wildcatlh

Doesn't that only apply when things are actually "physically connected", rather than "in the possession of?". The way I remember it, that standard would apply if, for example, I were to rip a necklace off of you, not if I were to kick your dining room table while you were standing in the kitchen.

(Been a long time since the bar exam, and I don't practice criminal law, so I may be misremembering).

nbs2

When I first read this line, I agreed with you. Then I began to think about it and realized that you are proposing to maintain a list of passengers that "aren't liked." These would be folks that weren't cited, weren't a threat to the public or the aircraft, and simply made the screeners uncomfortable. Prior to the TSA, I would have been torn, but ok with it, as it would have been a private party maintaining the list for its use - no different than if Target kicks me out of the store. Since the TSA, it would be a government list, handled by a public agency (or if contracted to a private company, on behalf of a public agency). At that point, the lack of due process and redress forces me to side against you.

Terminated. How appropriate. While I suppose you mean fired, I prefer to think of Arnold.

FlyingUnderTheRadar

WOW!! Thanks for the links.

PTravel

I believe you're right, and I don't practice criminal law and it has also been a long time since the bar exam. I was thinking more along the lines of kicking the conveyor while the TSO is leaning on it, or something like that. If I throw my laptop into a bin, breaking my laptop (but not the bin) in the process, I don't see how that would constitute assault or battery.

clrankin

There's a reason that they're not tracked in any federal database. The federal government has no business caring about minor incidents-- those are best left up to local law enforcement. Tracking minor incidents at the federal level screams of the most broad and sickening form of law enforcement scope creep I can think of.

I feel for you, as I'm not so sure I could step away or just block to defend myself if someone took a swing at me either. But I'm glad that TSA trains its employees to not get physical with the public all the same, as I'm sure that not doing so could open the agency up to a myriad of trouble and lawsuits at times.

There could be a number of reasons that a LEO would decide to not press charges. I believe one other post already mentioned a lack of sufficient evidence as one. Local laws could require that law enforcement actually witness the altercation for it to be arrestable as well (I was told that DC laws actually required this after an incident I witnessed on the Metro).

At any rate if it's not serious enough for a real, trained law enforcement officer to feel that a law was broken, then it certainly shouldn't be up to TSA employees to do something. Doing so essentially ignores the advice, opinion, and training of a trained professional only to replace their judgment with the emotions of a bunch of untrained laypersons. As has been pointed out previously, I also believe it violates due process required by the Fifth Amendment.

There is certainly doubt that it happened. Until someone has been convicted of doing something in a court of law there is always some degree of doubt.

Air rage? Really? AIR rage? Well, at least that was good for a laugh this afternoon...

Whether or not someone has been accused of acting inappropriately at a TSA checkpoint is no concern of mine when I sit next to them in an aircraft.

When you hop on a bus or train, do you worry about whether or not the person sitting next to you has ever suffered from "road rage" or "rail rage"? When you go out to eat, is "restaurant rage" a concern that keeps you from enjoying your meal? Is "mocha rage" a concern when you enter Starbucks? Or "sidewalk rage" when you walk next to someone going down the street? How about "dry cleaner rage" and "local supermarket meat counter rage"-- do they keep you up at night too?

I'm more worried about getting attacked in my sleep by lovable, fluffy bunnies who are out to steal my Lucky Charms than I am air rage. But maybe that's just me...

You sure did make the wrong call there. Whether or not an airline wants to deny a customer travel based upon some arbitrary, caprecious decision is between the passenger and the airline. The government has no place in making that decision based upon what some questionable individuals say happened at a checkpoint at some point in the past. To advocate otherwise ignores essential protections granted to individuals by the Fifth Amendment.

KCK

Since 2007, TSA has maintained a database of names, social security numbers, birthdates, home addresses, etc., of people involved in incidents at airports.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...tch-list_N.htm

clrankin

All the more reason to NOT cooperate with TSOs by handing them your ID or boarding pass if they request it once you've passed the TDC.

Bart

*****

Flaflyer

+1 ^

You have more to worry about if you dare to fly with Lucky Charms. Pack 3.5 ounces of those gel like marshmallow pieces and a fluffy blue smurf will steal them from you.

You're wrong again, cupcake breath. Suppose passenger Mr. Ima Smurfstomper has that rare unique hobby of "TSO Bashing." On each segment he has five opportunities to practice his hobby. His first encounter in the lobby with a BDO team; his encounter with your front man the TDC; the bonanza concentration of TSOs at the checkpoint; a second encounter with members of your ESP Division wandering aimlessly in concourse A; and finally during a gate rape by a gaggle of TSOs who don't trust the checkpoint guys to have done their job properly.

Once boarded, Mr. Smurfstomper can no longer practice his hobby, as there are no TSOs on planes. (Well not yet, although the TSA Mission Creep Department is no doubt working on fixing that big loophole. ) Like a person on the No Fly list with no WEI, he is not a threat to his fellow pax.

Your assumption that a person who once punched a TSO he suspected of stealing his Rolex is a threat to the dude in 10A is a logic fallacy, something TSA and its ilk are good at.

Mother Russia thanks you all for hiring all those unemployed KGB agents to create secret lists and databases for you. Suggest hiring a lawyer who can Google "Bill of Rights" and "U.S. Constitution."

N1120A

1) I wouldn't even give my SSN to a LEO without a court order.

2) Ask/Demand that the LEO not release any information they have collected to the TSA. In California, a state LEO is bound to keep information they gather in an encounter of any kind strictly secret. When I had the run in over my NEXUS card, I did this and the LEO actually got in a shouting match with the TSA idiots over the fact that he wouldn't release my DL number, phone number or address to them.

N965VJ

Why would the airlines propagate such a mythical term? That would be like Audi yammering on about sudden acceleration syndrome (which was really just stupid drivers).

Boggie Dog

More the reason to only use a PP Card for airport ID.

If pressed to give additional information do it away from TSA checkpoint areas.

Flaflyer

But but but it must exist. Why over on Mr. Gore's Internet thingy it has it's own web site www.airrage.org.

N1120A

I only use my NEXUS card. The DL number was for the LEO.

N965VJ

Wow, and they have a link where you can buy this book:



Written by "Anonymous".