Who is this royal "we"? Certainly many of us, myself included, are not part of that royal "we", right? I don't believe you speak for "us" (or at least not for me). ;)

GUWonder and I have never, ever, agreed on anything. If one of us likes chocolate, the other can't stand it. If I have a preference for blondes, GUWonder will seek out brunettes.

He sees the world from the jaundiced viewpoint of the Left. I look at it in the intelligent manner which is natural to the Right.

So mark this down, it is a historical first: GUWonder and I are in total agreement. Bruce is an honorable man who meant what he said -- he was not trying to equate FAMs and Nazis.

We have agreed on somethings. :D [By the way, I am in Sweden right now and your preference is not in short supply (except perhaps in Malmo). ;)]

:D ROTFLOL

Well, maybe not a historical first, but certainly a rare occassion that lends bipartisan, apolitical credibility.

OK, the FAM Service/ICE/DOHS should pay market rate for the less than 1% of FC seats FAMs take up....after the airlines pay back the 3, 4, 5 billion or whaterver the amount was in bailout $ they received.

He mentioned in a post a week or 2 ago that he works in "security". Hmmm.. sounds like a rent a cop.

Some rent-a-cops are considered good enough by DoD for Iraq. ;)

If the so-called "Professionals" here were intelligent enough to use the SEARCH feature, they could easily find that I have been in the Security Industry since 1985. During that time, I have worked with Surveillance, Access, Alarm and Protection companies as a manufacturer.

I'll stand my 20 years of SECURITY knowledge up against anyone here.

One of the things you learn in the SECURITY industry is that former LEO's rarely turn out to be good security officers. A good security officer's job is to PREVENT crime. Former LEO's usually focus on solving the crimes after the fact.

That in a nutshell is the problem in the TSA and the FAM programs. They are being led by former LEO officials who have little to no experience in PREVENTING crime. As I understand it, the FAM program is led by former FBI and Secret Service and we all know that the TSA is being led by Coast Guard washouts.

If the Government was serious about security (and we all no that it is not), it would hire Security Professionals from the Security Industry.

1) Holding a planeload of pax at gunpoint is indicative of a power trip. That is a character flaw. A very dangerous character flaw for someone carrying a weapon.

2) Leaving your weapon behind in the bathroom is indicative of laziness. Also a character flaw.

:confused:

Then why do your posts read like those of an angry high school student?

I believe Bruce. He is wiser than I'll ever be and shows more class on a daily basis than the alleged air marshals and their apologists put together.

1) Incorrect. They held the plane at gunpoint at first because one of the FAMs was fighting a passenger down a ways from his partner. The pax jumped up to look at the show, not rush to help like many believe they would do. The partner ordered them to ssit back down and stay seated so he could maintain line of sight of his partner. They did not. So, he made them sit down. Once they had the guy secured and were then "outed" they followed the SOP at the time (military SOP, FYI) and maintained their position in case it had been a ruse of some sort. This policy has been adapted since then. The primary principles apply but indexing of weapons is now allowed. So people who follow SOP are on a power trip. Then the TSA guys who do NOT follow SOP in the "shoe circus" are on a power trip. Which is it?

2) Laziness? Are you serious? ATTENTION EVERYONE!!! Cameraguy has never made a mistake!! Should that agent be admonished. Yes. It was a bad mistake. But to think that it speaks to their character is ridiculous.

Of course I have seen some of your posts so your idea of a "classy" post really doesn't impress.

How could they intervene if some moron pulled a gun on them and identified himself as an FAM???

I do not buy that this was ever SOP. I buy that the FAM's in question and thier superiors came up with this story to CYA. LEO's do NOT have carte blanche to draw their weapons and hold LAW ABIDING TAXPAYERS hostage.

Apples to Oranges.

Nope, I've made plenty of mistakes. Just never made one that could have gotten someone killed. What if a child had found that weapon? What if a terrorist had found that weapon? What is a law abiding citizen had found the weapon and was mistaken for a terrorist? Losing control of your weapon is one of the most serious mistakes an LEO can make. If this idiot was not terminated, then his superiors should have been.

Camera Guy, you do make some good points, as well as some assumptions that are off the mark. However, I will agree with a couple of points. I have been a peace officer since 1989. I will put my training and experience up against anyone's as well.

The FAM who left his/her weapon behind may have been of good character, and yes it was only a mistake, but as you said it was a mistake that could have cost lives. I don't leave my weapon behind. Neither does 99.99% of the other FAMS. So that FAM didnt live up to the expectation.

To my knowledge the FAM was terminated. If someone on here has other information fine. But shouldnt that be the end of it? I mean havent we beat this dead horse into the ground?

You are also correct that law enforcement and security are two different animals. They share many similarities, but also have many differences. I am not just giving lip service either, prior to finishing my degree and becoming a peace officer in 1989, I worked in loss prevention for a major firm. I did this for three years. I started from the bottom doing basic store plain clothes security, and ended up maintaining and installing security camera/systems, assisting in internal investigations, and making survey and recomendation reports.

Private Security was in place prior to 9-11. Their record was not very good. I would prefer private security versus the TSA as well. Not because of the people (because TSA folks are good Americans trying to do a job) but because government should get smaller not larger. It is possible to get a very professional, highly trained, highly accountable private security force in place. Unfortunately it costs money. For what I described I am sure you would agree it costs ALOT of money. If the government doesnt pay will the airlines?

As far as SOP's for Air Marshals, won't discuss them. Not because your right, and not because your wrong. In depth discussion of SOP's is not proper on this forum. Just as giving point by point discussion on one of your clients security procedures is not proper as it could be used against that company.

While it is true that I have found most of your posts mostly flame, I won't argue just to argue. As I said above you had some valid points. But just as you have vast experience in your field, does not mean I do not in mine.

bbc1969,

Very good post!!!

^ ^ ^ ^

I have no problem discussing issues with people who have an open mind. I also agree with you 100% that SOP should not be discussed in depth here. But, the blanket "I know SOP, you don't, so I am right" argument that some of the TSA/FAM apologists here use is insulting.

Excellent posts, both of you. ^^

So many of the recent arrivals from http://forums.delphiforums.com/airma...ges/?msg=748.1
came in guns a blazin to "smack" the stupid frequent flyers they despise so much. bbc1969's post here is unlike those "here to defend my agency's honor" posts that we saw a couple of weeks ago.