Reaching inside the tunnel
 

Slightly OT. After x-ray, there is usually a long tunnel from which your belongings emerge. Reaching inside the tunnel is usually treated as a federal offense by TSO's. (Maybe it is?)

When trays are rolling it is not an issue, but when the person at the monitor is perplexed by what they see and call over the person who is a superior monitor reader to help them, it is very frustrating to see your things within reach in the tunnel, but have to wait for the monitor study to conclude. If I grab my stuff from inside the tunnel and ignore the TSA disgust for my act, does this escalate to LEO if I do not demure to their threats?

It would be considered interfering with screening. (civil) A LEO may consider it disorderly conduct. (criminal)

If you look at it from their point of view you will understand why the get so bent. They are trying to clear an item and some dunce shoves his hand in the machine. Not only does this distract them from clearing the item but they have been warned and trained that x-rays are dangerous and you NEVER stick your body in there. Those tunnels are there for a reason.

I dislike the TSA a whole bunch, but I am with them on this one. I think I would go off grid if I were running the machine and you pulled that on me.

How many encounters could you google that were satisfactorily resolved for all parties involved? And what proportion of the total actual number of cop encounters does each list represent? Statistically, this is all anecdotal data and skewed to the points of view of the posters, which means: it's all trash data (on either side of the argument). The "bad guy" believers are looking for "bad guy" data, and the "good guy" believers are looking for "good guy" data.

I think what #10 is referring to is the stainless steel “cage” that has been added to the exit of the x-ray machine. There is no danger to radiation exposure, as the screener side is open so they can access an item if they wish.

My favorite part is when the TSO asks “Is that your bag?” when it’s still in there. There’s no way I can positively see what bag they are talking about, and I calmly tell them that fact. There’s nothing really distinguishing about my black rollaboard, unless a million leftover elastic strings on the handle from gate checking on RJ flights count.

I do agree that reaching in the cage to retrieve something is akin to not completing the screening process, though.

I think if you attempt to search for encounters "that were satisfactorily resolved for all parties involved" the number would be very small, even if the cop did nothing wrong. Think about it, no one is satisfied when they get a ticket even if they were speeding. I think you need to pick a different criteria.

To do a proper study you would need to assess a score and definition to each marker. One person's arrogance is another's confidence.

If we can agree that lying on a police report constitutes abuse and/or a "us v them" mentality then this study will prove to you that the vast majority of cops are as lobster7 describes.

The study was done at a police academy where the study could be controlled. The study revealed that altering police reports increased the closer the recruits got to completing the training. I will have to assume the alterations continued after graduation.

From the study
Pretty eye opening study.

Thanks for the clarification, I was worried #10 was dosing himself with radiation.

I reach in a grab my belongings all the time. I've never had anyone question this.

And this is were we come to an impasse. I respect your opinion, and hope you can respect mine. ^

The minority are arrogant, abusive, power tripping, us vs them attitude jack booted thugs. The ones that aren't merely stand around and watch the bad ones do that, say nothing, and then defend them when they come up on charges.

http://www.theagitator.com/category/...-police-raids/
http://www.theagitator.com/category/...ofessionalism/

The Agitator? Seriously? Have a nice day.

Perhaps it was poor phraseology. By "satisfactorily resolved", I didn't mean "happy". I merely meant the encounter wasn't escalated and didn't result in theft, brutality, verbal abuse, or any of the other various actions usually lumped together under the general term "abusive".



Depends on the "lie". Interesting paper, though, although as "a study" the methodology is pretty poor. I don't think it proves much, except as applied to the specific and very tiny sample the writer reviewed. However (as we're getting way OT) if you want to bat it around further, feel free to drop me a PM.

In the meantime, I stand by what I originally said. :)

In general, the only reason that someone attacks the messenger is that they don't have a real response to the message.

Not attacking the messenger. I think your source might be slightly skewed.

All the posts I've linked to are just links to articles on other sites. So, yeah.

Look. Its obvious that we're not going to get anywhere arguing with each other on this. It's just a difficult thing for me.

Agree. Have a nice day. ^