St. Jude patient in bloody takedown at checkpoint
Aug 13, 2016, 1:55 pm
#241
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: California. USA
Posts: 1,404
I am not mentally challenged at all BUT would a STRANGER grab me I would have a BUG LOUD VOICE.
so what I understand is that this young woman reacted to being grabbed. Nothing wrong with that.
And YES at airports we are told to stay away from people having second screening.
Now we see the result.
Aug 14, 2016, 8:27 am
#242
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
Where is the video footage of that whole area for the 10-20 minutes prior to and after the section of the video which was released and shown in the link above?
The TSA tells cleared passengers and even those still subject to screening underway to stay far away from passengers being subjected to secondary screening. I've been told, and heard others told , to "stay far away" many times in situations where a member of my travel party or myself were subject to an alarm that hadn't been yet resolved at the screening checkpoints.
In other words, I wouldn't be so quick to jump on any insinuation that the mother's language was intentionally misleading or even intentionally inaccurate for some part of the time while the mother and disabled daughter were around the screening checkpoint.
The TSA tells cleared passengers and even those still subject to screening underway to stay far away from passengers being subjected to secondary screening. I've been told, and heard others told , to "stay far away" many times in situations where a member of my travel party or myself were subject to an alarm that hadn't been yet resolved at the screening checkpoints.
In other words, I wouldn't be so quick to jump on any insinuation that the mother's language was intentionally misleading or even intentionally inaccurate for some part of the time while the mother and disabled daughter were around the screening checkpoint.
The first frame of the video shows the mother and daughter standing together at the c/p, before the police arrived, before they retrieved any of their belongings. There were a few TSOs around but none of them were standing in close proximity to the mother and daughter. They don't appear to have been there for very long, maybe only a few minutes.
Aug 15, 2016, 3:15 pm
#243
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,507
The video of the initial screening is irrelevant to the issues at hand: a) the passenger failed to undergo additional screening as required due to the alarm of the screening equipment; b) failed to comply with the lawful orders of the police officers; and c) assault on a police officer; and d) physically resisting arrest.
The posture of the officers does not indicate that they (the officers) felt physically threatened at any time until the officer moves to grab her by the wrist to force her out of the screening area or to the area for additional screening (whichever one is not clear from the video) at which the girl resists and strikes the officer.
The TSOs and the police officers spent significant time explaining to the mother and daughter that she must undergo additional screening so the alarm could be cleared OR she would not be allowed to fly. Did the officers follow policy and procedures regarding how much time was allowed for the passenger to decide whether or not she was going to submit/comply with security checkpoint regulations before they escalated to using force to comply is something for their supervisors to determine and could be the subject of discipline. But it sure appears to me the officer performed correctly.
I have read the plaintiff's lawsuit filing; the plaintiff repeatedly claims the airport and its agents intentionally violated her rights by not accommodating her "obvious" disability. The TSA says they will make accommodations for those needing it (with varying rates of competence as Saizai will attest). The filing does not state the plaintiffs informed TSA of any disability before beginning screening but it does clearly state they repeatedly tried to tell TSA and the cops AFTER the issue. I believe had the plaintiffs let TSA know of special circumstances all of this would have been avoided.
Aug 15, 2016, 4:07 pm
#244
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,128
You will almost never hear audio from surveillance video because such audio recording is usually prohibited (the law generally does not recognize an expectation of privacy of observable behavior in public places but it does recognize an expectation of privacy for conversations in public places).
The video of the initial screening is irrelevant to the issues at hand: a) the passenger failed to undergo additional screening as required due to the alarm of the screening equipment; b) failed to comply with the lawful orders of the police officers; and c) assault on a police officer; and d) physically resisting arrest.
The posture of the officers does not indicate that they (the officers) felt physically threatened at any time until the officer moves to grab her by the wrist to force her out of the screening area or to the area for additional screening (whichever one is not clear from the video) at which the girl resists and strikes the officer.
Did the officers follow policy and procedures regarding how much time was allowed for the passenger to decide whether or not she was going to submit/comply with security checkpoint regulations before they escalated to using force to comply is something for their supervisors to determine and could be the subject of discipline. But it sure appears to me the officer performed correctly.
I have read the plaintiff's lawsuit filing; the plaintiff repeatedly claims the airport and its agents intentionally violated her rights by not accommodating her "obvious" disability. The TSA says they will make accommodations for those needing it (with varying rates of competence as Saizai will attest). The filing does not state the plaintiffs informed TSA of any disability before beginning screening but it does clearly state they repeatedly tried to tell TSA and the cops AFTER the issue. I believe had the plaintiffs let TSA know of special circumstances all of this would have been avoided.
The video of the initial screening is irrelevant to the issues at hand: a) the passenger failed to undergo additional screening as required due to the alarm of the screening equipment; b) failed to comply with the lawful orders of the police officers; and c) assault on a police officer; and d) physically resisting arrest.
The posture of the officers does not indicate that they (the officers) felt physically threatened at any time until the officer moves to grab her by the wrist to force her out of the screening area or to the area for additional screening (whichever one is not clear from the video) at which the girl resists and strikes the officer.
The TSOs and the police officers spent significant time explaining to the mother and daughter that she must undergo additional screening so the alarm could be cleared OR she would not be allowed to fly.
I have read the plaintiff's lawsuit filing; the plaintiff repeatedly claims the airport and its agents intentionally violated her rights by not accommodating her "obvious" disability. The TSA says they will make accommodations for those needing it (with varying rates of competence as Saizai will attest). The filing does not state the plaintiffs informed TSA of any disability before beginning screening but it does clearly state they repeatedly tried to tell TSA and the cops AFTER the issue. I believe had the plaintiffs let TSA know of special circumstances all of this would have been avoided.
Aug 15, 2016, 4:31 pm
#245
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
You will almost never hear audio from surveillance video because such audio recording is usually prohibited (the law generally does not recognize an expectation of privacy of observable behavior in public places but it does recognize an expectation of privacy for conversations in public places).
The video of the initial screening is irrelevant to the issues at hand: a) the passenger failed to undergo additional screening as required due to the alarm of the screening equipment; b) failed to comply with the lawful orders of the police officers; and c) assault on a police officer; and d) physically resisting arrest.
The posture of the officers does not indicate that they (the officers) felt physically threatened at any time until the officer moves to grab her by the wrist to force her out of the screening area or to the area for additional screening (whichever one is not clear from the video) at which the girl resists and strikes the officer.
Quote:
I have read the plaintiff's lawsuit filing; the plaintiff repeatedly claims the airport and its agents intentionally violated her rights by not accommodating her "obvious" disability. The TSA says they will make accommodations for those needing it (with varying rates of competence as Saizai will attest). The filing does not state the plaintiffs informed TSA of any disability before beginning screening but it does clearly state they repeatedly tried to tell TSA and the cops AFTER the issue. I believe had the plaintiffs let TSA know of special circumstances all of this would have been avoided.
The video of the initial screening is irrelevant to the issues at hand: a) the passenger failed to undergo additional screening as required due to the alarm of the screening equipment; b) failed to comply with the lawful orders of the police officers; and c) assault on a police officer; and d) physically resisting arrest.
The posture of the officers does not indicate that they (the officers) felt physically threatened at any time until the officer moves to grab her by the wrist to force her out of the screening area or to the area for additional screening (whichever one is not clear from the video) at which the girl resists and strikes the officer.
Quote:
The TSOs and the police officers spent significant time explaining to the mother and daughter that she must undergo additional screening so the alarm could be cleared OR she would not be allowed to fly.
Did the officers follow policy and procedures regarding how much time was allowed for the passenger to decide whether or not she was going to submit/comply with security checkpoint regulations before they escalated to using force to comply is something for their supervisors to determine and could be the subject of discipline. But it sure appears to me the officer performed correctly.
Did the officers follow policy and procedures regarding how much time was allowed for the passenger to decide whether or not she was going to submit/comply with security checkpoint regulations before they escalated to using force to comply is something for their supervisors to determine and could be the subject of discipline. But it sure appears to me the officer performed correctly.
It's interesting how what was said between the cops and the Cohens is known.
Also interesting that in the version I viewed, the camera seems to keep panning between a screening area and the area where the altercation took place.
Having the video of the actual screening is important to know how the whole thing went down and I still question why TSA won't release it. Surely the airport has cameras at all screening locations.
Last edited by TWA884; Aug 15, 2016 at 5:33 pm Reason: Fix BB Code
Aug 16, 2016, 7:35 am
#246
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,507
In the video I saw, 2 screeners are seen: one who steps into the scene quite briefly and leaves and another who followed Ms. Cohen when she picked up her bag and walked away. She returns but he does not as far as I can tell. Neither had any interaction with the Cohens.
It's interesting how what was said between the cops and the Cohens is known.
Having the video of the actual screening is important to know how the whole thing went down and I still question why TSA won't release it. Surely the airport has cameras at all screening locations.
It's interesting how what was said between the cops and the Cohens is known.
Having the video of the actual screening is important to know how the whole thing went down and I still question why TSA won't release it. Surely the airport has cameras at all screening locations.
Once the police are involved the plaintiff is no longer dealing with the TSA.
Of course, the actual and specific words spoken are not in evidence from the video but those regular posters in this thread are quite knowledgeable about policy and procedures when a machine alarms. Including that (a) the TSOs are to inform/explain to the passenger that the person must undergo additional screening to clear the alarm and (b) local law enforcement is to be summoned when passengers do not comply with procedures.
It is quite evident from the video that employees of the TSA and from the Police Department spent significant time talking to plaintiffs. It is more than reasonable to believe that those conversations included, if not mostly consisted of, explaining to the plaintiffs that regulation, policy and procedure require additional screening or prohibition from flying, as per well-known regulation, policy and procedure.
Of course it is quite possible that both the TSOs and the police officers did not follow policy and procedures in this interaction. But considering how little agitation anyone showed, and the relaxed postures of the officers, right up until the moment when the officer reached to grab the young lady's wrist, and what I know of the policies and procedures for checkpoints, it appears to me that the officers properly followed policy and procedures. But then again, that is something the agency will review and determine.
The big lesson: if a passenger has reason to believe s/he has some condition/disability/situation that might affect screening then s/he should inform TSA before getting to the xray belt and the detector. Again, had the plaintiffs informed TSA before screening that the pax had special needs I am sure none of this would have happened.
Aug 16, 2016, 9:17 am
#247
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,713
And the TSO reached to grab her wrist because?
What part of the SSI SOP gives TSOs the right to grab anyone by the wrist as part of their normal duties?
I have a close friend who is disabled. No vision on one side and, like this young woman, partially hearing-impaired on the same side. She's had these limitations for nearly a decade. Even after hours in company with family and friends, if you speak to her 'bad' ear and suddenly (to her) touch her on her blind/deaf side without warning, she will jerk violently.
It's bad enough that some of us have to allow strangers to put their hands in our pants and even underwear and between our legs and up our butt cracks every single time we want to fly. No TSO has the right to start manhandling pax around the checkpoint.
I know too many young men (and women and older men) who have come back from overseas military duty with hair-trigger reactions. Supposedly many of our TSOs have prior military experience. Color me skeptical about the quality of that experience, because if they've been in combat long enough, they will understand that when you unexpected grab someone who doesn't expect it and doesn't or can't see/hear you coming, you may get a more violent reaction than you expected.
More of TSA's long-standing resentment of 'special needs' pax - and the functional TSA policy of doubling down on aggressive treatment of such people for deliberately showing up at the airport for no better reason than to expect a lazy TSO to do some work.
What part of the SSI SOP gives TSOs the right to grab anyone by the wrist as part of their normal duties?
I have a close friend who is disabled. No vision on one side and, like this young woman, partially hearing-impaired on the same side. She's had these limitations for nearly a decade. Even after hours in company with family and friends, if you speak to her 'bad' ear and suddenly (to her) touch her on her blind/deaf side without warning, she will jerk violently.
It's bad enough that some of us have to allow strangers to put their hands in our pants and even underwear and between our legs and up our butt cracks every single time we want to fly. No TSO has the right to start manhandling pax around the checkpoint.
I know too many young men (and women and older men) who have come back from overseas military duty with hair-trigger reactions. Supposedly many of our TSOs have prior military experience. Color me skeptical about the quality of that experience, because if they've been in combat long enough, they will understand that when you unexpected grab someone who doesn't expect it and doesn't or can't see/hear you coming, you may get a more violent reaction than you expected.
More of TSA's long-standing resentment of 'special needs' pax - and the functional TSA policy of doubling down on aggressive treatment of such people for deliberately showing up at the airport for no better reason than to expect a lazy TSO to do some work.
Aug 16, 2016, 9:26 am
#248
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 948
And the TSO reached to grab her wrist because?
What part of the SSI SOP gives TSOs the right to grab anyone by the wrist as part of their normal duties?
I have a close friend who is disabled. No vision on one side and, like this young woman, partially hearing-impaired on the same side. She's had these limitations for nearly a decade. Even after hours in company with family and friends, if you speak to her 'bad' ear and suddenly (to her) touch her on her blind/deaf side without warning, she will jerk violently.
It's bad enough that some of us have to allow strangers to put their hands in our pants and even underwear and between our legs and up our butt cracks every single time we want to fly. No TSO has the right to start manhandling pax around the checkpoint.
I know too many young men (and women and older men) who have come back from overseas military duty with hair-trigger reactions. Supposedly many of our TSOs have prior military experience. Color me skeptical about the quality of that experience, because if they've been in combat long enough, they will understand that when you unexpected grab someone who doesn't expect it and doesn't or can't see/hear you coming, you may get a more violent reaction than you expected.
More of TSA's long-standing resentment of 'special needs' pax - and the functional TSA policy of doubling down on aggressive treatment of such people for deliberately showing up at the airport for no better reason than to expect a lazy TSO to do some work.
What part of the SSI SOP gives TSOs the right to grab anyone by the wrist as part of their normal duties?
I have a close friend who is disabled. No vision on one side and, like this young woman, partially hearing-impaired on the same side. She's had these limitations for nearly a decade. Even after hours in company with family and friends, if you speak to her 'bad' ear and suddenly (to her) touch her on her blind/deaf side without warning, she will jerk violently.
It's bad enough that some of us have to allow strangers to put their hands in our pants and even underwear and between our legs and up our butt cracks every single time we want to fly. No TSO has the right to start manhandling pax around the checkpoint.
I know too many young men (and women and older men) who have come back from overseas military duty with hair-trigger reactions. Supposedly many of our TSOs have prior military experience. Color me skeptical about the quality of that experience, because if they've been in combat long enough, they will understand that when you unexpected grab someone who doesn't expect it and doesn't or can't see/hear you coming, you may get a more violent reaction than you expected.
More of TSA's long-standing resentment of 'special needs' pax - and the functional TSA policy of doubling down on aggressive treatment of such people for deliberately showing up at the airport for no better reason than to expect a lazy TSO to do some work.
And he has that right.
Last edited by TWA884; Aug 16, 2016 at 10:15 am Reason: Personal exchange / Snarky
Aug 16, 2016, 9:28 am
#249
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,507
And the TSO reached to grab her wrist because?
What part of the SSI SOP gives TSOs the right to grab anyone by the wrist as part of their normal duties?
I have a close friend who is disabled. No vision on one side and, like this young woman, partially hearing-impaired on the same side. She's had these limitations for nearly a decade. Even after hours in company with family and friends, if you speak to her 'bad' ear and suddenly (to her) touch her on her blind/deaf side without warning, she will jerk violently.
It's bad enough that some of us have to allow strangers to put their hands in our pants and even underwear and between our legs and up our butt cracks every single time we want to fly. No TSO has the right to start manhandling pax around the checkpoint.
I know too many young men (and women and older men) who have come back from overseas military duty with hair-trigger reactions. Supposedly many of our TSOs have prior military experience. Color me skeptical about the quality of that experience, because if they've been in combat long enough, they will understand that when you unexpected grab someone who doesn't expect it and doesn't or can't see/hear you coming, you may get a more violent reaction than you expected.
More of TSA's long-standing resentment of 'special needs' pax - and the functional TSA policy of doubling down on aggressive treatment of such people for deliberately showing up at the airport for no better reason than to expect a lazy TSO to do some work.
What part of the SSI SOP gives TSOs the right to grab anyone by the wrist as part of their normal duties?
I have a close friend who is disabled. No vision on one side and, like this young woman, partially hearing-impaired on the same side. She's had these limitations for nearly a decade. Even after hours in company with family and friends, if you speak to her 'bad' ear and suddenly (to her) touch her on her blind/deaf side without warning, she will jerk violently.
It's bad enough that some of us have to allow strangers to put their hands in our pants and even underwear and between our legs and up our butt cracks every single time we want to fly. No TSO has the right to start manhandling pax around the checkpoint.
I know too many young men (and women and older men) who have come back from overseas military duty with hair-trigger reactions. Supposedly many of our TSOs have prior military experience. Color me skeptical about the quality of that experience, because if they've been in combat long enough, they will understand that when you unexpected grab someone who doesn't expect it and doesn't or can't see/hear you coming, you may get a more violent reaction than you expected.
More of TSA's long-standing resentment of 'special needs' pax - and the functional TSA policy of doubling down on aggressive treatment of such people for deliberately showing up at the airport for no better reason than to expect a lazy TSO to do some work.
A police officer who had (apparently and presumably) instructed the mother and daughter that the girl must undergo additional screening or leave the checkpoint area. Once the young lady refused obey the officer's lawful order to comply with lawful regulations he was then authorized to enforce the order (by grabbing her arm to lead her out of the area) which we can debate whether that was reasonable use of force or not.
From the video it is clear the officers gave the young lady lots of time to comply; was it enough time? That is something for his supervisors to judge.
Aug 16, 2016, 10:03 am
#250
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,713
I wonder if the cop went home to the wife and kids and told them all what a great day's work he had put in. I wonder if he showed his wife and kids the picture of the girl's bloodied face and reminded them that there are consequences for not following his orders, even if you hear or understand them.
When TSA gets the cops involved, it is TSA's responsiblity to fully brief the cops about the situation and what action the TSOs expect the cops to take. The TSOs had the obligation to make sure that the cops were fully aware of the girl's limitations.
Or they could stand back and enjoy the show, which is what they chose to do.
Meanwhile, I wonder what slipped through the checkpoint while they were all playing lookie-loo and trying to get cellphone snaps. The Red Team ought to focus on the period during and immediately after such distracting TSA-initiated episodes to see how effectively the rest of the checkpoint operates when there is such a distraction. Do they maintain focus? Do their supervisors maintain focus?
When TSA gets the cops involved, it is TSA's responsiblity to fully brief the cops about the situation and what action the TSOs expect the cops to take. The TSOs had the obligation to make sure that the cops were fully aware of the girl's limitations.
Or they could stand back and enjoy the show, which is what they chose to do.
Meanwhile, I wonder what slipped through the checkpoint while they were all playing lookie-loo and trying to get cellphone snaps. The Red Team ought to focus on the period during and immediately after such distracting TSA-initiated episodes to see how effectively the rest of the checkpoint operates when there is such a distraction. Do they maintain focus? Do their supervisors maintain focus?
Aug 16, 2016, 10:07 am
#251
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2012
Programs: AAdvantage Executive Platinum, Delta Silver Medallion, Marriott Bonvoy Ambassador
Posts: 14,114
And the TSO reached to grab her wrist because?
More of TSA's long-standing resentment of 'special needs' pax - and the functional TSA policy of doubling down on aggressive treatment of such people for deliberately showing up at the airport for no better reason than to expect a lazy TSO to do some work.
More of TSA's long-standing resentment of 'special needs' pax - and the functional TSA policy of doubling down on aggressive treatment of such people for deliberately showing up at the airport for no better reason than to expect a lazy TSO to do some work.
And then there was the time that my husband and I were flying on LX in J (as per usual), giving us access to the expedited line. As soon as we reached the front of the line, the TSOs closed it, as they were, coincidentally, "going on break." There was only one person behind us -- LX's manager at JFK. He saw all this, and began to argue with the TSOs -- what break were they going on, exactly, just as an LX premium passenger in a wheelchair arrived at the front of the line? He was livid, took down names and said he would take this up with TSA later, as it was making LX look bad. Meanwhile, he personally maneuvered us through TSA so that we didn't have to wait anymore. He was so embarrassed at the way passengers with disabilities are too often treated.
Truth is that too often, TSA slows down the process, makes it unpleasant/humiliating, or simply refuse to deal with passengers with disabilities. And that is a sad commentary on the current state of affairs.
Aug 16, 2016, 5:08 pm
#252
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 948
So much truth here. So much truth. I have taken to wearing, not only trousers but an extra absorbent maxi pad whenever I am flying, because some TSOs get a little too intimate and it is a humiliating experience.
And then there was the time that my husband and I were flying on LX in J (as per usual), giving us access to the expedited line. As soon as we reached the front of the line, the TSOs closed it, as they were, coincidentally, "going on break." There was only one person behind us -- LX's manager at JFK. He saw all this, and began to argue with the TSOs -- what break were they going on, exactly, just as an LX premium passenger in a wheelchair arrived at the front of the line? He was livid, took down names and said he would take this up with TSA later, as it was making LX look bad. Meanwhile, he personally maneuvered us through TSA so that we didn't have to wait anymore. He was so embarrassed at the way passengers with disabilities are too often treated.
Truth is that too often, TSA slows down the process, makes it unpleasant/humiliating, or simply refuse to deal with passengers with disabilities. And that is a sad commentary on the current state of affairs.
And then there was the time that my husband and I were flying on LX in J (as per usual), giving us access to the expedited line. As soon as we reached the front of the line, the TSOs closed it, as they were, coincidentally, "going on break." There was only one person behind us -- LX's manager at JFK. He saw all this, and began to argue with the TSOs -- what break were they going on, exactly, just as an LX premium passenger in a wheelchair arrived at the front of the line? He was livid, took down names and said he would take this up with TSA later, as it was making LX look bad. Meanwhile, he personally maneuvered us through TSA so that we didn't have to wait anymore. He was so embarrassed at the way passengers with disabilities are too often treated.
Truth is that too often, TSA slows down the process, makes it unpleasant/humiliating, or simply refuse to deal with passengers with disabilities. And that is a sad commentary on the current state of affairs.
Let me say that again: MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT.
I wonder if the cop went home to the wife and kids and told them all what a great day's work he had put in. I wonder if he showed his wife and kids the picture of the girl's bloodied face and reminded them that there are consequences for not following his orders, even if you hear or understand them.
When TSA gets the cops involved, it is TSA's responsiblity to fully brief the cops about the situation and what action the TSOs expect the cops to take. The TSOs had the obligation to make sure that the cops were fully aware of the girl's limitations.
Or they could stand back and enjoy the show, which is what they chose to do.
Meanwhile, I wonder what slipped through the checkpoint while they were all playing lookie-loo and trying to get cellphone snaps. The Red Team ought to focus on the period during and immediately after such distracting TSA-initiated episodes to see how effectively the rest of the checkpoint operates when there is such a distraction. Do they maintain focus? Do their supervisors maintain focus?
When TSA gets the cops involved, it is TSA's responsiblity to fully brief the cops about the situation and what action the TSOs expect the cops to take. The TSOs had the obligation to make sure that the cops were fully aware of the girl's limitations.
Or they could stand back and enjoy the show, which is what they chose to do.
Meanwhile, I wonder what slipped through the checkpoint while they were all playing lookie-loo and trying to get cellphone snaps. The Red Team ought to focus on the period during and immediately after such distracting TSA-initiated episodes to see how effectively the rest of the checkpoint operates when there is such a distraction. Do they maintain focus? Do their supervisors maintain focus?
The TSA found a girl who refused secondary screening. She was right by her mom, who was the primary care giver. The cops were called and the TSA stepped down.
At some point the girl and her parents need to understand her disability isn't a get out of jail free card. I would've been very uncomfortable being on the same flight as a girl without the mental capacity to understand the screening process and way of dealing with authority was to assault an armed police officer.
Listen to that. She thought her best way forward was to assault an armed officer of the peace.
If that concept is to difficult I think her mom should drive her instead, because she is dangerous to the rest of the passengers. Why wouldn't she assault the FAs next time because she needs to use the restroom while the plane is in turbulence and being asked to sit back down?
Her mom seem to be the out of her depth, so she doesn't really appear to have any control of the situation.
Aug 16, 2016, 5:30 pm
#253
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Even the plaintiffs make no bones about the initial screening - because it is immaterial to the incident; what happened AFTER the machine alarmed is what is material. Whether the machine should have alarmed or not is immaterial to whether the plaintiff refused additional screening or refused to comply with a lawful order or assaulted the police officer or resisted arrest.
-- would have to admit since the TSA claimed the woman didn't clear the screening and was thus not entitled to travel by the ticketed means. Alarm resolution -- or even haraSSSSment screening measures -- are part and parcel of initial screening when applicable.
Aug 16, 2016, 5:36 pm
#254
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
Funny story. How is that relevant to the interaction between the Memphis police department and a disabled girl?
Let me say that again: MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT.
I really don't understand your point of view.
The TSA found a girl who refused secondary screening. She was right by her mom, who was the primary care giver. The cops were called and the TSA stepped down.
At some point the girl and her parents need to understand her disability isn't a get out of jail free card. I would've been very uncomfortable being on the same flight as a girl without the mental capacity to understand the screening process and way of dealing with authority was to assault an armed police officer.
Listen to that. She thought her best way forward was to assault an armed officer of the peace.
If that concept is to difficult I think her mom should drive her instead, because she is dangerous to the rest of the passengers. Why wouldn't she assault the FAs next time because she needs to use the restroom while the plane is in turbulence and being asked to sit back down?
Her mom seem to be the out of her depth, so she doesn't really appear to have any control of the situation.
Let me say that again: MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT.
I really don't understand your point of view.
The TSA found a girl who refused secondary screening. She was right by her mom, who was the primary care giver. The cops were called and the TSA stepped down.
At some point the girl and her parents need to understand her disability isn't a get out of jail free card. I would've been very uncomfortable being on the same flight as a girl without the mental capacity to understand the screening process and way of dealing with authority was to assault an armed police officer.
Listen to that. She thought her best way forward was to assault an armed officer of the peace.
If that concept is to difficult I think her mom should drive her instead, because she is dangerous to the rest of the passengers. Why wouldn't she assault the FAs next time because she needs to use the restroom while the plane is in turbulence and being asked to sit back down?
Her mom seem to be the out of her depth, so she doesn't really appear to have any control of the situation.
Aug 17, 2016, 3:48 am
#255
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
Funny story. How is that relevant to the interaction between the Memphis police department and a disabled girl?
Let me say that again: MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT.
I really don't understand your point of view.
The TSA found a girl who refused secondary screening. She was right by her mom, who was the primary care giver. The cops were called and the TSA stepped down.
At some point the girl and her parents need to understand her disability isn't a get out of jail free card. I would've been very uncomfortable being on the same flight as a girl without the mental capacity to understand the screening process and way of dealing with authority was to assault an armed police officer.
Listen to that. She thought her best way forward was to assault an armed officer of the peace.
If that concept is to difficult I think her mom should drive her instead, because she is dangerous to the rest of the passengers. Why wouldn't she assault the FAs next time because she needs to use the restroom while the plane is in turbulence and being asked to sit back down?
Her mom seem to be the out of her depth, so she doesn't really appear to have any control of the situation.
Let me say that again: MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT.
I really don't understand your point of view.
The TSA found a girl who refused secondary screening. She was right by her mom, who was the primary care giver. The cops were called and the TSA stepped down.
At some point the girl and her parents need to understand her disability isn't a get out of jail free card. I would've been very uncomfortable being on the same flight as a girl without the mental capacity to understand the screening process and way of dealing with authority was to assault an armed police officer.
Listen to that. She thought her best way forward was to assault an armed officer of the peace.
If that concept is to difficult I think her mom should drive her instead, because she is dangerous to the rest of the passengers. Why wouldn't she assault the FAs next time because she needs to use the restroom while the plane is in turbulence and being asked to sit back down?
Her mom seem to be the out of her depth, so she doesn't really appear to have any control of the situation.
The girl certainly did resist the cop's attempt to grab her arm and push her somewhere by flinching away and flailing her arms, but it doesn't appear to me that she actually assaulted the cop. I didn't see her throw any obvious punches or slaps. She seemed more like she was continuously jerking her arms to get them out of the cop's grip, while backing away from him.
But even if she did slap at the cop, extrapolating that she might assault an FA next time they told her to take a seat is pure hyperbole. Whatever she did with the cop was in direct response to the cop laying his hands on her. The legality of the cop laying hands on her is somewhat ambiguous without full dialogue of the incident - if she was refusing a lawful order, the cop may have been completely correct in grabbing her - but if an FA grabbed her, that would be assault, and she'd be justified in defending herself against such an assault.
I agree with you that her disability isn't a free pass, but diminished capacity does giver her diminished responsibility for her own actions.