|
Items OR Intent- Where is the danger?
Which is more dangerous on a plane- items that can be used to harm the plane or passengers, or persons who have intent to do harm?
Even with the more extreme pat downs, TSA leaves hundreds of items that are still brought into the cabin and could be used to do harm. Almost 100% of planes reach their destination without news worthy incidents involving said items. On the other hand, the plane could be filled with a mixture of passengers, weapons, and explosives, and if no one has, or acts on, harmful intent, that plane will arrive at its destination intact. My question is Either Intent OR Items- which should be focused on? Choose ONE. |
you are asking for a rational debate in an irrational environment...
if a risk approach was adopted for commercial airline travel, your countries defict would be much smaller. |
Originally Posted by VH-RMD
(Post 14583301)
you are asking for a rational debate in an irrational environment...
I'm aware of that. if a risk approach was adopted for commercial airline travel, your countries defict would be much smaller. |
I should have used the ironic smilies - shouldn't I...
|
Originally Posted by VH-RMD
(Post 14583354)
I should have used the ironic smilies - shouldn't I...
There is risk every day. ;) Getting back to the question though, should we be concerned with securing items, OR intent? |
100% Intent
People don't think about harming people unless they have the intention to. There are tons of ways to harm a plane or pax and with these non-sense ban (like bring no liquid but you can still buy spirit from duty-free, which is crazy because you can either light a fire or break the glass and use it as a weapon) it doesn't make air travel safer. |
Originally Posted by IslandBased
(Post 14583401)
Getting back to the question though, should we be concerned with securing items, OR intent?
Securing items may be a poor second-best. But it's easier to determine whether a person is carrying weapons that to determine what that person might intend on doing with them. |
Originally Posted by jkhuggins
(Post 14584125)
The problem is ... how do you secure intent? There's no way to know what a person is thinking when they approach a checkpoint.
Securing items may be a poor second-best. But it's easier to determine whether a person is carrying weapons that to determine what that person might intend on doing with them. But, seriously, good point. |
Originally Posted by jkhuggins
(Post 14584125)
The problem is ... how do you secure intent? There's no way to know what a person is thinking when they approach a checkpoint.
Securing items may be a poor second-best. But it's easier to determine whether a person is carrying weapons that to determine what that person might intend on doing with them. The only three things since 9/11 that have any effect have nothing to do with the TSA. 1. Reinforced, locked flight deck doors 2. No negotiation with hijackers 3. Passengers and FAs now know to fight for their lives if someone tries something. |
Originally Posted by jkhuggins
(Post 14584125)
The problem is ... how do you secure intent? There's no way to know what a person is thinking when they approach a checkpoint.
His intent was most likely not the resulting interpretation of the intent by the FA involved. |
It is intent, which is one reason why the TSA is such a huge waste of tax dollars.
Mother Angeline of the Sisters of Sickly Children can board an aircraft with a cyanide-flavored flame thrower, and we are unlikely to have much of a threat to aviation safety. Adbul Al Kaboom can board the aircraft with a paper clip, two chopsticks and a cell phne battery, and we may indeed have a threat to the airplane. Obviously the TSA will prevent Mother Angeline from boarding the aircraft under the rules today, and they will probably harrass Abdul just for the heck of it, but he will eventally get on board. Threat averted from either? No! Fourth Amendment violated for both? Yes! A big round of applause for the smurfs. |
Depending on the item one can infer intent. If we focus completely on intent only then what do we do if it becomes legal to bring explosives onto a plane? Or a gun? Saran gas? Without intent all of these items are pretty much nothing more than paper weights.
Now, as jkh said, how do we determine intent with 100% accuracy? It cant be done. We all know that, not with 100% certainty. Do we take the passengers word for it? Think about that, almost everyone here complains that the TSA treats them as criminals without cause. So, if the TSA asks you to sign a document stating that you have no “ill intent” toward anyone should we allow the introduction of explosives guns and other possibly dangerous items into the sterile areas of our nations airports? Moving back to mozgytog’s list:
Originally Posted by mozgytog
(Post 14584394)
The only three things since 9/11 that have any effect have nothing to do with the TSA.
1.Reinforced, locked flight deck doors
Originally Posted by mozgytog
(Post 14584394)
2. No negotiation with hijackers
Originally Posted by mozgytog
(Post 14584394)
3. Passengers and FAs now know to fight for their lives if someone tries something.
|
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 14587428)
Depending on the item one can infer intent. If we focus completely on intent only then what do we do if it becomes legal to bring explosives onto a plane? Or a gun? Saran gas? Without intent all of these items are pretty much nothing more than paper weights.
Now, as jkh said, how do we determine intent with 100% accuracy? It cant be done. We all know that, not with 100% certainty. Do we take the passengers word for it? Think about that, almost everyone here complains that the TSA treats them as criminals without cause. So, if the TSA asks you to sign a document stating that you have no “ill intent” toward anyone should we allow the introduction of explosives guns and other possibly dangerous items into the sterile areas of our nations airports? Moving back to mozgytog’s list: Useless against explosives, some firearms, and any of the available poisonous gases. Useless against explosives, some firearms, and any of the available poisonous gases. Besides, the 9/11 hijackers didn’t want to negotiate. Didn’t even try. Equally useless against explosives, some firearms, and any of the available poisonous gases or other substances. Imagine what it would be like if someone introduced Anthrax into the closed environment of a commercial aircraft in flight? Of course, even if you could provide 100% security, I would still find the TSA reprehensible. The fact that such an organization exists at all makes me sick. We're wasting billions and billions of dollars to guard against a bogeyman that is less dangerous than my next drive in the car. I believe in being free, not scared, and would gladly pay for that with my own blood. Why is it, Ron, that the people who actually have something to lose, those of us who fly 80 or more times a year are willing to put our lives where our mouths are, and you who stay on the ground in your blue polyester shirts are the ones unloading in your pants? Why are you so afraid? Why are you so willing to give your liberties up? You're going to die some day anyway. Why not be free and strong and sucking the marrow out of every minute until then? |
McGyver has proven time and again, intent and creativity are far more important than having the perfect items on hand to do a task. :D
|
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 14587428)
Depending on the item one can infer intent. If we focus completely on intent only then what do we do if it becomes legal to bring explosives onto a plane? Or a gun? Saran gas? Without intent all of these items are pretty much nothing more than paper weights.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:22 pm. |
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.