Well, I at least hoped lawyers did more for all they're paid.

Or that 2/3 of the country are sheep and think that water truly is a threat to airplanes because TSA said so.

If 1/3 of the people think that this whole thing was stupid, that gives me hope that at least more people are starting to think about the idiocy that TSA peddles as security.

Like I said above, Emmerson is no good as a poster girl for challenging the TSA. The only people who identify with her are the hardcore TSA critics, many of whom seem willing to get behind anyone's story in fighting the good fight.

I'm not really one to defend the TSA but unless/until the sippy cup gets into the secure area, there is no job for the TSA to do. Whether it was through the WTMD or x-ray doesn't matter. What matters is that the current rules require them to address the situation once it is brought into the secure area, not before. They can alert you all they want beforehand, but until it is brought in, nothing is going to happen. So, yes, I would say that they were doing their job, no matter how much you or I disagree with the job they were doing.

My take on it:

1) The TSA liquid ban is stupid -but we have plenty of other threads to discuss that.

2) The TSA guy needed to escort her back into the exit lane in order to make sure she didn't sneak into the terminal

3) She spilled it intentionally and her credibility is nil with me.

4) Three to four ounces of water on a polished stone floor that gets lots of foot traffic (and where that foot traffic tends to be encumbered by luggage) does indeed constitute a safety hazard.

5) The TSA pretty much seemed to have very little to do with it post-spill, but the LEO acted like most LEO's will act when they do someone do something that is likely to cause harm to others. Some may find this LEO behavior good, and some may find it bad, but if you've seen cops in action, this is simply the way it is.

6) The marginal costs to the TSA are indeed very small. Even if they are required to pay for additional bandwidth (which I doubt), the additional cost is extremely small, and it didn't take too much to put the page up. I do find it interesting that out of all the stories that have made the news, this is the only one that they uploaded video for.

7) While I don't fault the TSA in this incident, I do think that at times all sorts of outrageous things happen to the traveling public at checkpoints and this incident provides cover to the TSA to claim that all of these stories are untrue. This woman is not helping the cause of those who want reform in the way the TSA operates, she is only diminishing their credibility.

Bad policy created this situation.

I'm glad TSA posted that video: it will give the story legs and hopefully cause some Congressional oversight hearings of both the liquids policy as well as the privacy policy of TSA. Congress clearly needs to get involved. It is long overdue.

As for the incident itself: harried mom meets enforcers of stupid policy. No one wins.

I'm not sure that anyone thinks that water is a threat to an airplane. The problem is that only the person carrying the water knows for sure that it is water. Doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree, the TSA's stance is that unknown liquids pose a threat. As every liquid that comes through security is unknown to the TSA, then every liquid is viewed as a threat, even if it really isn't. And tasting the liquid really isn't the answer as the bottle could have a fake bottom etc. Personally, I disagree wholeheartedly with the liquid ban, but I'm just saying that no-one, not even the TSA, thinks water is a threat to an airplane.

Hi. Just curious, do you invariably ticket other officers from your force if you catch them violating a law or ordinance? How about officers from other forces? How about state politicians or officials? How about your mayor or city council members (or whoever employs you)? Or the spouses or children of all the above?

If so, more power to you. If not, why not?

Thanks.

And that's why the ban is a complete waste of time and resources.

If they want to detect them for explosives, use the existing puffers or swab the cup. If it's an explosive and it has a liquid in, it WILL set off the ETD. However, since this water carnival started, puffer and ETD use has dropped dramatically.

Pretty much it comes down to TSA being lazy and not wanting to actually do anything about the "perceived" threat. There are ways to determine if it really is a threat, but TSA refuses to use them.

If the liquids really are a threat, they should have dumped the terminal when she spilled it on the floor as it was an unknown liquid. If liquids are really a threat, they should treat them as hazmat and not lump them together in a trash bin. If liquids really are a threat, then they shouldn't be given to the homeless, unless they're trying to "kill off" the homeless population.

Yes, Emmerson isn't a good spokeshole against TSA, but then again, TSA created the situation with its idiocy. So it escalated to a no win situation for all involved.

Nothing can be carried through the WTMD in plain view without the approval of the screener.

A video showing someone's actions, in contradiction to their public testimony, is "destroying" someone?

If this is representative of "out of control" in your mind I shudder to what you'll do when you really see out of control or a real attempt to destroy someone. If they were as out of control as you state you'd have no doubt it was an attempt to destroy them.

Hyperbole to the contrary.

Unknown liquids in any quantity > 3.4oz individually, about 1 quart in total.

Now there are binary liquids which when simply combined create an explosive mixture. They are used in minesweeping, target shooting and movie FX but require a detonator of some kind - not just shake-and-boom. Hopefully the purveyors are very carful about their customers, not something to be relied upon absolutely though.

Setting one (or more) off in an airplane cabin would not be pleasant to say the least; to do any structural damage would require literally gallons of the stuff. We're not talking Coke bottles or sippy cups here.

I think his point is that TSA always downplays things like this and just denies it, downplays it or sweeps it under the rug. The fact that they personally went after someone is a first and seems very uncharacteristic for TSA.

Both were in the wrong, but TSA decided to get into a pissing match to try to eliminate any real debate about what is really going on. Deflecting attention from the liquid lunacy to destroy the credibility of the accuser. Both were wrong and it's lose-lose. TSA is just trying to make itself look like St. TSA.

But TSA has to prohibit those quantities out of an Abundance of Caution�

I'll give credit where it'd due. TSA did the right thing by not letting the woman go through, regardless of her credentials. She is no better than the rest of us. We are forced to adhere to these moronic policies and it's only right to expect them to be applied across the board. The woman obviously became angry when she didn't get her way and acted childish. Hardly the level of self control I'd expect to see from a Secret Service Agent.

Hopefully this incident will help bring some light to the idiotic liquid ban. Until something can be done (which might not ever happen) we are forced to obey the policy. There is no point in taking it out on the screener when he/she is just doing their job by enforcing it.