Nice try at taking things out of context to counterbalance your failure to fully read something before responding.

If I saw a homeless person in an alley, alongside stairs or otherwise in places associated with the homeless I would probably pass it off - just like I might with a crying 11 year old. If I saw a homeless person prone IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BLOCK this would seem unusual, and I would at the least phone 911 and probably attempt to see if he was OK, would'nt you? A crying 11 year going through security might seem unusual and depending on circumstances, and you would have to be there, result in alerting someone and the TSA would be the closest person with perceived authority.

Because they are not LEOs and don't have LEO training. By definition, they are not professional.

Most likely, if the TSO had called a LEO, as he should have, he would have said, "We have an older child here who is crying," at which point the LEO would have said, "So? Stick to your job and stop playing detective. I have real policing to do."

TSOs are not trained in handling domestic situations, LEOs are. Anyone that claims the TSOs acted "professionally" does not understand the scope of their duties.

There was a time that the LE Agency may have made that type of comment but those times are long gone. The Agency will take the time to investigate any call of that type now.

FB

Based on the examples below, it would appear the assumption of very limited TSA authority is incorrect.

From Wikipedia on the TSA:

http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/phx_spot.shtm

http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/..._bdo_spot.shtm

http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/...idnapping.shtm

So by your definition you have to be a "professional" to act, and I quote the poster I responded to, "... in a professional manner ..."? Under this definition, then we should not expect TSA representatives to act "... in a professional manner ..."? What then is a "... professional manner ..." since I always thought even my third grade educated grandfather always acted "... in a professional manner ..." when I watched him at his Chevrolet dealership.

I believe under today's standards that the LEO responding in a manner described in your final paragraph would have violated the rules of conduct when alerted to possible abuse. A teacher might be accused of criminal violation if alerted to possible abuse and responding in such a cavalier manner.

TSOs are not trained in interviewing children in order to investigate suspected crimes of child abductions. TSOs are not trained in the limits in what kinds of questions can be asked of children without parental consent or legal representation. LEOs are.

Being a "professional" in this context refers to one's training, not simply to demeanor.

Apples and oranges. Teachers are already granted the temporary custody of the children under their charge, outside of the presence of their parents, for hours and hours every day. These TSOs removed the child from her legal guardian in order to ask their questions.

Again, apples and oranges. The victim in the Newark case explicitly requested assistance before TSA intervened. There's no evidence that the child in the case asked for an intervention.

Perhaps so but, based on what I've seen, LEOs tend to have little patience with TSOs acting outside the scope of their authority, particularly when the TSO's actions, themselves, constitute a crime.

Read the Fofana case. As with everything TSA does, these reports are misleading. BDOs can order secondary screening if someone is acting "suspiciously," provided the suspicion is that they are carrying weapons, explosives or incendiaries. At the checkpoint, TSOs perform a limited administrative search for the purpose of detecting weapons, explosives or incendiaries. The administrative search is constitutionally-limited, as confirmed in Fofana, to these items. However if, in the course of searching for these items, the TSO encounters evidence of illegal activity, e.g. drugs, a LEO may be summoned (TSOs lack the legal authority to arrest, detain or seize).

For example, I am neither a medical doctor nor an EMT, nor do I have any medical training beyond passing a first-aid and CPR course a long time ago.

If I encounter an injured person, I can respond with first aid. That response may be the right thing to do and may be helpful. But I would not describe my response as being "professional," nor would I expect anyone to use the term "professional" to describe my actions. For my employer to describe such response as "professional," even if it occurred while I was on the job, would be laughable, given that that response has nothing to do with my job or my training.

Two questions:

1) How would a LEO asking "Are you ok?" be escalating? I haven't seen any call for detention while the LEO shows up. After all, don't families take about 2.5 hours to get resettled after going through security?

2) Is a crying child a weapon, explosive, or incendiary?

[QUOTE=clrankin;13985619]
Would you be OK with a TSO asking unknown questions to your child out of your earshot? Since we don't know the specific questions that were asked, let's change the situation just a bit and make some assumptions. Would you be OK with a TSO asking the child any of the following:
- Did mommy hit you? Is that why you're crying?
- Does your daddy touch you in bad places?
- Is your mommy doing something to scare you? What is it, dear?
- Does your mommy have any drugs?
- Where is your mommy taking you? Do you want to go?
- Is mommy or daddy a bad person? Are they mean?

[Quote]

Based on the screeners' actions to separate the parent and child, I'd bet my mortgage on the fact that the screeners wanted to go there.

Mission creep, every one...

The example of the woman with the black eye was incredibly well-thought out, given her situation. She also deliberately carried metal through the metal detector just so she could go to secondary and ask for help. I've heard of similar actions from people who were getting carjacked who passed a note to a toll collector somewhere.

Didn't the guy with the credit cards get acquitted because of an improper search or something?

That's correct. Someone who is not an MD can not discharge the responsibilities of an MD in a professional manner. Someone who is not a lawyer cannot discharge the responsibilities of a lawyer in a professional manner. Someone who is not a LEO, for example a TSO, can discharge the responsibilities of a LEO in a professional manner.

See above. You seem focused on hyper-literal semantics, rather than anything related to reality. As for whether we should expect TSOs to act in a professional manner, we should which means, for a TSO, competently and efficiently executing the limited administrative search for weapons, explosives and incendiaries and absolutely nothing more.

And what was the untrained TSO's basis for suspecting abuse? "The child was crying."

[QUOTE=PTravel;13985806]

You can think of no circumstances where you might step in? I can.



More hyperbole – intimidation?

So escalating the event to an LEO would have been less intrusive? I don’t think so. In fact the actions by TSA representative, if taken in good faith, prevented a more intimidating experience to the travellers in the OP.

There have been more than a few cases of a parent being detained for disciplining their child in a manner considered inappropriate by the bystander and the bystander faced no consequences. See below.

http://www.nmsa.org/Publications/Mid...6/Default.aspx

I have never had a serious negative interaction and have passed off the less than serious negative interactions as annoyances – something I strongly recommend to others.

Thankfully, the instances of the TSA patting itself on the back for getting involved in situations that have no impact on the safety of commercial aviation has virtually dried up after the Fofana ruling.

Who is focused on "... hyper-literal semantics ..." would appear to be a question, wouldn't it? Interesting that you wrote "As for whether we should expect TSOs to act in a professional manner, we should ..." which in context was my original point - acting "... in a professional manner ..." is not limited to professionals - is it? The original poster stated an LEO would have acted "... in a professional manner ..." and by this statement implied the TSA representative did not act "... in a professional manner ...", not specifying in their respective roles and responsibilities.

I have already cited that the responibilities of a TSA representative can extend beyond what you state their responsibilities should be limited to.

We were not there to determine if the only reason for the TSA representatives concern was SOLELY a child crying as you wish to believe or whether there were other indications to raise the level of concern. It is difficult me to conceive of a TSA representative subjecting themselves to the potential second guessing based SOLELY on a few tears as you would indicate, but then again I am perhaps less skeptical than you.

Minor children cry at airports every day and such little persons crying at airport was the case before the TSA and it will be the case after the TSA. The TSA wasn't needed before to save the children and the TSA is still not needed to save the children today.

The TSA has no more business or right in interfering in a parent-child relationship in the absence of a rational observation of unlawful activity than a drug-abusing panhandler does.