Programs: UA Premier Executive - yay!, HH Silver, TSA Disparager Gold, KHIAI Club
Posts: 8,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by codex57
Whoah! Really? Google? As an attorney, that's jaw droppingly shocking to hear an attorney admit to using google as a source. In no way could it be a source cuz it's just a search engine. It's more removed as a source then Wikipedia is. While it's not a great source or piece of evidence cuz of how it's edited, at least you could argue that Wiki counts as a "source".
Francine Kerner, TSA's chief counsel, used a Google search to define legal points she was trying to make in a post at PV earlier this. Unfortunately for her, the points were already defined in statute. She either was ignorant of the statute or was trying to find definitions to suit her purpose.
That's why you'll see her often referred to as Francine the Googling lawyer.
Let's also not forget how she was in charge of the lawyers responsible for nearly blowing the Moussouai case. just google Carla Martin.
Now, some may put a lot of faith in what TSA's lawyers think. I'll go with halls120 on this one.
__________________
Kip Hawley is an Idiot - a truth that even a 4 year old understands.
While we are discussing this, understand I am not laying blame on you or the screeners that are trained poorly. The TSO in the Ron Paul dude's case was an [insert dirty word here] and I think there is no argument on that. His [insert dirty word here] behavior is all his own doing and he is solely to blame for it. (unless that behavior was encouraged or allowed)
snip
Just another take on this part of an earlier post.
Probably everyone on this board has experienced a TSA screener who was an [insert dirty word here]. I doubt that the [insert dirty word here] behavior I was subjected to was a one time occurence by that screener, although there is a first time for everything. I doubt that the behavior was never observed by people with supervisory responsibility, people repeat behaviors that work for them, they tend not to incorporate new behaviors (part of what makes training difficult). I doubt that it was corrected by said supervisory each time the supe observed it, otherwise the [insert dirty word here] screener probably would have either learned the lesson or been canned. I won't suggest that the [insert dirty word here] behavior was encouraged, but it sure as heck was allowed.
Bolding mine. The effect it might have on TSOs could be positive though. Might make them think 'do I really want to do what that guy in St Louis did?'
If this forces a policy change and better training for TSO's I'm all for it. The attitude of 'we answer to no one' might just go away and they become more human than authoritarian. Once the courts slap them down they might consider their original mission of keeping weapons, incendiary devices, and explosives off of the aircraft as their primary mission.
Let's hope the courts have the balls to SHUT them down. Permanently.
__________________
"About this time, they tell you you'll be landing shortly. Does that sound to you like we're gonna miss the runway?"
You do realize, of course, that you're talking about money out of your pocket, right?
I'm not working right now. I don't pay income taxes (or federal tax of any kind). Not a cent is coming out of my pocket.
As for the idiot TSO and the cop, everyone up the food chain up to an including the FSD on the TSA side, and everyone up to and including the police chief on the police side, should be fired. By not taking immediate disciplinary action, they're condoning this behavior and that's not acceptable. That should force supervisors to actually SUPERVISE and the floor workers to actually do their jobs, especially if they know that they WILL be fired if they .... up and/or TSA gets sued.
__________________
"About this time, they tell you you'll be landing shortly. Does that sound to you like we're gonna miss the runway?"
