First of all, there is a general concept in our legal system that actions have fixed consequences. You do the crime, you serve the sentence, and you're free. Ongoing penalties, at the whim of some agency, are not legit.

Second, let's assume there's a rationale for what you said. Someone strikes a TSO, showing violent tendencies. That suggests they may be a risk to aviation, so additional screening is required. SSSS and all that.

But in the "risk based screening" thread, you said:

So TSA, by your own admission, does not engage in intent-based screening. How can you justify SSSS for life if it's not retaliatory?

I'm referring to the most intensive screening process available which is more than just the SPD.

No contradiction at all. It's a matter of record that the individual has committed a violent act at an airport security checkpoint. If that doesn't warrant SSSS screening, then what does? If they are willing to do so blatantly against a TSO, then shouldn't the potential for violence against crew members and passengers be considered? This clearly puts the person in a higher risk category.

So if someone brutally beats and rapes a woman away from the checkpoint, does his time, and is released, he's fine... but if someone looks sideways AT the checkpoint, they're potentially dangerous?

Yeah, mkay...

But you and other TSOs have said repeatedly that your one and only job at the checkpoint is to keep out dangerous items, and the intent of the person has no bearing. What does an retaliatory testicle grab have to do with dangerous items?

If your explanation has any merit whatsoever, TSA should perform background checks on every passenger and give SSSS to anyone who has ever been convicted of any physical act, from domestic abuse to barfights. (And I would not be the least bit surprised if that's coming).

Besides which, how would the TSOs know why the SSSS is there? Are you telling me that everyone with SSSS is treated as a previous TSO-assaulter?

You keep digging yourself a bigger hole. You're retaliating, plain and simple.

If you say so.

Violence against TSOs is unacceptable under any circumstances. If you have a problem with how you were treated, there are other ways to resolve it that are more effective than committing a violent act.

I'm sorry you don't understand this basic point.

Such as a person that is a convicted felon for robbery in Richmond (RIC) and works as a TSA screener? Where the federal security director at RIC forced the Richmond Airport Authority to issue SIDA credentials contrary to TSA rules?

And did the federal security director at RIC get fired knowingly hiring a convicted felon (robbery) as a screener or just promoted?

Bart: Let me be clear: In no way and under no circumstances do I advocate passengers engaging in violent behavior towards TSA clerks.

But you are flat out wrong when you say there are "other ways to resolve it". Like what? Fill out a comment card? Like that's going to get a response. Call the supervisor - yeah, who are they going to believe? Supoena the tapes? Sorry, we lost them. Challenge the policy? Nope, we do in fact have to touch your boobs and xray your ovaries in order to make sure you're not a terrorist.

Time and time again, the TSA, at all levels, from the newly hired groper to Sec. Napolitano, have proved that they are entirely uninterested in correcting, improving, changing, resolving, whatever you want to call it, negative passenger interactions. Yes, violence against a TSA clerk is wrong. Always. But to suggest that it is wrong because there are other means of resolving conflict is false. There are no other means.

I will never hit a TSA clerk. But the next time one of them touches my "zipper area" (even when I am wearing pants with no zipper), I will probably start screaming and have a nervous breakdown. They can find me a paper bag to breathe into and bring me a glass of water and let me sit there until my panic attack passes.

Where did I ever say I didn't understand that? Where did I ever say that violence was acceptable? Please either quote where I said that or stop putting words in my mouth.

What I said was that you are engaging in excessive punishment without any authority. The legal system has a means to punish violence against a TSO.

What it sounds like you're saying is that the realm of aviation is TSA's own little fiefdom and they want to play by their rules with their punishments. If that's what you mean, then just say so.

BULL.

The next time one of your compatriots racks me in the nuts, I will be violent in my self defense... and justifiably so. I was injured by a TSA employee in the past and I fully expect it to happen again.

It is fully apparent that the vast majority of TSA personnel are unable to retain any of their "retraining".

But when it's a gov't employee in a public, non profit driven work environment ots okay?

He did say so. At least three times.

Yeah, yeah, right. You won't do squat. Sounds brave online, but in reality, you won't do a thing because you clearly understand that you would be breaking the law.

My experience as an evaluator is completely opposite. TSOs often do NOT go up as high as they are supposed to. This is because they are truly uncomfortable with the process. My job is to make them do it right, and I'm pretty busy doing that.

So spare me the rhetoric. I don't buy it.

I would, however believe that they were slapped and thrown up against walls by their supervisors/managers, and that the video of such incidents would disappear just like it does when TSA abuses passengers.

I wouldn't. It would have made the news, just like the little incident with Rolando Negrin.