So Much For The Effectiveness Of TSA & SPOT/Woman Nearly Raped At DCA
Jan 12, 2009, 11:53 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DCA / WAS
Programs: DL 2+ million/PM, YX, Marriott Plt, *wood gold, HHonors, CO Plt, UA, AA EXP, WN, AGR
Posts: 9,388
So Much For The Effectiveness Of TSA & SPOT/Woman Nearly Raped At DCA
A disgrace.
OK, so there's street crime in an airport. Not the sharpest criminal.
BUT WAIT! There's this little gem:
Isn't the whole premise of TSA and SPOT to stop, question, turn over to the police who will detain (if necessary) folks that are acting suspiciously? Isn't that the excuse used for detaining the woman with the LEDs in Boston?
Total failure of TSA here. Guess 3.5 ounces of liquid is more dangerous than a suspicious character in the airport.
Good on the FAMs though:
Wait for the spin on THIS one.
A strong police presence stands guard outside Terminal A at Reagan National Airport, the scene of a disturbing attack inside a women's bathroom Saturday.
Police sources say the man was hiding in the ladies room and targeted an unsuspecting woman.
Police sources say the man was hiding in the ladies room and targeted an unsuspecting woman.
BUT WAIT! There's this little gem:
Police sources tell FOX 5 news that TSA agents reportedly saw the 19-year-old lurking around the airport most of the day.
Total failure of TSA here. Guess 3.5 ounces of liquid is more dangerous than a suspicious character in the airport.
Good on the FAMs though:
Police sources confirm and say the woman was badly beaten and found partially clothed in side the ladies room. Sources say two air marshals heard the woman's screams and ran in the restroom to help and held the suspect down.
Jan 12, 2009, 12:02 pm
#2
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 576
A disgrace.
OK, so there's street crime in an airport. Not the sharpest criminal.
BUT WAIT! There's this little gem:
Isn't the whole premise of TSA and SPOT to stop, question, turn over to the police who will detain (if necessary) folks that are acting suspiciously? Isn't that the excuse used for detaining the woman with the LEDs in Boston?
Total failure of TSA here. Guess 3.5 ounces of liquid is more dangerous than a suspicious character in the airport.
Good on the FAMs though:
Wait for the spin on THIS one.
OK, so there's street crime in an airport. Not the sharpest criminal.
BUT WAIT! There's this little gem:
Isn't the whole premise of TSA and SPOT to stop, question, turn over to the police who will detain (if necessary) folks that are acting suspiciously? Isn't that the excuse used for detaining the woman with the LEDs in Boston?
Total failure of TSA here. Guess 3.5 ounces of liquid is more dangerous than a suspicious character in the airport.
Good on the FAMs though:
Wait for the spin on THIS one.
Jan 12, 2009, 12:32 pm
#3
Join Date: May 2005
Location: various cities in the USofA: NYC, BWI, IAH, ORD, CVG, NYC
Programs: Former UA 1K, National Exec. Elite
Posts: 5,485
Jan 12, 2009, 1:28 pm
#4
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
For the funding that BDO/SPOT programs get, the taxpayers deserve better.
As far as the FAM's, the woman is lucky they were nearby.
Yet another reason to use the restroom in the RCC.
As far as the FAM's, the woman is lucky they were nearby.
Yet another reason to use the restroom in the RCC.
Jan 12, 2009, 3:03 pm
#6
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,878
great, now we won't be able to go potty at the airport....
but in all seriousness....
it's embarrassing to all who are on patrol at the airport save the fam's who acted (and major kudos to them ^).
airport leo's are at fault and so is the tsa along with their spotniks. a spotinik is a bdo and their job is to observe which in this case they didn't. afaic, they flunk as do the the airport leo's.
but in all seriousness....
airport leo's are at fault and so is the tsa along with their spotniks. a spotinik is a bdo and their job is to observe which in this case they didn't. afaic, they flunk as do the the airport leo's.
Jan 12, 2009, 3:05 pm
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
If TSA is known to do that, then why didn't they do something? Or are they just selectively dragnetting?
We always here about TSA reporting stuff as citizens of this nation when they find stuff during a screening. What's so different about this?
Jan 12, 2009, 3:23 pm
#8
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
"Come on" is right. This airport is crawling with BDOs and nobody "spotted" (pun intended) him? Extremely poor reflection on the TSA. Don't try to push the blame to the PD.
Jan 12, 2009, 3:27 pm
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,037
1. Time and time and time and time again, the TSA trumpets anything it does even beyond the "security" checkpoint to make itself look better, and/or relevant.
2. The TSA regularly trumpets ANYTHING a TSAer gets involved in. Including home burglaries, having NOTHING to do with airport "security."
3. TSAer harassing someone waiting for someone in Sacramento. If they can harass people sitting, waiting around for passengers, surely TSA can stop and question someone who has been noticed to be waiting around for hours, right?
Those three cases alone raise the bar, done by the TSA itself, in what the TSA job description is.
Now, consider other things....
- How many times do we hear that we should report any suspicious activity to law enforcement or TSA? Some guy wandering around for hours and hours would seem a little suspicious to me, don't you think?
- As mentioned before, the TSA itself raises the bar on these kinds of things. Stopping home burglaries, finding 6,000 Ex pills.
Classic case of you make your bed, you lie in it.
Jan 12, 2009, 3:45 pm
#10
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: HSV
Posts: 876
Hm.
Even assuming that any BDOs actually saw him, if one of them went to go have a chat with him and he refused to talk to him, then... what's supposed to happen at that point?
As so many have pointed out here on FT—and was confirmed by Spotnik himself, from whom I learned a great deal about the SPOT program—refusal to speak to a BDO does not constitute grounds for LEO referral.
So... what's the problem? You're complaining that the presumed BDOs didn't pretend to be LEOs, weren't on power trips, and didn't violate his constitutional rights?
Fair's fair, guys. Look at it objectively.
Even assuming that any BDOs actually saw him, if one of them went to go have a chat with him and he refused to talk to him, then... what's supposed to happen at that point?
As so many have pointed out here on FT—and was confirmed by Spotnik himself, from whom I learned a great deal about the SPOT program—refusal to speak to a BDO does not constitute grounds for LEO referral.
So... what's the problem? You're complaining that the presumed BDOs didn't pretend to be LEOs, weren't on power trips, and didn't violate his constitutional rights?
Fair's fair, guys. Look at it objectively.
Jan 12, 2009, 3:53 pm
#11
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,037
Does it take special training to report suspicious activity?
Jan 12, 2009, 4:13 pm
#12
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: HSV
Posts: 876
No, but assuming it was reported (the last lines of the story are, unfortunately, vague on this point), and then the LEOs went to talk to him... what then?
Hanging around an airport all day might be suspicious, but if the kid just kept his teeth together (or was clever), it's not against the law.
...Right?
I'm just making an observation.
Hanging around an airport all day might be suspicious, but if the kid just kept his teeth together (or was clever), it's not against the law.
...Right?
I'm just making an observation.
Jan 12, 2009, 4:41 pm
#13
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,037
No, but assuming it was reported (the last lines of the story are, unfortunately, vague on this point), and then the LEOs went to talk to him... what then?
Hanging around an airport all day might be suspicious, but if the kid just kept his teeth together (or was clever), it's not against the law.
...Right?
I'm just making an observation.
Hanging around an airport all day might be suspicious, but if the kid just kept his teeth together (or was clever), it's not against the law.
...Right?
I'm just making an observation.
The point I'm making is that the TSA positions itself as this all-encompassing, you can't get anything by us, we're here to save the day, if it weren't for us you'd be dead....agency that lowers itself to irrelevant, shameless plugs for itself all in the name of keeping itself relevant.
Someone at the TSA, people who regularly pull aside people who are not threats to aviation or airport security, should have done something to this legitimate threat at an airport.
Jan 12, 2009, 4:52 pm
#14
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: HSV
Posts: 876
And I'm not disagreeing with you. But if it went like this:
...What's supposed to happen at that point? Should he be detained anyway, because the BDO thought he was suspicious? Is that not the dangerous road that so many people cry foul at the whole BDO program for in the first place?
It just seems to me that people want it both ways. They want the above-cited reference to happen if the person is doing nothing wrong with no intentions of doing something wrong, but if the person later, say, beats the crap out of a chick in the bathroom and attempts to rape her, then it's the TSA's fault for not doing enough when they very clearly had noticed him lurking around for most of the day.
Originally Posted by from the #3 thing you cited earlier from another FT thread
Spot: Excuse me, sir.
Me: Yes, can I help you?
Spot (points at computer bag): What kind of bag is that?
Me: Why do you ask? Are you looking to buy one?
Spot: Just asking, that's all. Are you flying today?
Me: Yes. (which was a true statement - just not on an airline, that's all)
Spot: Where to?
Me: Why do you want to know? I don't know you.
Spot (a bit flustered, pulls out an ID): I'm with the TSA.
Me: That's nice. But you haven't answered my question.
Spot: Just a security check.
Me: Sorry, but I refuse to answer your questions.
Spot: He refuses to answer my questions about his travels today.
Deputy 1: Is that true?
Me: Yes sir.
Deputy 2: Do you mind telling me why?
Me: Because what I am doing in a public place is none of his business and unless I happen to be flying out of this airport then I'm not talking to him.
Spot (in an accusing tone of voice): You said you were flying today.
Deputy 2: Well?
Me: That is true. I am flying today. On a private plane. From Sacramento Executive airport, not here. I'm here waiting to meet an arriving passenger on the Chicago flight. The TSA guy asked me if I was flying today. I answered yes, because I didn't want to be accused of lying to a federal agent. It's his fault for not asking the right questions, not mine.
Deputy 1 chuckles.
Deputy 2 pulls Spot aside and they have an animated conversation. Spot walks away, goes up the escalators towards airside.
Deputy 2: Sorry for the inconvenience sir. Please go about your business.
Me: Appreciate your service. Thanks and be safe.
Me: Yes, can I help you?
Spot (points at computer bag): What kind of bag is that?
Me: Why do you ask? Are you looking to buy one?
Spot: Just asking, that's all. Are you flying today?
Me: Yes. (which was a true statement - just not on an airline, that's all)
Spot: Where to?
Me: Why do you want to know? I don't know you.
Spot (a bit flustered, pulls out an ID): I'm with the TSA.
Me: That's nice. But you haven't answered my question.
Spot: Just a security check.
Me: Sorry, but I refuse to answer your questions.
Spot: He refuses to answer my questions about his travels today.
Deputy 1: Is that true?
Me: Yes sir.
Deputy 2: Do you mind telling me why?
Me: Because what I am doing in a public place is none of his business and unless I happen to be flying out of this airport then I'm not talking to him.
Spot (in an accusing tone of voice): You said you were flying today.
Deputy 2: Well?
Me: That is true. I am flying today. On a private plane. From Sacramento Executive airport, not here. I'm here waiting to meet an arriving passenger on the Chicago flight. The TSA guy asked me if I was flying today. I answered yes, because I didn't want to be accused of lying to a federal agent. It's his fault for not asking the right questions, not mine.
Deputy 1 chuckles.
Deputy 2 pulls Spot aside and they have an animated conversation. Spot walks away, goes up the escalators towards airside.
Deputy 2: Sorry for the inconvenience sir. Please go about your business.
Me: Appreciate your service. Thanks and be safe.
It just seems to me that people want it both ways. They want the above-cited reference to happen if the person is doing nothing wrong with no intentions of doing something wrong, but if the person later, say, beats the crap out of a chick in the bathroom and attempts to rape her, then it's the TSA's fault for not doing enough when they very clearly had noticed him lurking around for most of the day.
Jan 12, 2009, 4:59 pm
#15
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,878
While I will the original insinuation is a little bit of a stretch, there are a few things you need to understand:
1. Time and time and time and time again, the TSA trumpets anything it does even beyond the "security" checkpoint to make itself look better, and/or relevant.
2. The TSA regularly trumpets ANYTHING a TSAer gets involved in. Including home burglaries, having NOTHING to do with airport "security."
3. TSAer harassing someone waiting for someone in Sacramento. If they can harass people sitting, waiting around for passengers, surely TSA can stop and question someone who has been noticed to be waiting around for hours, right?
Those three cases alone raise the bar, done by the TSA itself, in what the TSA job description is.
Now, consider other things....
- How many times do we hear that we should report any suspicious activity to law enforcement or TSA? Some guy wandering around for hours and hours would seem a little suspicious to me, don't you think?
- As mentioned before, the TSA itself raises the bar on these kinds of things. Stopping home burglaries, finding 6,000 Ex pills.
Classic case of you make your bed, you lie in it.
1. Time and time and time and time again, the TSA trumpets anything it does even beyond the "security" checkpoint to make itself look better, and/or relevant.
2. The TSA regularly trumpets ANYTHING a TSAer gets involved in. Including home burglaries, having NOTHING to do with airport "security."
3. TSAer harassing someone waiting for someone in Sacramento. If they can harass people sitting, waiting around for passengers, surely TSA can stop and question someone who has been noticed to be waiting around for hours, right?
Those three cases alone raise the bar, done by the TSA itself, in what the TSA job description is.
Now, consider other things....
- How many times do we hear that we should report any suspicious activity to law enforcement or TSA? Some guy wandering around for hours and hours would seem a little suspicious to me, don't you think?
- As mentioned before, the TSA itself raises the bar on these kinds of things. Stopping home burglaries, finding 6,000 Ex pills.
Classic case of you make your bed, you lie in it.
bdo's are "designed" to probe and find flaws. so the person in question doesn't want to talk to the bdo-that's fine and i have no problem with that but if the person being questioned is evasive in their denial, appears nervous, their eyes are not focusing on the face of the person doing the questioning, etc., etc., .... then the bdo should pursue it. follow the pax around, alert a leo but do something if it is "staring you in the face" as that's the job of a bdo.
not saying that's what happened just what should happen in that scenario. as i posted above, i put blame all around save for the fam's who acted.
Read my original post in this thread again.
The point I'm making is that the TSA positions itself as this all-encompassing, you can't get anything by us, we're here to save the day, if it weren't for us you'd be dead....agency that lowers itself to irrelevant, shameless plugs for itself all in the name of keeping itself relevant.
Someone at the TSA, people who regularly pull aside people who are not threats to aviation or airport security, should have done something to this legitimate threat at an airport.
The point I'm making is that the TSA positions itself as this all-encompassing, you can't get anything by us, we're here to save the day, if it weren't for us you'd be dead....agency that lowers itself to irrelevant, shameless plugs for itself all in the name of keeping itself relevant.
Someone at the TSA, people who regularly pull aside people who are not threats to aviation or airport security, should have done something to this legitimate threat at an airport.