PV speaks out on Phil's case
Feb 1, 2011, 10:48 am
#76
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
I agree with that - if an issue is not worrisome to the TSA we won't hear about it. If they are getting flack from several directions, you can bet they are going to post a thread in their own defense.
Feb 4, 2011, 5:24 pm
#77
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
The evidence and testimony provided by the prosecution strongly suggest Phil to be innocent. Maybe it is you that can't accept that one of your own was wrong, though the APD officer's behavior may be more galling. Both TSOs and LEOs should be held to a higher standard than the travelling public.
I was aware of the ID and photography laws but my first reaction on hearing about the case only recently was that surely he must have rude or refused to cooperate. Now having watched the video and read summaries of the testimony I am astounded that he was arrested in the first place. I am curious how you, or anyone else, conclude that he was guilty or might be. Well actually, I would be particularly interested in a TSO response. How would you have responded? What other type of passenger behavior results in arrest?
Feb 4, 2011, 5:29 pm
#78
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Feb 4, 2011, 5:29 pm
#79
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 16,054
The fact is that I do not know enough about the case to make a decision one way or another.
I have not seen the video’s. Have not been all that interested in the case. I commented on the TSA blog because so many of the other comments were calling BB a liar, and that just was not true. Not a single word of what he wrote was either untruthful or inaccurate.
I have not seen the video’s. Have not been all that interested in the case. I commented on the TSA blog because so many of the other comments were calling BB a liar, and that just was not true. Not a single word of what he wrote was either untruthful or inaccurate.
Without knowledge of the case, how can you be so sure that "not a singe word of what he wrote was either untruthful or inaccurate"?
Feb 4, 2011, 5:39 pm
#80
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
The TSA blog post states:
A recent case - New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek - is making the news recently. The case stemmed from Mr. Mocek’s failure to cooperate with the instructions of Albuquerque police officers at the Albuquerque International Sunport Airport after interactions he had with TSA transportation security officers.
Contrary to your statement in this blog post and contrary to the testimony of Officer Dilley of the Albuquerque Aviation Police Department, I did not fail to cooperate with the instructions of any police officer when I was at ABQ on November 15, 2009. A jury found me not guilty me of all charges -- including failure to obey a lawful order of a police officer -- before Judge Kevin L. Fitzwater in the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court (criminal case 2573709) on January 21, 2011.
Feb 4, 2011, 5:48 pm
#81
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Please take 3.5 minutes to look at the best evidence available and let us know what you think. Please also consider that a jury knew enough about the case to make a decision, and they decided that I was not guilty of any of the things of which I was accused.
In a comment I left on the TSA blog, I wrote:
Feb 4, 2011, 5:54 pm
#82
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
No Rev, that’s not what I said, please rephrase.
What I did say was:
I also said:
We both know I was and am correct, but I don’t expect you to admit it. 
What I did say was:
The difference between a lie and the truth is that one is false and the other is not. Nothing Bob said about the situation with Mr. Mocek was inaccurate, and therefore not a lie. Its time for folks to recognize the difference between what they wish to believe and the facts.
Al, it is intellectually dishonest to allude that being found “not guilty” is the same as being innocent. We both know better.
"Not guilty" most certainly does mean "innocent" as a matter of law. Defendants are presumed innocent and the burden of proof is on the state to prove the defendant guilty. When the state fails to meet its burden of proof, the defendant is acquitted and was and is innocent.
Then, as for the "accuracy" of Bob's comments, he said:
"The case stemmed from Mr. Mocek’s failure to cooperate with the instructions of Albuquerque police officers at the Albuquerque International Sunport Airport after interactions he had with TSA transportation security officers."
That is a lie (and almost certainly defamatory). The stemmed from ALLEGATIONS that Mr. Mocek failed to cooperate with instructions of Albuquerque police officers. Those ALLEGATIONS were false, which is why he was acquitted of the charges.
He also said:
'As TSOs were talking to Mr. Mocek to verify his identity, he was holding a camera up to film them and appeared to be trying to film sensitive security information related to TSA standard operating procedures on ID verification. Such behavior interferes with the ordinary course of business at the checkpoint and may well delay other passengers."
That contains two lies. The blank reporting form is not SSI, because it is given to passenger to fill out. It is SSI only after it contains the information because the passenger's information must be kept confidential. That's the first lie. The second lie is that Phil, in any way, interfered with the ordinary course of business at the checkpoint by filming his encounter with the TSOs. Filming TSOs does not constitute interference unless you are physically interfering with them by, for example, blocking them or putting the camera right in their face. Whatever interference resulted was solely and completely the result of the TSO's violation of SOP and TSO's own published procedure.
So, there you have it. Three lies and, not surprisingly, another example of complete ignorance of the law on your part.
I applaud your consistency.
Feb 4, 2011, 6:04 pm
#83
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 187
Feb 4, 2011, 6:08 pm
#84
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,004
Feb 4, 2011, 6:17 pm
#85
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Except that you are not correct.
"Not guilty" most certainly does mean "innocent" as a matter of law. Defendants are presumed innocent and the burden of proof is on the state to prove the defendant guilty. When the state fails to meet its burden of proof, the defendant is acquitted and was and is innocent.
"Not guilty" most certainly does mean "innocent" as a matter of law. Defendants are presumed innocent and the burden of proof is on the state to prove the defendant guilty. When the state fails to meet its burden of proof, the defendant is acquitted and was and is innocent.
Then, as for the "accuracy" of Bob's comments, he said:
"The case stemmed from Mr. Mocek’s failure to cooperate with the instructions of Albuquerque police officers at the Albuquerque International Sunport Airport after interactions he had with TSA transportation security officers."
That is a lie (and almost certainly defamatory). The stemmed from ALLEGATIONS that Mr. Mocek failed to cooperate with instructions of Albuquerque police officers. Those ALLEGATIONS were false, which is why he was acquitted of the charges.
"The case stemmed from Mr. Mocek’s failure to cooperate with the instructions of Albuquerque police officers at the Albuquerque International Sunport Airport after interactions he had with TSA transportation security officers."
That is a lie (and almost certainly defamatory). The stemmed from ALLEGATIONS that Mr. Mocek failed to cooperate with instructions of Albuquerque police officers. Those ALLEGATIONS were false, which is why he was acquitted of the charges.
Failing to cooperate with the police is not a crime. Failing to follow the orders of a police officer is a crime. Nothing about what BB wrote if false. Next?
He also said:
'As TSOs were talking to Mr. Mocek to verify his identity, he was holding a camera up to film them and appeared to be trying to film sensitive security information related to TSA standard operating procedures on ID verification. Such behavior interferes with the ordinary course of business at the checkpoint and may well delay other passengers."
That contains two lies. The blank reporting form is not SSI, because it is given to passenger to fill out. It is SSI only after it contains the information because the passenger's information must be kept confidential. That's the first lie. The second lie is that Phil, in any way, interfered with the ordinary course of business at the checkpoint by filming his encounter with the TSOs. Filming TSOs does not constitute interference unless you are physically interfering with them by, for example, blocking them or putting the camera right in their face. Whatever interference resulted was solely and completely the result of the TSO's violation of SOP and TSO's own published procedure.
'As TSOs were talking to Mr. Mocek to verify his identity, he was holding a camera up to film them and appeared to be trying to film sensitive security information related to TSA standard operating procedures on ID verification. Such behavior interferes with the ordinary course of business at the checkpoint and may well delay other passengers."
That contains two lies. The blank reporting form is not SSI, because it is given to passenger to fill out. It is SSI only after it contains the information because the passenger's information must be kept confidential. That's the first lie. The second lie is that Phil, in any way, interfered with the ordinary course of business at the checkpoint by filming his encounter with the TSOs. Filming TSOs does not constitute interference unless you are physically interfering with them by, for example, blocking them or putting the camera right in their face. Whatever interference resulted was solely and completely the result of the TSO's violation of SOP and TSO's own published procedure.
Interference with screening is a judgment call in most cases. A bad judgment call is not a lie, it is just an error. Next?
So there you have it, once again your understanding is in question. I am not at all surprised, it is honestly not at all unusual.
Feb 4, 2011, 6:24 pm
#86
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 4,831
We are talking about the court of law, not the court of public opinion.
You all but begged for a legal citation that indicated that being "not guilty" meant you were innocent. I will once again provide you with that citation:
Coffin v. United States (156 US 432).
The U.S. Supreme Court stated in their decision the following:
"The presumption of innocence is a conclusion drawn by the law in favor of the citizen, by virtue whereof, when brought to trial upon a criminal charge, he must be acquitted, unless he is proven to be guilty."
Whether you, Bob, or anyone else thinks Phil is guilty of any of the charges is irrelevant.
As a matter of law, Phil is innocent.
Feb 4, 2011, 6:24 pm
#87
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
Except that you are not correct.
"Not guilty" most certainly does mean "innocent" as a matter of law. Defendants are presumed innocent and the burden of proof is on the state to prove the defendant guilty. When the state fails to meet its burden of proof, the defendant is acquitted and was and is innocent.
Then, as for the "accuracy" of Bob's comments, he said:
"The case stemmed from Mr. Mocek’s failure to cooperate with the instructions of Albuquerque police officers at the Albuquerque International Sunport Airport after interactions he had with TSA transportation security officers."
That is a lie (and almost certainly defamatory). The stemmed from ALLEGATIONS that Mr. Mocek failed to cooperate with instructions of Albuquerque police officers. Those ALLEGATIONS were false, which is why he was acquitted of the charges.
He also said:
'As TSOs were talking to Mr. Mocek to verify his identity, he was holding a camera up to film them and appeared to be trying to film sensitive security information related to TSA standard operating procedures on ID verification. Such behavior interferes with the ordinary course of business at the checkpoint and may well delay other passengers."
That contains two lies. The blank reporting form is not SSI, because it is given to passenger to fill out. It is SSI only after it contains the information because the passenger's information must be kept confidential. That's the first lie. The second lie is that Phil, in any way, interfered with the ordinary course of business at the checkpoint by filming his encounter with the TSOs. Filming TSOs does not constitute interference unless you are physically interfering with them by, for example, blocking them or putting the camera right in their face. Whatever interference resulted was solely and completely the result of the TSO's violation of SOP and TSO's own published procedure.
So, there you have it. Three lies and, not surprisingly, another example of complete ignorance of the law on your part.
I applaud your consistency.
"Not guilty" most certainly does mean "innocent" as a matter of law. Defendants are presumed innocent and the burden of proof is on the state to prove the defendant guilty. When the state fails to meet its burden of proof, the defendant is acquitted and was and is innocent.
Then, as for the "accuracy" of Bob's comments, he said:
"The case stemmed from Mr. Mocek’s failure to cooperate with the instructions of Albuquerque police officers at the Albuquerque International Sunport Airport after interactions he had with TSA transportation security officers."
That is a lie (and almost certainly defamatory). The stemmed from ALLEGATIONS that Mr. Mocek failed to cooperate with instructions of Albuquerque police officers. Those ALLEGATIONS were false, which is why he was acquitted of the charges.
He also said:
'As TSOs were talking to Mr. Mocek to verify his identity, he was holding a camera up to film them and appeared to be trying to film sensitive security information related to TSA standard operating procedures on ID verification. Such behavior interferes with the ordinary course of business at the checkpoint and may well delay other passengers."
That contains two lies. The blank reporting form is not SSI, because it is given to passenger to fill out. It is SSI only after it contains the information because the passenger's information must be kept confidential. That's the first lie. The second lie is that Phil, in any way, interfered with the ordinary course of business at the checkpoint by filming his encounter with the TSOs. Filming TSOs does not constitute interference unless you are physically interfering with them by, for example, blocking them or putting the camera right in their face. Whatever interference resulted was solely and completely the result of the TSO's violation of SOP and TSO's own published procedure.
So, there you have it. Three lies and, not surprisingly, another example of complete ignorance of the law on your part.
I applaud your consistency.
I don't what I enjoy more, the pimp slap or the spectacle of our good friend shooting himself in the foot yet again. The case was tried and the jury has spoken. You'd think they would just shut up.
Feb 4, 2011, 6:25 pm
#88
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
Feb 4, 2011, 6:48 pm
#89
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: AUS
Programs: AA EP; Bonvoy Platinum: Hilton Gold
Posts: 535
Feb 4, 2011, 6:53 pm
#90
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: AUS
Programs: AA EP; Bonvoy Platinum: Hilton Gold
Posts: 535
I cannot understand who the comment was dirceted towards, blogger bob or TSORon? OP is talking about one person (our good friend), but then reverts to "they."