Global_Hi_Flyer

Wow...

If you accept a role in the profession, you are expected to be professional about it. That means no "retaliation". As long as the passenger does not step over the legal line, then you (or the FAM) have no business doing anything. As long as there is no law or regulation against saying "good day", then there is an expectation as part of the job that you will accept it.

If, however, the passenger is over the line, cursing, disruptive, touching you, etc, then the law enforcement officer has cause to act. But not until. Or busts company policy - then there's cause to act. But not until. Joint the MHC in the lav, I'd expect the crew to react. But use too much TP and clog up the lav? I don't think so.

If you can't handle that, maybe you shouldn't be in the business.

Retaliation (in lieu of legal process) is, in fact, stepping over the line. It evokes the attitude of one LEO that I met who stated that once he got his badge, he had the "power over the people".

Sorry, just like I'd tell any employee of mine who was in a similar role, the moment you want to "get even" or "retaliate" is the moment you need to step back from the job. That's equally applicable to *any* public-facing role, be it LEO, flight attendant, or counter-staff at a fast food restaurant.

As I see it, retaliating or "messing with" someone that has merely said something to you is not much different than serving a food item that's been dropped on the floor or had mold scraped off. Might cause you repeated inconvenience, but won't kill you.

law dawg

What world are we talking about here? The real world or an idyllic one? In the real world, not everyone is as righteous and thick-skinned as you may like. My words are a warning only, not a call to action.

If you mess with people, be prepared to be messed with back.

That is a legal process. I'm confused.....

Again, I'm not advocating anything. I'm simply stating facts. We can talk about could and would and should all day. We can talk philosophy and theory and right and wrong and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

And it means jack squat in the real world.

I can say, "You should be able to walk up to a cop and punch him in the face and then say 'I give up!' and the cop should just arrest you without hitting you back." I can say that and it should be true. But would you really count on it? C'mon, it's people we're talking about here, not robots.

I should be able to walk into an airline terminal and call the minority persons working for the airlines any of the racially charged names I know and they should not be expected to hit me in the face.

Tell you what - go give this a try and let me know how it works out for you. I mean, since you've not stepped over "the legal line" and the employee should "step back from the job" since can only "cause (them) repeated inconvenience, but won't kill (them)."

Again, c'mon now.

The post I responded to originally was an obvious attempt to "get the goat" of some poor ....... just doing their job. To then assume that they won't react is expecting saint-like restraint. Personally, I would never count on it, and haven't since like the third grade when I was punched in the nose by a kid for messing with him. The poster posited a course of action. I posited a possible response to said course of action.

Mess with the bull, you have to expect the horns.

Grog

A lot of words that try to (but don't) excuse self-restraint. No one should be asking for sainthood, just for FAMs to be of a higher caliber than (not equal to or less than) passengers on the plane. It's what they're paid for; why they should have been hired in that position over someone else; if they don't feel that way, then they shouldn't have applied for such a job. It's no different in many professions while performing those duties.

Your words not a call to action? May I ask for a short explanation. I have no idea what that meant. Who would be acting on what?

law dawg

Someone said essentially - hey do X. I said - that might not be the best idea because of Y.

That's all.

People do it all the time here so I'm confused as to the drama here. I hear from posters all the time "hey, be careful about messing with TSOs because you may get the 'do you want to fly today treatment'" It's a warning, and a fair one. This is no different, I think.

We can all talk about higher standards and what not but let's try and keep things grounded in the real world. If you mess with people, especially LEOs, they'll sometimes mess back, using the legal tools at hand.

They're violating no law or civil right. They would be documenting actual behaviors. They've done no wrong here. So that's not the issue.

The issue is it the "right" thing to do. That can be debated all day long, but at the end of the day we're still left with the fact that people who think they can just jack with people with impunity sooner or later run into someone who won't let them.

Many power-hungry LEOs find this out sometime in their career when they mess with the wrong person and get slapped down.

But it works the other way too.

Krakajax

must be the new math. try a higher figure.

Krakajax

Nice. On spot.

Krakajax

cheer up Global

lawdawg's one of the good guys he's NOT with the 'Waterboard crowd'
or the crafty 'Blue Ridge' boys from outside of Purcellville . . .

Krakajax

Or dress them up as airline Flight Officers ? *smirk*

Global_Hi_Flyer

Let's see. A one-time event (what the passenger has done) vs lifetime aggravation (what the LEO does). Several orders of magnitude of difference.

If the LEO can't be thicker skinned, he shouldn't be in the job.

(and no, I don't advocate that passenger "messing with" the LEO, but there is a matter of judgement and magnitude here.)

Holding the "power over the people" with his badge and gun is legal process? Lord help us.

Or do you mean there is a legal process, with charges, prosecution, judge and/or jury? In that case, I'd say that any agency or party that places a name on the SSSS, watch, or no-fly list is not acting with legal process unless there is a process of constitutional protections.

What I heard you saying is that the person could be placed on a list for retaliation for expressing a pleasantry, which is NOT due-process by any stretch of the imagination.

We may disagree, but that's the way I see it.

Maybe. But the LEO is not above the law. AND, as a LEO, he is expected to be held to a higher standard. But as you note, LEOs in the real world may engage in petty behavior without reprecussion.... (sarcasm) perhaps that's why some of this is SSI (end sarcasm).

Last time I checked, punching a cop is assault. The cop has every right to take him down and arrest him - and to do it in a way that protects the cop from another attack. What the cop does NOT have the right to do is abuse or brutalize the suspect.

Actually, you do not, and should not, have the right to walk in and use racially charged names. Last I checked, in most places that can be considered anything from a hate crime to inciting a riot. Ergo, it is a crime and you would be subject to criminal penalties.

What we're talking about here is saying Good Morning Officer. No assault, no racially charged issue, nothing that can be construed as a crime.

so....
I have no intention to engage in possibly illegal behavior just to test your theory. Nor do I have any intention of "outing" an undercover person.

I'm right with you if the "mess with" is simply words exchanged in return. Once it escalates to "ten-tits for a one-tat", then it's over the line.

Again, you're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.

Global_Hi_Flyer

That's always assumed until proved otherwise.

I thought we were having a good discussion....

mmartin4600

We should try to remember that this recent discussion stems from a hypothetical situation posed by Lawdawg. I have never heard of a FAM writing a report on someone because they said "Hi" or "Morning Officer" to them. I would appreciate it though that if you think the person on your flight is a FAM, save your greetings until the end of the flight. Thank you.

law dawg

How is writing a report simply documenting someone's actions a "lifetime aggravation?"

The report could be a way to "get back" or it could be a way document what has occurred. Maybe the FAM documents it simply to acknowledge that it was easy to pick him/her out and changes need to be made. Maybe they do it as a "F_ you too buddy." Regardless, I was responding to the advice the poster gave to say "morning officer," which I feel is irresponsible advice given that there could be repercussions for such behavior. It would be equally irresponsible to not warn someone that if they choose to "fight the Man," as it were, that they might lose.

"I fought the Law and the Law won......"

Easy to say, hard to do.

Perhaps. But again, if someone wants to play they have to be prepared for people to play back. Is it right? Probably not. Is it apt to occur? Probably so.

The LEO/FAM is simply documenting behavior. "On XX/XX/XXXX, Officer Johnson observed subject Doe, John, engage in the following behavior : A,B and C."

What others do with that information, who can say?

What I said is that the LEO/FAM might write a report. What happens next, I said who knew? Maybe nothing. Maybe a lot.

Ha! That whole "higher standard" statement has always meant that some people have the right to act like a$$e$ and others have to take it.

Again, we live in the real world.

My point is that the LEO cannot assault the subject to get some of his own back.

Let's change the example-
A woman should be able to walk into a biker bar buck naked and nothing happen to her.

You want to put money on that?

In the real world there are consequences for actions. Are they right? Maybe, maybe not. But that's the way it is. Should that woman be raped? Of course not. Would you be surprised if she was? I'd say no.

Let's turn this around for a second -
If a LEO was messing with a person and that person used the options at hand and fought back you'd be cheering them, up to and including affecting the LEO with a "lifetime (of) aggravation" in their file. So why cannot the LEO do the same?

If the person fights back he's standing up for himself. If the LEO does he's a thug?

I'll say for the last time that I'm not advocating anything, just warning people that their actions may well have consequences greater than they anticipate.

sbrower

Those of you who assume that the FAM is supposed to be "undercover" continue to frustrate me. The evidence I have seen (including alleged confirmation, from people who claim and/or appear to be knowledgeable, is that some FAM Management agrees with my position) is that FAM's main mission is to prevent an "incident" from ever occurring - with a distant second role of intervening in an incident if it occurs. The deterrent effect derives from being *visible* to a competent observer.

sinanju

How does that work if they aren't on every flight? If I'm a bad guy, why wouldn't I and my bad friends fly a variety of flights with our nefarious shampoo bottles and deodorant sticks until we, as competent observers, didn't see a FAM?

The deterrent effect of FAMs flying a minority of flights would only work if the deodorant-wielding baddie wasn't sure if there was a FAM aboard or not.

law dawg

There are varying factions in this debate. But the primary theory behind it is indeed anonymity. Only the non-flying, non-training FAM management think this way. They're too used to being highly visible Secret Service Agents.

But the theory is indeed to hide and then strike.

To wit:
"Greg Alter trains federal air marshals.

"Anonymity is a critical feature of their mission," Alter said."

http://wcbstv.com/local/airport.secu....2.577743.html