TsaAbuseWatch

Right. Because accounts of TSA Blueshirts terrorizing people is such a rare event.

Frankly, I am happy that this Blueshirt criminal act is being publicized. The more people hear of these Blueshirt crimes, the sooner TSA can be neutered.

Caradoc

There's apparently quite a market for insulin in the bodybuilding world.

(Ghu knows the average TSA clerk isn't into that sort of thing - so it's probably for resale.)

sbagdon

That's to be the expected claim from TSA... it was not confiscated, it was surrendeded. The pax could have not entered the sterile area, and kept their property.

Yet taken without her knowledge? Something's up there.

OttawaMark

Bull. The TSOs are being paid to supposedly know the rules. Passengers are not. And the rules are very simple, at least for those with a 10th grade education. Putting the blame on the passenger here is beyond any sane reason and is in fact indicative of why TSOs and their thought processes are so despised. In case you missed it - the passenger did nothing wrong, the TSO(s) did. The blame is 100% on TSA.

TsaAbuseWatch

I find it extremely disturbing that a member of the human race actually believe this.

coyote

As has been demonstrated numerous times, it is impossible to know all the rules. Most of the rules are apparently SSI (or "outdated") - and it has been illustrated over and over that the blue monkeys don't know all the rules - so how is it possible for pax to know all the rules?

The TSA culture of intimidation and retaliation cows passengers into complying regardless of the "rules".

The passenger has absolutely no blame in this case.

OttawaMark

If I was a cynical person I'd say that I've seen no evidence that any member of the human race does actually believe this, but I'm not, so I won't, if you catch my meaning.

chollie

(bolding mine) NO! NO! NO! Since when is it the pax obligation to understand rules that are either SSI or not posted anywhere? TSA has been around almost a decade, but TSA still allows screeners and supervisors to lie every day and say the 'website is out-of-date'. FSDs and TSOs make up rules on the spot with absolutely no notice or warning to the public. There is absolutely no way this woman (or anyone) can be sure what the rules are at the checkpoint.

The website is worse than a joke. TSA has time to promote Windbag Bob and his blog, but not time to keep the website accurate and current? Must be because of the 10-year-long major shortage in website developers.

Escalate? To who? How long should she have allowed to escalate something that shouldn't have needed escalation? And, as is often the case, if a supervisor was actually available and willing to get off his/her butt and show up on the floor, there's every reason to believe the supervisor will back up his/her employee - happens all the time. Summon an LEO? We have an LEO on another thread who has made it clear - LEOs don't know the rules, the rules are SSI, so for something like this, the LEO has to do what the TSA tells him/her to do.

I don't know this woman or her state of mind when travelling. However, AFAIK, anyone in this country is still free to travel (more or less). There's no law requiring pax to be intelligent, informed (reading and following the news and IBBs about TSA matters), unstressed. There's no law that says someone of marginal intellect, someone who is illiterate, someone who's mental faculties are declining (age, injury, disease), someone who is simply too stressed to think straight, someone who has never flown before - there's no law saying these folks can't fly.

It is criminal to suggest that if a pax doesn't know the unknowable rules, doesn't have adequate time to hang around escalating the process (it took me almost 25 minutes to 'escalate' and get a comment form to compliment a TSO) - it is criminal to suggest that such a pax is in any way responsible for what happened at the checkpoint. It suggests that the pax somehow deserves the treatment he/she gets.


(example: I believe one of our resident TSOs (real or alleged) indicated that at one airport (not his/her own, might be SAT), the rules about netbooks are unusually strict - IIRC, they have to be taken out. That is the local FSDs option to make that extra rule, but I wonder if there are any signs posted warning pax - or do they just get barked at because they don't know that the rules are different?) (If it is SAT I'm thinking about, it might explain why they supposedly tried not barking (like the rest of the world) but it "didn't work". I would hope they have signage, but I doubt it).

This may or may not have happened exactly as posted. However, it is all too similar to what just happened to Tom Sawyer (ostomy bag) again at his home airport.

Retraining? I think an employee should be allowed (max) retraining in a particular area once. Second offense, the employee is no longer allowed to perform that function.

BTW, I don't wonder, but since you did...do you think Tom Sawyer keeps travelling and reporting on the mishandling of his ostomy bag for publicity?

tc464

I've been travelling for about 6 months with insulin, needles etc and have never had a problem. I asked one of the supervising mouth breathers the first time I went thru screening and he told me not to even bother reporting it (at IAD). As long as they could see it clearly in the xray there wouldnt be any problem.

Note union represented TSO's: Ask questions all you want. You touch my insulin and you'll eat that hand. And don't even think about the whole explosives argument....I'm a retired bomb disposal tech, that crap won't cut it with me.

iowakatie1981

How is a person supposed to "know the rules" when they change every single flipping time she flies? How is a person supposed to "know the rules" when printing something off the website garners a "The website is out of date" response? How is a person supposed to "know the rules" when screeners tell passengers "We do it differently here"?

Passenger responsibility for "knowing the rules" only applies if the TSA is willing to publish the rules and consistently apply them, every day, to every passenger, at every checkpoint, in every airport, come hell or high water.

The TSA has made it beyond clear that the passenger's responsibility is to show up at the checkpoint and do as you are told, no questions allowed.

Boggie Dog

As a former bomb disposal tech what is your take on TSA's liquid restrictions?

oldpenny16

I also travel with a non-insulin injectible Rx drug that is expensive and is not covered by my medical insurance.

It is also in very short supply and is difficult to get.

I watch it like a hawk when going through the TSA.

I am often asked 'what is it for?' to which I reply 'none of your business'.

So far so good!

But I will watch it even more closely.

jkhuggins

WRONG. It is not my responsibility to teach a TSO how to perform his/her job. It is beneath my dignity to act like my toddler and keep asking every adult in the room (mom, dad, grandpa, Uncle Phil, etc.) until I get the answer I want to receive.

The front-line TSO failed to execute their duties properly. The fault is theirs. Period. End of story.

WRONG. Note that she would not allow her name to be broadcast, precisely because she was afraid of personal retaliation from the TSA against her and her family. I'm not sure how one goes about "looking for publicity" when one refuses to gives one's name to the press ...

SFOSpiff

You cannot "gift" a Schedule II narcotic. At a bare minimum, there should be a TSA paper trail for this, though I doubt they have a procedure for it. (Actually, they probably do - stick it in your pocket and shut up. If I had to work for TSA, I'd probably want morphine.)

I would have demanded a LEO to document the transfer of a controlled substance.

Actually, I amend my answer. I would have waited for the screener to "confiscate" the morphine, then called the LEO. Maybe the screener could get busted for illegal possession of a controlled substance.

mikeef

"A formal complaint has been filed with the TSA."

I'm sure that complaint will end up in the same file as all the other complaints. The circular file, to be exact.

That does sound a bit odd. I'm surprised she didn't check to make sure that she had put everything back, but maybe her previous successful travel had lulled her into a belief that they wouldn't steal it.

She was absolutely looking for publicity and did exactly what everyone in this situation should do: get the media involved. I hope she filed a police report and called a lawyer, too.

Was she looking to cash in or get her 15 minutes of fame? Seems to me that she would have used her name if she were.

Mike