Originally Posted by Tom
The point of contention should be IMHO, how the TSA reacts to an employee who not only brought a firearm into his place of appointment, but attempted (whether on purpose or not) to bring it into the sterile area of an airport.
If memory serves, TSA's reaction was to promptly suspend him pending termination, and he filed an appeal with a disciplinary board that overturned the local manager's decision. Though I cannot, for the life of me, remember where I read that from.
Originally Posted by Tom
I would suggest while you are may be correct ( I don't know if what he did violated the law, I believe it would depend on intent), making that the 'point of contention' is at best irrelevant.
How do you figure? If the statement was that "TSA moves swiftly and decisively to end the federal careers of those who break the law," and it's countered with "TSA doesn't swiftly end federal careers when someone breaks the law," to try to pump any more information into it just seems disingenuous. Like moving the goal-post or something.
Yes, what Alvin did was a bad thing. But if the scope of the entirety of the statements involve the breaking of laws, then the question must be asked -- did he, in fact, break the law? If yes, then TSA's statement is untrue. If no, then TSA's statement is, at least in the most literal of views, accurate.