Let's conduct ourselves honorably. I do not think the awfulness of TSA would be enough of a moral license to lie one's way onto a jury.

Ye gods, I don't know which of you is worse. It's like listening to Obama and Boehner. TSA displays thuggish behavior, but that doesn't justify passenger thuggery or make it noble.

"Desperate times call for desperate measures."

Yeah, I think Fawn Hall and Oliver North said that too.

Wait, wait, don't tell me! It really was one of our own whose life was featured in a recent movie:Bart, Mall Cop. Oh, it was Blart. The confusion is understandable, though, don't you think?

An alternative is in response to the voir dire question is to poison the rest of the jury. Not literally, of course. But when asked during voir dire whether you feel any animosity towards TSOs or the TSA, generally, one, if he/she really feels that way could launch into a vile excoriation of all such "vermin," listing in excruciating detail the whole litany of sins against humanity various gropers have committed.
"Why Mr. Prosecutor, wouldn't it be un-Christian to not feel animus toward people who take adult diapers off of dying 95 year olds; who rip ostemy bags loose from cancer patients; who announce publicly that if you are not nice to them they will rub your 10 year old little girl's breasts and vagina; who steal watches and ipods and cash and computers; and on and on and on. Take a crib sheet so you don't forget any.
And then when the prosecutor falls on the floor in an apoplectic fit, save him by saying, "But Mr. X, you asked, and you said I had to tell the truth and the truth is that each and every one of them deserves to die a horrible death and spend eternity burning in hell, having their flaming resistances rubbed by Satan himself.
I've had such a calamity befall me. Once, in a medical malpractice case, I stupidly asked, "Mr. Juror 9, would you have a problem rendering a verdict against X Hospital?" I should have seen the Mack truck coming when the juror responded. "Truthfully?" Alas, it was too late. I nodded yes and he continued, "I could never do such a thing to that hospital. Those wonderful doctors and nurses saved my little Chastity when we took her there after she was run over by a drunk driver." The judge thankfully dismissed the whole panel as being tainted but he didn't have to.

Good trial lawyers know to never ask a question that they don't know the answer to. (OK, Sister Mary Agnes of the oft-broken ruler, "to which they don't know the answer." Better?
So if you are ever on a jury in a case involving the TSA, go for it.

:cool: Good plan! I love it! :D

So we should act honorably while the head of TSA goes before Congress and lies. While TSA employees lie, case in point Phil Mocek. TSA says they will instruct employees on how to screen people with disabilities yet that doesn't seem to have happened either.

Why should the public be held to a different set of rules of engagement than TSA?

I won't undertake actions for which I could be prosecuted so long as there are any for which I can't. I think people should exhaust their legal options. Just one guy's opinion.

Ye gods, I don't know which of you is worse the totalitarian thug or the submitizen too fainthearted to lift a hand in his own child's defense.

Seriously though, with all due respect BearX220, a point of clarification if you please;

If a stranger wandered into your child's schoolyard and proceeded to shove his hand down said child's pants would it be considered excessively "thuggish" to physically intervene or even possibly cause injury to the molester?

P.S. Nobody listens to Obama anymore.

P.S. This thread isn't in OMNI/PR, is it? Thought not.

I thought the idea was to get empaneled on a jury so that you could screw TSA back. silly me.

Because we're the good guys. We claim that real rules of engagement, adhered to by both sides, would lead to more fairness and justice. Replacing TSA's tyranny with a another tyranny isn't progress* and leaves an open door for the return of future abuse and unaccountability.

That said, awareness of RoE doesn't mean following them blindly. Late 18th-century RoE for war was to fight in formation in the open; if rebelling colonists had not done the "cowardly" thing and shot the King's troops randomly from cover, likely there would be no Constitution by which to judge TSA's behavior. However, I'm unaware of any Srebrenica-style mass killings perpetrated by either side in that conflict. Norwegian resistance fighters in WWII knowingly caused over 200 civilian fatalities by sinking a ferry that carried an irreplaceable load of heavy water to German nuclear physicists; warning innocent passengers to avoid that crossing could have tipped off the guards and given the Axis an 18-month advantage in developing atomic weapons. Whether the end is so important it justifies irregular action, and is unobtainable by more humane means, is a case-by-case issue.

To me this also means supporting someone inside who is nevertheless trying to do the right thing. Would I report a screener who was faking a grope without actually touching the victim? No, because I do not want that person replaced by someone who has fewer qualms about it.

Would I use physical force again a screener who was injuring me? Not if I could disengage, to a point. Would I use physical force to stop a screener I saw injuring a helpless elderly/disabled/etc. person? I sincerely hope so.

As years of going through channels has had no perceptible effect on TSA abuse of innocent passengers, it seems appropriate to analyze the risk-benefit ratio of irregular actions. TSA has made it very clear they follow no mutually-accessible, negotiated policy, so what is and isn't ethical in response varies by situation and by passenger.

* except for a benevolent tyranny under my control, of course

This deplorable reasoning is in the DNA of every fringe / terrorist organization. When SDS kids were taking over and blowing up universities, when Black September was taking over and blowing up Boeing 707s, when Basque separatists were blowing up banks and railway stations, I guarantee someone stood up at the meetings and uttered variants on the above. The status quo is so deplorable, and years of going through channels have proven so unproductive, it seems appropriate to... etc.

This is radical, addleheaded rhetoric and I'm not having it.

Our problem with TSA is that it thumbs its nose at the Constitution and tramples American rights and freedoms -- and laws -- to achieve ridiculous and disgraceful ends. If TSA's opponents thumb their noses at American laws and engage in equally disgraceful tactics, we look pretty damn silly. Too much like TSA itself. Is anyone here old enough to remember Pogo? "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

"Screwing the TSA back" is petty. Teaching awareness and addressing actions of government misconduct are good citizenship. ;)

How do you want your court system to work when it matters?