She can refuse to comply with the order. Then the LEO can cite her for littering and/or creating a safety hazard. And there can be no doubt that dumping water on the floor of a heavily travelled exit area is a serious hazard. You have loads of passengers walking through, some quickly, and none of them are expecting water to be on that floor.

Indeed, just moments after Emmerson dumps the water on the floor, an elderly, frail woman walks right over that spot. If she slips and falls on that surface, she might not walk again.

He's trying to steer people away from the wet floor.

i dont think moving it every other second is the way to do it

Popular myths. TSA was not involved.

He's adjusting as the water flows in different directions. Actually, your OCD idea sounds more plausible.

What about the common sense solution?

Sippy Cup, a little bit of water and a toddler. See it for what it is and allow the passengers (mother and toddler) to move on with the sippy cup and the few oz of water in it.... (unless it was filled at Applebee's )

When it comes to "Sippy Cup's" specifically, does that 99% number apply?

Sadly, it seems procedures don't allow for use of common sense.

I agree that the procedures ought to allow more flexibility, especially when it comes to toddlers and infants. TSOs and supervisors ought to be permitted to exercise a broader range of on-the-ground judgment. However, you also run into the situation of one checkpoint permitting it and another not permitting it.

That's my biggest complaint about TSA. The promise was that we would have a more professional screener workforce. However, TSA mandates a lot of situations to us rather than allowing any degree of discretion or judgment. In my brief 20+ years in the military, I learned that no book or set of rules can capture every single scenario and some poor schmuck will have to make a decision on what the spirit of the law intends when the letter of the law fails to address it.

I am curious, however, if Emmerson was permitted to keep it and someone else in this forum witnessed it if the complaint in here would be that TSA allows fellow federal employees to slide on the rules while everyone else gets their liquids taken away.

I am with you on that!

I don't have any comments on this situation one way or the other. Bart's comment is interesting, however. I have been a LEO for nearly 15 years now. The area I patrol frequently is near a major airport. In my experience the absolute WORST violators of this apparent policy are people involved in federal law enforcement and the TSA. Whenever I stop them for speeding or driving recklessly (which is at least once a week) they are the FIRST to make certain I know who they are and who they work for.

I firmly believe in treating everyone the same, no matter who they are. I give no special treatment to anyone. I don't violate the laws I am sworn to uphold nor should they. They ALWAYS whine or look at me funny when I come back with a ticket for them as if they can't believe THEY are being held accountable for their actions.

I stopped a TSA'er on his way to work about a year or two ago. This guy claimed to be a supervisor (three-striper I assume?). He was driving recklessly. He IMMEDIATELY told me he was a TSA screener on his way to work. When I advised him that I would be issuing him a ticket he objected stating that he "was just like me" and he "shouldn't get a ticket." This was a big mistake. As a screener he, in no way, does anything that resembles what I do as a professional law enforcement officer, nor does a TSA screener even have the power of arrest.

At this point I posed a hypothetical question to him. I asked him if I was transiting through his checkpoint and I set off the metal detector, would he stop me and do his job or could I just flip him my badge, wink at him and he'd let me go with no further screening due to the "professional courtesy" he was demanding. He naturally stated that he would stop me and further screen me. I then asked him why he thought he could violate my laws and get away with it because he was a screener. He hemmed and hawed for a while but still gave me a hard time. At that point I thought about FlyerTalk and asked him "would you like to drive today?"

He left still angry but holding a citation that he richly deserved.

I agree with you

also I was in NJ last week for training and one of the other trainees hasnt flown recently. Knew nothing about the 3 3 1 rule. Said she flew out of north or south Carolina somewhere. Carried bottled water thru checkpoint with no issues. We encouraged her to repack her luggage because she had her make up and hair essentials in her carrry on for her trip back ( she had packed them in her checked luggage on her way out on her trip.

I understand the need to be deligent, for safety sake. This whole thing escalated for what reason?

Interesting story.

As I've pointed out before, the problem at TSA boils down to leadership. That supervisor should have known better than to demand professional courtesies, especially when he must have known how he was driving. At any rate, incidents like the one you described result in a one-way conversation with the FSD himself on the proper way for TSOs, particularly supervisors, to conduct themselves. I guess it's a matter of FSD leadership. I know mine wouldn't tolerate it.

And courtesies are just that: a courtesy that an LEO may or may not grant. Several years ago I was taking my family to the coast for the weekend; took a back road I knew that would get me there and bypass the heavily trafficked major highways. Apparently everyone else in the state knew about this back road and soon enough I was in bumper-to-bumper traffic. Well, saw an opening and decided to race around the line just to show everyone else how fast I would have been driving had they stuck to the major roads just like I expected them to. Then I saw the reason for why they were driving so slowly: a state trooper on the side of the road. He pointed his radar gun at me and directed me to the side. I had to drive down to the next available intersection and then circle back to where the trooper was. I knew I screwed up; I knew I was driving too fast; I knew there was absolutely no excuse for the way I drove. And my wife was seated next to me, fixing me with "the glare."

The first thing the police officer saw was the skull and wings of my license plate with the paratrooper motto of "Death from Above" on it. Turned out that he served in the 82nd Airborne Division and was deployed to Grenada during URGENT FURY. We talked at length about Fort Bragg, parachuting and the 82nd. Finally, he said that I really needed to slow down because it was going to be a busy weekend; I thanked him and apologized for speeding; and he let me go: but my wife kept glaring at me.

A courtesy is something we should appreciate when we receive it. It is never something we should expect or demand.

@:-)^

Somebody buy this poster a drink!

The TSA report says secret service officer, others have been saying agent, since there are so many acronyms and agencies discussed in the forum, I'd thought to point out that officer (uniformed division) and agent (special agents) are two different occupations in the secret service.
Though it probably doesn't matter much which it was in this case.

Sounds like a perfect match for the nebulous charge of "disorderly conduct".

Ultimately, however, we must remember that TSA is responsible for this stupidity.

^^^

They are profiling this story on ABC news tonight... will add a link later after the broadcast...