St. Jude patient in bloody takedown at checkpoint
Jul 2, 2016, 8:37 am
#17
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/l...ground/374044/ has more details
However, it seems to be confused between TSA and police. I am not aware of TSA even having handcuffs, so e.g. I think the sentence "two agents thrust their knees into her daughter's back and clapped handcuffs around her wrists" probably actually refers to police, not TSA.
However, it seems to be confused between TSA and police. I am not aware of TSA even having handcuffs, so e.g. I think the sentence "two agents thrust their knees into her daughter's back and clapped handcuffs around her wrists" probably actually refers to police, not TSA.
Jul 2, 2016, 9:54 am
#18
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
Any confusion between police and TSA is an intentional effort created by TSA. Putting non-law enforcement workers in cop like uniforms was done to protray something that just isn't true. Even some TSA screeners think they are "sworn officers" which isn't the case. TSA can take all responsibility for any confusion or question.
How this young lady was treated at the Memphis TSA checkpoint is beyond the pale. Doesn't matter if it was screeners, cops, or both. What was done was wrong. TSA's solution to call ahead is also wrong headed thinking. No one should need to make an appointment to be treated humanely, with respect, and dignity at any TSA checkpoint but that is what Neffenger apparently expects since that is current TSA policy.
Police or TSA doesn't matter, both are equally at fault and should be held accountable, personally and the agencies involved.
How this young lady was treated at the Memphis TSA checkpoint is beyond the pale. Doesn't matter if it was screeners, cops, or both. What was done was wrong. TSA's solution to call ahead is also wrong headed thinking. No one should need to make an appointment to be treated humanely, with respect, and dignity at any TSA checkpoint but that is what Neffenger apparently expects since that is current TSA policy.
Police or TSA doesn't matter, both are equally at fault and should be held accountable, personally and the agencies involved.
Jul 2, 2016, 10:50 am
#19
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
Even some TSA screeners think they are "sworn officers" which isn't the case.
How this young lady was treated at the Memphis TSA checkpoint is beyond the pale. Doesn't matter if it was screeners, cops, or both. What was done was wrong.
Legally, though, it's very different. Cops are way more protected. TSA are not allowed to touch you without your permission, detain you, etc — and sure as hell not to body slam someone. (Unlike cops. Which is a whole 'nother issue that I won't go into here, but suffice to say that I do not approve of police use of force patterns.)
If TSA put her on the ground, they are screwed. If cops did it, frankly they are probably not going to get more than a slap on the wrist, if that.
TSA's solution to call ahead is also wrong headed thinking. No one should need to make an appointment to be treated humanely, with respect, and dignity at any TSA checkpoint but that is what Neffenger apparently expects since that is current TSA policy.
I should not have to tell them in advance that I'm coming. Morally and legally, I should just automatically be treated appropriately, without interrogation and without having to tell them anything about my disabilities beyond the bare minimum necessary to understand what I need. (E.g. to understand that I need my pen & paper to hand at all times, that I need to keep my sunglasses on, that I need my walking stick & guide cane to hand at all times, etc.)
Anything more than that is simply none of their business, and I object to having to out myself any more than that bare minimum — let alone subjecting myself to interrogation about my disabilities, like has happened many times by TSA with zero medical qualifications.
Police or TSA doesn't matter, both are equally at fault and should be held accountable, personally and the agencies involved.
But if they just called the cops, to control a situation that they didn't know how to deal with, and didn't touch her, then the blame is mainly on the cops, at least for the injuries. (There's still a disability claim against TSA for denial of accommodations, but that's a whole different ballpark than beating someone bloody.)
If TSA told the cops she was dangerous, asked the cops to arrest her, etc — let alone if they physically restrained her or the like — then that's way more shared culpability.
Last edited by essxjay; Jul 6, 2016 at 9:26 pm Reason: Derogatory reference
Jul 2, 2016, 11:59 am
#20
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
The fact that the charges were dropped the very next day and bail refunded, says somebody at the prosecutors office or maybe even TSA looked at the tape and did NOT see what TSA/cops claimed happened.
An alternative could be that TSA realized it had a horrible PR problem on its hands and decided to try to get id of it by dropping the charges.
TSA is culpable because they did not know how to handle the situation and let it get too far out of hand.
I wonder if TSA will now try to fine either the girl or her mother on some made-up charge.
Jul 2, 2016, 12:18 pm
#21
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
Any confusion between police and TSA is an intentional effort created by TSA. Putting non-law enforcement workers in cop like uniforms was done to protray something that just isn't true. Even some TSA screeners think they are "sworn officers" which isn't the case. TSA can take all responsibility for any confusion or question.
How this young lady was treated at the Memphis TSA checkpoint is beyond the pale. Doesn't matter if it was screeners, cops, or both. What was done was wrong. TSA's solution to call ahead is also wrong headed thinking. No one should need to make an appointment to be treated humanely, with respect, and dignity at any TSA checkpoint but that is what Neffenger apparently expects since that is current TSA policy.
Police or TSA doesn't matter, both are equally at fault and should be held accountable, personally and the agencies involved.
How this young lady was treated at the Memphis TSA checkpoint is beyond the pale. Doesn't matter if it was screeners, cops, or both. What was done was wrong. TSA's solution to call ahead is also wrong headed thinking. No one should need to make an appointment to be treated humanely, with respect, and dignity at any TSA checkpoint but that is what Neffenger apparently expects since that is current TSA policy.
Police or TSA doesn't matter, both are equally at fault and should be held accountable, personally and the agencies involved.
The burden of providing adequate help for these kinds of passengers falls squarely upon the TSA at the point of service. The burden cannot be shifted to passengers who cannot fairly be required to know about advance requests to TSA to be treated humanely and intelligently.
The only reason TSA attempts to make the passengers responsible for advance notification is that they are unwilling to acquire and train a workforce capable of performing the normal human judgements and humane behavior that are routinely required of all other public employees.
Jul 2, 2016, 1:34 pm
#22
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
You mean to get them more "respect", right?
Cite?
Certainly.
Legally, though, it's very different. Cops are way more protected. TSA are not allowed to touch you without your permission, detain you, etc — and sure as hell not to body slam someone. (Unlike cops. Which is a whole 'nother issue that I won't go into here, but suffice to say that I do not approve of police use of force patterns.)
If TSA put her on the ground, they are screwed. If cops did it, frankly they are probably not going to get more than a slap on the wrist, if that.
Amen. I've gotten this same line from TSA, and I ain't buying.
I should not have to tell them in advance that I'm coming. Morally and legally, I should just automatically be treated appropriately, without interrogation and without having to tell them anything about my disabilities beyond the bare minimum necessary to understand what I need. (E.g. to understand that I need my pen & paper to hand at all times, that I need to keep my sunglasses on, that I need my walking stick & guide cane to hand at all times, etc.)
Anything more than that is simply none of their business, and I object to having to out myself any more than that bare minimum — let alone subjecting myself to interrogation about my disabilities, like has happened many times by TSA goons with zero medical qualifications.
That really depends. I am, as you know, no fan of or apologist for the TSA. In fact, I'm suing them for abusing me.
But if they just called the cops, to control a situation that they didn't know how to deal with, and didn't touch her, then the blame is mainly on the cops, at least for the injuries. (There's still a disability claim against TSA for denial of accommodations, but that's a whole different ballpark than beating someone bloody.)
If TSA told the cops she was dangerous, asked the cops to arrest her, etc — let alone if they physically restrained her or the like — then that's way more shared culpability.
Cite?
Certainly.
Legally, though, it's very different. Cops are way more protected. TSA are not allowed to touch you without your permission, detain you, etc — and sure as hell not to body slam someone. (Unlike cops. Which is a whole 'nother issue that I won't go into here, but suffice to say that I do not approve of police use of force patterns.)
If TSA put her on the ground, they are screwed. If cops did it, frankly they are probably not going to get more than a slap on the wrist, if that.
Amen. I've gotten this same line from TSA, and I ain't buying.
I should not have to tell them in advance that I'm coming. Morally and legally, I should just automatically be treated appropriately, without interrogation and without having to tell them anything about my disabilities beyond the bare minimum necessary to understand what I need. (E.g. to understand that I need my pen & paper to hand at all times, that I need to keep my sunglasses on, that I need my walking stick & guide cane to hand at all times, etc.)
Anything more than that is simply none of their business, and I object to having to out myself any more than that bare minimum — let alone subjecting myself to interrogation about my disabilities, like has happened many times by TSA goons with zero medical qualifications.
That really depends. I am, as you know, no fan of or apologist for the TSA. In fact, I'm suing them for abusing me.
But if they just called the cops, to control a situation that they didn't know how to deal with, and didn't touch her, then the blame is mainly on the cops, at least for the injuries. (There's still a disability claim against TSA for denial of accommodations, but that's a whole different ballpark than beating someone bloody.)
If TSA told the cops she was dangerous, asked the cops to arrest her, etc — let alone if they physically restrained her or the like — then that's way more shared culpability.
Found one example.
http://blog.tsa.gov/2015/03/tsa-week...-firearms.html
Comment on March 9, 2015 @ 12.23 PM.
In this case I feel that TSA is as, or more responsible, for what happened. Not being able to manage screening one person with special needs, while ignoring the mother, demonstrates the utter disregard of personal needs and civil rights of travelers by TSA.
For TSA to use the word professional when describing any TSA employee is an insult to all languages.
Edit to add: TSA is getting credit for the beat down regardless of who actually did it.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/07...by-tsa-agents/
Last edited by Boggie Dog; Jul 2, 2016 at 2:28 pm
Jul 3, 2016, 7:32 am
#23
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
The Guardian has additional info from the mother and re. the criminal proceeding against the daughter.
My reading is that TSA tried to move her first, and she had some sort of recoil or flail in response — not that she first hit them.
Bail has to be refunded if you just show up. That doesn't mean anything.
Even if the allegations were true, which I doubt, it'd take a cold hearted DA indeed to press charges against this girl … and one who doesn't care about getting fired after the enormous negative publicity it'd cause.
Technically, once filed, the TSA doesn't get to decide whether charges are dropped — only the DA does. But if the TSA wanted out, even if the screener who was the alleged victim wanted to continue, I doubt the DA would do otherwise.
They could. I don't see anything in the relevant CFR / USC sections limiting TSA's time to file a notice of proposed civil penalty.
The fact that the charges were dropped the very next day and bail refunded, says somebody at the prosecutors office or maybe even TSA looked at the tape and did NOT see what TSA/cops claimed happened.
An alternative could be that TSA realized it had a horrible PR problem on its hands and decided to try to get id of it by dropping the charges.
An alternative could be that TSA realized it had a horrible PR problem on its hands and decided to try to get id of it by dropping the charges.
Even if the allegations were true, which I doubt, it'd take a cold hearted DA indeed to press charges against this girl … and one who doesn't care about getting fired after the enormous negative publicity it'd cause.
Technically, once filed, the TSA doesn't get to decide whether charges are dropped — only the DA does. But if the TSA wanted out, even if the screener who was the alleged victim wanted to continue, I doubt the DA would do otherwise.
I wonder if TSA will now try to fine either the girl or her mother on some made-up charge.
Jul 3, 2016, 9:17 am
#24
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
If TSA communicated with the DA that TSA wanted no part in a prosection of this young lady wouldn't that possibly influence the DA? I can imagine the roasting that the DA, police, and TSA would receive if this case made it in front of a jury? Just the takedown and arrest was excessive in my opinion.
Jul 3, 2016, 9:39 am
#25
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
The Guardian has additional info from the mother and re. the criminal proceeding against the daughter.
My reading is that TSA tried to move her first, and she had some sort of recoil or flail in response — not that she first hit them.
Bail has to be refunded if you just show up. That doesn't mean anything.
Even if the allegations were true, which I doubt, it'd take a cold hearted DA indeed to press charges against this girl … and one who doesn't care about getting fired after the enormous negative publicity it'd cause.
Technically, once filed, the TSA doesn't get to decide whether charges are dropped — only the DA does. But if the TSA wanted out, even if the screener who was the alleged victim wanted to continue, I doubt the DA would do otherwise.
They could. I don't see anything in the relevant CFR / USC sections limiting TSA's time to file a notice of proposed civil penalty.
My reading is that TSA tried to move her first, and she had some sort of recoil or flail in response — not that she first hit them.
Bail has to be refunded if you just show up. That doesn't mean anything.
Even if the allegations were true, which I doubt, it'd take a cold hearted DA indeed to press charges against this girl … and one who doesn't care about getting fired after the enormous negative publicity it'd cause.
Technically, once filed, the TSA doesn't get to decide whether charges are dropped — only the DA does. But if the TSA wanted out, even if the screener who was the alleged victim wanted to continue, I doubt the DA would do otherwise.
They could. I don't see anything in the relevant CFR / USC sections limiting TSA's time to file a notice of proposed civil penalty.
If TSA communicated with the DA that TSA wanted no part in a prosection of this young lady wouldn't that possibly influence the DA? I can imagine the roasting that the DA, police, and TSA would receive if this case made it in front of a jury? Just the takedown and arrest was excessive in my opinion.
I mean, stranger things have happened, right?
Jul 3, 2016, 12:17 pm
#26
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 396
The complaint is defecient. I would say all defendants will file motions to dismiss based in the complaint.
The complaint does not specify who assualted the woman.
Based on the original article, I would have to say it was the police that caused the injuries.
TSA will, once again arrogantly walk away, and fein ZERO rsponsibility.
The police will walk away because the Courts have routinely stated that police will not be held accountable for conduct that followed a request by TSA.
Even if TSA agents committed the assualt, TSA will claim FEderal Tort Claims Act bars all suits against it.
This will not end well for the victim.
The complaint does not specify who assualted the woman.
Based on the original article, I would have to say it was the police that caused the injuries.
TSA will, once again arrogantly walk away, and fein ZERO rsponsibility.
The police will walk away because the Courts have routinely stated that police will not be held accountable for conduct that followed a request by TSA.
Even if TSA agents committed the assualt, TSA will claim FEderal Tort Claims Act bars all suits against it.
This will not end well for the victim.
Jul 3, 2016, 1:54 pm
#27
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
You know guys, for once I'm going to give someone the benefit of the doubt ans assume that the DA looked at the facts of the case and concluded as we have that it was complete and utter BS, and chose to drop the charges on that basis, rather than merely to avoid bad publicity.
I mean, stranger things have happened, right?
I mean, stranger things have happened, right?
I think it's naïve to not take the perception into account for the lack of prosecution.
I agree, for various reasons that I have pointed out privately to the plaintiffs' lawyers and would rather not say in public. I hope they fix it, or at least are given leave to amend if they lose a MTD. Or that the plaintiffs get better legal representation.
The police will walk away because the Courts have routinely stated that police will not be held accountable for conduct that followed a request by TSA.
E.g. in the case with the guy who wrote the 4th Am. on his chest and partially stripped at the checkpoint, where the cops arrested him on the spot with no other grounds and no investigation, the cops were denied qualified immunity.
This is more complicated, though. Applying § 1983 / tort claims to federal agents, or Bivens / FTCA to state agents, is possible when they are acting together. But it's a lot more complex than I'm willing to write up for a FT post. I've got my own pending briefings to research & write.
Jul 3, 2016, 2:10 pm
#28
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 948
So a passenger set off a metal detector, refused further investigations and refused to leave, couldn't communicate with the TSA and then tried to run away and struck one of the LEOs present and wasn't shot and is now suing the TSA.
Well, good luck with that one. If you cannot actually go through the security check you should probably make sure the TSA knows that before you start hitting someone and running away after you've set of the metal detectors.
Well, good luck with that one. If you cannot actually go through the security check you should probably make sure the TSA knows that before you start hitting someone and running away after you've set of the metal detectors.
Jul 3, 2016, 2:52 pm
#29
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: California. USA
Posts: 1,404
So a passenger set off a metal detector, refused further investigations and refused to leave, couldn't communicate with the TSA and then tried to run away and struck one of the LEOs present and wasn't shot and is now suing the TSA.
Well, good luck with that one. If you cannot actually go through the security check you should probably make sure the TSA knows that before you start hitting someone and running away after you've set of the metal detectors.
Well, good luck with that one. If you cannot actually go through the security check you should probably make sure the TSA knows that before you start hitting someone and running away after you've set of the metal detectors.
Her mother tried to explain it to TSA. And was told to back of
This poor 19 years girl is disabeled.And to treat people like this is a crime in my eyes.
Jul 3, 2016, 3:33 pm
#30
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 948
The was partially blind, partially deaf and had a brain tumour which made her retarded.
All would've been something the TSA should have taken into account if they had been told before she set off a metal detector, she assaulted someone and tried to run away without being searched. Her mom should be happy she wasn't shot and think long and hard about her own faults for placing her daughter in that position, and what she should've done instead.
But since nobody did tell the TSA why would they assume she was retarded?
What you think about that is beyond the point.