,' as the GENERAL PUBLIC is not allowed in the 'sterile' area (without a boarding pass).

And as stated before, the only 'breach of peace' would be the how big of a stink the TSAer would raise, because of the blow to the ego that it would be. There is more than one legal definition of a public place. One would be that it is a premises that is paid for with tax dollars. DIA would qualify. Regular passengers have a reasonable expectation to civil behavior by all persons that are in that public place. Also you can get into the sterile area without a bp, even if you are not flying. I don't believe your defense would stand. From the way that you are talking you seem to think that all TSA people are ego maniacs. This is not the case. Also I seem to recall that there was a thread about civil penalties from the TSA for attitude. That thread was beat to death and I wont go there. Suffice it to say that unless you draw attention to yourself in an objectionable manner, your trip through the CP will be as pleasant as you interpret it to be.

Speaking purely in law, the racial slurs should be protected under The First Amendment. If the person did not try to cause civil unrest, it should be protected. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So there can be no law that prohibits your freedom of speech! However it doesn't say that you have the right to go around telling everyone what you think of them. The term slander comes to mind along with harassment and a host of other things.


However, if a screener inappropriately touched me, I would, grab the hand and probably cause injury to his hand and/or wrist in a self-defense way.Operative word here is inappropriately. In whose eyes is this viewed would be the question. I'll send you mail general delivery to the jail that you are in. :)

Deleted

See where this kind of repartee invariably leads? Confrontation. "We vs. they" mentality with both sides bent on justification, self-aggrandizement and arrogance. Hopefully we all are citizens bent on safe travel and scum- curbing, and yet...

See where the terrorist filth has led us?

Please try to remember, however, that for now, even in this egalitarian society, TSA is FAR more equal than you or I. And so, the games will continue. And if you are bereft of the lil' badges and the spiffy Dress Whites, I can tell you who will win every single time. Ah, Rosa! How did YOU get so lucky?

Enjoy those sticky floors, all...

The matter of "expressing" oneself to screeners is a tricky one. I have screeners who feel that we ought to jail anyone who gets angry at them. I see it as a matter of sound judgment and discretion. For example, a father was escorting his son through the checkpoint, and the son alarmed the WTMD even after being given a second pass. The father essentially harrassed my screener as he hand-wanded the lad. Could I have stepped in to confront the father to tell him to tone down his comments? Could I have involvled the LEOs at this point? Certainly. I had very solid grounds based on the CFRs. But what would I have gained? Embarrass a father in front of his son? Where's the gain in that? While the father definitely stepped over the line, it was better to let him vent his frustrations than to literally make a federal case out of it. The screener in this particular case believed as I did and had no problems with the way that situation was handled. Besides, my screener did a pretty good job of ignoring the father's comments and focusing on the child. As he did so, the father gradually toned down his comments, which is what I would have wanted him to do anyway.

However, there are other instances when rude behavior simply cannot be tolerated. A lady screamed ugly racial epithets at my screeners. I'm talking about very offensive remarks specifically directed at my screeners as obvious racial slurs. The supervisor simply kicked her off the checkpoint and told her she would need an airline supervisor before being allowed back through the checkpoint. (Southwest Airlines has a very specific policy regarding this behavior; she was denied boarding that day. This wasn't an LEO situation as it was an airline policy situation. The supervisor, in this case, was astute enough to put the ball in the airlines' court, and the airlines responded appropriately.)

Then there's the man who slapped one of my screeners. The LEOs arrested him. Once you cross the line and decide to physically strike my screeners, the ball game is over; I call in the guys with the guns; I press charges; that's the end of your little travel experience for the day. I have zero-tolerance, zero-patience with people who believe they can physically assault my screeners.

There's quite a bit of latitude in handling rude or angry passengers. I believe a lot of it can be handled quietly, professionally and effectively with just a simple talk. Most people get frustrated because they believe they have no other option. A calm discussion usually resolves many of these situations. However, there are those who are determined to disrupt the process and have no intentions of resolving any issues. For that, we have the LEOs and airline GSCs. And I have no problem referring the matter over to them.
I agree with you in every instance Bart. While the government and especially enforcement officers should not be permitted to penalize speech with which they disagree, a business can and should enforce certain rules of decorum and I applaud SouthWest's efforts to maintain civility. An assault is a crime and is completely different than expression; anyone slapping a screener should be arrested.

I have screeners who feel that we ought to jail anyone who gets angry at them.
This is the only statement that bothers me. You have clearly demonstrated good judgement in your statements but I wonder if you see the attitude of those screeners as an issue. Are they generally new personnel whom you believe can be trained to apply rationale discretion and it is just an evolutionary issue? Or is there a core of employees with questionable judgement who the TSA has accepted will require close ongoing supervision? Do you believe that is an effective way to run the organization? Or is the recruiting pipeline so thin right now that this is a compromise that is required in the short term? And if that is the case, what should be done to allieve the situation longer term? Is the compensation model for entry level personnel not sufficient to attract the type of individuals able to make appropriate judgement calls? Or would it be impossible to retain people with such a high skillset and therefore is the approach just to provide ample supervision. If so, is supervision sufficient?

Your statement just has me asking several questions. And, in light of your apparent strong grasp on the issue itself, I would be interested in your insights into the impetus for the occasional issues that definitely do seem to continue within the organization.

Deleted

...and yet, I seem to recall a screener who oft posts "...there's more than one way to skin a cat..." when it comes to giving ANY pax a heave-ho, for ANY REASON the screener might choose.

Now, which poster could that be... ?

I was relating a story about an incident that happened in Denver. There was nothing prior to that about kids. When someone asked why it was that this lady was flipping off the checkpoint got talked to by a LEO, because there is nothing wrong with dissenting opinion, I pointed out that there are children on the checkpoint at almost all times. Once again, I say that it had nothing to do with TSA or our ego. There is more than one legal definition of a public place. One would be that it is a premises that is paid for with tax dollars. DIA would qualify. Regular passengers have a reasonable expectation to civil behavior by all persons that are in that public place. Also you can get into the sterile area without a bp, even if you are not flying. I don't believe your defense would stand. From the way that you are talking you seem to think that all TSA people are ego maniacs. This is not the case. Also I seem to recall that there was a thread about civil penalties from the TSA for attitude. That thread was beat to death and I wont go there. Suffice it to say that unless you draw attention to yourself in an objectionable manner, your trip through the CP will be as pleasant as you interpret it to be.

My point is that the word "public" is a gray area. Yes, there are people without BPs allowed in, but if you do not have some kind of credentials or reason to be in there, the definition of 'public area' can be challenged.

I believe this can be successfully challenged. That's my opinion. Remember, we live in a world where spilling coffee onto yourself gets you McMillions.

I don't completely buy the "pleasant as you interpret it to be." Maybe the key word there is "interpret," but there are some TSAers out there who have a knack at being jackasses to you (yes, the minority) without provocation. I think you even mentioned your wife having a less-than-positive experience at SAT with them.

Perhaps it's some kind of vibrating/massaging wand being tested by the TSA to provide better customer service? "Get a free massage while getting inspected"

I have a friend who is [gay/lesbian]. [He/She] tells me that [He/She] really enjoys it when getting the extra personal touch for the same-sex inspector.

Note: using [gay/lesbian] and [He/She] so [His/Her] identity is kept private.

Also have friend(regular, straight guy) who tells me he always feels very uncomfortable being touched/inspected by the male TSA officers.... can he request a female officer instead? (he really hates being touched by any man)

Alas, his homophobia cannot be negated by the help of a female screener...

Alas, his homophobia cannot be negated by the help of a female screener...
Why is unwillingness to be touched by a total stranger equated with homophobia?

I'm SO reminded of the story of the blind men examining an elephant via touching various portions, each with a wildly divergent idea as to what the creature must be. Does it embarrass more to be frisked in public by a same-gender? If you are gay? If you are a child? Ad nauseum...

If I might suggest: fact is most of you are apparently willing to still BE frisked in public without due process, like criminals, and by strangers who want you to think it's somehow 'dignified' or 'respectful' and all about 'customer service', when the entire process is shameless coercion. Have you forgotten the name of your country, citizen? Think it's Amerikka?

And like the blind guys and the elephant, you seem to keep feeling around in the dark, examining the little things, but no matter how hard you try to ignore it, the damned elephant is still the biggest thing in the room. Seems to me the main difference between some of the posters and those blind guys is that the blind guys from the STORY weren't barefooted.