artboy

While I agree there are a lot of details we arent aware of, one thing I know for certain is that regardless of the gun being loaded or unloaded, safety being on or off, every gun training program I know of teaches not to point guns anywhere you're not willing to fire.

Pointing a weapon down a narrow tube filled with people is simply unsafe.

Spider

I couldn't agree more with Mikey1003 and Ozstamps. Air marshalls are there for one and only purpose - to prevent hijackings by terrorists. Defending a damsel in distress can very well be a planned diversion by terrorists.

And if anyone wants to speak freely in public then do not mention anything about anyone's rights at airports or aircraft since this is considered to be a taboo and outside the boundaries of free speech.

mdtony

I think I'll do something crazy here and wait until all the facts are in before I make a judgement. But I have no axe to grind with the TSA or the air marshalls, so I guess that makes me a little different here.

rawbert

Here is a follow-up article from CNN..

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TRAVEL/NEWS/....ap/index.html

------------------
"I have made up my mind, please do not confuse me with the facts"

DADISGARYK

Thanks, Artboy...you are 100% correct on this:

<<While I agree there are a lot of details we arent aware of, one thing I know for certain is that regardless of the gun being loaded or unloaded, safety being on or off, every gun training program I know of teaches not to point guns anywhere you're not willing to fire.

Pointing a weapon down a narrow tube filled with people is simply unsafe.
>>

afrugal1

This episode points out the whole problem with all of these security measures. When focus is lost and authority figures take up non mission-specific issues, we are all in trouble. The posts on this thread speak for themselves.

MIKESILV

Brian has excused himself from these boards(all be it on temporary basis) do I care about his opinion NOOOOOOOO!!! We all know
where he is coming from and we all can predict exactly what his views are likely to be be without his input.
I must say you are doing a fair job as his surrogate.
Mike

[This message has been edited by MIKESILV (edited 09-02-2002).]

Lpas

Ditto. It's pretty clear that no one really knows what this man said or did to arouse suspicion. In any case, I'm sure air marshalls are trained to be proactive--as they should be when a plane full of lives are potentially in danger. If these folks never made a mistake, I'd be concerned they were not being sufficiently vigilant in their duties. Let's face it--there are a lot of weirdos out there who probably act like terrorists even if they aren't. Sorry, but I don't want the air marshall on my plane hesitating to take someone into temporary custody because he/she is afraid of being wrong. Until I know what really happened I'll give them the benefit of a doubt.

What's up with all the anti-TSA sentiment on this board??

mdtony

Some people feel that random searches and such are violations of the provisions of the Consitution against illegal search and seizure, and they think the TSA is marching us down the path to Nazism, or facism, or whatever they feel like calling it today.

Of course, the fact that the courts have ruled that they are not has no persuasive effect on them, nor does the fact that most of the public wants these things in place. Nor does the reality that as annoying as these things are, they are going to continue to happen. Nor does the fact that of all the complaints they have, not one has come from an airport where the TSA is in place.

Spiff

Not me! For the same reason that we do not arrest people without a warrant or evidence of a crime being committed, I do not want anyone to be taken into custody "just to be safe". What kind of nation have we become???



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

richard

Actually the courts' rulings have been mixed. The basic rule is that you can be searched for specific things related to important reasons. Other stuff that may be uncovered in such as search may often be off-limits.

Mandatory searches of prison visitors was upheld when the search was for the purpose of finding hidden weapons or drugs. But mandatory searches for entry to other public buildings that uncovered drugs were thrown out because the search was only specifically for weapons.

That kind of thing.

And this is my problem with the current search process. There are police officers nearby. The searchers may be Federal law enforcement employees.

I must be searched as a condition of travel, so in reality my "consent" is non-existent and coercive.

If they were really just searching for guns or bombs, that would be one thing. But they are not.

They are busting people for possession of drugs.

They are looking into people's private lives and at their sex toys.

They are in a position to bust people for all kinds of things (carrying undeclared cash out of the country for instance.)

Back on point, we are disarmed and then asked to depend upon "air marshalls" whatever that means. They are now the absolute rule of law in the air with no appeal possible. They are the only ones with deadly force.

This is not a good situation because it will lead to many abuses. And the sad thing is, it is the passengers who are the real anti-terrorism weapon in the air, not one or two or three "air marshalls."

mdtony

May I direct you to the ruling of the ninth circuit on the topic of random searches? May I also point out that the court held that even though the police officer in question did not allow that person to leave until his luggage was searched, they found no violations of his rights?

Lpas

Hmmmm....perhaps we should wait until the suspect stabs a flight attendant? Would that be enough evidence to warrant a reaction??

The police stop people all the time as a result of their suspicious behavior. A man weaves across the center line while driving down the road. Is he drunk or just adjusting the radio? If the police don't pull him over we'll never know for sure--unless of course he crashes into that minivan coming from the opposite direction. How is this any different from a man exhibiting suspicious behavior on a plane?

Rover

Actually, the story now is that the man was searching through luggage in, I suppose, a suspicious manner. Whatever his behaviour,it attracted the attention of the Air Marshall in question. I'll let the lawyers amongst us decide whether this attention was justified, but it seems to me that the question for us is whether the Air Marshall should have then kept his gun out and threated the other passengers.

[This message has been edited by Rover (edited 09-05-2002).]

Spiff

You mean that perhaps we should wait until someone actually commits a crime before arresting them? Yes. Waiting for someone to commit a crime before contacting them? No.

Additionally, weaving all over the road is a traffic violation. Acting suspiciously is not a violation of any law.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited 09-05-2002).]