|
Originally Posted by ScatterX
(Post 21755113)
I think your reading of us is incorrect.
As a friend said in discussions in other forums that were trending towards politics or religion - understanding that the traditional debate/discussion/education/persuasion process will never work on articles of faith - "If somebody 'gets it', no explanation is necessary. If they don't, no explanation will be sufficient." |
A TSO has as much right to self defense and bear arms as I do, and the courts have decided I do not have a right to bear arms in the sterile area.
So neither should a TSO. |
From ALIENS: "What are we going to attack them with? Harsh language?"
If LEOs are trained that people on the street are allowed their 1st Amendment rights to mutter whatever, why do TSO's delicate natures entitle them to protection against verbal interactions? Let them wear earplugs if the workplace is aurally stressful. |
Originally Posted by TheRoadie
(Post 21755383)
From ALIENS: "What are we going to attack them with? Harsh language?"
If LEOs are trained that people on the street are allowed their 1st Amendment rights to mutter whatever, why do TSO's delicate natures entitle them to protection against verbal interactions? Let them wear earplugs if the workplace is aurally stressful. |
.....
|
.....
|
Originally Posted by MikeMpls
(Post 21756040)
On the one side of the table we have Spiff & pals. Now I happen to agree with you, but ...
On the other side of the table are the airlines, who were relieved of an enormous cost center by the creation of TSA after 9/11. The airlines' expenses for passenger screening are fixed at what they were paying then, and not adjusted for inflation. TSA also relieves the airlines of liability for failures in passenger screening. The airlines love TSA, not for what TSA does but for what the airlines don't have to provide and underwrite. At the end of the day, which lobby will prevail? A bunch of the disgruntled passengers? Or the airlines, which will threaten economic disaster and failure if we return to the status quo before 9/11? In the end, an effective economic boycott of American airlines is the only protest that will work. As long as it hurts less to keep TSA, the airlines will ensure that TSA stays. You can add free liability coverage and other special perks to the list.
Originally Posted by MikeMpls
(Post 21756040)
In the end, an effective economic boycott of American airlines is the only protest that will work. As long as the government subsidies (aka bribes) and special favors (aka exemption from TSA's most abusive practices) continue, the airlines will ensure that TSA stays.
|
Originally Posted by MikeMpls
(Post 21756113)
Will there be "protective installations on raised platforms at the [exits] to protect TSA law enforcement officers" who will be there to protect these TSO's, thereby completing the prison camp metaphor?
|
Originally Posted by MikeMpls
(Post 21756113)
This also destroys any pretense of a customer service orientation that they might have.
I don't believe for a second that the TSA as an organization ever had a "customer service" orientation. We, the passengers, are the enemy - not "customers." |
Originally Posted by ScatterX
(Post 21755113)
I think your reading of us is incorrect.
What I was trying to point out is that trying to turn TSOs into legitimate LEOs would involve such an expenditure of time and money, and be accessible to so few TSOs, that it might actually demonstrate how far TSOs are from LEOs: a point that many of us here feel is lost on the public in general (and TSA in particular). Deputizing TSOs might actually work to "our" advantage in the long run. But clearly I'm making too subtle a point. Off to goalie's penalty box I go ... |
Originally Posted by jkhuggins
(Post 21757507)
Deputizing TSOs might actually work to "our" advantage in the long run.
How many passengers would be violated by *armed* thugs to prove a point? |
Originally Posted by Caradoc
(Post 21757522)
At what cost?
How many passengers would be violated by *armed* thugs to prove a point? Sure, it's no guarantee of anything. There are "rogue cops" just like there are "rogue TSOs". But that's why I offered the gedankenexperiment. |
Long thread with good info so this may have been said and I missed it:
When you change the administrative function to one in which firearms are introduced creating a quasi-LEO organization, the constitutionally permissible universe of allowable behaviors is greatly reduced. The only reason the TSA exists as is does is the loosened protections of the administrative search doctrine and its court allowed carve outs to 4th Amendment protections that law enforcement officers generally do not have. There are exceptions, random sobriety checks for instance, but they are few and and tightly regulated. The TSA as we know it would cease to exist with LEO type regulatory oversight. That may or may not be a good thing. |
Originally Posted by jkhuggins
(Post 21754840)
So the issue isn't about the arming of TSOs per se; the issue is that, in many people's eyes, TSA is irredeemable --- and no matter how TSA might propose to change its procedures, the only permitted response is "Shut down TSA". Am I reading y'all correctly?
Yuck. I don't want TSA shut down. I want the federalized screeners disbanded and that mission turned back over to airports and airlines with private sector employees, leaving TSA with a small cadre at each airport for supervision. |
Originally Posted by jkhuggins
(Post 21757586)
Or, it's entirely possible that TSOs that are properly trained as LEOs might discover that "crap, we really don't have the authority to act like thugs".
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 7:36 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.