Originally Posted by
ND Sol
Although your post was not in response to my ignored inquiry, you believe that because Phil was petulant is the reason Phil should be "prosecute[d] to the full extent of the law"? That would constitute sufficient facts to support sending $100 to the city?
Others posters have discussed reasonable suspicion as being the standard for requiring identification. And that is the case, but it requires reasonable suspicion that a crime has, is or is about to be committed. What crime did the LEO reasonably suspect had, is or is about to be committed when TSA called him on to the scene? That Phil was filming illegally? If the LEO knew his stuff, then he would know that on the facts presented to him by TSA, no crime had occurred and he would have no reasonable suspicion to demand Phil's name.
Not exactly sure what your "ignored" inquiry was. If you want to ask me something and make sure I see it send me a PM. I'm flying, on average 1.5 hours a day, and can't check forums every few hours. That being said, when did I make any statement about RS, or the "full extent of the law"? Maybe I just want to see him prosecuted because I am mean (not the reason BTW) or because I disagree with his actions 110% (one reason).
Question for you-How do you think this is going to change the TSA or its policies? (hint-it isn't)
PMocek is not a Patrick Henry, or Rosa Parks type, trailblazing for our rights versus the TSA's inane and inept policies. If anything, in a small way, this distracts & takes away from the legit fight against the TSA lunacy. Maybe PMocek is your posterboy for fighting TSA abuse. He is certainly not mine. I'd rather take actions that could actually affect changes in national level policy. This small episode of checkpoint drama is not that.
Ciao,
FH