|
Originally Posted by edscholl
(Post 16200087)
I agree. As was the behavior of the op. But the 'clerk' is not here so I can't ask her about her behavior- the op on the other hand... :D
|
Originally Posted by FriendlySkies
(Post 16200103)
I disagree. The OP was not out of line. I would have done the same thing, had I been in her position.
So much for the friendly skies. :rolleyes: |
I would go to a private room as long as an LEO was present as a witness.
Whereupon I would insist on an arrest upon being molested. |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 16199749)
Resolution pat downs are done in the private screening room. The only other choice is to not fly.
|
Originally Posted by edscholl
(Post 16199087)
unbelievable indeed. putting aside the tsa charade, when trying for a tight connection, what did you expect to gain arguing with the tsa girl, who while sounding unpleasant, didn't do anything wrong (except for maybe a half-assed pat down), and certainly wasn't as rude and obnoxious as you were?
If I did that I would be in my room without supper by my mother. It is extremly rude and un educated. And as a "customer service" TSO have to be polite and nice. Are they NO. Wonder how that is working for the "toursit Board" Not very well. |
Originally Posted by TSORon
(Post 16199749)
Resolution pat downs are done in the private screening room. The only other choice is to not fly.
That would make me "sick". And then I am also from a country that "we" can choose from being pated down or show that we dont hide anything. I would show not allow being touched. |
Originally Posted by tanja
(Post 16200377)
So you dont think that is rude to point a finger at some one?
But yes, it was rude of the TSO to point at the op. However, it is not nearly as rude as telling someone that they are a less intelligent member of society, poorly educated, and that you know of other sufficiently menial jobs for which they are qualified. The first could easily have been done in a thoughtless moment, whereas the second is specifically mean spirited. |
Originally Posted by edscholl
(Post 16200693)
I recognize that this is a cultural issue and some places consider it rude while others don't; I have no problem with those who do consider it rude. I recognize it as being considered rude in the U.S., while I'm not personally offended by it.
But yes, it was rude of the TSO to point at the op. However, it is not nearly as rude as telling someone that they are a less intelligent member of society, poorly educated, and that you know of other sufficiently menial jobs for which they are qualified. The first could easily have been done in a thoughtless moment, whereas the second is specifically mean spirited. Being "touched" is so personal. So Me personally, thinks it is very low if a TSO agent doesnt get that people get upset . TSO who thinks they can do this without reactions from people. Yes they are not very educated. Does TSO really think that "WE" just love and wait for being touched.? |
Originally Posted by edscholl
(Post 16200693)
However, it is not nearly as rude as telling someone that they are a less intelligent member of society, poorly educated, and that you know of other sufficiently menial jobs for which they are qualified.
On my less-charitable days, I assume that such a person keeps the job because they enjoy groping people, whether for the simple exercise of power over them, sexual gratification, or because they got bullied in school and wanted a chance to "pay them all back." I can't think of any other sufficiently menial jobs for such a person, though. Not even Wal-Mart would hire them. I probably wouldn't tell them that - not to their face in the airport - not because I think it's rude but because they're likely to "karate chop" my genitals during their grope-down procedure, call a real LEO with some trumped-up Bravo Sierra about "interfering with the screening process," or otherwise engage in punitive actions - possibly to the extent of stealing my belongings. |
1. I too was the subject of a finger wagging smurf in Detroit. I failed to mention it in my previous post on here because I was concerned more about other topics at the time. But I did find it rude. On the other hand, I would prefer them to keep their mouths shut and use finger signals only rather than bark out their "commands" in that falsely officious tone of voice that they love so much.
2. No private rooms....ever. |
The problem for those in the OP's situation is that a positive hit on an ETD may end up being considered probable cause by an LEO, and if you don't accept the private room, it is almost a certainty that the TSA will call an LEO to resolve the situation. I'd still demand an STSO (followed by a TSM) for the purpose of arguing for a public search (they may be willing to oblige -- the higher up guys are usually not looking for a fight and it seems to me to be a reasonable request), and honestly I'd prefer an LEO pat me down anyway.
All this, by the way, in spite of the fact that ETD machines have an incredible amount of false positives, when they even work. I used to contract for a counterterrorism agency (the kind with real LEOs), and they were alllllways complaining that their ETD machines were broken. One of them told me something like one in 20 swabs would test positive, even though all (yes, all -- they never caught one terrorist using an ETD) of them were false. Don't get me wrong -- I'm all in favor of electronic (and canine :cool:) ETD, but it does raise problems of what to do when there is a positive result. However, searches of escalating intrusivness is the correct approach, as compared to what the TSA is doing now (throwing the intrusive searches first). Have a WTMD and random puffer machines, dogs, or swabs. If a positive result occurs (with several attempts given for WTMD), use bag check, HHMD, and a limited pat-down. Until the government has tried all of those methods of clearing me, it has no business even asking to put its hands or eyes in my pants. Add in an effective BDO program (where you don't try to rapidly train thousands of people with limited education to do a job that takes significant skill and practice to do -- I know plenty of psych majors who just graduated and are looking for jobs, after all...), and you've got a secure airport (as far as the passengers are concerned -- now onto the screening vendors and TSA employees). Why is this so hard?
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
(Post 16199782)
There is at least one report on FT of a victim refusing to go to the orivate room for the resolution grope and winning. I think I also recall it took a cop's intervention.
|
Originally Posted by Affection
(Post 16200853)
The problem for those in the OP's situation is that a positive hit on an ETD may end up being considered probable cause by an LEO, and if you don't accept the private room, it is almost a certainty that the TSA will call an LEO to resolve the situation.
|
Originally Posted by Affection
(Post 16200853)
The problem for those in the OP's situation is that a positive hit on an ETD may end up being considered probable cause by an LEO, and if you don't accept the private room, it is almost a certainty that the TSA will call an LEO to resolve the situation. I'd still demand an STSO (followed by a TSM) for the purpose of arguing for a public search (they may be willing to oblige -- the higher up guys are usually not looking for a fight and it seems to me to be a reasonable request), and honestly I'd prefer an LEO pat me down anyway.
All this, by the way, in spite of the fact that ETD machines have an incredible amount of false positives, when they even work. I used to contract for a counterterrorism agency (the kind with real LEOs), and they were alllllways complaining that their ETD machines were broken. One of them told me something like one in 20 swabs would test positive, even though all (yes, all -- they never caught one terrorist using an ETD) of them were false. Don't get me wrong -- I'm all in favor of electronic (and canine :cool:) ETD, but it does raise problems of what to do when there is a positive result. However, searches of escalating intrusivness is the correct approach, as compared to what the TSA is doing now (throwing the intrusive searches first). Have a WTMD and random puffer machines, dogs, or swabs. If a positive result occurs (with several attempts given for WTMD), use bag check, HHMD, and a limited pat-down. Until the government has tried all of those methods of clearing me, it has no business even asking to put its hands or eyes in my pants. Add in an effective BDO program (where you don't try to rapidly train thousands of people with limited education to do a job that takes significant skill and practice to do -- I know plenty of psych majors who just graduated and are looking for jobs, after all...), and you've got a secure airport (as far as the passengers are concerned -- now onto the screening vendors and TSA employees). Why is this so hard? --Jon Also, regarding what you said about calling a LEO....fine with me. In all likelihood (barring a VERY important trip), I would refuse and if told I could not fly then I would agree to that and re-schedule if at all possible. If I absolutely had to be on that plane then I would be more than willing to have a REAL officer present as a witness. It is still a very (*^*&^*& up situation but the threat of calling a LEO is not a threat. |
Thank you, and that's not a bad idea... I might do that.
By LEO resolution, I mean that if the LEO thinks the ETD positive hit is probable cause that you may be carrying an explosive, he can compel you to participate in a search. A poster above this mentioned that an ETD hit should not be considered probable cause, and I agree, but I think it quite possible that an LEO would beg to differ, and I would understand his point (even though disagree). It will take a court to decide this, and I do believe it would be a case of first impression. Allow me to re-disclaim that I'm not an attorney.
Originally Posted by TXagogo
(Post 16200917)
EXCELLENT post. Can u distribute this to the news media somehow? (I'm only half joking - it would go very well in a Letter to Editor).
Also, regarding what you said about calling a LEO....fine with me. In all likelihood (barring a VERY important trip), I would refuse and if told I could not fly then I would agree to that and re-schedule if at all possible. If I absolutely had to be on that plane then I would be more than willing to have a REAL officer present as a witness. It is still a very (*^*&^*& up situation but the threat of calling a LEO is not a threat. |
Originally Posted by Caradoc
(Post 16200762)
If someone is going to assume that I am a potential terrorist and therefore worthy of being "cup-checked" simply because I purchased an airline ticket, I reserve the right to consider them of inferior intelligence and poorly educated - at a minimum.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:13 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.