Miyamae May Be Fined by TSA

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Lisa Simeone, Sep 5, 2011.

  1. Cartoon Peril

    Cartoon Peril Original Member

    Yes, I misread. Of course, every claim by a government agency that a citizen has violated the law should not be sustained absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
     
  2. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    I thought the same right up to November 2010.
     
  3. Cartoon Peril

    Cartoon Peril Original Member

    There are a few left, there's a poster here and another one or two over at FT that seem motivated to do right. The agency of course has set up an environment of lies, such as the term "pat-down" itself, which I think allows an individual, per the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments, to perform the intolerable. But we can counter that with the truth.
     
  4. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    ...except for the bit about refusing to "just follow orders."
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  5. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    You need to reign in some of that emotion. I don't claim to know why this is or isn't better handled. I was simply speculating. You're the one who is jumping to all sorts of conclusions. I'm doing my part to help where I can. If that's not good enough for you, I really won't lose any sleep over it, sweetheart.

    Again, the views I express here are mine and only mine. I don't speak on behalf of TSA or any other TSO. I don't know how to make that any clearer for you.
     
  6. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    Bart, beyond the "Tit for Tat" headlines, my sympathies were dramatically changed when I heard her speak in an interview.

    She was abducted as a child, panicked at being surrounded, put her hands out in reactive self-defense--and being only about five feet tall-- accidently caught the chest level of a TSO. The TSO got angry and said, "You touched me!"--Not "Ouch!" or anything that might have corresponded with the actions in the embellished police report. The police encouraged a false sexual assault claim, and that whole angle was immediately dropped by the judge.

    So while I can understand that the TSA may want to make an example of someone who DOES attack a TSO, this is NOT remotely that case.

    Better to learn from this as to what NOT to do, and to expect that trauma victims will react to physical invasion. (And drop the fine; she has a greater claim against the TSA on the false report).
     
  7. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    I know you're going to find this difficult to believe, but I most certainly hope so. If TSA's actions cannot withstand that type of legal scrutiny, then it ought not be done at all.
     
  8. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    LOL. Well, I can assure you that I'm not one of them. In fact, I don't know very many of them, if any at all. Perhaps our FSD. Please don't tell me you're susceptible to urban myth about the $100,000 salary.
     
  9. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    Then why do you insist on telling people what is or is not part of TSA procedure without substantiating your claims (which are clearly contradicted by multiple victims of the TSAs practices?)
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  10. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    " Mica says the TSA should start cutting in Washington, D.C. instead, arguing the 3,700 TSA workers in the nation's capital are making "on average $100,000 per year."

    http://www.wsbradio.com/weblogs/jamie-dupree/2011/jun/05/tsa-budget-skewer/

    And that's just in DC.
     
  11. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    I'm not convinced that any TSA imposed fine is enforceable. Sure, they can send you a bill but how will they collect? In order to file a lien they'd have to go through a court and prove they have authority to levee such a fine. Doubtful they'd get that past a court and the passenger would easily be able to contest it. Just don't see it happening if people are aware of their rights.
     
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  12. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    I don't know. I find it hard to believe based on what I know about government salaries. There are a lot of myths online about government employees and the $100,000 salary is certainly one of them. Methinks Mica is using a clever twist on words to make a political point. In other words, I would not be surprised to find out the "facts" of his statement hinge on the qualifier "average" which would result in the belief that there are several people who earn $100,000. It would be a stronger statement, for instance, if he said something along the lines, "there are X number employees who make $100,000 or more." Instead, he plays with words and says "on average." Sorry, I can't trust that statement. You may, but I don't.

    The one point I do agree with is that cuts in any workforce should begin at the top. With few exceptions, a service-oriented workforce should take a pyramid shape with few at the top and majority at the bottom in terms of numbers and salaries. I say this for many reasons, but chief among them is that if forces efficiency. Otherwise, what you end up with, characteristic of any bureaucracy, is work that only justifies the need for that position rather than work that is productive because of the position.
     
  13. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    One wonders what the going rate is for someone hired to teach a bunch of thugs how to legally molest American citizens and get away with it.
     
  14. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    That hasn't been established, let alone proven in court. All indications are that the screener exaggerated the situation, to the point that the judge declined to hold her and the county attorney refused to prosecute. It was deferred to the city attorney for consideration as a misdemeanor.
     
  15. Cartoon Peril

    Cartoon Peril Original Member

    So far no charges of any kind, misdemeanor or otherwise have been filed, at least as far as I know.

    TSA actually could have a rather difficult time in court with this sort of charge. Take the issue of self-defense. Don't know about AZ law, in most states, one is permitted to use reasonable non-deadly force to prevent someone from making an unlawful contact with one's body. TSA would then be in the position of having to prove they were acting lawfully. The criminal defense lawyer could then subpoena the TSA search protocol and training records for the officers involved. I don't see how the case could be prosecuted without that sort of disclosure to the defense. Also, any destruction of evidence, as we have seen from time to time, such as the videotapes, would be looked upon with askance by the court, and would make a very bad impression with the court. I don't see a first time misdemeanor conviction as being something that TSA would consider worth the candle in all of this.
     
  16. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    Could be. I mean, I don't obsess over these news stories. I will agree that if there's any indication that weakens a statement, prosecutors will balk. That doesn't mean the TSO necessarily exaggerated. But I'm certain you've seen witnesses balk before. I sure have.
     
    Cartoon Peril likes this.
  17. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Plan B might be to send them out the aiports where they can at least do some useful work.

    I don't, but it's not a really a problem limited to TSA. Bloated government salaries and staffs are endemic in all levels of government.
     
  18. Cartoon Peril

    Cartoon Peril Original Member

    Prosecutor needs a clean case. For felony, have to convince 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt. Any change in an official story without a really good reason torpedoes case. Of course I have no idea if that happened here, but juries are smarter than people think, and its not easy for them to be fooled.
     
  19. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    ARS 13-411 specifically lists sexual assault as one of the conditions justifying the use of deadly force.

    13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability
    A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.
    B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.
    C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.
    D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be.

    The TSA could have a very, very tangled hairball if they choose to proceed with that.
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  20. Bart

    Bart Original Member

    I agree that staff weenies make more money than the worker bees. I find it hard to believe that there are 3,700 TSA employees who make $100,000 a year. And, if you look at the article, Mica never says that. You can certainly infer that from statements attributed to him, but he never actually makes a strong enough statement to connect 3,700, TSA and $100,000 together.

    Ten years ago, I was offered a position at $70,000 in the DC area. I turned it down mostly because I no longer had any interest in living in the DC area, and I was no longer interested in that kind of work. However, back in 2001, $70k in the DC area was a couple notches above "struggling." I don't know what the going rate is today, but I seriously doubt that salaries have increased $30k. Could be wrong, but even if I was, I seriously doubt TSA has 3,700 positions at that salary. Again, I think Mica is using a clever play on words to make a political point.
     
    nachtnebel and barbell like this.

Share This Page