?? Interfering with the screening process??
Apr 6, 2011 | 8:51 am
#47
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: FLL
Posts: 393
"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".
Apr 6, 2011 | 2:38 pm
#49
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Southwest Florida
Programs: AA lifetime Gold , DL Gold, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 572
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.
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
Apr 6, 2011 | 2:58 pm
#50
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 471
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
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
Apr 6, 2011 | 7:01 pm
#52
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
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.
Apr 6, 2011 | 7:03 pm
#53
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
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
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
Apr 6, 2011 | 7:03 pm
#54
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: On the road in North America....
Programs: UA 1MM, *G, Global Entry
Posts: 579
joe
Apr 6, 2011 | 7:08 pm
#55
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
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?
(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?
Apr 6, 2011 | 7:11 pm
#56
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
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.
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.
Apr 6, 2011 | 7:15 pm
#57
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: On the road in North America....
Programs: UA 1MM, *G, Global Entry
Posts: 579
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
joe
Apr 6, 2011 | 7:15 pm
#58
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
Hey Joe, I used to be like you and be antagonistic. I am not going to bite. I dont wish anything. I am in a real world application of the rules and I see this almost daily. You are speculating as of the last sentence because there have not been that many lawsuits filed so that the DHS lawyers have to fight. The lawsuits that have been filed have the plaintiffs struggling to keep them open because of the current state of affairs as it reflects on the war on terrorism. Sorry about that.
Apr 6, 2011 | 7:18 pm
#59
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado
Programs: TSA
Posts: 2,745
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
joe
Apr 6, 2011 | 7:21 pm
#60
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
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.