They have been positive events, the daughter graduated high school, I got a el cheapo riding mower for my mother in laws beach place and fixed it up for much less than I thought I would, I have rfinished a ton of silver restoration in the last month and oh yeah, I have been selected for BDO and leave for that school Tuesday! Busy busy busy, never stop.... My life was never this fast when I was getting shot at in the Army, explain that too me?
In the Army only the enemy was shooting at you, this is all friendly fire.
Congrats on the daughter, only another 20 years before she is an "adult".
Congrats on the BDO promotion. You must have been doing too good a job on the line.
12-hour self-paced computer course that realistically could be completed in 3 to 4 hours with a multiple choice quiz consisting of 20 or 25 questions (I forgot how many). Then came a 40-hour OJT with no defined performance standards. At the end of a 40-hour workweek, that screener was deemed "certified." Initially, the only thing preventing the screener from working alone at the x-ray machine was an administrative matter: being issued a dosimeter. Once issued, then that screener was free to work alone. The x-ray test pieces consisted of some very basic items that I've often described as the Wile E. Coyote Acme time bomb. One of them was three plastic sticks to simulate dynamite, a metallic detonator with no internal components, a 9-volt battery and an analog alarm clock with huge bells on the top. The handgun was an encapsulated revolver. If you couldn't see these things in the x-ray machine, you had to be legally blind.
This was the FAA standard, pal. Keep defending it.
Dos OSHA know about this? It makes no sense at all from a radiological safety perspective. They can be exposed to an unknown amount of radiation if they are working with someone. The dosemiter worn by one person doesn't mean squawt with regards to the radiation received by the other person.
If, on the other hand, the passenger cooperated by explaining that the baggie was really a baking soda compound, for example, used in conjunction with brushing teeth, and the passenger didn't exhibit any nervous behavior, then the supervisor may determine that there's no need to pursue the matter any further. It all depends on the circumstances, the passenger's behavior, and whether or not the supervisor feels confident that there is no threat to aviation.
Wow. So there's how to smuggle white, powdered, explosive material onto an airplane. I'm with Richard and TK on this one. A passenger's explanation of a substance that you suspect of being explosive really shouldn't matter to you.
Bart, are you really saying that you'll rely on a potential wrongdoer's inability to remain calm and lie to you as part of your determination of whether or not that person is carrying weapons, explosives, or incendiaries?
These things are best explained when put in context. If a TSO were searching for a tube of toothpaste that exceeded the 3:1:1 restriction, and found a plastic baggie containing a white powdery substance right next to the tube of toothpaste, the TSO would have to notify the supervisor. Otherwise, if the baggie were located in some other part of the bag, it would never be an issue. I do not find it unusual if a supervisor elected to not pursue the matter. I do not find it unusual if the supervisor inquired about the contents. If the passenger acted nervous, or evaded answering any questions, then, like it or not, you have an unresolved security issue. The prudent thing to do is to obtain assistance from the LEO. I know you don't agree with this, and that's fine.
If, on the other hand, the passenger cooperated by explaining that the baggie was really a baking soda compound, for example, used in conjunction with brushing teeth, and the passenger didn't exhibit any nervous behavior, then the supervisor may determine that there's no need to pursue the matter any further. It all depends on the circumstances, the passenger's behavior, and whether or not the supervisor feels confident that there is no threat to aviation.
The key word here is intent: once the supervisor is pursuing something other than airport security screening, then the supervisor has crossed the line. I respect your opinion that it should all be pretty black and white. I'll be the first to tell you that it is not. How I wished it were, but the reality is that it is not.
The courts will sort all of this out. The onus is that the supervisor follow written procedure. As long as the supervisor does that, then even if the procedure is flawed, the supervisor is protected. Once the supervisor strays from procedure, he's on his own (or her own).
The question is: What threat to aviation security does the supervisor think a baggie of white powder presents? If he/she doesn't think it is a threat, then the administrative search is over and the bag should be closed and returned to the passenger. If, at that point, the supervisor wants to call an LEO, he/she can do so.
These things are best explained when put in context. If a TSO were searching for a tube of toothpaste that exceeded the 3:1:1 restriction, and found a plastic baggie containing a white powdery substance right next to the tube of toothpaste, the TSO would have to notify the supervisor. Otherwise, if the baggie were located in some other part of the bag, it would never be an issue.
Why is the location of the mystery substance an issue?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart
The key word here is intent: once the supervisor is pursuing something other than airport security screening, then the supervisor has crossed the line. I respect your opinion that it should all be pretty black and white. I'll be the first to tell you that it is not. How I wished it were, but the reality is that it is not.
I'm glad you recognize there is a line. Too bad Ron and the other TSA apologists don't.
These things are best explained when put in context. If a TSO were searching for a tube of toothpaste that exceeded the 3:1:1 restriction, and found a plastic baggie containing a white powdery substance right next to the tube of toothpaste, the TSO would have to notify the supervisor. Otherwise, if the baggie were located in some other part of the bag, it would never be an issue. I do not find it unusual if a supervisor elected to not pursue the matter. I do not find it unusual if the supervisor inquired about the contents. If the passenger acted nervous, or evaded answering any questions, then, like it or not, you have an unresolved security issue. The prudent thing to do is to obtain assistance from the LEO. I know you don't agree with this, and that's fine.
Would those answers be the same or different if instead of a "white powder", it was a "green leafy substance"? In other words, if you were able to exclude a threat to aviation?
Also, why is there a difference in where the object were located so long as it were found during a legitimate search?
Would those answers be the same or different if instead of a "white powder", it was a "green leafy substance"? In other words, if you were able to exclude a threat to aviation?
Also, why is there a difference in where the object were located so long as it were found during a legitimate search?
I think what he is saying is if the screener is looking for an item that is related to aircraft safety like toothpaste, and the screener finds the toothpaste the search is over. If the screener continues past the toothpaste by looking into some area that is not in plain sight, we have a situation like Fofana.
Once the toothpaste is found, any continuance of the search makes it illegitimate.
At one point, we had to wear dosimeters. Studies were done that concluded the amount of radiation screeners are exposed to working in and around x-ray machines are very minimal. You're exposed to more radiation walking across the parking lot on a sunny day.
This doesn't sit well with TSOs.
Yes, OSHA knows about this.
Whether or not the amount of radiation was an issue, the policy demonstrated a stupidity on the part of TSA.
There are many ways to check out the mysterious white, powdery substance that may be an explosive.
One of those ways, you seem to have said, is to ask the person you suspect of carrying explosives what the substance is. I don't understand what good his word is to you.
You addressed my question in regard to training standards, while my question was in regard to effectiveness. Given that we have clear evidence of past tests that show contract screeners are more effective, why shouldn't we switch from a federalized workforce to a contract workforce, where the contractors are required to meet federal training and performance standards and supervised by a federal security director?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart
We're talking about a checkpoint. Keep in mind that the person I was responding to said that he would summarily attack the TSO if he was touched in any way. In spite of our heated debates/arguments, I credit you for being a rational person, and I would think that you would agree that the use of physical force, whether by a screener, passenger or LEO, is something that needs to be considered carefully because both parties (the perceived "attacker" and perceived "defender") will both have to explain/justify their actions to a judge and jury.
I agree that the use of physical force in any situation is something to be used sparingly. That wasn't my point. Your post implied that the OP's claim of proportional self defense being allowed in all jurisdictions was false. On what do you base this conclusion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart
I mention this because there are a lot of ideas being thrown around here about physically attacking another person at an airport security checkpoint. I know that some of it is nothing more than online bravado, some of it is nothing more than wishful thinking, and some of it is nothing more than venting. I'm just reminding folks to keep this in context and think before they act. I'm sure you would agree that no one should act on such ideas whether it's posted by you, me or anyone else.
Fair enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart
A long time ago, we sheltered a neighbor who was abused by her husband. As she opened up to us and told us about how abusive he was, I made the dumb mistake of saying that she should have hit the SOB over the head with the frying pan. The next morning, they reconciled, and she went home (I'm keeping this short, but I assure you that we made sure that it was safe for her to go home, he appeared sincere, I told him they should both seek counseling, etc.). About 30 minutes later I got a phone call from her.
"Well," she said, "I did what you told me!"
"Uh, what was that?" I asked.
"I hit the SOB over the head with the frying pan!"
I took him to the hospital, dealt with the police, etc.
Since then, I am very careful how I phrase things, even though I'm freer online with you and others.
The one legal specialty I'd never touch is family law. I'd rather defend a homicidal maniac than get involved in a messy divorce.
