LAS TSO confiscates Cupcake by claiming its frosting is a "gel"
Dec 25, 2011, 8:48 pm
#46
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
That quote was not in the blog article in the OP. It's clear to me now that the cupcake was stolen under color of authority by the TSO. Whether he did id because he wanted to eat the cupcake or because he was actually stupid enough to believe that it was a prohibited item in the gel category makes little difference; it's still theft, still illegal, and should still be prosecuted.
Dec 26, 2011, 8:07 pm
#48
Join Date: Aug 2007
Programs: QF LTG:
Posts: 1,859
And this example shows why you should stick to pastry, like the TSA they have layers of security.
Seriously how can people be this stupid? It cannot be natural, they must study hard.
I'm going to have my first visit to LOTFAP in March. I truly hope this isn't representative of the TSA clerks I will come in contact with.
Seriously how can people be this stupid? It cannot be natural, they must study hard.
I'm going to have my first visit to LOTFAP in March. I truly hope this isn't representative of the TSA clerks I will come in contact with.
Dec 26, 2011, 8:24 pm
#49
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: ONT
Programs: AA Gold, WN A-, UA S, HH ♦, IHG Spire, Hertz Prez O, TSA Disparager
Posts: 2,159
Something I like to stay clear on is the difference between a forced disposal and a confiscation.
Confiscation is not permitted under TSA's mandate. They can prevent you from entering the sterile area with a prohibited item, which forces you to either dispose of the item or not fly. Most people choose to dispose of the item, usually by tossing it into a trash can at the checkpoint.
Confiscation is not permitted under TSA's mandate. They can prevent you from entering the sterile area with a prohibited item, which forces you to either dispose of the item or not fly. Most people choose to dispose of the item, usually by tossing it into a trash can at the checkpoint.
Dec 26, 2011, 9:05 pm
#50
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Southwest Florida
Programs: AA lifetime Gold , DL Gold, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 572
From what I have read, the TSA does not have the power to forcibly seize and confiscate any item at the checkpoint because they have no law enforcement powers, all they can do is deny entry of that item through the checkpoint. In the case of something illegal is found like a weapon, they have to call for an LEO.
If the item is not illegal, then it is your options to either check the item, take it back to your car, dispose of it or in the case of the cupcake, eat it before going through the checkpoint.
I would like to hear from our resident TSO’s on this matter.
Mr. Elliott
If the item is not illegal, then it is your options to either check the item, take it back to your car, dispose of it or in the case of the cupcake, eat it before going through the checkpoint.
I would like to hear from our resident TSO’s on this matter.
Mr. Elliott
Dec 27, 2011, 7:52 am
#51
In Memoriam
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Easton, CT, USA
Programs: ua prem exec, Former hilton diamond
Posts: 31,801
The TSA doesn't have the power to strip search people, and they do it.
They don't have the power to take your cupcake, but they won't give it back to you because it's dangerous.
They don't have the power to do much of what they do, but the traveling public doesn't know that, and they don't explain it to them.
Oh those old ladies could have stopped us at any time when we were pulling down their pants without telling them we had no right to do so, so they must have wanted us to check them naked at the airport.
It's totally possible they could have gotten the police involved, missed the flight and gotten the cupcake back, but the TSA knows most people don't have time for that.
Love this quote from one story about it
"We went out with two cupcakes in a jar and TSA in Boston said these look delicious, but TSA in Las Vegas thought they looked dangerous," Hains said.
The bakers at Wicked Good Cupcakes, of Cohasset, MA, never thought their delights could cause such disruption.
Bet the bakery is busy as can be now, enjoying their few days of fame.
They don't have the power to take your cupcake, but they won't give it back to you because it's dangerous.
They don't have the power to do much of what they do, but the traveling public doesn't know that, and they don't explain it to them.
Oh those old ladies could have stopped us at any time when we were pulling down their pants without telling them we had no right to do so, so they must have wanted us to check them naked at the airport.
It's totally possible they could have gotten the police involved, missed the flight and gotten the cupcake back, but the TSA knows most people don't have time for that.
Love this quote from one story about it
"We went out with two cupcakes in a jar and TSA in Boston said these look delicious, but TSA in Las Vegas thought they looked dangerous," Hains said.
The bakers at Wicked Good Cupcakes, of Cohasset, MA, never thought their delights could cause such disruption.
Bet the bakery is busy as can be now, enjoying their few days of fame.
Dec 27, 2011, 8:47 am
#52
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
However, the problem is that, by the time you're at the checkpoint, you've already checked your luggage and can't usually get it back to add an item to your existing bags. You can check the offending item on its own, but if it's a small item like a cupcake in a jar or a bottle of shampoo or a forgotten fork or pocket knife or multitool in your bag, it's pretty much impossible to check.
Dec 27, 2011, 10:02 am
#55
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: YYZ
Programs: ACMM SE100K; *G
Posts: 1,526
I don't deal with TSA often, but I read this board quite frequently as I'm a glutton for punishment (i.e. making my blood boil).
Here's my favourite comment on the article...
The alternative is to stop acting like a ****ing coward, understand that one day you will die, and it will almost certainly be due to something normal and mundane like cancer or a heart attack. The ****ing terrorist are not going to kill your fat American a$$, McDonalds is. If you are very lucky, you might die of something exciting like a car accident, falling in the shower, or choking on food you shoved into your diabetic American maw.
Seriously, the amount of pi$$ed away time, money, and simple loss of liberty we endure to protect against one of the most absurdly rare ways to die is epic in its stupid. It is even more stupid when you consider that the only two worthwhile security measures worth taking above and beyond what we were already doing were cheap and have proven to be 100% effective. The only two worthwhile security measures that don't reek of rank cowardice in the face of an absurdly small threat was 1) reinforcing the cockpit doors and 2) telling passengers to beat the living sh** out of anyone trying to take over the plane or blow up a bomb. He11, we proved the effectiveness of #2 on 9/11 the second the passengers on flight 93 realize that the hijackers were not looking for a ransom.
The terrorist are not going to kill you. Diabetes, cancer, heart attacks, falling, cars, or Alzheimer's is going to kill you. Get over it and stop acting like such a ****ing child. Stop wasting my time and money with your childish and cowardly fears by mewing to the government to do the adult equivalent of shining a light under the bed to prove that there are no monsters. Better and braver people than you willingly paid in blood for the liberties you are so quick to piss away at a threat that ranks somewhere between shark attacks and getting struck by lightening.
My security solution? Grow up, stop being such a coward, and if you insist on acting like a child, stop traveling where you are afraid the scary terrorist are going to get you, cower in your house quietly, and stop voting.
Here's my favourite comment on the article...
finally, i'm all for reform of these futile security protocols. but what really is the alternative? forget about replying better police or detective work. at the endpoints of airline flights, how best do you reduce the possibility of an attack? for even if one flight gets downed, terrorists will have made their point (tho it shouldn't be this way). what kind of security system do you set up when even one failure out of millions means you lose the game?
The alternative is to stop acting like a ****ing coward, understand that one day you will die, and it will almost certainly be due to something normal and mundane like cancer or a heart attack. The ****ing terrorist are not going to kill your fat American a$$, McDonalds is. If you are very lucky, you might die of something exciting like a car accident, falling in the shower, or choking on food you shoved into your diabetic American maw.
Seriously, the amount of pi$$ed away time, money, and simple loss of liberty we endure to protect against one of the most absurdly rare ways to die is epic in its stupid. It is even more stupid when you consider that the only two worthwhile security measures worth taking above and beyond what we were already doing were cheap and have proven to be 100% effective. The only two worthwhile security measures that don't reek of rank cowardice in the face of an absurdly small threat was 1) reinforcing the cockpit doors and 2) telling passengers to beat the living sh** out of anyone trying to take over the plane or blow up a bomb. He11, we proved the effectiveness of #2 on 9/11 the second the passengers on flight 93 realize that the hijackers were not looking for a ransom.
The terrorist are not going to kill you. Diabetes, cancer, heart attacks, falling, cars, or Alzheimer's is going to kill you. Get over it and stop acting like such a ****ing child. Stop wasting my time and money with your childish and cowardly fears by mewing to the government to do the adult equivalent of shining a light under the bed to prove that there are no monsters. Better and braver people than you willingly paid in blood for the liberties you are so quick to piss away at a threat that ranks somewhere between shark attacks and getting struck by lightening.
My security solution? Grow up, stop being such a coward, and if you insist on acting like a child, stop traveling where you are afraid the scary terrorist are going to get you, cower in your house quietly, and stop voting.
Dec 27, 2011, 10:08 am
#56
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 642
I don't deal with TSA often, but I read this board quite frequently as I'm a glutton for punishment (i.e. making my blood boil).
Here's my favourite comment on the article...
The alternative is to stop acting like a ****ing coward, understand that one day you will die, and it will almost certainly be due to something normal and mundane like cancer or a heart attack. The ****ing terrorist are not going to kill your fat American a$$, McDonalds is. If you are very lucky, you might die of something exciting like a car accident, falling in the shower, or choking on food you shoved into your diabetic American maw.
Seriously, the amount of pi$$ed away time, money, and simple loss of liberty we endure to protect against one of the most absurdly rare ways to die is epic in its stupid. It is even more stupid when you consider that the only two worthwhile security measures worth taking above and beyond what we were already doing were cheap and have proven to be 100% effective. The only two worthwhile security measures that don't reek of rank cowardice in the face of an absurdly small threat was 1) reinforcing the cockpit doors and 2) telling passengers to beat the living sh** out of anyone trying to take over the plane or blow up a bomb. He11, we proved the effectiveness of #2 on 9/11 the second the passengers on flight 93 realize that the hijackers were not looking for a ransom.
The terrorist are not going to kill you. Diabetes, cancer, heart attacks, falling, cars, or Alzheimer's is going to kill you. Get over it and stop acting like such a ****ing child. Stop wasting my time and money with your childish and cowardly fears by mewing to the government to do the adult equivalent of shining a light under the bed to prove that there are no monsters. Better and braver people than you willingly paid in blood for the liberties you are so quick to piss away at a threat that ranks somewhere between shark attacks and getting struck by lightening.
My security solution? Grow up, stop being such a coward, and if you insist on acting like a child, stop traveling where you are afraid the scary terrorist are going to get you, cower in your house quietly, and stop voting.
Here's my favourite comment on the article...
finally, i'm all for reform of these futile security protocols. but what really is the alternative? forget about replying better police or detective work. at the endpoints of airline flights, how best do you reduce the possibility of an attack? for even if one flight gets downed, terrorists will have made their point (tho it shouldn't be this way). what kind of security system do you set up when even one failure out of millions means you lose the game?
The alternative is to stop acting like a ****ing coward, understand that one day you will die, and it will almost certainly be due to something normal and mundane like cancer or a heart attack. The ****ing terrorist are not going to kill your fat American a$$, McDonalds is. If you are very lucky, you might die of something exciting like a car accident, falling in the shower, or choking on food you shoved into your diabetic American maw.
Seriously, the amount of pi$$ed away time, money, and simple loss of liberty we endure to protect against one of the most absurdly rare ways to die is epic in its stupid. It is even more stupid when you consider that the only two worthwhile security measures worth taking above and beyond what we were already doing were cheap and have proven to be 100% effective. The only two worthwhile security measures that don't reek of rank cowardice in the face of an absurdly small threat was 1) reinforcing the cockpit doors and 2) telling passengers to beat the living sh** out of anyone trying to take over the plane or blow up a bomb. He11, we proved the effectiveness of #2 on 9/11 the second the passengers on flight 93 realize that the hijackers were not looking for a ransom.
The terrorist are not going to kill you. Diabetes, cancer, heart attacks, falling, cars, or Alzheimer's is going to kill you. Get over it and stop acting like such a ****ing child. Stop wasting my time and money with your childish and cowardly fears by mewing to the government to do the adult equivalent of shining a light under the bed to prove that there are no monsters. Better and braver people than you willingly paid in blood for the liberties you are so quick to piss away at a threat that ranks somewhere between shark attacks and getting struck by lightening.
My security solution? Grow up, stop being such a coward, and if you insist on acting like a child, stop traveling where you are afraid the scary terrorist are going to get you, cower in your house quietly, and stop voting.
Last edited by jtodd; Dec 27, 2011 at 10:24 am
Dec 27, 2011, 10:15 am
#57
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
Dec 28, 2011, 1:53 pm
#58
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,714
I'd like to see an independent review of the checkpoint films that clearly demonstrates that the potentially dangerous cupcake was thrown in the trash and not subsequently retrieved by a TSA employee.
Dec 28, 2011, 2:56 pm
#59
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
Wish I had said that! Sometimes the appropriate thing to say is not the eloquent thing to say.
Dec 28, 2011, 3:11 pm
#60
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
If the TSOs actually seized the cupcake and refused to give it back, that's confiscation, which makes it theft under color of authority, and the TSOs should be prosecuted for theft, whether they ate the cupcake or threw it away.
If they simply told the traveler that the cupcake could not enter the sterile area, and the traveler chose to throw it away rather than eat it or ship it to herself, that's coerced disposal. TSA has the authority to deny entry to the sterile area to anyone who has a prohibited item in their possession, so telling the traveler that she couldn't enter as long as she had the cupcake was almost legal - except for the big whoopsie that cupcakes are not on the dadgum prohibited list and pose absolutely no danger to an aircraft whatsoever!