Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: roo_ster on April 24, 2012, 11:22:50 AM
-
Weeping four-year-old girl accused of carrying a GUN by TSA officers after she hugged her grandmother while passing through security
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134280/Weeping-year-old-girl-accused-carrying-GUN-TSA-officers-hugged-grandmother-passing-security.html
...a four-year-old girl was apparently subjected to a humiliating ordeal after she hugged her grandmother while she was waiting in line.
The girl was accused of having a gun and declared a 'high security threat', while agents threatened to shut down the whole airport if she could not be calmed down.
When asked about the overbearing treatment the girl received, a TSA spokesman did not apologise and insisted that correct procedures had been followed.
Ms Brademeyer and her two children had passed through security when the grandmother was detained after triggering an alarm on the scanners.
Isabella then, according to her mother, 'excitedly ran over to give her a hug, as children often do. They made very brief contact, no longer than a few seconds.'
The young girl was immediately detained by security agents, who apparently shouted at her that she would have to be frisked too, and refused to let her mother explain what has happening.
Ms Brademeyer wrote: 'It was implied, several times, that my mother, in their brief two-second embrace, had passed a handgun to my daughter.'
In her terror, Isabella tried to run away rather than face a full body pat-down, which unsurprisingly enraged the TSA officers further.
One officer even told the girl's mother that the airport would have to be shut down and every flight cancelled if the four-year-old did not co-operate.
They also apparently described the little girl as a 'high security threat'.
As Isabella was taken into a side room for a pat-down, accompanied by her mother, she could not stop crying and refused to let the agents touch her.
An officer repeatedly said she had 'seen a gun in a teddy bear' in the past, in an apparent attempt to justify the situation.
Ms Brademeyer continued: 'The TSO loomed over my daughter, with an angry grimace on her face, and ordered her to stop crying.
'When my scared child could not do so, two TSOs called for backup saying, "The suspect is not cooperating." The suspect, of course, being a frightened child.
This is why I don't fly with my family. Being humiliated and having my nose rubbed in the TSA dog*expletive deleted* while hte TSA-tards wipe their asses with the COTUS is one thing. Treat family that way, though, is different. I suspect one or more of those mother *expletive deleted*ers would have ended up beaten to death and stomped into paste by my 12Ds were it my daughter so treated.
Tar & feathers are too good for them.
-
I feel much safer now with TSA using their profiling prowess to pick out a 4 year old terrorist. ;/
-
http://bitcoin.org/
http://www.intrade.com/v4/home/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_market
We're getting close... Seems to me there's two ways to go about this. At the top, where the policy is made, or the department created, or at the bottom, where it's enforced, and the actual thuggishness happens.
There HAS to be a tipping point sooner or later. When is it?
-
This is an overseas report on life in the USA.
Not infowarsprisionplanetwnd.
-
If it were my daughter, I would be going to jail that day.
-
One officer even told the girl's mother that the airport would have to be shut down and every flight cancelled if the four-year-old did not co-operate.
I would have called their bluff on this one. >:D
The proper procedure would have been to have the kid walk through the magnetometer again. That could have been done without upsetting everyone -- but not as big a power trip for the goon squad.
If it were my daughter, I...
What would you do, Frankie?
-
If it were my daughter, I would be going to jail that day.
If it were my daughter, the airport would have gone into lockdown and many people would have missed their flight. All without me raising my voice or leaving my seat. Daughters need to learn their power early. >:D
-
TSA is, has been, and always be more of a threat to the United States than any terrorist.
Of which, they've caught... none.
-
presuming the one side we got is completely unshaded..? [popcorn] >:D
-
presuming the one side we got is completely unshaded..? [popcorn] >:D
Eh, it's the Daily Mail. Not the highest regarded name in journalism, but it's a lowly regarded career.
From my personal interactions with the TSA, this case may or may not be accurately portrayed but the incident as described is TSA SOP. TSA acts unprofessional, and covers it up with overblown accusations to make it sound like they are defending natural security.
-
presuming the one side we got is completely unshaded..? [popcorn] >:D
The TSA has long since lost the benefit of such considerations from me.
-
lets see the tape
its amazing to see how many folks go oopsy when the tape comes out
-
lets see the tape
its amazing to see how many folks go oopsy when the tape comes out
I agree about holding back a bit for at least some follow up info, however, the comment about thinking they see a gun in a teddy bear is just nuts to me.
-
Hey, at least they are following the rules. Security threat, possible concealed gun, then when the passenger is flagged, what looks like a hand-off?
I'd be more outraged if their security protocol could be breached by the social engineering of a smiling four year old. I'll save my outrage for the entire institution of the TSA existing; not on them actually doing their jobs.
-
I agree about holding back a bit for at least some follow up info, however, the comment about thinking they see a gun in a teddy bear is just nuts to me.
yea?
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Gun-Hidden-in-Teddy-Bear-at-DFW-79355102.html
-
yea?
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Gun-Hidden-in-Teddy-Bear-at-DFW-79355102.html
Yeah, because there was no teddy bear involved in the incident.
-
There'd be a lot of people in that air port pissed off for missing their flight.
Sadly, probably pissed off at me instead of the jackasses in the tsa.
-
Hey, at least they are following the rules. Security threat, possible concealed gun, then when the passenger is flagged, what looks like a hand-off?
I'd be more outraged if their security protocol could be breached by the social engineering of a smiling four year old. I'll save my outrage for the entire institution of the TSA existing; not on them actually doing their jobs.
I can understand that, but IMO any professional group could do all that in 5 minutes: determine there was no threat and continue on about their business. All the quotes attempting to justify their heavy handedness just show they are unprofessional and they really don't know what they are doing. They are just following "procedure" and covering themselves like good little bureaucrats.
-
I worked an airport security checkpoint years ago for Eastern Airlines (that should give a hint how long ago it was.) The girl was contaminated -- for lack of a better word -- and needed to be screened again. But there was no reason for heavy-handedness. A smile and a "I'm gonna have to check you again, Sweetie" and herd her back thru the metal detector or a minimal patdown or use the handheld wand would have done it and not gotten anybody upset.
[switching characters again] Shutting down the whole terminal sounds like a fine idea to me. (do you really want to give that kind of power to a 4-year-old and her pissed-off parents if they call your bluff?)
-
Eh, it's the Daily Mail. Not the highest regarded name in journalism, but it's a lowly regarded career.
From my personal interactions with the TSA, this case may or may not be accurately portrayed but the incident as described is TSA SOP. TSA acts unprofessional, and covers it up with overblown accusations to make it sound like they are defending natural security.
And the Terrorist Support Agency has a LOOOONG and well-documented history of similar incidents - and far worse, on an individual and organizational level.
Not only is the entire concept of their agency an unconstitutional farce, but then to add insult to injury they can't even be MINIMALLY COMPETENT at doing the job they (falsely) claim is vital to national security? :facepalm:
-
Hey, at least they are following the rules. Security threat, possible concealed gun, then when the passenger is flagged, what looks like a hand-off?
I'd be more outraged if their security protocol could be breached by the social engineering of a smiling four year old. I'll save my outrage for the entire institution of the TSA existing; not on them actually doing their jobs.
Uhm, having DONE such security work before, I completely agree with zxcvbob. I suppose the difference is, there was a possibility of me actually dealing with hostiles as opposed to the TSA's knowledge that they are a dozen times more likely to get hit by lightning, several times in a row, than come in contact with a terrorist.
I'm not saying they're wrong to re-do the search. I'm saying they're completely unprofessional morons. I HAVE done this before. It's bloody easy. You have whoever is best with kids give the kid a spare teddy bear or similar stuffed animal, plus a cutesy story to keep them distracted, while the other guy or gal does the security sweep. Then explain to the parents or whatnot why it's a bad idea. Because bad people can use kids as cover, etc etc. Kid freaking out because you want to play jack boot thug is not a good thing. Gets crowds upset, gets folks hysterical, harder to control the situation, and makes more distractions that can cause you to overlook a real security threat.
If you're doing security work, you want to the bulk of the people to perhaps not like you but not actively hate you. Makes the folks more likely to give you heads up if nothing else. You're not nice (or polite and firm) because it's the morally right thing to do, it's to tactically handle the situation in the best possible manner.
-
I like the point rev has made here before - for the price of the TSA and air marshals, we probably could have invented bomb proof airliners and deployed them.
The funniest thing about the TSA is that it gets taken seriously by washington. Mass mental impairment should be less insidious.
-
I like the point rev has made here before - for the price of the TSA and air marshals, we probably could have invented bomb proof airliners and deployed them.
The funniest thing about the TSA is that it gets taken seriously by washington. Mass mental impairment should be less insidious.
Planes are pretty much bomb proof from anything that could be carried on a person.
Screening of luggage for explosives makes sense.
As for guns and knives, I think every passenger should have them. No one is ever going to hijack an airplane again ;)
-
Planes are pretty much bomb proof from anything that could be carried on a person
not even close
-
Planes are pretty much bomb proof from anything that could be carried on a person
not even close
Curious topic, I'm interested to know the truth. Lets see the supporting documentation! =)
-
not sure if i can plan it that i'd share it give me a day or to to finish work and i'll get back to you pm
right off the top of my head several guys with "internal bombs " in the cabin could make a mess or a crew member in the cockpit
-
not sure if i can plan it that i'd share it give me a day or to to finish work and i'll get back to you pm
right off the top of my head several guys with "internal bombs " in the cabin could make a mess or a crew member in the cockpit
Cockpit crew can ALREADY kill everyone on the plane, and possibly many on the ground as well, without the use of explosives. Let's refrain from irrelevancy.
And if you can find a dozen or so people to agree to 1-lb C4 enemas and are all willing to get on the same plane in order to take it out, AND can get detonators through security, then you're also skewing the issue there as well. And I'd really like to see you defend mandatory cavity searches for everyone getting on a plane, or even random cavity searches - how do you imagine THAT will go over?
Remember, the single "butt-bomber" who managed to get a detonation did not in fact actually kill ANYONE, IIRC - not even his target right in front of him. Could such a person DAMAGE an aircraft? Sure. I imagine his seat would be messed up, and he might apparently cause some injuries, even. Doesn't seem like he'd blow even a small hole in the hull, though.
-
This would have been a good opportunity for a lesson in how to deal with idiot thugs.
Honey, don't do what that man says. Lay down on the ground, and if he touches you, yell "rape"
Mr Tsa agent, go ahead and shut down the airport, if you must. You will not put your hands on my daughter.
-
Planes are pretty much bomb proof from anything that could be carried on a person.
Screening of luggage for explosives makes sense.
Uhm... Eh, not really. In theory, no, with expertly crafted bombs and properly placement, you could easily take down an aircraft with explosives handy carried.
In practical terms, pretty much. Suicide bombers are not usually selected for their intelligence, training and expertise. They tend to be useful fools, which limits the complexity of their accomplishments. The most deadly terrorist operation conducted by Islamic militants was 2,996. Any halfway competent person could kill a lot more than that at any sporting event or political rally.
And if you can find a dozen or so people to agree to 1-lb C4 enemas and are all willing to get on the same plane in order to take it out, AND can get detonators through security, then you're also skewing the issue there as well. And I'd really like to see you defend mandatory cavity searches for everyone getting on a plane, or even random cavity searches - how do you imagine THAT will go over?
Remember, the single "butt-bomber" who managed to get a detonation did not in fact actually kill ANYONE, IIRC - not even his target right in front of him. Could such a person DAMAGE an aircraft? Sure. I imagine his seat would be messed up, and he might apparently cause some injuries, even. Doesn't seem like he'd blow even a small hole in the hull, though.
Internal bombs have several problems. They have to be installed by a skilled doctor, and would be difficult to construct in a lethal manner. Explosives themselves are mundane unless: specifically shaped or tuned, lots of it is used, or used with shrapnel.
Shaped charge or "tuned":
Shaped charge inside the body would not be very effective. The human body doesn't have tons of spare room to do nothing. Fat deposits or gastrointestinal would be my choice of placement, and that's tricky. Excellent placement would also be problematic because you'd be working with very narrow performance limits.
Lots of it being used:
Lots of it being used is unlikely unless the person is morbidly obese. Again, most folks don't have lots of internal volume for this sort of thing.
Shrapnel:
Ouch. Possible, but you'd need a very high order explosive. Because the body would act as tamping and drastically reduce both the acceleration curve as well as the ultimate velocity reached by the projectiles before they reached the necessary parts of the aircraft.
Short version long, butt bombing is not a really valid terrorist tactic unless you wanted shock value for the cleanup crew. And that it would justify the TSA using even more sexually invasive procedures.
-
You know if the airline industry was deregulated completely the trend would be to go to smaller planes flying out of more airports as providers tried to make things as convenient and pleasant as possible in order to attract more customers. Smaller planes mean fewer people on board and fewer people means that taking a plane down is not the payoff it used to be.
Imagine if providers could make a profit flying many 10-12 passenger planes instead of one 100-200 passenger plane. To take out the latter a terrorist org uses up one bomber for a terror profit of 99-199 people. but on a plane with only 10 passengers you spend one bomber to get nine victims. That's not an evil enough use of resources. The number of people willing to blow themselves up is finite as is the ability to maintain a terror network. And compromising your entire network for so few victims would be nonsensical.
Also, a smaller plane will do less damage if used as weapon like on 9/11, even assuming the hijacker can overpower the crew and passengers.
-
You think the airlines want smaller planes to make more money?! Really? What a unique business plan
-
Wow. Do you enjoy missing points? You must, given your inability to comprehend simple posts.
-
In practical terms, pretty much.
So we pretty much agree ;)
So far, some nuts have managed to sorta melt a shoe and set fire to underwear.
I'm terry-fied, I tell you :lol:
-
So we pretty much agree ;)
So far, some nuts have managed to sorta melt a shoe and set fire to underwear.
I'm terry-fied, I tell you :lol:
Without the TSA, they'd be on to combustible cravats and explosive dickies.
Why do you hate America and love explosive dickies?
-
Without the TSA, they'd be on to combustible cravats and explosive dickies.
Why do you hate America and love explosive dickies?
I thought that one guy already blue up his dickie ???
-
Here's another one:
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/04/25/family-misses-flight-after-tsa-gives-pat-down-to-girl-with-cerebral-palsy/
-
Personally, if there is a man in the world so epic and awesome he can carry a weapon up his colon, and then pull this weapon out - by definition nothing more lethal than a small... very small club - and then beat an Air Marshal (who is armed with a pistol), several pilots (with their own guns and armored cockpit door) and then hijack the plane, I say he deserves to be taken to Havana.
-
After eating airport food, I'm carrying a bomb in my colon :(
-
After eating airport food, I'm carrying a bomb in my colon :(
Did I sit next to you my last flight out of El Paso?
-
Having flown to Florida and back this last week I have a very fresh perspective on the TSA.
It is embarrassing. I am embarrassed to be an American.
The TSA folks obviously have very detailed instructions. There is obviously very little individual discretion by TSA agents allowed.
The line came to a complete stop for a dog, a wheelchair, the need to pat down a female, a supervisor needed to check the screen and then remove a bag and empty it out. All accompanied by the "you will obey my authority" type attitudes combined with the security theater of radio clicking, coded speech over the radios and more you will obey my authority behavior.
The only thing sadder were those of the public who couldn't even follow simple instructions.
I felt like I was stuck in a dystopian Monty Python skit. Sad, creepy and absurd.
-
What's this country coming to, another rightwing extremist kid clinging to her gun and her teddy bear...?
-
Without the TSA, they'd be on to combustible cravats and explosive dickies.
Why do you hate America and love explosive dickies?
As long as the right people are wearing them...
Based on current trends, it's not like they'll hurt anyone else with them anyways.
-
Having flown to Florida and back this last week I have a very fresh perspective on the TSA.
It is embarrassing. ......................
The line came to a complete stop for a dog, a wheelchair, the need to pat down a female, a supervisor needed to check the screen and then remove a bag and empty it out...............................
I felt like I was stuck in a dystopian Monty Python skit. Sad, creepy and absurd.
How did they search the dog?
Did they remove the (presumed) collar and leash?
Run it through the x-ray?
-
The dog was walked through the metal detector setting it off due to it's collar and leash.
The line came to a standstill while a supervisor came over to take control. Once he examined the creature and determined it really was a dog, the poor service critter and his owner were allowed to carry on.
The seriousness and officiousness of the actors in the security theater was over the top. More than a few folks in line were mocking them (out of earshot of course).
It was like a bad movie depiction of a WWII wartime checkpoint. Grandma's, children, vacationers and business travelers all being treated like potential jihadi enemies of the state. Of course instead of scary Nazi superhuman soldiers manning the checkpoints you have folks who you would expect to see wearing McDonald's or WalMart uniforms.
-
It was like a bad movie depiction of a WWII wartime checkpoint. Grandma's, children, vacationers and business travelers all being treated like potential jihadi enemies of the state. Of course instead of scary Nazi superhuman soldiers manning the checkpoints you have folks who you would expect to see wearing McDonald's or WalMart uniforms.
I expected them to be pissed.
"Bitte. Meine Papiere, Herr Schutzstaffel-Sturmmann. Tod an die Alliierten!"
They, perhaps unsurprisingly, didn't get it.
-
Acquiescence, powerlessness and acceptance. Nobody will take a stand. When we are at the airport we all have other places to be. It would take mass civil disobedience to get changes made. It isn't going to happen.
They've (we've) ruined commercial air travel in the USA.
-
Prior to January, I hadn't flown since before 9/11. I found the current security process smoother and less annoying than it was before the TSA was created. This was for an international flight (dulles to heathrow and back through same) and I was traveling alone. No nude-o-scope, no pat-down, nothing. I did remove my belt and shoes, but I didn't have to power up my laptop, nor did anyone take a particularly close look at my stuff.
Chris
-
Prior to January, I hadn't flown since before 9/11. I found the current security process smoother and less annoying than it was before the TSA was created. This was for an international flight (dulles to heathrow and back through same) and I was traveling alone. No nude-o-scope, no pat-down, nothing. I did remove my belt and shoes, but I didn't have to power up my laptop, nor did anyone take a particularly close look at my stuff.
Chris
Hmm, I've flown roundtrip flights three, maybe four times since 9/11. Domestic to Florida and Colorado from Chicago ORD.
This last weeks trip was by far the worst and most intrusive.
-
Prior to January, I hadn't flown since before 9/11. I found the current security process smoother and less annoying than it was before the TSA was created. This was for an international flight (dulles to heathrow and back through same) and I was traveling alone. No nude-o-scope, no pat-down, nothing. I did remove my belt and shoes, but I didn't have to power up my laptop, nor did anyone take a particularly close look at my stuff.
Chris
It varies a bit from place to place, but it is steadily getting worse.
Billings didn't used to have the porn-scopes but they just got one in the past couple months. Apparently the scanners are not as good at some things as the metal detectors, as they now require removal of my cowboy neck rag before going through the scanner. So what about a standard neck-tie ???
Also, you are not allowed to take your wallet and ID through the scanner, or else you have to hand it over for them to go through - as if you are hiding a bomb in your cash ;/
I just refused to go back to CA this week, and I'm not planning to fly anymore at all. If my company wants me on a customer site, I will just have to drive - even if it takes several days.
As far as resistance - well, we don't discuss those things here, right? ;)