Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by THawk996, Aug 26, 2011.
Oh, well then let me clarify: Crabtree should have been fired.
One problem is the name: VIPR. Who thinks up this stuff? Sounds like some bad 70s TV show. Creepier yet is "Homeland Security".
I don't understand how it matters one way or the other about this or that individual. I haven't studied the public information about the case, and I don't want to start up a big debate, but my general impression is that this was a bonehead mistake where nobody was harmed, not even touched, and maybe there was some reason for forgiving a bonehead mistake. Or not. But it's not very important to me.
Would "Ministerium für Staatssicherheit" be better? They even have a museum already.
I'm expressing an intensely personal opinion. Weapons owners should ALWAYS know the status of their weapons. That's just a lifetime of military discipline drilled into me, and my forgiveness factor is nonexistent.
Oh, well, I agree with that. Civilian gun ownership is not accompanied by equivalent discipline of course.
My opinion would agree with you, but I did want to separate my earlier post from my opinion.
Crabtree had two choices, leave his weapon in his broken down car on the side of the road or take the weapon with him. Which choice was correct?
I think where he screwed up was entering the check point. I think had he pulled a LEO off to the side, explained what had happened and ask if they could store the weapon until the end of the day everyone would have gone home happy and no discussion some 3 years later would be going on.
Truth is, I can see where that might be forgiven. There's nothing particularly sacred about the checkpoint, it's largely the TSA hype that has made it so. I guess I'm feeling a bit of sympathy for this guy, having done a lot of stupid things (not this one, however) myself.
Is the fault entirely the 'media maggots'?
Perhaps on some occasions the first spokesman to get to the mike will 'allow' the media to believe that his/her agency was primarily responsible (assuming things went well, of course).
In many specific instances, the media seems more than willing to deliver TSA assertions unchallenged and unquestioned, so I'm inclined to give them the (rare) benefit of doubt on this one.
Bart, would you tell the people what happens to a person in the military if they lose a weapon or have an accidental discharge?
AM, at the least they get an Article 15, at worst (based on the situation) it can be jail time. They preach, and preach and preach weapon control, from the time you walk in the door for Basic, till the day you leave for good. (I know you know what the deal is!) We had a guy in Germany kill a clearing barrel, and he went from E4 to E3 and had 4 weeks of extra duty, and loss of like $150 for 2 months. I am kind of fuzzy on the money, but the punishment was swift and severe for simply shooting a clearing barrel. The punishment for losing a weapon or having a discharge in a different situation was pretty much an end to your military career in short fashion.
Just to add, I also think that Crabtrees mistake was bringing the weapon into the checkpoint. If he had made other arrangements with management or the LEOs prior to entering, it would have been no biggie to begin with.
I have two problems with the Crabtree incident and how it was handled.
1) Nothing to do with TSA specifically. If you own a gun, you have responsibilities. Period. No exceptions. He did not behave responsibly. If someone took a gun past security into my workplace and got caught, security would immediately confiscate the employee's badge and walk the employee out (fired). I think it's appropriate.
2) The double standard - TSA has a 'zero tolerance' policy for pax, but holds its own employees to a lesser standard.
That implies that there's any standard at all for TSA employees. If there is, I haven't noticed.
There's no need for a standard because they have all had one background check and they are all held to the highest professional standards.
We know this because they tell us so.
(Wish they would do a better job of demonstrating it).
I can understand that point of view. I dislike the situation, and the appearance it has, but there may have been more information I do not have that went into making this decision. If he was given special dispensation simply because he was an employee of TSA, then I disagree with their decision. I had a coworker here a few years ago that did the exact same thing, and he was booted.
I understand and respect that point-of-view, and if it were a different agency, I might agree with you.
As a pax, TSA takes a zero-tolerance approach. Ignorance of the real or fabricated-on-the-spot rules is no excuse. There's no such thing as 'extenuating' circumstances. Rules are rules, zero tolerance application, don't bring common sense into the picture. No appeals possible.
So as a pax, I do think it's only fair if TSA (an organization that by its very nature should be held to particularly high standards) applies the same zero-tolerance policy to its employees, especially because there is absolutely no excuse for a TSO to plead ignorance of the rules.
Ignorance of the rules is a non-starter, we (TSA employees) all have been taught from the beginning that bringing a firearm into the checkpoint is a no-go, period. If we were talking about being fuzzy on some unknown type of ID that required a consultation of the SOP for verification, that I may have some mercy on, but guns are a big deal. What I was thinking of as extenuating circumstances was a situation where there had been miscommunication. Say, he had been told by one management official that storing it in the supervisors cubicle (which would be wrong to start with, and highly unlikely), and then it went awry. The burden would be shared between them, but if the individual made the good faith effort and was misinformed by senior leadership - it would be a tough call.
I also understand the zero tolerance position, and how the organization could not go wrong with keeping it intact for employees, and personally, I think that is what should be the case at all times. Having worked here for a bit now, I can see where exceptions could be made for truly extenuating circumstances. I don't necessarily agree with it, because if I brought a weapon in, and tried the old "I forgot it", I would fully expect to get walking papers right off the bat. It is a tough call to convince me that someone bringing a firearm into the checkpoint under any circumstances deserves to be retained as an employee, I just can't find a way to make that acceptable.
Thank you for your reply. Now as to Crabtree. He had options and bringing the gun to work was a known no-no. IMHO he should have been fired on the spot for being in possession of that firearm. Had he opted to call in sick/personal day and explained the situation to his manager it might have resulted in some disciplinary action, but nothing that continues to echo to this day.
Separate names with a comma.