|
Originally Posted by mikemey
(Post 16170078)
Answer the damned questions and knock off the double speak.
|
"Interference with the screening process" is the functional equivalent of the "obstruction of justice" charge that police will file. Just like "obstruction of justice" more or less means "contempt of cop", "interference with the screening process" means "contempt of smurf".
|
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 16170144)
Not for people who refuse to engage in honest discussion.
|
Originally Posted by eyecue
(Post 16161120)
I see that no one took any hints from your last sentence.
Anyway as a person that is traveling through a checkpoint if YOU do ANYTHING that intentionally delays, impedes or distracts a TSO from executing their assigned duties, you are interfering with the screening process. Scenario, you are selected for AIT and opt out, your carry ons are already on the x-ray belt and you are told to stand off to the side and wait, but from where your are standing you cannot see your possessions, you tell the TSO that and want to move so you can see your possessions and the TSO does not allow you to move. The TSA website clearly states that ALWAYS watch your belongings as they advance through the x-ray equipment at the security checkpoint and for secondary screening INSIST that your belongings be brought to you. Since this is clearly posted on the TSA website, the screener is clearly violating TSA policy, and by denying you the right to see your belongings, the TSO is now the cause of the interference with the screening process. You then request an LEO, explain to the LEO your rights as posted on the TSA website, that the TSO is the cause for the interference and ask the LEO that the TSO be arrested and charged with interfering with the screening process. Just wondering how this would go over at the checkpoint Mr. Elliott |
Originally Posted by Mr. Elliott
(Post 16172530)
I wonder if a TSO can be charged with interfering with the screening process since they themselves are a lot of the causes of interfering with the screening process.
Scenario, you are selected for AIT and opt out, your carry ons are already on the x-ray belt and you are told to stand off to the side and wait, but from where your are standing you cannot see your possessions, you tell the TSO that and want to move so you can see your possessions and the TSO does not allow you to move. The TSA website clearly states that ALWAYS watch your belongings as they advance through the x-ray equipment at the security checkpoint and for secondary screening INSIST that your belongings be brought to you. Since this is clearly posted on the TSA website, the screener is clearly violating TSA policy, and by denying you the right to see your belongings, the TSO is now the cause of the interference with the screening process. You then request an LEO, explain to the LEO your rights as posted on the TSA website, that the TSO is the cause for the interference and ask the LEO that the TSO be arrested and charged with interfering with the screening process. Just wondering how this would go over at the checkpoint Mr. Elliott |
Originally Posted by Wally Bird
(Post 16170011)
I think his 'answer' was that it depends.
what the checkpoint worker had for breakfast (Also plays a role in how "personal" the "pat down" is) |
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
(Post 16166252)
Agreed.
Unclear. Obscene remarks may or may not be protected speech, but yelling can can indeed cross the line. Definitely not against the law! Verbally protesting a governmental act is the most protected of all speech! |
Originally Posted by Mr. Elliott
(Post 16172530)
I wonder if a TSO can be charged with interfering with the screening process since they themselves are a lot of the causes of interfering with the screening process.
Scenario, you are selected for AIT and opt out, your carry ons are already on the x-ray belt and you are told to stand off to the side and wait, but from where your are standing you cannot see your possessions, you tell the TSO that and want to move so you can see your possessions and the TSO does not allow you to move. The TSA website clearly states that ALWAYS watch your belongings as they advance through the x-ray equipment at the security checkpoint and for secondary screening INSIST that your belongings be brought to you. Since this is clearly posted on the TSA website, the screener is clearly violating TSA policy, and by denying you the right to see your belongings, the TSO is now the cause of the interference with the screening process. You then request an LEO, explain to the LEO your rights as posted on the TSA website, that the TSO is the cause for the interference and ask the LEO that the TSO be arrested and charged with interfering with the screening process. Just wondering how this would go over at the checkpoint Mr. Elliott |
Originally Posted by eyecue
(Post 16173652)
This is not true in the respect that we are not considered police officers and therein lies a difference. COPS have to put up with it. TSA officers do not.
joe |
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
(Post 16161286)
There are two problems with the above definition:
(1) What constitutes the TSO's "assigned duties" are in a document that we're not permitted to see. Since we can't know what those duties are, there's no way to know whether an action that we may take will "delay, impede or distract" such person from their duties. (2) It doesn't take into account that there are constitutionally protected activities (or those permitted by other laws, such as the ADA) which are still legal even if they "delay, impede or distract" a TSO. For example, a person who presents themselves at the checkpoint with medical items are going to "delay" a TSO, but they are permitted to do so by the ADA. Can you try again? |
Originally Posted by Flaflyer
(Post 16160631)
From reading about brave souls who have stood up for their rights and been harassed or arrested at checkpoints, since they have never found a real terrorist it becomes clear that TSA management(sic) has decided there are only two categories of passengers who transit checkpoints.
A. Those sheeple who bend over, self apply KY, and say "Yes Massah whatever you say, anything for security." and B. those who are "interfering with the screening process." Remember, in TSA NewSpeak you are either an American Patriot or a Terrorist. They see no middle ground. You know, Line in the Sand, For or Against Us, the whole political landscape since 2001. With help from their 60,000 Kool-aid guzzlers. This is where we are in 2011. Sad. So very, very sad. :( |
Originally Posted by eyecue
(Post 16173677)
Dont have to try again. You are forgetting the word intentionally.
joe |
Originally Posted by FlyingDiver
(Post 16173661)
You wish. It just hasn't gotten clarified in a court case yet. Mostly because the DHS lawyers keep fighting to keep it out of a district court.
joe |
Originally Posted by FlyingDiver
(Post 16173707)
LOL. This is getting good. You don't seem to realize that the "intentionally" in your definition works in the favor of the passenger. If it came to a real court, the TSA would have to show that (1) the passenger DID interfere and (2) that they do so intentionally. Which will be hard to do when so many of the things that the TSA claims cause interference are not published and therefor there's no way to show intent.
joe |
Originally Posted by Flaflyer
(Post 16160631)
Remember, in TSA NewSpeak you are either an American Patriot or a Terrorist. They see no middle ground.
At the checkpoint, there are only TSA Airport Security Screeners and Potential Terrorists. So you're either wearing a blue shirt and a tin badge (which makes you a thief, molester, apathetic dolt, or some combination thereof) or you're a "fare." I'd agree that they see no middle ground, though. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:36 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.