|
Originally Posted by Good Guy
(Post 10019886)
Who wants to bet....Remedial training and he keeps his job. :td:
Still, every case like this lessens TSA's presumption of legitimacy and authority - they can't even ensure their own people aren't felons, and they presume to try to do anything more with the general flying public than screen for legitimately-dangerous items? - and statements like "....the TSA is conducting an internal investigation to see if any action should be taken...." (emphasis mine) don't help them at all. Which, in my book, is a GOOD thing. (Hint to TSA: YES, YOU FRAKKING MORONS, ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN!!!!!) |
Wirelessly posted (bb: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0) BlackBerry8310/4.2.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102)
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
Nice. :rolleyes:
Too bad there isn't an enhanced penalty for a person in a position of public trust. On the other hand, sexual predators of children are very popular in prison. He'll be getting plenty of sex, whether he likes it or not. Karma's a b1tch. |
Originally Posted by erictank
(Post 10021946)
I don't think even Kip is THAT big an idiot!
Still, every case like this lessens TSA's presumption of legitimacy and authority - they can't even ensure their own people aren't felons, and they presume to try to do anything more with the general flying public than screen for legitimately-dangerous items? - and statements like "....the TSA is conducting an internal investigation to see if any action should be taken...." (emphasis mine) don't help them at all. Which, in my book, is a GOOD thing. We had an employee who, besides being a poor performer, started physically threatening her co-workers. It took us one year to terminate her, and it was a struggle. It was only when the FBI came to us and advised us that the employee was the subject of a criminal investigation did the HR weenies let us terminate her. |
Originally Posted by samftla
(Post 10019555)
One would think that their woopee dooo Behavior Detection Officers would have spotted this creep long before....couldn't they tell this person was leering at little girls going through security?
Originally Posted by Good Guy
(Post 10019886)
Who wants to bet....Remedial training and he keeps his job. :td:
|
Originally Posted by Boston_Bulldog
(Post 10018338)
Ought to be a law that child sexual predators be castrated then beheaded. :mad:
|
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
(Post 10017875)
Too bad there isn't an enhanced penalty for a person in a position of public trust.
It should be noted, however that there are sometimes enhanced penalties when the victim of the crime is a person in a position of public trust. |
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
(Post 10018545)
A person in a position of public trust, where judgment is considered critical is completely relevant to travel safety. Deviance of this magnitude deserves scrutiny. I doubt he woke up one morning and said "I think I'll proposition a child for sex today".
We aren't talking about someone accused of jaywalking. |
I wonder how much it would cost to rent a couple of large billboards near major airports so the public can be kept up to date about the quality of individual they are about to be screened by.
|
Originally Posted by Spiff
(Post 10018306)
However, the TSA places a great deal of importance on these background checks and touts Clear, aka Extorted Traveler, as a viable predictor for reducing wait times that a passenger may subjected to before being harassed at the checkpoint.
The fact that a dangerous predator can easily enter a position of trust just underscores the need to screen TSA employees as much as the passengers are screened. If some terrorist had told this trusted employee to carry a package of "fudge" or "play-doh" pass the checkpoint in exchange for access to underage girls, he might very well have accepted. @:-) I hope a couple of buff fellas have their fun with him in the state pen, but you can't give TSA crap for not picking up on this guy's intentions with a minor. Anyone can trick anybody, no matter the circumstances. |
Originally Posted by swag
(Post 10018277)
. . . his sexual preferences are for underage partners . . .
|
Originally Posted by Ari
(Post 10023561)
I think that would cause equal protection issues. Besides, I don't think the public trusts the TSA.
Originally Posted by Ari
(Post 10023561)
It should be noted, however that there are sometimes enhanced penalties when the victim of the crime is a person in a position of public trust.
Not only does the public suffer as a result of the crime, but there is a breach of trust. Our society is dependant upon the belief that those in a position of authority are doing the right thing. In my opinion, the stakes are higher in these situations, thus the penalty should be as well. |
Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 10023837)
You can't expect the TSA or any agency to know a person's intentions if they have a clean criminal background. Heck, look at the amount of politicians and Priests that have done just as bad or worse.
I hope a couple of buff fellas have their fun with him in the state pen, but you can't give TSA crap for not picking up on this guy's intentions with a minor. Anyone can trick anybody, no matter the circumstances. Liquids are dangerous? No liquids for TSA employees. Shoes are for storing explosives? TSA employees have to remove them too. No utility knives, no mace, nothing for TSA employees if the passengers are prohibited from carrying them too. It's just one more weak link in a disgusting, un-American, and inefficient "play security" joke. |
Originally Posted by swag
(Post 10018277)
The article has no suggestion that his behavior while on duty was in any way inappropriate.
The article has no suggestion that he has any prior arrests or convictions. So I'm not sure what sort of better background check you'd want to see done before hiring. In fact, since he's been a TSA worker for 4 years, it's quite possible that he had not committed any offense at the time of his hiring. And the fact that his sexual preferences are for underage partners does not seem to increase his risk of carrying an STD; if anything it would seem to lower the risk. And I know of no STD's that can be transmitted when an infected person handles your packed clothes. The fact that he happened to be a TSA employee is completely incidental to the story, and completely irrelevant to Travel Safety/Security. Name checks only surface those who have been caught or who are on some watch list. To do a full background investigation would result in higher costs on the order of 10-20 times, and that is for each applicant, successful or not. Who is ready to pay that? In any subset of the general population, criminals of all kinds will be found. There are probably successful murderers in TSA, all kinds of perverts, and a variety of other miscreants. Same goes for the military, large corporations, political officeholders, and major corporations. Relating TSA to any private criminal activity is both silly and illogical. It detracts from the many cogent points made here about the security of air travel. |
Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 10023837)
You can't expect the TSA or any agency to know a person's intentions if they have a clean criminal background. Heck, look at the amount of politicians and Priests that have done just as bad or worse.
You might not catch every potential "bad" hire, but if you are diligent, you can catch most. |
Originally Posted by halls120
(Post 10024414)
Wrong. CBP is currently aggressively hiring to fill Border Patrol vacancies. One of my car pool mates is a retired DEA agent who is part of a team that screens potential applicants. He rejects many potential candidates that have "clean criminal backgrounds" by thoroughly examining credit reports, investigators reports, interviews with references, etc.
You might not catch every potential "bad" hire, but if you are diligent, you can catch most. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:20 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.