Non Active Sky Marshall clears first AGAIN
Jun 5, 2005 | 4:02 pm
#316
Join Date: Aug 2004
Programs: UA, SWA, HA, Qantas
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by gofast
I think it's disingenuous to suggest that. You can rest assured that the airline will not bounce a FC passenger out of their seat for an off-duty FAM, however, the gate agent, FA, or PIC can offer an unsold FC seat to an off-duty FAM just as they can offer it to a non-rev airline employee, uniformed soldier, pregnany lady, girlfriend of the FO, etc, etc.. It does happen. The seats belong to the airlines and they can do with them as they please. If an off-duty FAM is offered an upgrade to FC, he is not unured with any real benefit or value. It's not illegal or unethical.
As stated, the airline can do whatever they want with unused seats.
Jun 7, 2005 | 12:29 pm
#317
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 181
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Reading more closely what I wrote, one would certainly know that what you say is not part of my definition of being "harrassed". I was talking about people being "stopped and harrassed" by police/security forces. A coffee shop (if applicable and it's generally not) conversation would not be classified as such unless it involves police/security forces STOPPING and bothering innocent parties by engaging them when they don't wish to be engaged.
Don't let the truth of what I said stand in the way of mischaracterizations and propaganda opportunities. But the truth of what I said still stands as correct.
Don't let the truth of what I said stand in the way of mischaracterizations and propaganda opportunities. But the truth of what I said still stands as correct.
Law enforcement officers may talk to you, and we wouldn't know that you didn't want to be bothered until we asked. I can honestly say I can't ever remember having a conversation with someone that felt as if I were bothering them much less harrassing them. You as a person have the right to attempt to engage anyone in conversation and nothing is to prevent it. So do the police.
Jun 7, 2005 | 1:08 pm
#318
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Originally Posted by Braddelauter
As a law enforcement officer, I have never forced anyone to talk to me (the secret pill doesn't exist). If you don't wish to talk to the police don't open your mouth. If the Officer has RS to stop you then you get stopped (Thanks to the founding fathers and the supreme court). If it expands to PC then you get arrested.
Law enforcement officers may talk to you, and we wouldn't know that you didn't want to be bothered until we asked. I can honestly say I can't ever remember having a conversation with someone that felt as if I were bothering them much less harrassing them. You as a person have the right to attempt to engage anyone in conversation and nothing is to prevent it. So do the police.
Law enforcement officers may talk to you, and we wouldn't know that you didn't want to be bothered until we asked. I can honestly say I can't ever remember having a conversation with someone that felt as if I were bothering them much less harrassing them. You as a person have the right to attempt to engage anyone in conversation and nothing is to prevent it. So do the police.
If an individual told such an "authority" that they don't want to deal with said "authority" and walked off and into their car, what percentage of "authorities" would run the license plate of the car when both became visibily identifiable?
At a checkpoint, refusing to respond to "authorities" generally results in smooth sailing? It must be a really nice place in the world.
Last edited by GUWonder; Jun 7, 2005 at 1:10 pm
Jun 8, 2005 | 12:16 pm
#319
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 181
Originally Posted by GUWonder
If a law enforcement/security type asks a relatively unfamiliar individual a question and that individual appears intent to not respond directly at all as the "authority" expected, and then walks (or runs) away quickly, what's the response of most law enforcement & security types? "That's suspicious"?
If an individual told such an "authority" that they don't want to deal with said "authority" and walked off and into their car, what percentage of "authorities" would run the license plate of the car when both became visibily identifiable?
If an individual told such an "authority" that they don't want to deal with said "authority" and walked off and into their car, what percentage of "authorities" would run the license plate of the car when both became visibily identifiable?
The license plate of a vehicle is not protected, because it is technically not yours (your just renting) and must be displayed in a "plain-view" manner. Plain view docterine applys just because of the location of the plate, it is in plain view. Your plate may have been "run" many times by many different agencies for not much more than a random check for validity. I would say that your plate would definitely get checked.
At a checkpoint, refusing to respond to "authorities" generally results in smooth sailing? It must be a really nice place in the world.
Jun 8, 2005 | 12:30 pm
#320
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
It appears that you are saying that refusal to respond/engage "authorities" generally results in something other than smooth sailing when the result is not what the "authorities" desire/expect. So bothering innocent parties by engaging them (or trying to engage them) when they don't wish to be engaged is the result.
As I said before stop and harass is the end result more than once -- especially in not so nice parts (including where "profiling" is the crutch for the feeble).
As I said before stop and harass is the end result more than once -- especially in not so nice parts (including where "profiling" is the crutch for the feeble).
Last edited by GUWonder; Jun 8, 2005 at 12:33 pm
Jun 8, 2005 | 12:38 pm
#321
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 181
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Wrong.
By the way, I did not make a presumption that LE/security types are more often than not dishonest when stopping people. The data suggested that law enforcement/security types are not always or even often honest, especially about the stopping of innocent people. I said what I said; and I did not say that which you claim I said as evidence of "bias".
Where did you read the unwritten and arrive at the idea that I think that LE/security types are more often than not dishonest when stopping people? Did I write that LE/security types are more often than not dishonest when stopping people? No. I suggest being careful about putting words in the mouths of others or imagining what they presumed/assumed when one hasn't even correctly read what they wrote.
The truth is that the sets of data we went through indicated that law enforcement/security types were not always or even often honest -- especially about the stopping of innocent people.
I do have a bias -- and a strong one at that -- for data-based analysis, especially when it comes to matters of security and government relations.
Where in this thread did I talk about profiling examples, related to "prohibition", which you claim were/are anomalies? Please do share and/or address the right persons.
Am I to presume that those "profiling examples" which you claim are "anomalies" are fully to your satisfaction? [I wouldn't presume such. However, if you care to share how the "profiling examples" were/are "anomalies" and whether those "anomalies" are to your satisfaction it could be amusing.]
That which people claim are anomalies are often not anomalies; it just requires drilling down into the data and classifying and qualifying items more fully. But careful reading and analysis of data is not everyone's cup of tea.
Did I say: "LE/security "types" are more often than not dishonest when stopping people"? No, no, no.
By the way, I did not make a presumption that LE/security types are more often than not dishonest when stopping people. The data suggested that law enforcement/security types are not always or even often honest, especially about the stopping of innocent people. I said what I said; and I did not say that which you claim I said as evidence of "bias".
Where did you read the unwritten and arrive at the idea that I think that LE/security types are more often than not dishonest when stopping people? Did I write that LE/security types are more often than not dishonest when stopping people? No. I suggest being careful about putting words in the mouths of others or imagining what they presumed/assumed when one hasn't even correctly read what they wrote.
The truth is that the sets of data we went through indicated that law enforcement/security types were not always or even often honest -- especially about the stopping of innocent people.
I do have a bias -- and a strong one at that -- for data-based analysis, especially when it comes to matters of security and government relations.
Where in this thread did I talk about profiling examples, related to "prohibition", which you claim were/are anomalies? Please do share and/or address the right persons.
Am I to presume that those "profiling examples" which you claim are "anomalies" are fully to your satisfaction?
[I wouldn't presume such. However, if you care to share how the "profiling examples" were/are "anomalies" and whether those "anomalies" are to your satisfaction it could be amusing.]That which people claim are anomalies are often not anomalies; it just requires drilling down into the data and classifying and qualifying items more fully. But careful reading and analysis of data is not everyone's cup of tea.
Did I say: "LE/security "types" are more often than not dishonest when stopping people"? No, no, no.
I did try to run through the thread but couldn't find the references. If you did post could you post again?
When stopping "innocent people", the data shows the officers are dishonest in what way?
Jun 8, 2005 | 1:02 pm
#322
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 181
Originally Posted by GUWonder
It appears that you are saying that refusal to respond/engage "authorities" generally results in something other than smooth sailing when the result is not what the "authorities" desire/expect. So bothering innocent parties by engaging them (or trying to engage them) when they don't wish to be engaged is the result.
As I said before stop and harass is the end result more than once -- especially in not so nice parts (including where "profiling" is the crutch for the feeble).
As I said before stop and harass is the end result more than once -- especially in not so nice parts (including where "profiling" is the crutch for the feeble).
I won't make general assumptions, actions and reactions are based on individual circumstances and are based on the foundation of laws and findings by the Supreme Court.
Although, you could say that your smooth travel through everyday life is dictated by the engaging or not engaging with some type of authority figure. This figure could be represented by the grocery store clerk, police officer or moderator on this forum. You can refuse a response to "cash or credit?", and I would imagine that your level of "smooth sailing" has just started to diminish.
If your definition of harrassment is a police officer following the rules and engaging you in conversation then, yes, you are being harrassed. The law and my definition are a little different.
As a police officer it may be a little difficult to determine who don't wished to be bothered (unless you are wearing the "Don't bother me T-Shirt). And as I stated before, the law doesn't allow witnesses not to be bothered, and since they don't know until they ask, you just maybe a witness.
Jun 8, 2005 | 1:24 pm
#323
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Originally Posted by Braddelauter
Are these studies published? I am not familiar with this, but would be interested in reading.
I did try to run through the thread but couldn't find the references. If you did post could you post again?
I did try to run through the thread but couldn't find the references. If you did post could you post again?
Originally Posted by Braddelauter
When stopping "innocent people", the data shows the officers are dishonest in what way?
There were several measures of what may be said to approximate with being "dishonest" (as you term it but I would not): including various failures in self-reporting, self-admitted falsified recording when confronted with video evidence and such.
Jun 8, 2005 | 1:36 pm
#324
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Originally Posted by Braddelauter
I won't make general assumptions, actions and reactions are based on individual circumstances and are based on the foundation of laws and findings by the Supreme Court.
Originally Posted by Braddelauter
Although, you could say that your smooth travel through everyday life is dictated by the engaging or not engaging with some type of authority figure. This figure could be represented by the grocery store clerk, police officer or moderator on this forum. You can refuse a response to "cash or credit?", and I would imagine that your level of "smooth sailing" has just started to diminish.
Originally Posted by Braddelauter
If your definition of harrassment is a police officer following the rules and engaging you in conversation then, yes, you are being harrassed. The law and my definition are a little different.
Jun 8, 2005 | 1:44 pm
#325
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 181
Originally Posted by GUWonder
The reports are property of the payor, and I would doubt that they would want them published given the conclusions.
If I recall correctly, "innocent people" were something akin to those who were stopped (or more) for recorded periods of time but not charged and prosected.
There were several measures of what may be said to approximate with being "dishonest" (as you term it but I would not): including various failures in self-reporting, self-admitted falsified recording when confronted with video evidence and such.
If I recall correctly, "innocent people" were something akin to those who were stopped (or more) for recorded periods of time but not charged and prosected.
There were several measures of what may be said to approximate with being "dishonest" (as you term it but I would not): including various failures in self-reporting, self-admitted falsified recording when confronted with video evidence and such.
Jun 8, 2005 | 1:52 pm
#326
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Originally Posted by Braddelauter
Actually I was looking for the definition of dishonest as to the study.
various failures in self-reporting, self-admitted falsified recording when confronted with video evidence and such.
Jun 9, 2005 | 10:54 am
#327
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 181
Originally Posted by GUWonder
The reports are property of the payor, and I would doubt that they would want them published given the conclusions.
If I recall correctly, "innocent people" were something akin to those who were stopped (or more) for recorded periods of time but not charged and prosected.
There were several measures of what may be said to approximate with being "dishonest" (as you term it but I would not): including various failures in self-reporting, self-admitted falsified recording when confronted with video evidence and such.
If I recall correctly, "innocent people" were something akin to those who were stopped (or more) for recorded periods of time but not charged and prosected.
There were several measures of what may be said to approximate with being "dishonest" (as you term it but I would not): including various failures in self-reporting, self-admitted falsified recording when confronted with video evidence and such.
If this was an internal study (by the department or agency) this is public information and is subject to the Freedom of Information Act, since this is a governement agency that was studied. Since this would have been payed by public funds, we would have a right to know the results, methods and evidence. If this was an internal investigation, which appears to be quite extensive, funding would have had to be in addition to the operating budget and approved through a budget commission or the like. This is not likely to produce a cover up and would be impossible to accomplish. I would have to say, Agency X suspects, finds evidence and then takes no action, why spend the money. Why not save the money, since we won't do anything with the information anyway, and then we don't find ourselves covering up anything.
If this was an external study, by an outside source, what would be the use. "We suspect wrongdoing, we are going to investigate it, but we won't let anyone know when we find wrongdoing".
I would find it highly unlikely that this study is not being published for the "embarrassment" reason or any other reason.
I was speaking with my colleagues who remembered a television report in the northeast of a limited number of incidents, several years ago, that you described. This report did not present that dihonesty is systemic of law enforcement and was very limited in its scope and focused on only one area of one law enforcement agency.
Jun 9, 2005 | 11:46 am
#328
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Originally Posted by Braddelauter
I have to question the validity and existence of this study.
If this was an internal study (by the department or agency) this is public information and is subject to the Freedom of Information Act, since this is a governement agency that was studied. Since this would have been payed by public funds, we would have a right to know the results, methods and evidence. If this was an internal investigation, which appears to be quite extensive, funding would have had to be in addition to the operating budget and approved through a budget commission or the like. This is not likely to produce a cover up and would be impossible to accomplish. I would have to say, Agency X suspects, finds evidence and then takes no action, why spend the money. Why not save the money, since we won't do anything with the information anyway, and then we don't find ourselves covering up anything.
If this was an external study, by an outside source, what would be the use. "We suspect wrongdoing, we are going to investigate it, but we won't let anyone know when we find wrongdoing".
I would find it highly unlikely that this study is not being published for the "embarrassment" reason or any other reason.
If this was an internal study (by the department or agency) this is public information and is subject to the Freedom of Information Act, since this is a governement agency that was studied. Since this would have been payed by public funds, we would have a right to know the results, methods and evidence. If this was an internal investigation, which appears to be quite extensive, funding would have had to be in addition to the operating budget and approved through a budget commission or the like. This is not likely to produce a cover up and would be impossible to accomplish. I would have to say, Agency X suspects, finds evidence and then takes no action, why spend the money. Why not save the money, since we won't do anything with the information anyway, and then we don't find ourselves covering up anything.
If this was an external study, by an outside source, what would be the use. "We suspect wrongdoing, we are going to investigate it, but we won't let anyone know when we find wrongdoing".
I would find it highly unlikely that this study is not being published for the "embarrassment" reason or any other reason.
If you correctly read what I posted previously, it might be helpful.
Originally Posted by Braddelauter
I was speaking with my colleagues who remembered a television report in the northeast of a limited number of incidents, several years ago, that you described. This report did not present that dihonesty is systemic of law enforcement and was very limited in its scope and focused on only one area of one law enforcement agency.
Jun 9, 2005 | 10:45 pm
#329
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 181
[QUOTE]
I have tried to reread your post and am quite confused at your point. I just don't believe the "data" exists and without a reference I'll stay there.
I'll paraphrase you on this one, read my post. 
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Question all you want, but you are clearly not always right given the above. After all, the FOIA is not always applicable, nor are appropriate, proper requests always made under FOIA (as applicable).
If you correctly read what I posted previously, it might be helpful.
If you correctly read what I posted previously, it might be helpful.
I have tried to reread your post and am quite confused at your point. I just don't believe the "data" exists and without a reference I'll stay there.
To what are you referring? What "limited number of incidents" are you claiming that I described? [I didn't refer to the "northeast" or even a TV report.
Jun 9, 2005 | 11:42 pm
#330
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Originally Posted by Braddelauter
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Question all you want, but you are clearly not always right given the above. After all, the FOIA is not always applicable, nor are appropriate, proper requests always made under FOIA (as applicable).
If you correctly read what I posted previously, it might be helpful.
If you correctly read what I posted previously, it might be helpful.
Here's a hint: Think about FOIA applicability and limitations and get back to us (and read some of the other posts further up very closely).
Originally Posted by Braddelauter
Originally Posted by GUWonder
To what are you referring? What "limited number of incidents" are you claiming that I described? [I didn't refer to the "northeast" or even a TV report.
Here's a hint: those "limited number of incidents" and "northeast" TV report you mentioned, I did not bring up. Someone else -- or at least you
-- may have mentioned such, but I did not. [I don't even know a thing about it since local TV news is generally not my cup of tea.]If you need further hints, I'll be more than happy to continue.