ScatterX

This is newsworthy and many appreciate you posting it. The near certainty that the legislation will never go anywhere is a completely different topic. IMO, any attempt to discuss, debate, or communicate why nothing ever changes in this horrid agency is a good thing.

Boggie Dog

Tone death or just don't care, is there really any difference to a passenger?

jkhuggins

Depends on what you're discussing. If you're discussing how to get through a TSA checkpoint, then, no, it doesn't matter. If you're discussing how to get TSA (as an organization) to change, then, yes, it does matter.

sweeper20

I agree that this is newsworthy as well and appreciate the post. Don't let others dictate what you post

Boggie Dog

The difference escapes me.

In both situations TSA is demonstrating a disregard of the publics will. The closest example that comes to mind was the public objection to the viewing of revealing Whole Body Imager pictures. TSA refused to listen and the end result was congressional action mandating ATR upgrades or the removal of the systems.

Would have been interesting had ATR failed to work with MMW also.

jkhuggins

But the remedies are completely different.

If TSA is "merely" tone deaf, then the remedy is to teach TSA how to actually listen to the public which it serves. If TSA does want to "do the right thing" but is unaware of how to do so, then interacting with TSA might lead to reform.

If TSA doesn't care about public input, then interacting with TSA serves no useful purpose; reforming TSA will have to come from the outside. (A number of folks here actively promote this point of view.)

FliesWay2Much

All criticism has been silenced by the extortion known as PreCheck.

Boggie Dog

Thanks, an explanation that even I understand.

FliesWay2Much

Remember when Skeletor and Kippie used visit scornful Members of Congress to reeducate them?

saizai

Why not just make it general, like so?


No US government employee shall have a job title including the term "officer"; nor, while on duty, shall they be referred to as an "officer", wear a uniform resembling that of any US government law enforcement officer, display a metal badge or a badge resembling that of a US government law enforcement officer, unless the majority of that employee's duties are as a law enforcement officer and that employee is a properly sworn and trained law enforcement officer with police authority.

Any US government employee who wears a uniform or displays a badge in violation of this section is guilty of misdemeanor impersonation of a law enforcement officer, punishable by up to 6 months in jail and/or up to 10% of their annual salary. If, upon complaint by a member of the public, the Attorney General fails to prosecute the employee under this section, the agency shall be liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act to the complainant for 10% of the employee's annual salary, plus attorney's fees and costs.

Any US government agency or component thereof that maintains a policy in violation of this section shall be liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for statutory damages of 0.01% of its annual budget for that year, plus attorney's fees and costs.

jkhuggins

Because you've just eliminated the vast majority of those serving in the US military, who hold ranks characterized as "commissioned officers" or "non-commissioned officers". (They're employed by the US government, right?) At that point, all you've got left are privates, airmen, and seamen.

I'm not trying to be snide. I'm just pointing out that getting the definitions right is tricky. Far easier to just get the TSA to quit using the word "officer" and quit dressing like LEOs. (Not that it would be easy to do that, either.)

saizai

My apologies. Change "law enforcement officer" to add "or military servicemember" for the "officer" title bit only.

Military police are a thing, and ordinary servicemembers should not impersonate them either. Ordinary servicemembers, TTBOMK, are not uniformed like police (including MPs) and do not have metal badges.

ScatterX

Officer apples and officer oranges. There are different contexts and appropriate uses for the term officer. It's illogical to focus on the term itself, when the real issue is about impersonating LEOs.

Officers (meaning rank) in the US armed forces do not impersonate law enforcement officers (meaning LEOs) in airports or anywhere else.

TSA clerks do not use the term officer, LEO-style uniforms, and the LEO-style badges to denote rank or any other appropriate reason. They are doing it to impersonate LEOs.

If clerks dressed in professional business attire (no police uniform and badge) and cut the cop-like behaviors and attitude, I would not vehemently object to them using the term officer. I would still think it was inaccurate, but I wouldn't have such serious heartburn with it. The problem is them deliberately pretending to be LEOs. Calling themselves officer is only one piece of the puzzle.

Boggie Dog

I think what is most offensive are those TSA screeners who refer themselves as "federal officers", a clear attempt to imply status they have neither earned or deserve. The word officer should be eliminated for TSA screeners as well as any form of a badge.

ScatterX

Agree completely.

My comment was based on my perception that some people may be thinking that use of the term officer was wrong in all non-LEO situations (e.g., a non-LEO Military Officer [i.e., a normal non SF/MP Major]) should not be called an officer.

What is obscene in this particular situation is the deliberate attempt to make people think the TSA clerks have LEO authority. Then TSA does nothing to prevent or discipline clerks that act like LEOs. They are screening clerks (or, for the professional ones, screening professionals). Clerks commonly say they are federal officers and often imply they have the power to detain and arrest passengers. They don't. IMO, Congress should stop this nonsense. I won't hold my breath waiting.