Outrageous Behaviour by TSA
Oct 23, 2007 | 10:16 pm
#46
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 29,078
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.
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.
Oct 23, 2007 | 10:18 pm
#47
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Oct 23, 2007 | 11:50 pm
#49
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NW Fla. - VPS, PNS
Programs: DL, NW, HH
Posts: 333
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.
Oct 24, 2007 | 12:50 am
#50
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 966
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."
Oct 24, 2007 | 1:09 am
#51
formerly known as 2lovelife
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: ORF : UA_Premier_Gold4Life, Bonvoy_titanium, Accor_Plat
Posts: 6,959
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.
They would have stopped, like a deer into headlights. Then we could get someone to evaluate the situation.
Oct 24, 2007 | 3:39 am
#52
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 221
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.
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.
Oct 24, 2007 | 3:59 pm
#53
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 456
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.
)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.
Oct 24, 2007 | 4:12 pm
#55
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,704
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.
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.
Oct 24, 2007 | 5:13 pm
#57
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
-----
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 didnt 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 dont 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 dont 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.
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 didnt 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 dont 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 dont 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.
Oct 24, 2007 | 5:23 pm
#58
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: LAX, PSP
Programs: SPG & CO Plat.
Posts: 3,146
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.)
Oct 24, 2007 | 5:26 pm
#59
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
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.)
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.)
Oct 24, 2007 | 6:10 pm
#60
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 398
Perhaps the complaint should be redirected as medical malpractice on the part of the TSA agent?
Stay the curse!