Gate patdowns and detainment at DEN
Nov 26, 2011, 8:16 pm
#77
Join Date: Dec 2007
Programs: DL, WN, US, Avis, AA
Posts: 662
I'm confused. Why would the size of the airport have anything to do with the time requred for gate screening for any particulary flight? Does a 737 contain more passengers at a large airport than at a small one? Does "random selection" function differently depending on airport size? Or do the screeners at large airports just process people more slowly?
Nov 26, 2011, 8:17 pm
#78
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: LAS
Posts: 1,279
Actually, I read what was written and filtered the bias and lack of specific knowledge about process. I don’t believe I criticized anything, I only pointed out the factual errors. By what you have written it is obvious to me that you do seriously lack knowledge about what was going on.
TSA came along for the gate checks. This gate had an area that was segregated for inspections. In this case, they were pulling people out of line for thorough pat-downs. 
After the pat-downs, they forced people to stay within this segregated area. One person tried to leave and was coerced by TSA to stay withing the inspection area. Since the flight wasn't ready to leave (about 10 min.), these people, IMO, were being detained unlawfully by TSA. FWIW, there was no LEO in sight.
After the pat-downs, they forced people to stay within this segregated area. One person tried to leave and was coerced by TSA to stay withing the inspection area. Since the flight wasn't ready to leave (about 10 min.), these people, IMO, were being detained unlawfully by TSA. FWIW, there was no LEO in sight.Was it the fact I was in Denver?
How about that TSA was there performing gate checks (note the little "g" and the little "c" with no reference to whatever you might define a gate check to be)?
How about the fact that there was a segregated area?
How about the fact that TSA pulled people out of line and was giving them pat-downs?
How about the fact that they were not allowed to leave after the pat-down?
Everything after that is my opinion.
Please do tell where my bias has colored these events to the point where they are factually inaccurate.
After reading your posts, this is the best I can do to address your superior knowledge of an event you did not witness.
TSA came along for TO DO SOMETHING. This gate had an area that was segregated for inspections. In this case, they were pulling people out of line for thorough BODY RUBBING. After the BODY RUBBING, they WOULD NOT ALLOW people to LEAVE this segregated area. One person tried to leave and was coerced by TSA to stay withing the inspection area. Since the flight wasn't ready to leave (about 10 min.), these people, IMO, were being detained unlawfully by TSA. FWIW, there was no LEO in sight.
Yes, I am assuming they were being detained. That's the point. I base this on the fact that they were told they could not go anywhere and they stayed where they were.
Really? I called it a gate check, you called it screening. You win the Nobel prize for semantics. Happy?
A reasonable assumption. In large airports gate screening can take quite a bit of time, so beginning just a bit early is one way of ensuring that the flight is not late for its departure time. But I have not seen or heard any reports of gate screening causing a flight to be delayed. Many things can cause a flight to become late, and we have specifically designed the program to prevent screening from becoming one of them.
Nov 26, 2011, 8:18 pm
#79
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: LAS
Posts: 1,279
Is an eyewitness more or less likely to properly recall an event than a person who did not see it at all.
For the bonus round, how much would you trust the person that did not see the event but insists he has a better understanding of what actually happened?
Nov 26, 2011, 8:53 pm
#80
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 959
OK. Any attorney's or police officers want to answer this question?
Is an eyewitness more or less likely to properly recall an event than a person who did not see it at all.
For the bonus round, how much would you trust the person that did not see the event but insists he has a better understanding of what actually happened?
Is an eyewitness more or less likely to properly recall an event than a person who did not see it at all.
For the bonus round, how much would you trust the person that did not see the event but insists he has a better understanding of what actually happened?
Answer: About as far as I can shotput a cheesecake underwater.
Nov 26, 2011, 9:11 pm
#81
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Gate screening for large aircraft would presumably take longer than gate screening for small aircraft. Hence, the slight mis-statement that screening at larger airports takes longer. It's not the airport, it's the aircraft.
Nov 26, 2011, 9:11 pm
#82
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,580
Ron's assertion that eyewitness testimony is "notoriously inaccurate" is wrong.
Yes, there can be problems with eyewitness testimony. Yes, this testimony has been shown, through the use of DNA evidence, to result in a significant number of false convictions. Witness or victim recollection is perishable, and has to be handled as such. The accuracy of eyewitness identification depends on several factors, including perception, memory, communication, and candor. Even trained observers - law enforcement officers, for example - can make erroneous identifications in the heat of the moment.
But to suggest that it is "notoriously inaccurate" demonstrates the OP's utter lack of understanding of the criminal justice process. Eyewitness testimony can be a powerful and accurate tool in the prosecutor's tool kit, and when used carefully, is invaluable.
Yes, there can be problems with eyewitness testimony. Yes, this testimony has been shown, through the use of DNA evidence, to result in a significant number of false convictions. Witness or victim recollection is perishable, and has to be handled as such. The accuracy of eyewitness identification depends on several factors, including perception, memory, communication, and candor. Even trained observers - law enforcement officers, for example - can make erroneous identifications in the heat of the moment.
But to suggest that it is "notoriously inaccurate" demonstrates the OP's utter lack of understanding of the criminal justice process. Eyewitness testimony can be a powerful and accurate tool in the prosecutor's tool kit, and when used carefully, is invaluable.
Nov 29, 2011, 8:22 am
#84
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: LAS
Posts: 1,279
that works for TSA and didn't see the event in the first place ).
Nov 29, 2011, 9:22 am
#85
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,425
Since TSORon hasn't returned to explain what I had obviously mischaracterized and grossly misinterpreted about theoretical and hypothetical people, I guess I'll have to go with my eyewitness account, even though it is notoriously unreliable and biased (just ask the unbiased apologist that works for TSA and didn't see the event in the first place ).
that works for TSA and didn't see the event in the first place ).Yet here we are when this is being done in spades to many people at the gate. I guess that was more dis-information from those folks. Anything for a temporary advantage. Like calling an eyewitness wrong without any proof.