Originally Posted by
Trollkiller
I think we may be getting terms confused, I would think if someone was "randomed" for race, sex, etc. it would not be "retaliatory" just wrong. On the other hand if they are "randomed" for attitude, questioning, or wearing my shirt, that would be retaliatory.
For the ease of discussion lets call "randoms" for race, sex and body type, profiling.
We will call "randoms" for t-shirts, attitude, and questions, retaliatory.
I guess we would need a reason category for secondaries although the offending TSO would just lie about it.
The only way to stop retaliatory screenings is to have zero tolerance for it. Right now the TSA culture allows for and covertly encourages retaliatory screening by allowing the offending TSO to go unscathed.
You assume the offending TSO goes unscathed, and you (of course I do not mean you personally) assume retalitory screen was done I the first place. I do believe such screening happens; would be foolish not to believe so. Behavior like this exist I every industry - through college I work in various restaurants, and you might not want to know what happens to some disgruntled customer's food. Every industry has this problem.
How would you prove that retalitory screening happned? Even with your metric, the TSO might just well lie. What I can not explain to you - SSI (i know you love to hear that) is that there actually is a system that "controls" random searches. Can't explain it more than that, other than to say a superior could smell that TSOs bs a mile away.
I am simply against profiling. If you alarm, or we need to check your bag, I think we should check you and your property, regardless of race, or age, or gender.
I am against any sort of retalitory screening. I have been accused of it, and I'm sure the passenger left believing I screened them because of their attitude, or pick any reason.
I simply feel attempting to document such intangible things as attitude and such is near impossible.
Have to cut this short, be back later.