Originally Posted by eyecue
Strawman defense to me. The lines are present, TSA is not responsible for the security of those persons that are standing in that line. They are under the protection of the local jurisdiction. I wont argue with you about the fact that they are a potential target. But I take exception to the fact that any culpability lies with TSA. The term uneccessary is operative here. What is acceptable to you, What is not? IF you could get through security in 30 seconds flat and there was no line ever, would that make less of a target? What if you are struck at the ticket counter when the line goes halfway out the door? You are just too quick to voice your hatred and discontent over anything REMOTELY related to TSA.
First, let me say that the possibility of something like this is extemely, extremely remote.
However, keeping in the context of the discussion, I firmly believe that there would be some culpibility on the TSA's part when it comes to DEN. If you want to view it as hatred of the TSA, then so be it. As you adore to say that's your "opinion."
I am speaking (or typing) from a pure legal standpoint. The main legal target would be whoever conducted the criminal act, no question. But the fact of the matter is, I could make a reasonable case that, depending on the facts and where everything panned out, I could cite circumstances that exist in every day TSA practices, especially in DEN, that I might not have been at that exact spot when whatever incident occurred. I can testify to my own personal experiences of mandatory shoe removal at DEN, plus we can grab a stopwatch and look at the surveillance video and see how much of the rebellious policy at DEN costed me in time.
If I were to be injured and the people in front of me were not, I could argue that the DEN TSA mandate of shoe removal for everyone slowed the line down, leaving me in harm's way. This would likely not fly in a criminal case, because the TSA didn't execute the original crime. But in civil court, I could go after the TSA, the local FSD (who goes against official policy) and the individual screeners for executing the policy which goes against DC's guidelines. Additionally, the burden of proof is much lighter in civil versus criminal court.
No amount of pre-written text by the people in DC excludes negligence. And as I said before, the negligence in the DEN TSA's case here is not following its agency's own mandate set forth by DC.
Again, this is an extremely remote, highly unlikely possibilty. I only write this in a legal sense.