Boggie Dog

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...#axzz2k4UPYyS2


For the record I think the shooter, Paul Ciancia, had other issues allowing him to do things that no normal right thinking person would do. I am sorry that an employee of TSA was killed but I would also feel that way about an employee of any other business.

While TSA is remembering Gerardo I. Hernandez today perhaps it would be an appropriate time for all TSA employees to reflect on why TSA has such a bad reputation and why the public thinks of TSA and its employees in such a bad way.

I suggest that TSA management is fully responsible for the reputation that TSA now enjoys.

I hope this sad event is a wake up call to TSA senior leaders that things at TSA are just not right.

TheRoadie

I shudder to think what their takeaway will be from the tragedy. I predict they will say something is wrong with us passengers - the nameless, faceless potential nutcase bad guys they have to beware of now and intimidate more fully to keep us in line.

That any minuscule percentage of the problem lies with them is not in their world view of paranoia and drama-fueled conflict.

Superguy

Can you imagine the fallout if Rolando Reyes had done this?

jkhuggins

There is an old saying among lawyers: bad cases make bad law.

By any account, this tragic death appears to be an isolated incident. I don't think this death should be the "last straw" that leads to either sort of action; it doesn't serve either argument well.

Dead men tell no tales. It is all too easy to interpret the death of another as a call to action for one's favorite cause, since the dead cannot speak for themselves.

If TSA is to be expanded, or contracted, or eliminated, let it be done without reference to this poor man's death and to the @#$!#$# who killed him.

Boggie Dog

I agree that this death was a tragic and hopefully a very isolated event.

I would still hope that TSA would try to understand that all across this country there is a lot of animosity towards the agency and its employees and take steps to understand why that is. The public didn't decide one day that bad mouthing TSA was the thing to do. Plenty of things have happened driven by TSA practices and policies to create the environment we have in our airports today and if TSA has its way in other places.

I would much prefer a good relationship with TSA but TSA doesn't seem to want the same things as I do.

FliesWay2Much

I think you mean Rolando Negrin. Regardless, point well-taken. His bullying fellow clerks were lucky Rolando wasn't packing heat or he might be doing a little more than community service.

FliesWay2Much

Without a doubt, I believe the TSA is trying to figure out how to exploit this event but doesn't know how.

ScatterX

They already have. See here.

Summary: expansion in the answer.

dimramon

Just saw the news and Denver did the same.

gsoltso

That is not from HQ, that is from the Union. I think a case can be made for armed LEOs at the checkpoints, in case something like this (or more commonly when some other situation requiring LEO intervention arises) happens in the future. The question will be which LEOs, and is there enough of a case for an armed segment of TSA. There have been rumblings about an armed segment to be assigned to the checkpoints since before I came along 9 years ago, and I am certain that the rumblings will continue. I am uncertain that there is enough of a public call (even though I was simply amazed at how many people thought TSOs were armed while reading about the shooting in LAX) to stand up more armed positions within TSA right now. I think that this will be something that will be bandied about on the HQ info train, but I am not certain there is enough support for it at this time. It will be interesting to continue reading the info coming out about this and who is making the call for armed TSOs. If they were to do this, it would have to be a completely separate segment from the TSOs, due to the complete difference in job descriptions and responsibilities.

WillCAD

I don't think a case can be made for armed LEOs at the c/p, any more than a case can be made for armed LEOs at the ticket counters, baggage claim belts, or the pickup/dropoff lanes. This one, single, isolated incident does not indicate the beginning of a trend, a paradigm shift, or the potential for "another 9/11"; it is simply an isolated incident of violence in a public place.

How many shootings have there been at c/p's in the entire 12-year history of the TSA? One, as far as I can remember. How many shootings were there at c/p's in, let's say, the last 30 years? I don't rightly recall ever hearing of one till now.

There HAVE been other shootings in airport terminals. I recall a few years ago some nutbag shot up the El Al counter at LAX. Would you move the cops to the c/p to guard the TSOs, and leave the ticket counters, bag claim, pickup/dropoff lanes, and other landside areas short of protection?

Okay, you might say, then why not look at TSA providing armed security at the c/p to guard against this single, isolated incident from ever happening again? Because it's a single, isolated incident. Now, it's certainly possible that such a thing might happen again, but there why should we treat the landside portions of an airport - including the c/p - any different than we treat shopping malls, office buildings, schools, community parks and athletic fields, or any other public place where people gather in large numbers?

TSA has been touting its supposedly "risk-based" approach to screening recently. Okay, let's base the idea of arming TSOs (or, more realistically, as you and I both know, hiring a whole new cadre of TSAPD) solely on the actual risk - which is about one in 7.2 billion, and therefore not worth spending a dime to prevent, outside of the normal, everyday, reasonable precautionary measure of having LEOs patrolling the terminals.

There have been as many TSOs killed by terrorists at the c/p as there have been passengers bitten by DHS canines. Are we going to destroy all of the DHS canines and fire all of their handlers? I think not.

bdschobel

I get so tired of watching the government "fighting the last war." Some nutcase shoots up a checkpoint, so we should consider armed guards at checkpoints. If another nutcase shoots up a gas station, should we station armed guards at gas stations, too? Does anybody care how much all this nonsensical "security" costs? Has anyone considered that, if armed guards are stationed at 1000 locations, then reasonably sensible shooters will go to the 1001st place, where there are no guards -- yet! It's just so stupid.

By the way, Ciancia could just as well have shot at TSA employees at the grocery store, or the bus stop, or just about any place where they can be identified. I wonder if the "official" response would have been any different.

And, of course, repeating what others have said, the TSA leadership should appreciate how hated the TSA is, especially by the people who have the most contact with TSA. The hatred of one deranged shooter doesn't hold a candle to the utter contempt of millions of frequent flyers. That's a much bigger problem.

Bruce

ScatterX

The answer you won't get from TSA or TSOs is: YES. This also explains the problem.

More real LEOs in the airport may (OR MAY NOT) provide better protection for everyone. Armed TSA protect TSOs, but put the rest of us at additional risk.

ScatterX

Well said! ^^^ BTW, I care a great deal.

TSO bodyguards. Duh.

They have no mirrors at HQ-TSA.

gsoltso

I was not basing the case being made for an LEO at the checkpoints based on this incident, I was merely making the observation that the Union is calling for the arming of the workforce, and that I do not believe that there is enough support for that call.

The case for having an LEO in the checkpoints comes from (at least on my part) the myriad other situations that involve LEOs, as well as the protection factor. Ciancia was a rogue nutbag, there are always going to be rogue nutbags that do things like this - there always have been, and there is not much we as a Nation can do to prevent these things from happening. From my POV, an LEO in the checkpoint is a valid idea worthy of consideration and evaluation, but not a requirement. Up until last year, we had an LEO in the checkpoints here for the most part, and the biggest difference has been the amount of time a passenger has to wait when they have items that need to be turned over to the LEOs. However, we are a CAT 2 and have about a million passengers a year - total.