Trying to pick the fly dung out of the pepper.

If TSA says you must do something and you don't wish to do it then forced is the correct word.

Trying to pick the fly dung out of the pepper.

If TSA says you must do something and you don't wish to do it then forced is the correct word.

Okay, I'll play. As one of the regulars here would say "he wasn't forced, he could have just gone home instead of going to Disneyland. He didn't HAVE to fly.":rolleyes:

As doober points out, in the context of the story it sounds like the alternative "not being allowed through the checkpoint". Note that his father was a police officer, was furious when he complained to the supervisor (who was not helpful, btw) and followed up with a call to the airport manager. Do you believe that a police officer would view a "request" by a TSA screener as "forcing" and comply without question, then be furious enough to complain to a supervisor? Or that he would be angry enough to call the manager if the alternative had been a secondary search?

I know that in the case of my friend's father - for which you only have my account, not news coverage or acknowledgement by the TSA - both the elderly disabled gentleman and his wife argued strenuously that he couldn't walk through the WTMD on his own, but the LAX screeners insisted that he if didn't, he wasn't going to get to his flight. And as they were on their way home to Australia, "not flying" was not an option. Unacceptable.

deleted

You are underestimating the force of mental duress when a family is traveling. Presumably they are traveling for reason quite possibly very important to them and for which they may have paid a considerable sum of money. They may be in the middle of their trip and fear being stranded. There is certainly the aspect of "we have to do this" in this scenario, and a highly diminished sense of freedom of option.

Whatever is happening here, it is not as simple as deciding not to go to Burger King because the staff is rude and instead opting for McDonald's.

How do you know he's really unable to walk? Wouldn't a terrorist possibly pose as a disabled person? And so forth. The problem with these folks is they have seized on a faulty paradigm (all pax are potentially bomb carrying terrorists until proved otherwise)

I'm still waiting for Risk Based security.

Unfortunately ... it's not nearly so simple. It should be, but it isn't.

1. "Difficulty" is in the eye of the beholder. Some folks can walk, but fatigue easily, and use a wheelchair in order to navigate large distances ... like, say, airport concourses. So, the reason why a given passenger presents him/herself at a checkpoint seated in a wheelchair may not be obvious.

2. Regrettably, a small number of folks grab a wheelchair and use it simply because they can, and because such folks are given certain advantages like line-jumping, even though they have no qualifying disability. The chief effect of such folks is to cast suspicion on others with a legitimate need for accomodation.

Of course, none of that excuses TSOs for treating those seated in wheelchairs with disrespect. TSOs have procedures to follow in such situations, and they should follow those procedures without harassing the passenger.

deleted

Bolding mine.


To answer that; someone hired off a pizza box???????

That story has the quote "when TSA officials ruled he must clear customs". Since TSA has nothing to do with customs, I'd be disinclined to rely on that story for the relevant definition of "forced".

Sure, because it's false! Especially at large airports. Many people who can walk short distances just fine will get a wheelchair because they aren't able to comfortably walk the long distance to the gate at such airports. For such a person, the best way to traverse the checkpoint is on foot. The only way to know the extent of the mobility of somebody in a wheelchair is to ask them.

Wait, we don't have to take off shoes anymore? Or is that just for going through the scanning machines?

And that's part of what I'm getting at. Although there are certainly cases where "forced" is indeed likely the right word, because of the above, there's also the potential of a request being interpreted as a demand. Or even a question being interpreted that way. It's not necessarily the case that the TSO and the passenger have the same interpretation of what was said.

If a TSO asks somebody in a wheelchair "Can you stand, sir?", in his mind, he's asking the question "Are you able to stand up?" but a passenger could easily misinterpret this as a demand to stand and views the TSO as trying to "force" a person in a wheelchair to stand. My guess is that at leaast some of the stories are cases exactly like this.

TSO, to passenger approaching the WTMD in a wheelchair: "Can you stand and walk through the metal detector?"

Passenger: "I'll try".

TSO: "If you can, that'll make things easier."

In such a situation, both parties could easily view the interaction in vastly different ways.

Which is why I ended my posting with this comment:

deleted