|
did you get the screener's name and number from their badge along with that from the screener's supervisor?
oh, wait, we don't wear name badges here and if we did, i'd have it covered up so you couldn't see it or tell you that i'm not required to give you my name and badge number. :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by law dawg
(Post 8611321)
While I agree with your sentiment, I don't think it's assault due to the lack of mens rea.
|
How did he get the Mens Rea? He wears protection!
Count me in for a complaint letter vote. Termination should be in this idiot's future. Oh and to start a flame war... Isn't this guy profiling you? I thought that wasn't allowed... :p |
Originally Posted by mmartin4600
(Post 8611598)
Mens rea , if you did not know, means "guilty mind". The TSO probably did not know that his actions could cause the OP harm. He was doing his job as required by SOP and policy.
No, he was NOT doing his job required by SOP and policy. If he were following SOP and policy he would not be trying to force someone with a pacemaker to be wanded. That is AGAINST policy. He was TOLD the card that explained it was in the xray in the OP's wallet. He CHOSE not to believe the OP (not SOP and not policy) and acted in a threatening manner by attempting to force the OP into a wanding. He should be fired. Retraining can't fix stupid. To the OP, have an attorney request the tapes under the FOIA immediately. |
Originally Posted by mmartin4600
(Post 8611598)
Mens rea , if you did not know, means "guilty mind". The TSO probably did not know that his actions could cause the OP harm. He was doing his job as required by SOP and policy.
I am aware, in general terms, what mens rea means (though I am not a lawyer by any means). However, I reiterate: the screener *SHOULD HAVE KNOWN* what his procedure was when a traveller is fitted with a pacemaker, and that deviating from it could well result in the DEATH of that traveller. His CRIMINAL IGNORANCE should not - CAN not - be allowed to be an excuse. OP stated up front that he had a pacemaker, and that the screener stated "people your age don't have pacemakers!" and picked up a wand and tried to use it on him. This is not the action of someone following standard established procedure for someone with a relatively-widespread medical condition. TSA KNOWS how to handle pax with pacemakers - as discussed right here in this thread. This particular screener either did not know that policy, or chose to disregard it. Which was it, did he exhibit criminal negligence, or reckless disregard and wanton endangerment? Either way, the screener was *NOT* "doing his job as required by SOP and policy." |
The action I would have chose is to yell "Supervisor" at the top of my lungs, just as they do.
They would have stopped, like a deer into headlights. Then we could get someone to evaluate the situation. |
Originally Posted by PTravel
(Post 8609848)
What the TSO did was, technically, an assault -- you were placed in fear of an imminent, unpermitted offensive contact. Should you sue? No -- aside from a few moments of fear, you have no damages.
However, next time something like that happens, call for a LEO immediately. The moron TSO could have sent you to the hospital or even killed you. Assault is assault and, once told that you had a pacemaker, he had absolutely no business approaching you with the wand -- waving that wand at you was no different than waving a knife or pointing a loaded gun. If it was me, I'd have pressed charges. At minimum, that idiot should be fired. I think he should have been arrested. |
Originally Posted by n198ua
(Post 8606438)
I was making a connection via ORD a week ago on a flight to LAX and stepped outisde the terminal to meet a friend from the area since my connection was about 3 hours. When I came back through security, I'd already taken my shoes off, belt, emptied my pockets etc and started to send them through the machine. I have a pacemaker and always have to have hand screening with no device, and I can not walk through the detector. I have an ID card for proof, but I've never been asked for it before so it was already on its way through the scanner with my wallet and other stuff. When I stepped up to the screener, I requested hand screening b/c of my pacemaker. The agent immediately acted "standoffish" as if I was lying, and stated "people your age don't have pacemakers!" (I'm a 18yo looking 25yo :) )
I was a bit taken back, and I said that would be something stupid to make up, but he acted like I was trying to hide something. I began to argue, at which point he picked up that wand thing and tried to pass it over me -- still not believing I had a pacemaker. Now, I'll admit this infuriated me to the point where I yelled for him to get that f*! thing away from me, that I wasn't lying. ( I was startled as most of those hand wands will cause a pacer to fire, shut off, or otherwise malfunction) Some other guy then came over and got in my face, I told them to just look through my wallet but they refused. B/c my flight was schedule to leave shortly and I was so upset I just pulled my shirt up and showed them where it was ! (It sticks out quite a ways) . . They then both apologised and sent me on my way. I was later recounting this story to a FA on my flight who was horrified, and said I most certainly have a winnable law suit. My question is a) what are your thoughts? yea the guys were way out of line but really no harm was done and b)are these security screeners completely employed by the government or is there still some airline involvement (ie is it possible they may have worked for UA?) I fly all the time and have never encountered anything close to this. Most of the time I'm screened in DSM or ORD and have almost always had an okay experience. |
Originally Posted by PTravel
(Post 8611732)
It's been years since I had crim. law -- isn't assault a general intent crime?
;) |
Originally Posted by erictank
(Post 8611542)
So what is the legal term for a wrongful interaction that has a substantial possibility of serious harm or lethality to an innocent person? I mean, are we talking criminal negligence, wanton endangerment, what? The TSO could have *KILLED* the OP, due to his own ignorance of what he was REQUIRED to do.
I've heard it said, repeatedly, that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." This should, in a country like ours, apply to agents of the State AT LEAST as much as to us lowly little peons. |
This would make for a great evening news story. The DHS/TSA would then run for cover, for political cover. ;)
|
Originally Posted by law dawg
(Post 8616430)
I don't think so, otherwise any time you're in a wreck someone would go to jail for assault.
;) ----- Ah, a quick google search turned this up. Not exactly citable authority, but it appears that I was pretty close: What Is a Specific Intent Crime? If you are accused of a specific intent crime, the prosecution must prove that when you committed the crime you had the requisite intent or purpose. This intent will be listed in the statute that defines the crime. If you didn’t act with this intent or purpose, then you cannot be convicted of the crime. What Is an Example of a Specific Intent Crime? The best example of a specific intent crime is theft. Most every theft statute requires that when you take something that you take it with the intent to deprive the owner permanently. For example, auto theft requires that you intent to deprive the owner of the car permanently. If you don’t have this intent, then you cannot be convicted of theft. Then What Is a General Intent Crime? A general intent crime only requires that you intend to perform the act. That is, you don’t need any additional intention or purpose. For example, assault is usually a general intent crime. You only need to intend your actions, not any particular result. General intent crimes are easier to prove because it is not necessary to show that you had some particular purpose. |
Originally Posted by law dawg
(Post 8616430)
I don't think so, otherwise any time you're in a wreck someone would go to jail for assault.
;) Being in am accident is not an assault because you do not intend to bdrive your car into another. (Excepting, of course, when you do, and then that is assault, among other things.) |
Originally Posted by FatManInNYC
(Post 8616785)
General criminal intent refers to the intent to perform the act. Assault is a general intent crime. You do not need to form a specific criminal intent, you just need to intend to perform that act which constitutes the assault.
Being in am accident is not an assault because you do not intend to bdrive your car into another. (Excepting, of course, when you do, and then that is assault, among other things.) |
Originally Posted by bzbdewd
(Post 8607360)
If the hand wand can really impact the pace-maker I think this is a little more serious. True in this case there was no harm done but it could have been very serious and the TSA should be called on the carpet for it.
Perhaps the complaint should be redirected as medical malpractice on the part of the TSA agent? Stay the curse! |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:31 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.