Hey Ron, I found him, not to hard.:)

Uh-oh. Stalked already. ;)

This is the problem. Everyone wanting to fly is not wanting to cause a problem or commit a crime. There is no reason to attempt to trick anyone into a reason for anymore attention UNLESS you think they are wanting to do something wrong.

Just like the state your name game. There is no reason to want you to state your name when it matches the boarding pass and the ID and your face. Unless you are accusing me of being a criminal

And same first names:D

In case you are not used to TSORon's modus operandi on FT:

- Attempt to develop credibility through the estabishment of credibility and pass yourself off as a "professional".

- Use a minimum of coherent text after the initial attempt at establishing credibility

- Attempt to destroy the credibility of any detractors and dissenters by calling into question their credentials or professional qualifications, either in a direct [is not a lawyer] or indirect [if you were what you say you are, then you would know].

- Continue to politely erode everybody else's credibility, because at the end of the day, the topic has been derailed which is the primary goal anyway.

All harmless fun, until one persons falls into the trap and goes away thinking that the TSA is actually making them safe. Oh well. Let's continue the banter.

Most here know that TSA and safety are not related.

Most here know that TSA employees are for the most part the leftovers from every other job field out there.

Most here know that engaging certain posters is a complete waste of time.

%s/Most/All/g

FTFY. HTH. HAND.

It's worse than that. You forgot about the claims that cannot be backed up, and are then dropped down the memory hole, such as the one referenced here:

Absolutely nothing --- as I made clear in my disclaimer, which you omitted.

I would be happy to be corrected, of course, if you're better qualified than I to comment on this topic.

Need an attorney? ;)

I am so glad to hear you say that. If you were a LEO, lawyer or judge I would have been very concerned.

Regarding your "disclaimer", I didn't see it so my appologies. However, the way you wrote your comments as what appeared to be a statement of fact, rather than opinion, led me to believe that you were insinuating that you had a degree of expertise in the subject. My interpertation, I guess.

What you wrote is a common misconception among lay people but has several errors in it.

A LEO does not have to inform you that you are a suspect in a criminal proceeding. If this were the case then undercover work would not happen. Can you imagine a UC cop saying "I suspect you of being a drug dealer"?

A LEO also does not have to advise you of your rights automatically. The rights you speak of were granted under a Supreme Court decision (Miranda vs Arizona, 1966) and generally only have to be delivered to a person when there is a custodial interrogation that is about to occur. For example, if the person is not in custody (IE not under arrest or detention or being interviewed over the phone, etc) the person does not need to be "Mirandized".

As far as I can recall (and I may be a bit off on this one, it's been a long time since I studied this stuff) there is also no requirement to say how the information gained is to be used. The court ruling did not specify the exact wording to be used and it varies from place to place, but they did provide a recommendation and I believe that it said "anything the person says WILL be used against that person in court" but some jurisdictions say "can and will" while others say "may be", etc.

It's also important to note that, although rarely done, a LEO does NOT have to Mirandize you prior to questioning, even when in custody but if they chose not to the information gained can't be used against YOU.

Should a person opt to envoke their Miranda rights, the interaction does not have to stop but questioning usually does due to the inadmissibility of their statements.

Regardless of whether a person has been Mirandized or not and regardless of whether they have envoked these rights any spontaneous statement made by the person can still be used against them.

I hope this clears things up. If not you may want to Google "Miranda vs Arizona (1966)"

And your expertise in the subject?

Well, no.

It caused Bubbaloop and others to provide some interesting information about chemistry in the other thread, and in this thread it caused Bubbaloop to link to that "Nature" article. Engaging some posters may not elicit any useful or intelligent response from those posters, and may not inform those posters, but it can certainly inform other readers of the thread, who may be more receptive to information.

That is about right, actually. The key is whether the subject of the interrogation perceives that he is free to leave.

No, but I might need someone good with a hockey stick. :)