My interpretation is that she wasn't arrested for just throwing a fit, but actually walking away from the screeners. I'm presuming this is toward the airplane, but I wasn't there. Seems like an important detail. You obviously can't just let people walk toward the terminal if they haven't been screened.
None of these news outlets got any more detail than was in the stupid police report, so it's hard to get a grip on what happened.
My words. Like you, I have to invent in my head what actually went down. There is very little substance to the article. No statement at all from the accused - not even a "no comment". The narrative is choppy and half-assed. The quotes from the TSA are either misquotes or the TSA agent is completely speaking out her ass. I've seen the same thing go down at Wal-Mart over the price of something or something not being the same as in the weekly circular, so it didn't surprise me terribly to see someone doing that in the airport.
But you could be right - she could have just used some sharp words and the TSA agents went overboard and called the cops, who arrested her on the word of the TSA agent. It's possible.
Without end-to-end footage of the incident, we won't know. If she sternly stated to get the fuck away from her daughter, would you consider that disorderly conduct? I would not.
Agreed.
I bet that our differences might come down to just a couple of octaves...
I think so. My comments all assume that she was in fact causing a disturbance and not just refusing to capitulate. My first post was meant to be funny, in fact. I mean, I start by pointing to her picture! I wasn't there and can only sort of glean what actually happened from the rather poorly thrown-together article. We have no statement from her at all.
Exactly when was this voted on? And why do you think this is a democracy?
Shortly after 9/11, and 1776 (though obviously not a pure democracy). Do we really need to argue over semantics? The point is that your opinion on the matter is not the mainstream. There's nothing wrong with your opinion, but human nature being what it is, it is unlikely that (a) terrorists will ever stop targeting airplanes disproportionately and (b) that people will react disproportionately to air disasters. Airplanes are about as safe as cars per-trip, yet people get all worked up over air crashes and hardly blink when there is a car crash. Even stupid little general aviation crashes make the national news.
So if someone doesn't follow social norms, you believe they should be arrested?
Lol, no. But when someone is yelling and screaming and holding up the entire airport terminal with their carrying on, damn right. It's why we have nuisance laws. It shouldn't be legal to hold up traffic on a bridge, either. The right to free speech does not mean the right to be heard.
It is her right to complain to them without being punished.
Agreed. But she did not "complain". She went ballistic such that the TSA had to call the cops in to make her stop.
The free speech aspect of the first ammendment is what would cover her (supposed) use of profanity.
She can curse all she wants, but if she is screaming and yelling and generally causing a disturbance, that crosses a line.
I will never agree that the power of the TSA should supercede any individual's rights.
I'm not making that argument either. I just disagree that going ballistic in an airport is covered as protected speech.
And you also seem to have a lot more respect for the "disorderly conduct" charge than I do. I tend to view it as a LEO didn't like what you were doing but couldn't find any law being broken so he'll arrest you on a disorderly charge just to get you in the squad car knowing full well that it won't stick.
I agree that can be an abuse of the law. I just don't think it sounds like this was a case of abuse. I think a lady went bonkers when she could have calmly refused.
It certainly doesn't help the governments case that the TSA agent was telling her outright lies about the scanner, but the ignorance of a stupid TSA guard doesn't excuse completely losing one's shit.
I appreciate and agree with your statements about the lunacy of the $10,000 fine.
LOL, right, I'm sure that the TSA will make the test case for their fine a mom traveling with her two kids. Not the jerk who videotaped the whole thing and said, "I'll have you arrested if you touch my junk," but the mom.
I agree the threat of fine is ridiculous, but my point was that he was not threatened with a fine until well after most of the conflict took place. In fact, he was directed to go get a refund.
It's also worth noting that no one has ever been fined.
And I would counter that groping citizens and taking nude pictures of them is inappropriate behavior in an airport.
But alas, you have been out-voted in a democracy.
The difference is that citizens definietly have the Right to yell and scream at governement figures guaranteed in the Constitution,
No they don't. They have a right to free speech - civil society still has norms that need to be obeyed. You can't just have people causing a nuisance/disturbance in airport security lines.
Which Right do you believe is more important to protect?
Presumably, you are talking about the right to free speech versus the power of the TSA to screen passengers using x-rays and/or a more invasive "pat-down". Unlike you, I don't see a conflict. Your free speech rights are only impinged if you think that free speech is equivalent to disorderly conduct.
The biggest reform I would like to see is the withdrawal of the authority to levy a $10,000 fine against people who refuse the security screening mid-stream. It is laughable to think that $10,000 would dissuade someone with a bomb from leaving, so all it does in affect those who object to the screening. If people aren't comfortable with the screening procedure, in the short term just let them use something other than a plane. In the long-term, give them an option to go through an Israeli-style grilling. You can't do that for everyone, but you can have it available for people with a complex or some other objection.
Not so. The screeners explained that he could go get a refund and not board the plane. It was only as he was walking out of the airport after getting his refund that a "man in a sportcoat" stopped him and told him about the fine.
They need a Springer line. The TSA screeners can all be big muscular guys in tight black t-shirts, and they can wait as long as possible before breaking up any fights. And it should all be televised. They can even have a TSA paternity tester!
Bottom line, the TSA should not be allowed to do field trials on the general population.
Agreed, but claiming that this woman was "protecting" her children from radiation right before she planned to get on a plane is still hilarious.
It's all an allusion of safety and it's costing taxpayers millions.
I don't think it's quite all an illusion. It certainly raises the bar for any terrorists that plan on destroying a plane. Any time you raise the bar, you decrease the pool of possible actors. But I agree that the money might better be spent elsewhere. From a political standpoint, this will never happen. People are not rational when it comes to risk analysis and they will always demand high airport security, even as tens of thousands die each year on the road.
There have already been a few instances where people have entered the security queue, refused the porno scan or invasive pat-down and have been ticketed or arrested for trying to leave the area without being groped or otherwise searched.
Example, please? I can find no mention of an imposed fine. I found one guy who stayed calm, was "detained" by the TSA (who is not allowed to detain) for having a large amount of cash on him, and now has a lawsuit against the TSA where he stands to win. Rather than flying off the handle and getting herself arrested, this woman could have forced them to overstep their authority and gotten THEM in legal trouble.
I don't give the tsa any "credit", but I do recognize that they haven't fined anyone. I also think it is ridiculous that they even have the authority to fine... What terrorist would allow them to find a bomb rather than get fined 10000 dollars???
Read the other posts above and the earlier story about the guy that was arrested for attempting to back out and leave the airport instead of being scanned or physically searched.
Google it - I can't find a reference to it anywhere. Only the "don't touch my junk" guy, and he was threatened with a fine but never arrested (and never fined).
You cannot attempt to leave in such a situation without encountering force and potential criminal charges.
As far as I can tell, no one has ever even received the fine - let alone encountered "force and potential criminal charges".
Not that I'm doubting the story of a person identified only as "Johnnyedge", but please tell me there is a better source for this story than boingboing? I mean, they call the scanners porno-scanners and the frisk is referred to as "showing his penis to the government". Why can't I find any followup? Sorry to be the skeptic...
Ahh, found him. He was named John Tyner and he was never fined. No one has ever been fined (though they technically have the authorization to fine you). Pretty sure they would not have fined a calm lady with two kids who refused the pat-down and x-ray machine.
It's only a "right" if you can FIGHT over it! Filling out a form as a complaint is not a "right" that's a suggestion at best.
She didn't have to go all Jerry Springer on them, though. She could have just firmly said "no". She could even run off on some tangent about rights and such.
Frankly, anybody that "randomly selects" children is doing it as a power trip anyway. Her kids were probably noisy and they knew they could provoke her.
If they didn't, wouldn't that be a pretty glaring security hole?
This is why the Arabs laugh their asses off at us. If you tried to grope up someone's kids in an Arab country the male escort would be within their duty to cut your hand off on the spot to defend their honor... If you had a badge or not. Even their Kings can't trump those religious laws and duties... Hmm.
That sounds like a lovely ideal that we should all strive for.
I'll add one more thing. Except in rare cases of a violent crime, in most US juristictions even COPS that catch your kid shoplifting or throwing rocks through windows do not have the ability to search a minor beyond a basic search for actual weapons until either a parent is present AND consenting, or the minor child is actually CHARGED with a crime in front of a judge.
And that's exactly what happened here. The TSA is not even a law enforcement agency - they can't just frisk an adult, let alone a kid, without consent. The parent was right there with the kids. The parent did not have to give consent to the frisk (and clearly she didn't). The parent also did not have to insult the mothers of the TSA agents (or whatever prompted the calling of the cops).
I would think that she fits the category of "makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop" and the category "disrupts a lawful assembly of persons".
Slashdot Mirror
By the way, I found a better article here.
My interpretation is that she wasn't arrested for just throwing a fit, but actually walking away from the screeners. I'm presuming this is toward the airplane, but I wasn't there. Seems like an important detail. You obviously can't just let people walk toward the terminal if they haven't been screened.
None of these news outlets got any more detail than was in the stupid police report, so it's hard to get a grip on what happened.
Your words, I believe?
My words. Like you, I have to invent in my head what actually went down. There is very little substance to the article. No statement at all from the accused - not even a "no comment". The narrative is choppy and half-assed. The quotes from the TSA are either misquotes or the TSA agent is completely speaking out her ass. I've seen the same thing go down at Wal-Mart over the price of something or something not being the same as in the weekly circular, so it didn't surprise me terribly to see someone doing that in the airport.
But you could be right - she could have just used some sharp words and the TSA agents went overboard and called the cops, who arrested her on the word of the TSA agent. It's possible.
Without end-to-end footage of the incident, we won't know. If she sternly stated to get the fuck away from her daughter, would you consider that disorderly conduct? I would not.
Agreed.
I bet that our differences might come down to just a couple of octaves...
I think so. My comments all assume that she was in fact causing a disturbance and not just refusing to capitulate. My first post was meant to be funny, in fact. I mean, I start by pointing to her picture! I wasn't there and can only sort of glean what actually happened from the rather poorly thrown-together article. We have no statement from her at all.
Exactly when was this voted on? And why do you think this is a democracy?
Shortly after 9/11, and 1776 (though obviously not a pure democracy). Do we really need to argue over semantics? The point is that your opinion on the matter is not the mainstream. There's nothing wrong with your opinion, but human nature being what it is, it is unlikely that (a) terrorists will ever stop targeting airplanes disproportionately and (b) that people will react disproportionately to air disasters. Airplanes are about as safe as cars per-trip, yet people get all worked up over air crashes and hardly blink when there is a car crash. Even stupid little general aviation crashes make the national news.
So if someone doesn't follow social norms, you believe they should be arrested?
Lol, no. But when someone is yelling and screaming and holding up the entire airport terminal with their carrying on, damn right. It's why we have nuisance laws. It shouldn't be legal to hold up traffic on a bridge, either. The right to free speech does not mean the right to be heard.
It is her right to complain to them without being punished.
Agreed. But she did not "complain". She went ballistic such that the TSA had to call the cops in to make her stop.
The free speech aspect of the first ammendment is what would cover her (supposed) use of profanity.
She can curse all she wants, but if she is screaming and yelling and generally causing a disturbance, that crosses a line.
I will never agree that the power of the TSA should supercede any individual's rights.
I'm not making that argument either. I just disagree that going ballistic in an airport is covered as protected speech.
And you also seem to have a lot more respect for the "disorderly conduct" charge than I do. I tend to view it as a LEO didn't like what you were doing but couldn't find any law being broken so he'll arrest you on a disorderly charge just to get you in the squad car knowing full well that it won't stick.
I agree that can be an abuse of the law. I just don't think it sounds like this was a case of abuse. I think a lady went bonkers when she could have calmly refused.
It certainly doesn't help the governments case that the TSA agent was telling her outright lies about the scanner, but the ignorance of a stupid TSA guard doesn't excuse completely losing one's shit.
I appreciate and agree with your statements about the lunacy of the $10,000 fine.
Ha! Common ground! :)
Who was arrested? You used the words "force and potential criminal charges".... so if you want to get snotty at least back up your statement!
LOL, right, I'm sure that the TSA will make the test case for their fine a mom traveling with her two kids. Not the jerk who videotaped the whole thing and said, "I'll have you arrested if you touch my junk," but the mom.
As I said, it's a stupid law. But I stand by my saying, "They might not have let her on the plane, but she wouldn't be sitting in jail."
She would have not been fined.
I agree the threat of fine is ridiculous, but my point was that he was not threatened with a fine until well after most of the conflict took place. In fact, he was directed to go get a refund.
It's also worth noting that no one has ever been fined.
And I would counter that groping citizens and taking nude pictures of them is inappropriate behavior in an airport.
But alas, you have been out-voted in a democracy.
The difference is that citizens definietly have the Right to yell and scream at governement figures guaranteed in the Constitution,
No they don't. They have a right to free speech - civil society still has norms that need to be obeyed. You can't just have people causing a nuisance/disturbance in airport security lines.
Which Right do you believe is more important to protect?
Presumably, you are talking about the right to free speech versus the power of the TSA to screen passengers using x-rays and/or a more invasive "pat-down". Unlike you, I don't see a conflict. Your free speech rights are only impinged if you think that free speech is equivalent to disorderly conduct.
The biggest reform I would like to see is the withdrawal of the authority to levy a $10,000 fine against people who refuse the security screening mid-stream. It is laughable to think that $10,000 would dissuade someone with a bomb from leaving, so all it does in affect those who object to the screening. If people aren't comfortable with the screening procedure, in the short term just let them use something other than a plane. In the long-term, give them an option to go through an Israeli-style grilling. You can't do that for everyone, but you can have it available for people with a complex or some other objection.
Because insults aren't protected speech and those representing government mandates are above such things anyway?
Disorderly conduct has nothing to do with insults. Free speech does not mean freedom to behave any way you want.
Not so. The screeners explained that he could go get a refund and not board the plane. It was only as he was walking out of the airport after getting his refund that a "man in a sportcoat" stopped him and told him about the fine.
I can't find the fine being levied anywhere, only references to it having never been imposed.
That fine has never been imposed.
As an aside, it's a really stupid person who thinks that $10,000 would deter a terrorist.
The "don't touch my junk" guy also managed to get headlines without getting thrown in jail and undermining his cause.
They need a Springer line. The TSA screeners can all be big muscular guys in tight black t-shirts, and they can wait as long as possible before breaking up any fights. And it should all be televised. They can even have a TSA paternity tester!
Bottom line, the TSA should not be allowed to do field trials on the general population.
Agreed, but claiming that this woman was "protecting" her children from radiation right before she planned to get on a plane is still hilarious.
It's all an allusion of safety and it's costing taxpayers millions.
I don't think it's quite all an illusion. It certainly raises the bar for any terrorists that plan on destroying a plane. Any time you raise the bar, you decrease the pool of possible actors. But I agree that the money might better be spent elsewhere. From a political standpoint, this will never happen. People are not rational when it comes to risk analysis and they will always demand high airport security, even as tens of thousands die each year on the road.
There have already been a few instances where people have entered the security queue, refused the porno scan or invasive pat-down and have been ticketed or arrested for trying to leave the area without being groped or otherwise searched.
Example, please? I can find no mention of an imposed fine. I found one guy who stayed calm, was "detained" by the TSA (who is not allowed to detain) for having a large amount of cash on him, and now has a lawsuit against the TSA where he stands to win. Rather than flying off the handle and getting herself arrested, this woman could have forced them to overstep their authority and gotten THEM in legal trouble.
Thanks for the link. Much better :)
I don't give the tsa any "credit", but I do recognize that they haven't fined anyone. I also think it is ridiculous that they even have the authority to fine... What terrorist would allow them to find a bomb rather than get fined 10000 dollars???
those backscatter machine REALLY safe?
Maybe not, but flying on a plane DEFINITELY exposes them to non-trivial amounts of radiation.
So yeah, let's have a little golf clap for this lady and her steadfast protection of her children from harmful radiation.
Read the other posts above and the earlier story about the guy that was arrested for attempting to back out and leave the airport instead of being scanned or physically searched.
Google it - I can't find a reference to it anywhere. Only the "don't touch my junk" guy, and he was threatened with a fine but never arrested (and never fined).
You cannot attempt to leave in such a situation without encountering force and potential criminal charges.
As far as I can tell, no one has ever even received the fine - let alone encountered "force and potential criminal charges".
Not that I'm doubting the story of a person identified only as "Johnnyedge", but please tell me there is a better source for this story than boingboing? I mean, they call the scanners porno-scanners and the frisk is referred to as "showing his penis to the government". Why can't I find any followup? Sorry to be the skeptic...
Ahh, found him. He was named John Tyner and he was never fined. No one has ever been fined (though they technically have the authorization to fine you). Pretty sure they would not have fined a calm lady with two kids who refused the pat-down and x-ray machine.
It's only a "right" if you can FIGHT over it! Filling out a form as a complaint is not a "right" that's a suggestion at best.
She didn't have to go all Jerry Springer on them, though. She could have just firmly said "no". She could even run off on some tangent about rights and such.
Frankly, anybody that "randomly selects" children is doing it as a power trip anyway. Her kids were probably noisy and they knew they could provoke her.
If they didn't, wouldn't that be a pretty glaring security hole?
This is why the Arabs laugh their asses off at us. If you tried to grope up someone's kids in an Arab country the male escort would be within their duty to cut your hand off on the spot to defend their honor... If you had a badge or not. Even their Kings can't trump those religious laws and duties... Hmm.
That sounds like a lovely ideal that we should all strive for.
I'll add one more thing. Except in rare cases of a violent crime, in most US juristictions even COPS that catch your kid shoplifting or throwing rocks through windows do not have the ability to search a minor beyond a basic search for actual weapons until either a parent is present AND consenting, or the minor child is actually CHARGED with a crime in front of a judge.
And that's exactly what happened here. The TSA is not even a law enforcement agency - they can't just frisk an adult, let alone a kid, without consent. The parent was right there with the kids. The parent did not have to give consent to the frisk (and clearly she didn't). The parent also did not have to insult the mothers of the TSA agents (or whatever prompted the calling of the cops).
I would think that she fits the category of "makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop" and the category "disrupts a lawful assembly of persons".
It'll never happen. People like a disproportionate amount of resources spent on air security.
Lol they never pick me!