Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

St. Jude patient in bloody takedown at checkpoint

St. Jude patient in bloody takedown at checkpoint

Old Aug 17, 2016, 10:27 pm
  #271  
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,475
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Practices vs. published polices. The two are not entirely the same thing.

And when a more serious charge is not as likely to result in a conviction, prosecutors may pursue a less serious (or even somewhat otherwise unrelated) charge that is more likely to result in a conviction, as the purpose is sometimes as much or more about signaling or shutting down than equal justice for all under the law. The assignment for this kind of change in practice can be found in the same kind of thing that gave us the TSA.
Based upon my extensive professional experience in the field of criminal law, I stand by my assertion that most prosecutors will not file charges unless they are satisfied that they have the evidence to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt.
TWA884 is offline  
Old Aug 18, 2016, 1:27 am
  #272  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by TWA884
Based upon my extensive professional experience in the field of criminal law, I stand by my assertion that most prosecutors will not file charges unless they are satisfied that they have the evidence to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don't disagree with that. I'm just saying that there are more games played in this area than there used to be.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Aug 18, 2016, 5:53 am
  #273  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
Originally Posted by TWA884
In the jurisdictions where I practice, the prosecutors' charging manuals specifically state that a case should not be filed unless the prosecutor determines that the circumstances and facts stated in the crime reports are sufficient to prove the charge(s) beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not a lawyer but isn't the video solid evidence of the young woman's acts? Charges were dropped because of the public perception of government ganging up on a disabled person. The optics of this case was a loser for TSA, Memphis police, and the Memphis airport even if the lady was found guilty.

In an earlier post the lady was described as "retarded". I think use of such words has no place on Flyertalk. The lady has a brain injury caused by a tumor. Would a person without a limb be retarded?

And if anyone cares to notice the mother was using a medical walking boot. She was sitting because she has an injury.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Aug 18, 2016, 6:23 am
  #274  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
Not a lawyer but isn't the video solid evidence of the young woman's acts? Charges were dropped because of the public perception of government ganging up on a disabled person. The optics of this case was a loser for TSA, Memphis police, and the Memphis airport even if the lady was found guilty.

In an earlier post the lady was described as "retarded". I think use of such words has no place on Flyertalk. The lady has a brain injury caused by a tumor. Would a person without a limb be retarded?

And if anyone cares to notice the mother was using a medical walking boot. She was sitting because she has an injury.
As well, the comments about her being obese and needing more exercise were subjective, had nothing to do with the topic at hand and were totally unnecessary.
petaluma1 is offline  
Old Aug 18, 2016, 8:30 am
  #275  
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,475
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
Not a lawyer but isn't the video solid evidence of the young woman's acts?
The prosecutor needs to prove the act and the mens rea (the degendant's awareness that her conduct was criminal) beyold a reasonable doubt in order to obtain a conviction.
TWA884 is offline  
Old Aug 18, 2016, 8:33 am
  #276  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
Right then.

Before getting to responses to comments in thread, some updates, basic facts, and observations from the video:


1. I've updated https://s.ai/tsa/cohen/ with filings in the lawsuit (Answer and MSJ) made by MIAPD and MSCAA, together with my summaries.

TSA has not yet responded to the lawsuit (nor filed an appearance).

No individual defendants are currently named. The defenses that MIAPD and MSCAA raised apply only to state agencies not to individuals, nor (per Monell) to cities.

I don't know whether MSCAA/MIAPD comes under Monell type liability or not, nor whether it is correct (as MIAPD claims) that MIAPD is a department of MSCAA, rather than e.g. a department of Memphis PD.


2. The officers involved are MIA PD not Memphis PD.

See e.g. the arrest warrant, linked at my site above.


3. I expect to get the video (obtained from TN) later today, and will post it there as well.

TSA has not yet responded to my federal FOIA.


4. The Commercial Appeal's video is at https://www.facebook.com/commerciala...4056864744864/

At 0:34, MIA PD arrive on scene. In my experience (I've had police called on me twice by TSA), it typically takes a few minutes for police to arrive. The video does not include any of the lead-up to this, e.g. to address claims in the complaint that Hannah was startled by the screening alarm or allegations of improper actions by TSA.

At 1:15-1:18, it looks like the mother is explaining something to the police about Hannah's deafness (e.g. miming hearing aids).

At 2:37-2:39, it looks like the TSA manager (black suit) may have touched her. Hard to tell because of camera angle.

At 2:40-2:41, it looks like the arresting MIA PD officer touched Hannah first, and which she resisted.

At 2:50-2:51, it looks like Hannah gets her right hand free and flails at the arresting officer, which triggers the takedown.

At 2:53, Hannah may have hit her head on the bench on the way down. It's obscured from this camera angle.

At 3:15-3:16, the non-arresting officer clearly orders the mother to go sit down.

The video ends with Hannah being led away under arrest. I don't see her mother in frame for that last portion. So we don't know what happened after the arrest.


Now then

Originally Posted by theddo
After watching that there is no indication she is "impaired" so the cops couldn't have known that.
You cannot tell from the video whether or not she has the impairments listed in the complaint. All you can tell is that both mother and daughter are having a tense conversation with the police.

The video tells you nothing about whether or not, as alleged in the complaint (p. 2 11), Hannah has a disability that "substantially limits her ability to speak, walk, stand, see, hear, care for herself, learn and work, think, concentrate, and interact with others."

She also used force against them.
In self-defense, yes. Whether or not that is illegal depends on whether the arrest was legal to begin with.

The only basis for arrest would be TCA 39-17-305 (causing a disturbance) her force came after they started using force on her and it is not a crime to violate TSA policies (only a civil penalty).

So, was she "causing a disturbance" before the arrest enough to justify arrest? I don't think so, and the prosecutor apparently didn't think so either.

I think that means a lot of people, especially saizai, should apologize to the TSA and the airport police for their false statements.
Please quote a false statement that I supposedly made.

I have been fairly careful to limit my statements to either opinions or observations of actual evidence available at the time. If anything, I was more generous than others as to the likelihood of TSA vs police involvement.

The officers tried with restraint for almost 30 sec to simply wait it out, when someone is assaulting you that is a very long time.
I don't think that a reasonable view of the situation is that Hannah was assaulting the officer. She was resisting the officer's attempt to grab her. There's a significant difference.

I also don't think that a reasonable view of the situation required the officer to use force in the first place. They could have done more to de-escalate the situation. Wanting to get it over with more quickly is not a justification for using force.

Is resisting a good idea? No. Resisting an officer, regardless of whether or not the arrest is legal (if it isn't, you have the legal right to resist), is almost universally a very bad idea in practice.

But also, we do not know her mental state at the time, who knew what, etc. Not things that can be observed from the video.

It also says she was isolated from her mom who was standing right beside her the entire time.
We have no video of the earlier part of the incident, so we don't know either way for that.

During the arrest, they were separated. We do not have video after the arrest.

Without audio, we do not know what who said to whom. The parties explicitly disagree about whether the mom tried to explain to her daughter's disabilities to them. (See complaint and answers/MSJs, on my site.)


Originally Posted by Section 107
There is no visible indication from the video that she was confused nor that her ability to walk, talk, see, stand or hear was limited, let alone that she was unable to cooperate with screening as she is clearly seen standing and walking under her own control and calmly conversing for a prolonged period with multiple people.
You would not be able to see it on video if it existed. So this is not evidence either way.

Most people comply (which is different from agree) with the reasonable orders of law enforcement. So it is not until the daughter physically resists (and assaults) the officer that there is an visible indication she might be suffering from a mental disorder.
That's absurd on two levels.

1. You don't know what was said before the arrest or what happened during the initial screening. You don't have detailed view of her face etc. So you don't know whether or not she had any visible indications.

2. You imply that anyone who resists force has a mental disorder. That's simply not true. It is a physical reflex to resist being grabbed.

I dont know if the daughter was charged in the incident but this lawsuit seems to me a way to negotiate away the charges and possibly recover any expenses (canceled flights, hotels, medical fees, etc.) incurred as a result of the incident.
She was charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, an simple assault, and arraigned. All charges were dismissed, and the record was expunged.


Originally Posted by GUWonder
In the US, it's not rare for laws against many crimes to have a mens rea requirement for a crime to have been committed. This means that a person with limited mental capacity may not be able to take responsibility for their actions.
In the US, essentially all "normal" crimes have a mens rea component. Generally, only regulatory violations are strict liability (no mens rea). It's a principle of criminal law.

Mens rea is not the same as mental capacity. Capacity is a defense that can implicate mens rea (if you didn't have the ability to intend to do something), but it's more of a public policy issue (we don't want to punish people who have no idea that what they did is wrong in the first place, even if they intended to do that thing).

More regular mens rea defenses are accident or lack of knowledge (for 'intentional' level), making reasonable best efforts (for 'negligence' level), etc.

Lack of capacity (aka insanity) is a very, very rare defense. Lack of the appropriate level of mens rea is very, very common.



Originally Posted by GUWonder
Where is the video footage of that whole area for the 10-20 minutes prior to and after the section of the video which was released and shown in the link above?
FWIW, I requested it, but have not yet received it.


Originally Posted by Section 107
You will almost never hear audio from surveillance video because such audio recording is usually prohibited (the law generally does not recognize an expectation of privacy of observable behavior in public places but it does recognize an expectation of privacy for conversations in public places).
No longer true. See the ACLU case against (IIRC) Illinois about recording audio of police in public places, which was formerly forbidden by state law. That law was overturned by the court.

Conversations held in public places are generally not subject to a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when random other people are within earshot. If it's a whispered conversation, or if it's in a private place, that might be different, but obviously not applicable here.

For whatever reason, TSA simply does not want to pay for audio recordings on their CCTV. Which is a pity; audio is often very much crucial to understanding what happened.

The video of the initial screening is irrelevant to the issues at hand: a) the passenger failed to undergo additional screening as required due to the alarm of the screening equipment
You don't know that. We don't see what happened earlier in the screening, what she was asked to do, what she refused, etc.

b) failed to comply with the lawful orders of the police officers;
You don't know what she was ordered to do, so you don't know whether or not it was a lawful order.

Resisting subsequent arrest is entirely contingent on whether the previous police actions including when the arresting officer started to apply force were lawful.

It is perfectly legal (albeit unwise) to resist a non-lawful arrest (with the minimum level of force required to do so).


The posture of the officers does not indicate that they (the officers) felt physically threatened at any time until the officer moves to grab her by the wrist to force her out of the screening area or to the area for additional screening (whichever one is not clear from the video) at which the girl resists and strikes the officer.
It is not lawful for police to use force to require someone to undergo additional screening. As above, violation of TSA regs is not a crime it's a civil violation.

Whether or not it's lawful to get her out of the screening area depends on whether she was, legally speaking, causing a disturbance. Mere disagreement is not enough.

And the video shows no apparent disturbance on the part of the public you can see multiple people pass by in all directions without being apparently bothered in any way.

Did the officers follow policy and procedures regarding how much time was allowed for the passenger to decide whether or not she was going to submit/comply with security checkpoint regulations before they escalated to using force to comply is something for their supervisors to determine and could be the subject of discipline.
Actually, that's a First and Fourth Amendment question. And as above, it's not a crime to refuse to comply with TSA regs, so it is not legal to use police force to punish someone for refusing to do so.

The police action has to be based on violation of completely independent state law (like causing a disturbance, trespassing, etc).

The filing does not state the plaintiffs informed TSA of any disability before beginning screening but it does clearly state they repeatedly tried to tell TSA and the cops AFTER the issue.
It's ambiguous on that point. p. 3, 16 conflates TSA and MIA PD. We have no video of the incident before it got escalated to police, so we don't know what either of them did when it was just TSA.

Also, it's not mandatory to say you have a disability in advance (or at all) especially if the disability is obvious, which the complaint does allege. p. 2 12, p. 3 15.

I believe had the plaintiffs let TSA know of special circumstances all of this would have been avoided.
I think doing so would probably made it somewhat more likely to be avoided, but frankly I do not assign it a very high probability.


Originally Posted by petaluma1
Having the video of the actual screening is important to know how the whole thing went down and I still question why TSA won't release it. Surely the airport has cameras at all screening locations.
They do. See TSA's standard MOU re CCTV at https://s.ai/foia/#tsa for a detailed list of camera angles that TSA requires.


Originally Posted by Section 107
Once the police are involved the plaintiff is no longer dealing with the TSA.
Not true. TSA (the manager in black suit) was still involved for most of that discussion when the police were present.

The big lesson: if a passenger has reason to believe s/he has some condition/disability/situation that might affect screening then s/he should inform TSA before getting to the xray belt and the detector. Again, had the plaintiffs informed TSA before screening that the pax had special needs I am sure none of this would have happened.
Not necessarily.


FWIW, I have at least one personal example that's very similar to part of what's alleged in the complaint:

I have really extreme light sensitivity, and sometimes equally extreme sound sensitivity as well. (By "extreme", I mean that fluorescent lighting is searingly painful to look at even with sunglasses.)

I don't explain this in advance. I am not required to by law, I like my privacy, and my symptoms are simply too numerous (and unusual) to explain every single time I interact with a screener, cop, etc etc.

Anyway, at a couple TSA checkpoints, I got very badly & painfully startled by a screening alarm going off on the traveler behind me while I was getting an opt-out patdown. My response to that is a very strong reflex I cover my ears and eyes as much as possible, flinch away from the source of the sound/light, get very tense, and possibly start to hyperventilate (as it can be extremely painful etc). It's strong enough that I sometimes accidentally bruise myself in the process.

The last time I remember when that happened to me, TSA handled that part appropriately they realized what was happening without my having to explain (because it was patently obvious from my reaction), asked the screener behind me to mute the thing or route people around so I wouldn't keep getting startled by the alarm, and finished the screening efficiently.

That, IMO, is a good example of TSA making reasonable accommodations for a non-visible disability that became very obvious when triggered.

(See? I am able to admit that TSA sometimes does things right.)


I can, however, very easily imagine a very, very different response because in fact I've had it happen to me in other situations. (Some people seem to think that when if I flinch away from sound, the appropriate response is to start shouting at me, etc. ><)

We don't (yet) have video of what happened before the cops got called. We don't know how TSA reacted when Hannah reacted badly to the alarm. The complaint alleges that they acted wrongly.

I don't know whether or not that's true, but I do think it's entirely plausible.

If TSA aggravated Hannah's state rather than de-escalating it and trying to accommodate, as alleged, then they're partially responsible for what happened afterwards and they're responsible for that part, which is an independent harm.

(Remember, the complaint alleges:
a) failure to accommodate the disability
b) negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress on both mother and daughter, and
c) physical injury and associated medical expenses.

If any of that happened before the cops came, it's actionable regardless of whether or not Hannah was at fault for what happened with the cops.)


Originally Posted by chollie
I know too many young men (and women and older men) who have come back from overseas military duty with hair-trigger reactions. Supposedly many of our TSOs have prior military experience. Color me skeptical about the quality of that experience, because if they've been in combat long enough, they will understand that when you unexpected grab someone who doesn't expect it and doesn't or can't see/hear you coming, you may get a more violent reaction than you expected.
I certainly have this, and I'm not ex-military. Mine's not a violent reaction as such I don't lash out at others, but I have a very strong defensive reaction. (If you're between where my hand was and where my chest is when it happens, you might get "punched", hard, by the reflex contraction.)

I know people who have different backgrounds than I do, for whom the reaction is more aggressive.

Pretty basic stuff: don't startle people, don't grab them, don't touch them without their consent.


Originally Posted by theddo
Let me say that again: MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT
(Excessive size removed.)

No. MIA PD. Not Memphis PD.

I would've been very uncomfortable being on the same flight as a girl without the mental capacity to understand the screening process and way of dealing with authority was to assault an armed police officer.
She reacted in self-defense. That's still unwise but it is not the same thing as suddenly attacking a cop.

I would have no problem sharing a flight with her. Just leave her alone.

Put it the other way around: how do you feel about armed police officers whose way of dealing with a disabled person who doesn't appear to understand or cooperate, but has done nothing violent, is to suddenly use force? Who get too close to her throughout and aggravate her stress, rather than calming things down and resolving it nicely even if that takes a bit more time?

Originally Posted by Section 107
Nope, read the filing. The plaintiffs are not complaining about the need for, nor that actual conduct of, the initial screening;. They are only complaining about the treatment they received by the police department and damages incurred by the family AFTER the interaction with the police department (although they conflate the PD's actions with those of TSA).

The plaintiffs are not complaining at all about the screening itself although they do posit that the girl became confused upon hearing the alarm of the machine and by the instructions of TSA staff but they are not stating the confusion is a cause of action.
Not accurate. The complaint alleges that TSA failed to accommodate her disability.

That applies, at minimum, to the time between the alarm went off and before the cops got called i.e. when they could have figured out some alternative way to do the screening that would have de-escalated, given the disability.

The complaint does not distinguish between initial screening and resolution when saying that the screening failed to accommodate. I don't think most people who aren't extensively familiar with TSA policies know the difference between initial and resolution screening, frankly.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
And if anyone cares to notice the mother was using a medical walking boot. She was sitting because she has an injury.
Didn't notice the boot, but as I mention at the top of this post, the non-arresting officer clearly orders her to sit down after the arrest starts. (Which is appropriate at that point he first ensures that the mother isn't a threat so he can help his partner. Whether the arrest was appropriate in the first place, and whether they paid attention to the mother explaining her daughter's disabilities, are entirely different questions.)
saizai is offline  
Old Aug 18, 2016, 9:34 am
  #277  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
Originally Posted by saizai


Didn't notice the boot, but as I mention at the top of this post, the non-arresting officer clearly orders her to sit down after the arrest starts. (Which is appropriate at that point he first ensures that the mother isn't a threat so he can help his partner. Whether the arrest was appropriate in the first place, and whether they paid attention to the mother explaining her daughter's disabilities, are entirely different questions.)
In this video at frame time 0.05 to 0.14 the mother's leg is clear and presence of the medical boot is unmistakeable. This is a difference angle than I have seen before.


In a different video, sorry don't have the link, where the mother is seen sitting on the bench early in the event I believe she can be seen putting on the boot but I could be mistaken on that point, just going from memory.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Aug 18, 2016, 10:21 am
  #278  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
In this video at frame time 0.05 to 0.14 the mother's leg is clear and presence of the medical boot is unmistakeable.
Ah, yes. Well spotted.

This is a difference angle than I have seen before.
AFAICT it's exactly the same video, just zoomed in by software. I have seen only one angle of CCTV released. (I intend to fight for all of it, of course.)
saizai is offline  
Old Aug 18, 2016, 1:14 pm
  #279  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: California. USA
Posts: 1,404
Angry

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
In this video at frame time 0.05 to 0.14 the mother's leg is clear and presence of the medical boot is unmistakeable. This is a difference angle than I have seen before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLAs4zmqQwM

In a different video, sorry don't have the link, where the mother is seen sitting on the bench early in the event I believe she can be seen putting on the boot but I could be mistaken on that point, just going from memory.
WOAH. The mother is clearly told/pushed away.That is so SICK

As a grandmother of a servere handicapped grandson who is 80 % death and cant speak. Plus dont understand english at all. It all freaks me out.

This is not how we should treat ANYBODY. No matter reason.
tanja is offline  
Old Aug 18, 2016, 4:20 pm
  #280  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,330
Originally Posted by WillCAD
{Edited to add: I'm going by the video on the USAToday story here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ight/88590390/ }

At 2:14 in the video, the cop gestures with his right hand as if to indicate "go over there" or "something is over there." The girl subtly shakes her head in a "no" gesture at this, and at 2:15, he steps in very close to the girl and grabs her upper right arm with his left hand. To me it also appears that he's trying to gently shove her in the same direction he had gestured, as if to force her to move. In reaction to this, the girl flinches away and attempts to gain some distance, but the cop grabs both of her arms with his hands and the struggle ensues.

The questions I have about this:

1) Had the cop ordered her to go somewhere and she refused?
2) Was the cop arresting or detaining her as part of a criminal investigation?
3) Exactly why did the cop lay his hands on her at all?

The fact that the charges against her were dropped could have indicated one of three things:
* The prosecutor may have reviewed the situation and realized that the cop's actions in laying hands on her were unjustified
* The prosecutor may not have wanted to get in front of a jury and paint a 19 year old cancer patient with cognitive difficulties as a danger to a cop who outweighed her by about 20 pounds of pure muscle, even if the cops actions were entirely justified
* The girl's cognitive issues may have made her non-responsible, legally speaking, for her actions

Another thing I've noticed, though; the mother's claims that she was kept far away from her daughter and not allowed to explain her daughter's condition to the TSA and police are hogwash. She was literally within arm's reach of the daughter throughout the entire incident, except from 0:26 to 0:43 when the daughter goes to the belt to retreiver her belongings while the mother sits on a bench. In addition, the mother, daughter, cop, and a suited man whom I assume was a TSM, spend the time from 0:43 to 2:14 holding an extended 4-way conversation.

The mother can be seen clearly speaking to the cop, to the TSM, and to the daughter, and the TSM appears to speak to the daughter as well (his back is turned to the camera but his left arm gesticulates as many people do when they're speaking).

So she was not separated from her daughter by TSA or the PD until the struggle ensues, at which time she is physically removed by the second cop (using minimal and appropriate force, IMHO) to prevent her from joining in the fight. And she had an extended 1:31 conversation in which she could have (and probably did) explain her daughter's condition to the cop and TSM.

I don't know how bad the daughter's cognitive issues are, but this case does not appear to be as cut and dried as many people think. Neither side seems to be 100% at fault or 100% without fault to me, based on the video, but I am leaning toward saying that the majority of the fault goes to the mother and daughter, rather than the PD, and I put pretty much zero blame on TSA in this situation (there's a switch!)
Each time I watch this video, I see something I hadn't seen before.

At 0:44, the cop is pointing with his right hand. It's difficult to say because of the angle, but he looks like he's pointing at the mother, who at that moment was seated on the bench.

But then at 1:09, the TSM (man in the suit) also gestures with his right hand. It's fuzzy, so I can't be sure, but he could be pointing off to the right.

At 1:11, the cop gestures with his left hand, again pointing to the right.

Additionally, there is a female TSO in the frame from the beginning of the video. She's standing off to the left at first, facing the camera, and at about 0:32 she moves to talk to the TSM, and at about 0:52 she moves right and stands roughly behind the TSM and the cop with her back to the camera. She doesn't appear to be part of the conversation, but she stands there waiting throughout. At 2:15 when the cop grabs the daughter, the female TSO moves back to the left again, and a few seconds later when the cop takes the daughter down, the female TSO retreats out of camera range quickly.

Putting all of this in context, another theory has occurred to me.

What if the TSM was trying to get the daughter to go into a private room for a resolution pat down?

We know she alarmed either the WBI or WTMD and needed some kind of pat down to resolve the alarm. But in my experience, targeted area pat-downs for WBI resolution are done so quickly that most people don't have the time to refuse. "Stand there" you're told, and someone rubs his hands on your torso or thigh for a moment, after which you're allowed to move on.

But this looks more like she alarmed and was being told to go for one of the mandatory private room full-body rubdowns with genital contact that TSA laughably calls a pat down. I think that's why the TSM and the cop were gesturing to the right - that could be where the penalty box is - and I think the cop eventually lost patience and *ordered* the daughter to *go over there right now*, which she refused with her cursory shake of the head. Then the cop decided to assert his authoritah by grabbing the daughter's arm and perp walking her to the penalty box.

The daughter, perhaps not fully appreciating the consequences of refusing a perp walk from an impatient cop, jerked herself free, after which the cop grabbed both of her wrist and attempted to physically control her. And that's when she started flailing about like a toddler throwing a fit. At 2:26 she did indeed land a single closed-fist child-like tantrum blow on the cops left bicep.

The rest of the struggle, if you view it through the goggles of someone who has experience with children, is a classic toddler temper tantrum. Look at her arms and legs from about 2:35 to 2:45 - she's pulling her arms away from the cop and kicking her feet in much the same way that a three or four year old child would when mommy or daddy is trying to dress them for bed. At one point before the cop got the cuffs out, she was actually folding her hands under her body to prevent him from getting a good grip on them.

Given this new perspective, I am forced to wonder exactly what kind of alarm the daughter set off, and what kind of resolution the TSM proposed. Most alarms can be resolved with a targeted area pat down or a wanding, but I believe now that the TSA people were insisting on a private room full-body rubdown with genital contact as a resolution to the alarm, and allowed for no more palatable alternatives. If that's the case, then I'll have to re-evaluate my judgement that TSA bears no blame for this incident - they may, through their stupid, myopic inflexibility, have set two freight trains on a collision course with each other and stood well clear of the inevitable crash.
WillCAD is offline  
Old Aug 19, 2016, 5:42 am
  #281  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Hilton Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: San Antonio
Programs: DL DM, Former AA EXP now AY Plat, AC 75K, NW Plat, Former CO Gold, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 26,950
Originally Posted by theddo
Funny story. How is that relevant to the interaction between the Memphis police department and a disabled girl?

Let me say that again: MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT.
First off it's the Memphis Airport Police which are legally separate and don't report to MPD.

Next police are legally required to be able to handle those with disabilities. This means understanding that a person who's deaf and blind on one side, and has suffered brain issues isn't just grabbed. The girl didn't start fighting until the officer suddenly grabbed her. How would you react if someone grabs you suddenly from behind where you have no way of knowing that it's about to happen? I highly doubt you would have reacted much differently at first. You then would have been able to calm down since you have a full functioning brain. The girl doesn't, the mother tries to explain that and the officer pushes her away.

As for being onboard, unless the FA's have started a new procedure I don't think that grabbing passengers is part of their job description. Thus, the whole issue about freaking out on the plane is pointless.

Bottom line, the girl is fine, until the officer suddenly grabs the girl without warning or consideration of her disabilities. She might not have understood fully what was happening, but only became agitated when the office grabs her.

Finally for those saying they know how she should act, unless you've lived/worked with a disabled person you don't. Just like we get arm-chair lawyers/pilots every time there's a legal/aviation issue, we get arm-chair disability specialists that know how a disabled person "should" act. You may not like that with these disabilities they're allowed to fly, however Congress has determined in a civilized country like the US, that we allow those with disabilities the same things as those without.
flyerCO is online now  
Old Aug 19, 2016, 6:26 am
  #282  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Originally Posted by flyerCO
First off it's the Memphis Airport Police which are legally separate and don't report to MPD.

Next police are legally required to be able to handle those with disabilities. This means understanding that a person who's deaf and blind on one side, and has suffered brain issues isn't just grabbed. The girl didn't start fighting until the officer suddenly grabbed her. How would you react if someone grabs you suddenly from behind where you have no way of knowing that it's about to happen? I highly doubt you would have reacted much differently at first. You then would have been able to calm down since you have a full functioning brain. The girl doesn't, the mother tries to explain that and the officer pushes her away.

As for being onboard, unless the FA's have started a new procedure I don't think that grabbing passengers is part of their job description. Thus, the whole issue about freaking out on the plane is pointless.

Bottom line, the girl is fine, until the officer suddenly grabs the girl without warning or consideration of her disabilities. She might not have understood fully what was happening, but only became agitated when the office grabs her.

Finally for those saying they know how she should act, unless you've lived/worked with a disabled person you don't. Just like we get arm-chair lawyers/pilots every time there's a legal/aviation issue, we get arm-chair disability specialists that know how a disabled person "should" act. You may not like that with these disabilities they're allowed to fly, however Congress has determined in a civilized country like the US, that we allow those with disabilities the same things as those without.
Amen and thank you.
petaluma1 is offline  
Old Aug 23, 2016, 7:38 pm
  #283  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
I've gotten the video from MEM. It's updated on https://s.ai/tsa/cohen; here's the playlist link (it's two videos).


It starts off at around 28:20 in, but before then, the mother is waiting on the near left side (as one can see from the pan left at around 28-29m in).

At about 42:31, some suits come to look at things, though for some reason the camera operator thought it'd be super interesting to film the waiting tables during that period rather than the main checkpoint area.



Cohens' AIT screening starts at 24:08 (mother first).

Last edited by saizai; Aug 24, 2016 at 3:40 am
saizai is offline  
Old Aug 24, 2016, 7:39 am
  #284  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by saizai
I've gotten the video from MEM. It's updated on https://s.ai/tsa/cohen; here's the playlist link (it's two videos).

2015-06-30 MEM Cohen incident - 5203 B CKPT EXIT PTZ - YouTube

It starts off at around 28:20 in, but before then, the mother is waiting on the near left side (as one can see from the pan left at around 28-29m in).

At about 42:31, some suits come to look at things, though for some reason the camera operator thought it'd be super interesting to film the waiting tables during that period rather than the main checkpoint area.


2015-06-30 MEM Cohen incident - 5238 B CKPT BS2 MD3 OUT 2 - YouTube

Cohens' AIT screening starts at 24:08 (mother first).
In monitored detention facilities with controlled, moveable cameras, the cameras are sometimes directed elsewhere so that the planned/desired assault is not recorded on camera. Is that even possible in this incident?
GUWonder is offline  
Old Aug 24, 2016, 7:57 am
  #285  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
Shame that TSA moves the young lady out of camera view a minute or so after the WBI.

Anyone else notice that almost everyone being screened by the WBI at this checkpoint required a pat down of some sort? Each and every pat down, in this video, is based on a false positives which is what started this whole mess for the young lady.

The core problem is that TSA is conducting additional screenings because of faulty or unsuitable equipment.
Boggie Dog is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.