Southwest pilot has confrontation with TSA at MHT
Nah, I've been around a while... I just prefer a moderate approach.
Aug 17, 2012, 1:53 pm
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,644
Mike
Aug 17, 2012, 9:45 pm
#18
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bye Delta
Programs: AA EXP, HH Diamond, IHG Plat, Hyatt Plat, Marriott Plat, Nat'l Exec Elite, Avis Presidents Club
Posts: 16,273
Any agency that gives its people police uniforms and badges and makes them act like they're cops, even though they have no police powers, then decides that they're not required to prominently display a name tag or identification badge on their chest at all times, is out of control.
And if I ever touched a TSO on the arm, I'd be sharing a bunk in Gitmo...
Aug 18, 2012, 5:52 am
#19
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
A friend of mine who was a flight attendant for a large regional carrier told me a number of years ago about something she personally witnessed when her captain and a TSO got into an argument and it got to the point where one took a swing at the other (I forget which now). So this isn't the first time such a thing has happened. This was at a small airport in the SW.
Aug 19, 2012, 4:34 pm
#21
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London; Bangkok; Las Vegas
Programs: AA Exec Plat; UA MM Gold; Marriott Lifetime Titanium; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,745
While I'd agree that refusing to provide a name is not the mark of an employee that cares about customer service, I've had the same issue before with airlines and credit card companies. I'd hardly use that single piece of evidence to defend the statement "XYZ agency is out of control."
Come on now. Battery? Really? Both the pilot and the TSO involved said nothing violent happen. There's no need to go to extremes.
A battery is:
1. That defendant touched plaintiff with the intent to harm or offend the plaintiff;
2. That plaintiff did not consent to the touching; and
3. That plaintiff was harmed or offended by defendant’s conduct.
“A battery is any intentional, unlawful and harmful contact by one person
with the person of another. . . . A harmful contact, intentionally done is
the essence of a battery. A contact is ‘unlawful’ if it is unconsented to.”
(Ashcraft v. King (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 604, 611 [278 Cal.Rptr. 900],
internal citations omitted.)
“A battery is a violation of an individual’s interest in freedom from
intentional, unlawful, harmful or offensive unconsented contacts with his
or her person.” (Rains v. Superior Court (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 933, 938
[198 Cal.Rptr. 249].)
The pilot said the STSO was being condescending. Doesn't mean he actually was. Again, the article really tells us nothing.
So, yes, a battery. Really.
Aug 19, 2012, 5:27 pm
#22
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,681
A friend of mine who was a flight attendant for a large regional carrier told me a number of years ago about something she personally witnessed when her captain and a TSO got into an argument and it got to the point where one took a swing at the other (I forget which now). So this isn't the first time such a thing has happened. This was at a small airport in the SW.
http://overheadbin.nbcnews.com/_news...-at-pilot?lite
Aug 19, 2012, 6:43 pm
#23
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 516
Police say no charges in TSA official-pilot dustup
The long and short of it:
"...police concluded that Harbaugh's touch did not amount to assault."
TSA's statement once again says they investigated themselves, and found themselves innocent: “The findings demonstrate that our employees acted professionally and followed proper screening protocols in their engagement with Captain Mcghie”.
The long and short of it:
"...police concluded that Harbaugh's touch did not amount to assault."
TSA's statement once again says they investigated themselves, and found themselves innocent: “The findings demonstrate that our employees acted professionally and followed proper screening protocols in their engagement with Captain Mcghie”.
Last edited by OldGoat; Aug 19, 2012 at 6:48 pm Reason: Noticed TSA statement likely to TSA's investigation rather than LE investigation.
Aug 20, 2012, 11:07 am
#24
Join Date: Nov 2008
Programs: AA EXP, 2mm; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 325
Don't be ridiculous. Please leave unproductive comments like this out of this forum. Comments like these are just plain pathetic.
A battery is:
1. That defendant touched plaintiff with the intent to harm or offend the plaintiff;
2. That plaintiff did not consent to the touching; and
3. That plaintiff was harmed or offended by defendant’s conduct.
“A battery is any intentional, unlawful and harmful contact by one person
with the person of another. . . . A harmful contact, intentionally done is
the essence of a battery. A contact is ‘unlawful’ if it is unconsented to.”
(Ashcraft v. King (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 604, 611 [278 Cal.Rptr. 900],
internal citations omitted.)
“A battery is a violation of an individual’s interest in freedom from
intentional, unlawful, harmful or offensive unconsented contacts with his
or her person.” (Rains v. Superior Court (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 933, 938
[198 Cal.Rptr. 249].)
So, yes, a battery. Really.
1. That defendant touched plaintiff with the intent to harm or offend the plaintiff;
2. That plaintiff did not consent to the touching; and
3. That plaintiff was harmed or offended by defendant’s conduct.
“A battery is any intentional, unlawful and harmful contact by one person
with the person of another. . . . A harmful contact, intentionally done is
the essence of a battery. A contact is ‘unlawful’ if it is unconsented to.”
(Ashcraft v. King (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 604, 611 [278 Cal.Rptr. 900],
internal citations omitted.)
“A battery is a violation of an individual’s interest in freedom from
intentional, unlawful, harmful or offensive unconsented contacts with his
or her person.” (Rains v. Superior Court (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 933, 938
[198 Cal.Rptr. 249].)
So, yes, a battery. Really.
If you really see harm in the touching of arms, I suggest you stay indoors from now on so you don't become a battered man.
If you touched someone on the arm (perhaps to get their attention, for example) you would likely laugh at the implication that you committed battery.
Jumping to battery here is jumping to extremes.
Aug 20, 2012, 11:16 am
#25
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,725
Aug 20, 2012, 11:35 am
#26
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: ONT
Programs: AA Gold, WN A-, UA S, HH ♦, IHG Spire, Hertz Prez O, TSA Disparager
Posts: 2,159
Jones said the security footage taken at the checkpoint area should clear up whether the confrontation amounted to an assault.
Aug 20, 2012, 1:43 pm
#27
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London; Bangkok; Las Vegas
Programs: AA Exec Plat; UA MM Gold; Marriott Lifetime Titanium; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,745
That wasn't my point. My point was that we don't call credit card companies "out of control" when one employee refuses to give a name. Just because we don't like TSA, we're going to apply a different standard here? The article gave us no information, and the first responder immediately jumped to "They're out of control!!! ZOMG!!111"
I have to interact with the TSA. I KNOW they are out of control. Why don't you? Perhaps you are not familiar with the 4th Amendment and the cases that have defined the permissible scope of administrative inspections?
Don't be ridiculous. Please leave unproductive comments like this out of this forum. Comments like these are just plain pathetic.
Perhaps you are too defensive on this issue for a reason?
Except that... it wasn't:
If you really see harm in the touching of arms, I suggest you stay indoors from now on so you don't become a battered man.
If you touched someone on the arm (perhaps to get their attention, for example) you would likely laugh at the implication that you committed battery.
Jumping to battery here is jumping to extremes.
If you really see harm in the touching of arms, I suggest you stay indoors from now on so you don't become a battered man.
If you touched someone on the arm (perhaps to get their attention, for example) you would likely laugh at the implication that you committed battery.
Jumping to battery here is jumping to extremes.
In our system, the police are not the final arbiter of what is a crime and what is not. The courts and juries are.
Why is it that if you do not address the issue of why it is a one-way street? If there had been any touching of the TSA employee, you can bet there would have been charges.
Aug 20, 2012, 1:59 pm
#28
Join Date: Nov 2008
Programs: AA EXP, 2mm; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 325
If you want to have a productive conversation, I'm up for it.
Last edited by UshuaiaHammerfest; Aug 23, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Aug 20, 2012, 8:34 pm
#29
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SEA
Programs: Delta TDK(or care)WIA, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,869
If you really see harm in the touching of arms, I suggest you stay indoors from now on so you don't become a battered man.
If you touched someone on the arm (perhaps to get their attention, for example) you would likely laugh at the implication that you committed battery.
Jumping to battery here is jumping to extremes.
Unintentional touching isn't battery, nor is touching that doesn't cause offense to a reasonable person.
This was battery. The fact that you have additional requirements for considering something battery isn't important. Battery is what the law defines it to be.
Aug 20, 2012, 9:02 pm
#30
Join Date: Nov 2008
Programs: AA EXP, 2mm; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 325
Most reasonable people would not allege battery just from someone touching them on the arm and being condescending. The article says nothing about how hard the touch was, how offensive it was, and so on. But given the other facts it did provide, we can safely conclude what it really was.
It was a pissing contest. Nothing more.
My sense is that you and many others on this forum believe that only those with the absolute most extreme anti-TSA views are welcome. That's pretty sad, considering the implication is that you'll drive away those who are generally opposed to TSA's practices and policies, but just happen to be smart enough to be objective and recognize that not every incident is worth crying foul over. And those are the people that you need if you ever want to see the anything change.
Last edited by essxjay; Aug 23, 2012 at 3:31 pm Reason: reference to deleted post