the_happiness_store

And he advised Abbott to put her cell phone away. She was not doing anything illegal - with the phone at least.

suburb101

She is surrounded by 4 people (best I could tell from the video). Way to go. Team up on a obvious terrorist to make her frustrated and admit she has ill intent. Terrorist defined: a mother protecting her child.

the_happiness_store

In my infinite wisdom I am playing BDO, spotnik, and according to body language IMO the chief terrorist here is the lead LEO. He has a huge lead over STSO whose actions are also despicable.

greentips

Excellent. SgtScott31, any new thoughts? As I recall, you posited this:

(Emphasis mine.)

This little episode, along with others at BNA, including the infamous TSA "Playbook" incident of several years ago, along with SgtScott31's loud protest, Officer Nolen's account and the visual imagery provided, has led to a determination of a meetings committee that I am a member of, that we will no longer consider Nashville as a reasonable site for a meeting. We love meeting in Nashville, and love downtown Nashville, but these events and the released tape, have led us to conclude that San Antonio or Dallas is a better meeting place. I much prefer Nashville to anything Texas, but I think it was the right decision. Affection, thank you for the email addresses. We will soon send the CoC and politicos the news and the reasons for rejecting TN. I guess, I'll just have to get used to the Galleria.

Canarsie

Judge for yourselves.

TheGolfWidow

Ms. Abbott accurately predicted her daughter was going to have her "crotch grabbed." That's exactly what I see.

doober

Blue glove is definitely in her crotch.

OldGoat

Excellent question. SgtScott31, any new thoughts?

For similar reasons, I'm not attending this. Maybe next year it will be in a friendlier location.

Mientree

First, Thanks for posting the report Wally. Can I presume this is the full incident portion?



A mischaracterization at best based on what the video implies and what little SOP I've been able to conclude from encounters and videos. I have a hard time believeing that the daughter had 'zero' screening prior to the pat-down. (I could note that it appears some misinformation was given to the LEO in that he initially notes the passenger who refused screening was the mother.)

Either he left information out previously or perhaps I'm reading it wrong? Why would he include the mom in that comment? With the encounter occurring in the middle of the check point, I'm forced to conclude that some screening had occurred at that point (WTMD). (see comment further down)

Not unreasonable statements coming from a parent in my opinion. These requests could land anyone in jail outside this setting. As well, if a parent knowningly allows this to occur to their child, they could go to jail and risk losing their child(ren). Why should this one setting be different?

In my opinion through coersion. The over use of the intimidation methods that the LEO presented would apear to outweigh any "I'm trying to help" moments where he did appear to ask one of the TSA agents to back off.

A lawyer probably loves to see lines like this in a police report. How much easier can it be to make a 1st amendment case against the officer?

Duh! You issued her an illegal order - she either complied or you would have arrested her, right? Again, more back up for the case.

Not apparent when this occured, but I have to ask - if the mother had not been screened at all, WHY did she have her purse with her the whole time and ALLOWED to have contact with someone who had been screened? Both violations of the SOP are they not?

I can empathize. See comment above. With the little information I have, I have to lean towards a retalitory screening of the mother. Especially after you see the STSO talk to the FSD then turn, call the mother back, and appear to tell the mother that she has to leave the screening area. [Wally: I'm curious if the omitted word was omitted in the report or just the version posted? I presume just the posted version.]

The only way I can see this being claimed is that the STSO and FSD were involved. As it doesn't appear anyone was waiting at this area for a pat down and others were able to walk by, I would conclude from the video that this is another mischaracterization without further information.

Interesting to say she refused to calm down. It does appear that the mother would be a little irritated and probably had a raised vocal level, but still appeared to be mostly rational and calm in demeanor in the video.

Based on the video, the police report, and attempting to give the TSA credit for not violating the SOP per the local TSA folks, I would have to conclude that the additional screening request for the mother was retalitory in nature, that the STSO is the one that escalated the incident to spur the arrest, and the LEO was more than happy to assist the STSO for whatever his personal reasons were. The STSO appeared to be upset that she 'had to deal' with this women and her daughter. The LEO similarly appeared agitated. (I don't think I've seen someone sway back and forth that much that wasn't dancing.) If the mother was able to agitate him that much with petty, little, snarky type comments I could anticipate that may have been said, it would be my opinion (as little as that's worth), that his job assignment should be re-considered.

Need to stop here to stay on topic as much as I can, since I've gone on too long as it is...

Mientree

Let's see.

Let's presume she had "intent" to cause public annoyance, despite not noted in the report, under (a): (1) doesn't appear to apply even from the police report. (2) may have been possible but there's no "other emergency" defined in the report. And not sure how this would be a hazardous or physically offensive condition to allow (3) to apply.

So, it must be (b) that she violates. Making unreasonable noise that prevents others from carrying on lawful activities.

I'm not sure this is the correct intent of the law, but presuming it is, who was she preventing from carrying on lawful activities? The only people the report notes are the "TSA agents", herself, her daughter, and the officer making the report. Of these, only the STSO and the officer would be the ones to complain. I guess it comes down to what the definition of "unreasonable" is then. Again, I doubt this is the way the law was intended to be used, or perhaps we are getting into the arrest for "pre-crimes" to help assure that the crime doesn't happen.

Going the next step, per the police report, it appears the officer should be arrested and charged under TCA 39-17-309 (b) (2) - a class D felony. He states in the report that he "advised" the mother to put the cell phone away and not record the pat-down. In essence, he used his color of authority with the implication of arrest (i.e. he coerced her), to unlawfully intimidate the mother because she was attempting to exercise her first amendment right secured by the constitution and laws of the United States.

I could make similar arguments against the TSA and their agents... but, that's a whole other thread.

Wally Bird

Copspeak. Belligerent (or even belligerant) isn't accurate either, contentious maybe. And I am damn sure he did not "advise" her to put the phone away.SAT ? Really ?
From scribed.com so I assume it's unabridged.

T-the-B

May I suggest that you copy the Tennessean newspaper on your correspondence? It would help if the Nashville merchants, who depend very much on the tourist and convention trade, were to realize just how much TSA and the BNA airport police can cost them.

G_Wolf

You're absolutely right. I completely agree. It's easy for people to start seeing what they want to see, especially without any audio to help clear things up.

So when someone else infers things from watching the video, they are making baseless assumptions. But when you do it, it's okay because you say what "appears to be". Others' assumptions are clearly wrong, but to you, "obviously" your interpretation of the situation "clearly" is correct.

Am I misreading you here, or do you really believe that anyone else's interpretation needs to be moderated, while your viewing of the same exact video leads to obvious and clear conclusions?

mikeef

I agree that the violation is (b). The cop clearly violated her by making unreasonable noise (telling her to stop videotaping) that prevented her from carrying on a lawful activity (videotaping).

Mike

Mientree

That would only be a misdemeanor charge - read two paragraphs down for the felony charge.