Yeah, no question about it - it's difficult to draw when someone's got you by the throat.

Now, a future encounter with such an individual or coming upon such an individual robbing the Kwik-E-Mart or Pizza Hut would be another matter. Bust a cap in his ... is my vote. :)

No, the policies (particularly the earliest ones) may be wrong-headed, ineffective and pointless to some of us but I'll concede that, to the extent that any thought went into them, that thought was not simply to empower* bullies. But the policies enable those with a predisposition to indulge in it.

(* Except for the FAMs - how's that go again ? - Dominate, Intimidate, Control).

As we have said time and again what the TSA does not do is a) take steps to prevent bullying and b) admit and remedy it when examples are publicised. Instead they, and their apologists, spin it to be an unavoidable by-product of Keeping Us Safe.

It isn't unavoidable and shouldn't be tolerated.

That's a logic I can support wholeheartedly.

I can agree with that.

Well, except for the FAM thing. That's not a policy - that's tactics. Anyone who goes into a lethal force situation without trying to dominate, intimidate and control is an amateur.

I suppose that works as a retort. But it's not an argument.

1) All X are Y-type assertions are weak. Why? Because it takes only one counter-example to invalidate the proposition.

Perhaps never in your vast LE experience, law dawg, have you come across this, but sometimes bullies do back down when confronted ~without~ inflicting pain on the complaining party. That indicates that thugs and bullies aren't the same thing. And that's not a semantic dispute. It's a dispute of material fact.

Clearly, you *do* understand that there's a distinction between a thug and bully. Glad to hear it.

Or not.

Dictionary:
bully

1. A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people.
2. A hired ruffian; a thug.
3. A pimp.
4. Archaic. A fine person.
5. Archaic. A sweetheart.
http://www.answers.com/topic/bully

And, of course, you started the X/Y assertion with your contention that "bullies are cowards." So, pot, meet kettle.

Or not.

Noun: thug thúg

1. An aggressive and violent young criminal
- hood, hoodlum, goon, punk, tough, toughie, strong-armer

http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/THUG

Both the first definitions that pop up on Google......

Law dawg, being one who appeared small and weaker in school, I can assure you that their were bullies who backed down when unexpectedly popped in the nose. :)

I was careful to not antagonize the school thugs. :eek:

It was very important to be able to tell the difference. ;)

I'm not arguing that they don't exist, I'm arguing that it's poor tactics and planning to assume that if you buck up to a bully they'll back down because "bullies are cowards."

You better have a Plan B. That's all.

If you're gonna fight, fight smart.

In general, I think that aggressive TSA screeners can be stood up to with impunity. Even if they are thugs at heart, they have to back down if they are in the wrong.

Anything else and they face firing and/or arrest.

And a trip through the media, if it's really good.

Many ways to fight there are, young padawan.

"Do you want to fly today" only barely begins to scratch the surface. It doesn't have to be illegal. In fact, it's preferable for it not to be. But you can bully with legal or believed authority as much as with "extracurricular" stuff.

If they require an authorized action and you believe it bullying, then what? If you "stand up to them" then you get the thorough but thorough bag check, secondary screen, wand and/or patdown, etc, etc., maybe missing your flight, definitely out a lot of time, hassle and dignity. How about your name on a watch list or five?

And, after all that, did you "win?"

"Bully" is a big term than covers a lot of ground. One person's bully is another person's effective security. One person's "kinder, gentler" security is another person's sycophant. It's all in the eye of the perceiver.

Again, I'm not advocating capitulation. Almighty Cthulhu knows I never capitulate, even when I should have. But you have to be prepared for retaliation and not be shocked when it happens. Fighting back simply because one thinks "bullies are cowards" is the dumbest form of tactics, because when that "coward" doesn't capitulate like you've convinced yourself he or she will, then what? You're left holding the bag and fresh out of nifty ideas.

Like I said before, have a Plan B. At the very least, be prepared for some grief.

There's an old LEO saying - "Beat the rap, take the ride."

All the media attention in the world won't change that fact.

Yep, I know the saying.

If me taking that ride meant more attention to the bubbling cyst that is the TSA, I'll happily get in. "The ride" doesn't scare me.

I know that I do everything by the rules. As does every witness.

Fear of "the ride" is in NO way going to have me letting them see me naked. My privacy means more to me than that. Nor will this fear have me surrender my prescriptions, take off my shoes when I cannot, or otherwise give up my rights.

Agreed. One needs to keep ones head and not go off half-cocked. However, with an effective Plan A it should be quite possible to leverage an aggressive screener into much bad publicity for the TSA. The nipple ring scenario didn't even take a plan to do that.

If you absolutely, positively, need to be home on time, that should also advise ones actions.

Sure. "The ride" can be any number of things. And, like all people, there are times when you're ready for it and times when you're not. If you have to be at that business meeting in NY then that's not a ride you're probably willing to take. Depending, of course, on what you're being asked to do. If it's invasive and harassing but palatable, you'll probably go along because you have to be there. If it's too much, then probably you won't. It all depends.

Again, I don't think the idea of the screen is to "bully" people. I think the execution can be discussed (and should) but looking for better ways of screening is something I want to encourage. Some ideas will meet muster and some will not. But I don't think the intent here is to bully people with the technology.