Landing Gear

Would you explain your view a bit more, please?

PhoenixRev

If Phil had violated the rules prior to the video starting, wouldn't charges have been filed regarding that?

RichardKenner

No, because "rules" can mean two things: "rules" that somebody is required to follow to avoid civil penalties and "rules" that are required to be followed to be able to access the sterile area.

T-the-B

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. Are you asking about my conclusion that the video shows shows Mr. Mocek doing nothing contrary to the rules as published or my conclusion that both TSA and the ABQ police were acting as bullies?

If the former, what I saw in the video was Mr. Mocek attempting to record his interaction with the TSA workers. "Blogger Bob" has repeatedly said that this is allowed and the FAQ at the TSA web site explicitly states, "While TSA does not prohibit the public, passengers or press from photographing, videotaping, or filming at screening locations, TSA may ask a photographer to stop if they are interfering with the screening process or taking photos of X-ray monitor screens in a checkpoint." Mr. Mocek was not attempting to capture images of the monitor screens and I think it would be an extreme stretch to say that he was interfering with the screening process. Despite that the TSA workers repeated told him that recording was prohibited - a clear misrepresentation of TSA's stated policy.

As to ID, while TSA may say that a passenger must present ID in order to fly, they also have a process in place to accomodate passengers who do not have ID. Furthermore, the Gilmore case established that one does not have to present ID to fly provided one is willing to undergo additional screening. Mr. Mocek did not refuse to undergo additional screening. In fact he can be heard on the recording stating that he intended to comply with the TSA regulations, which presumedly would include the additional screening. However; he was never afforded the opportunity.

Thus, from watching the video, I conclude that the video shows no act by Mr. Mocek that is contrary to TSA rules as published (with the possible nit that the ID rule may be in conflict with the law of the land as determined by the 9th Circuit court. In case of a conflict between an administrative agency's rule and the law I assume the law to prevail.) Also, from watching the video, I conclude that the TSA and ABQ police were acting as bullies because they were engaging in behavior that was bullying in nature, i.e. intentionally intimidating him by surrounding him with an large contingent of officials, threatening him with arrest with no probable cause, physically trying to push his camera away, physically grabbing him, etc.

What happened before and after the video is something I cannot speak to. It could well be that Mr. Mocek was behaving as a raving madman and the TSA and police were veritable choir boys before and after the period captured by the recording. If so, one much wonder why they suddenly changed their behavior when the video recorder was going. I think a more reasonable theory is that Mr. Mocek was calm and quiet-spoken before and after the recording, just as he was during it. Similarly, I presume that the TSA workers and ABQ police were officious, overbearing, threatening and bullying before, during and after.

This is probably more answer than you were looking for but I wanted to fully explain my reasoning.

erictank

Making a REALLLLLLY mean-looking face as you press the shutter release button?

FlyingHoustonian

Well, i don't believe I am resident gestapo, as I am about as anti-TSA as they come, and unlike I am guessing every other member of this board I actually affected real change in TSA's inane policies.
As I stated much earlier in this thread my tit-for-tat with Mocek is personal and can't be elaborated on without breaking forum rules.

However, I will post the same questions I posted earlier.

What exactly do any of you think has changed here?
Any TSA polices?...NO
Could Phil head over to the ABQ sunport and fly out doing exactly what he did before?...most likely not, unless the exact same folks decided to let him pass on recog, which is doubtful.

This was a local city/county matter.

I am somewhat pleased the TSA testimony was more inane than I thought it would be, but other than that, this trial went about as most of us expected.

No TSA policy has changed, and I'd hazard a guess most TSOs outside New Mexico haven't been briefed on this case.

We are at status quo.

To affect real TSA change, it requires money, lots of money, and a power base to really use that money to hire the proper lobbyist and PR firm.
I say this as a former registered federal lobbyist and someone who knows a bit about the business.

The Giffords tragedy, NFL playoffs, and weather are all bigger stories than this. Phil Mocek made one TSO look foolish, which I actually commend, my personal issues with him notwithstanding, but other than that we are at status quo.

As for those that actually think the current TSA's inane feckless policies are proper I cannot speak too. They are in a different class of poster.

ciao,
FH

mkt

And I hate saying this, but Public Relations and Advertising are the industries that are likely most affected by the tides of politics. You won't find a single reputable PR firm willing to take this on.

Back to the regularly scheduled high fiving of Phil.

bdschobel

As they left the jury room, heading toward the elevator, I approached them, thanked them and told them how wonderful and courageous they were. They did not respond at all, but two or three of them smiled at me.There was ample testimony on that point. LTSO Breedon made perfectly clear that Phil had not violated any TSA rule at any time (though their view of filming was more nuanced than I'm getting into here). The only issue really considered at the trial was whether Phil had caused a disturbance. There was a great deal of testimony about whether -- and, importantly, when -- Phil had yelled or shouted, and there was quite a debate about how onlooking passengers reacted to the scene before them -- and whether Phil or the TSA/police were the ones creating the disturbance, if any.I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but I would reiterate that, in general, the TSA workers were less officious, overbearing, threatening and bullying than the police were.

Bruce

Agreed.Totally disagree. Most of us expected a conviction on at least one count. Acquittal on all four counts was more than I ever expected, and I suspect that many others are in the same boat.

Bruce

RichardKenner

Neither, exactly. To my way of looking at it, when talking about the behavior of TSA and police, there are three issues:

(1) How the police behaved when called.
(2) The photography issue.
(3) Whether TSA was appropriate in calling the police.

The former was basically the topic of the trial and was clear from the tape. The second has also been discussed at length.

My point is on #3. Clearly (and from the tape), the TSA called the police over a dispute over ID. But that dispute occurred before the start of the tape. So we don't know the details of that dispute and hence can't judge the appropriateness of that call from the tape alone. My question was whether there was an evidence presented in the trial that would let us make that assessment.

Boggie Dog

As I recall early in the tape what I beleive to be TSA employees are talking to Phil and it appears that one pushes at Phil or his camera. Phil can be heard saying to the effect to not touch him.

I beleive this was a TSA employee at this point.

Was Phil assaulted if contact was in fact made?

bdschobel

There was lots of testimony on that point. The police were not called because Phil did not provide an ID. LTSO Breedon said, "That happens all the time, many times a day." They absolutely did not call the police for that reason. They called the police after Phil began filming.That was not just a TSA employee but the most senior one on the scene, a "screening manager," who is above a 3-striper (and generally wears civilian clothing, not a uniform). It is conceivable that the screening manager committed the crime of battery by touching Phil, but the touch was fleeting and did no damage, so prosecution would be extraordinary under the circumstances.

Bruce

AngryDrunkenDwarf2

They certainly attempted assault, but whether that's chargable...

If I tried to swat something out of a police officer's hands like that, I guarantee that I would end up in jail, charged, prosecuted, and convicted.

If I tried to swat something out of my neighbor's hands like that, I would also guarantee that if the police actually decided to do anything (big if), and if the da's office decided to prosecute the case (another big if), I would not be convicted.

While it showed that Phil was the calm one, and the TSA employee was the belligerent one at that point, that's all there is to it. The fact that he did so while fully knowing that LEO's were on route and close really only goes to point out that he was of the (accurate) opinion that he could get away with no repercussions. A pretty sad state of things, but the state of things nonetheless.

Boggie Dog

Didn't know who the players were but I do understand what a TSM is.

Is damage a condition of battery?

n4zhg

Nope. If I force medical treatment on a person who refuses, I can be charged with battery. Among other things.

Italy98

Is there more of the story after page 1 as clicking 'next' brings up a log-in page.