Originally Posted by
Bart
Actually, TSOs are trained not to get involved in physical altercations. TSOs can only take steps to defend themselves by either stepping away from the physical threat or by blocking punches and hits. I have to confess that I'm not so sure I could do that. I've only been in one such situation, and before I could react, the LEOs tackled the individual to the floor. Would I have reacted? I don't know. I did stop to think first, "Is he worth it?" and then the LEOs tackled the individual.
For what it's worth, it is absolutely within the law to defend yourself against a physical attack. I would hope that TSA has not suggested otherwise and that is what gave you pause.
[quoteYou'd have to ask one of the lawyers in this forum who cringe if I should dare to comment on something they believe is within their exclusive domain. I think it varies by jurisdiction and it depends on context.[/quote]I assume, "smarty-pants" refers to someone with an actual education in the subject matter. And I never cringe, I simply correct. I will observe, however, that the most contentious TSOs and sTSOs who post here are the ones who I have to correct the most.
Anyway, with respect to question, as rule, threats without more, e.g. the physical means to back them up, are not actionable. There are, of course, exceptions, e.g. threats to aviation at a checkpoint, bomb scares, etc. The basic rule of thumb is that pure speech is rarely actionable, whereas when speech crosses over the line into conduct, it is.
These are documented incidents not just allegations. In other words, we're talking about a passenger who might throw shoes at a TSO; it gets reported to the LEO; but the LEO decides that arresting the individual for assault is not the way to go for whatever reason.
Whoa, hang on a minute. There's a little thing called the Fifth Amendment that guarantees due process of law. If this list is used, in any way, to punish a passenger, or even limit or burden a passenger's ability to pass through the checkpoint, it is a prima facie violation of the Fifth Amendment. When a LEO decides not to arrest a passenger for an assault or battery, it is almost always because the LEO feels there is insufficient evidence to support the arrest.
The incident would still be documented because there's no doubt that it happened.
No doubt? Star chambers are illegal in the U.S. The accused is always allowed to confront their accusers who bear the burden of proof that the accused committed the act in question. There is always doubt. The TSO may be mistaken. The TSO may be lying. There may be affirmative defenses.
Sorry, there is always doubt as to what happened. IF you were a lawyer, you'd know that the most unreliable testimony of all is eyewitness testimony.
It wasn't made up.
I know of at least one incident involving an FTer in which BDOs lied, and the lie was apparent from reading the incident and arrest reports. This FTer has communicated with me privately and I will not disclose this person's posting name or even the name of the airport. I will say, however, that I am satisfied, based on the
evidence that I have seen, that BDOs intentionally and unequivocally lied.
This is, of course, not to say that all TSOs or BDOs lie in their incident reports. Obviously, they do not. However,
some do, which is why there is a Fifth Amendment right to due process of law in the first place.
Originally Posted by
Bart
These types of TSOs should be terminated for cause.
As I posted earlier, everyone is entitled to having a bad day. However, if a TSO resorts to physical violence or property destruction, that's intolerable, and that officer should be terminated.
How about bullying, verbal abuse and scaring passengers? You've already agreed that the standards reported in the article need tightening, so I'm just illustrating the problem.