PO'd Doesn't Begin to Describe It

[schufflerbot]

Now I just don't understand the part I highlighted in red. You seem to be saying the metal detectors were not a deterrent. How could this happen daily, can you explain? First day, everyone caught with a weapon is expelled from school, and those with the illegal weapons, like guns, are arrested....might be a few hold outs on the second day, but it seems like by the time the end of the week rolled around all the idiots would be gone so there wouldn't be anything to find.

what i meant was, people walk through these metal detectors on a daily basis, every time they enter the school. KNOWING these things are there and that they will have to walk through them still didn't stop the occasional idiot. no, weapons were not found daily - only occasionally. the police would actually arrest the person, then hold them until class change so they could parade them in cuffs across the commons area as an example.

OK, guess I'm missing something --these are different people being caught or the same people being caught more than once? It seems like the thinning process should just take a little longer, and there might be someone new getting caught up on occasion.

im sure there were repeat offenders, but im talking about different people. we were a 5A school so there were tons of students and the 'arrest parade' was so common place that it was a recurring topic at lunch. id estimate that at least once per week of all 4 years someone was arrested for carrying contraband into the school.

it wouldnt surprise me if it was some kind of 'medal of honor' amongst the thugs to be arrested for bringing a knife or gun to school.

[schufflerbot]

the reason she was searched is because she set off an explosives alarm. she was not randomly selected and stripped on the spot, she was taken to a private room and searched because there was reason to believe that there might be something of an explosive nature on her person.

and don't confuse 'accordingly' with 'appropriately.'

ac·cord·ing·ly Adverb/əˈkôrdiNGlē/
1. In a way that is appropriate to the particular circumstances.

If they believed she had a bomb they should have called the bomb squad and the police. If they really thought that she could have had a bomb they acted in a criminally negligent manner. Unless their rooms are blast proof (and I highly doubt that) they were putting hundreds of people lives at risk.

how do you know they aren't bomb proof?

i would think that, with all the money TSA has invested throughout the years, there are some kind of measures in place to mitigate a bomb being detonated, or the blast it would create, while the person is being searched.

everyone keeps saying it's criminally negligent to 'stick their hands down their pants' but that's a gross misrepresentation of the search and secure process. yes, there is a potential threat when someone is identified as 'carrying contraband' but i dont see how TSA could handle it any different. isolate the threat, secure it and verify if it is or isnt a threat... what would you suggest they do with a person who has just set off an alarm indicating they're carrying explosive material?

[VMI77]

I'm not understanding your logic or perspective here, i guess. the 'reality based' assumptions that the agents are basing these searches on are their equipment. the OP stated that THE ALARM WENT OFF and the agent investigated accordingly. yes, very few people have the cojones to pull something like a bomb or hostile takeover... i'd rather someone be there to thwart as much of it as possible by way of deterrence, hence the TSA.

That's certainly not what I read in his post. But even if he thought the "agent investigated accordingly" I have to disagree. You have a machine that says someone may have explosives on them the kind of search they conducted was suicidal. In fact, the entire process is a suicidal process, since it makes no provision whatsoever for the possibility that the alarm is real.

lol

read the OP again, then!

the reason she was searched is because she set off an explosives alarm. she was not randomly selected and stripped on the spot, she was taken to a private room and searched because there was reason to believe that there might be something of an explosive nature on her person.

and don't confuse 'accordingly' with 'appropriately.'

ac·cord·ing·ly Adverb/əˈkôrdiNGlē/
1. In a way that is appropriate to the particular circumstances.

Exactly. She set off an explosives alarm. How does taking her to a private room accomplish anything? If she was a suicide bomber they'd never get her to a private room, she'd simply detonate the bomb as soon as she thought she was going to get additional screening: boom, dead TSA agents and dead airline passengers.

Your dictionary citation is amusing. You say don't confuse 'accordingly' with 'appropriately' then provide a definition that says: Accordingly --in a way that is appropriate to the "particular circumstances." I repeat, using your definition: what TSA did was not appropriate to the particular circumstances --those particular circumstances being an alarm indicating that someone might be carrying a bomb. Furthermore, TSA doesn't even have a process or procedure that is appropriate to those particular circumstances.

[mamabearCali]

how many times has a security line been bombed?

one could consider that proof that the deterrence is working ;)

OR we could argue that the threat on domestic flights for bombs was never really that large anyway, as terrorists have been around for decades (centuries really) and very few are ever successful in their plots, and largely it is an international threat we face. Note the 9-11 attackers used what was legal to carry on a plane to perpetrate their attacks (not bombs)--now I have very limited sharpening skills but even I can think of things that are still legal to carry on planes that could be sharpened into a pointy object. Another 9-11 won't ever be allowed to happen because now the passengers know to fight back not acquiesce. It was our training to be sheeple for terrorists that allowed 9-11 to be as severe as it was.

and i think it's silly to ask a TSA agent to make an assessment on the spot when there are hundreds of lives on the line. to ask them to ignore a potential threat is just begging for a disaster. as i indicated in my 'what would you do?'post, i think TSA agents should be cold, unwavering and calculating in their duties. if one takes a job like that seriously, there should be NO room for human emotion.

Or human rights and dignity apparently. Why not just have everyone strip naked before they get into the airport, undergo cavity searches before boarding a plane and be handcuffed to their seats--afterall that would be keep everyone safe?

[mamabearCali]

the reason she was searched is because she set off an explosives alarm. she was not randomly selected and stripped on the spot, she was taken to a private room and searched because there was reason to believe that there might be something of an explosive nature on her person.

and don't confuse 'accordingly' with 'appropriately.'

ac·cord·ing·ly Adverb/əˈkôrdiNGlē/
1. In a way that is appropriate to the particular circumstances.

If they believed she had a bomb they should have called the bomb squad and the police. If they really thought that she could have had a bomb they acted in a criminally negligent manner. Unless their rooms are blast proof (and I highly doubt that) they were putting hundreds of people lives at risk.

how do you know they aren't bomb proof?

i would think that, with all the money TSA has invested throughout the years, there are some kind of measures in place to mitigate a bomb being detonated, or the blast it would create, while the person is being searched.

everyone keeps saying it's criminally negligent to 'stick their hands down their pants' but that's a gross misrepresentation of the search and secure process. yes, there is a potential threat when someone is identified as 'carrying contraband' but i dont see how TSA could handle it any different. isolate the threat, secure it and verify if it is or isnt a threat... what would you suggest they do with a person who has just set off an alarm indicating they're carrying explosive material?

I'd look the stroller over very carefully, and have the person wait over to the side being watched very carefully. I would not make a person take off their clothes when I had 0 reason to believe they had anything under them. Knowing the limitations of the test that I was running (and that it mistakes glycerin for something else) I would then move on with my day.

[schufflerbot]

I'm not understanding your logic or perspective here, i guess. the 'reality based' assumptions that the agents are basing these searches on are their equipment. the OP stated that THE ALARM WENT OFF and the agent investigated accordingly. yes, very few people have the cojones to pull something like a bomb or hostile takeover... i'd rather someone be there to thwart as much of it as possible by way of deterrence, hence the TSA.

That's certainly not what I read in his post. But even if he thought the "agent investigated accordingly" I have to disagree. You have a machine that says someone may have explosives on them the kind of search they conducted was suicidal. In fact, the entire process is a suicidal process, since it makes no provision whatsoever for the possibility that the alarm is real.

lol

read the OP again, then!

the reason she was searched is because she set off an explosives alarm. she was not randomly selected and stripped on the spot, she was taken to a private room and searched because there was reason to believe that there might be something of an explosive nature on her person.

and don't confuse 'accordingly' with 'appropriately.'

ac·cord·ing·ly Adverb/əˈkôrdiNGlē/
1. In a way that is appropriate to the particular circumstances.

Exactly. She set off an explosives alarm. How does taking her to a private room accomplish anything? If she was a suicide bomber they'd never get her to a private room, she'd simply detonate the bomb as soon as she thought she was going to get additional screening: boom, dead TSA agents and dead airline passengers.

Your dictionary citation is amusing. You say don't confuse 'accordingly' with 'appropriately' then provide a definition that says: Accordingly --in a way that is appropriate to the "particular circumstances." I repeat, using your definition: what TSA did was not appropriate to the particular circumstances --those particular circumstances being an alarm indicating that someone might be carrying a bomb. Furthermore, TSA doesn't even have a process or procedure that is appropriate to those particular circumstances.

and again i ask, what alternative does TSA have to isolating the potential threat? it accomplishes the same thing a bomb squad would... getting the bomb away from people or getting people away from the bomb. not sure why youre hung up on them taking her to a room and searching her. if she were a suicide bomber and just out to take out a huge crowd, there's really no stopping her in the first place, right? but if she's attempting to make a political statement by detonating a certain plane, or any plane over a certain area and needs to have the bomb on the plane, then it's a pretty good bet she's going to try to wait. moreover, if she's just out to blow up a crowd... why would a suicide bomber select an airport security terminal? why not a baseball game?

and the definition is perfect... the appropriate action after the alarm went off would be to investigate.

the OP didn't think it was appropriate, that's what i meant.

[schufflerbot]

the reason she was searched is because she set off an explosives alarm. she was not randomly selected and stripped on the spot, she was taken to a private room and searched because there was reason to believe that there might be something of an explosive nature on her person.

and don't confuse 'accordingly' with 'appropriately.'

ac·cord·ing·ly Adverb/əˈkôrdiNGlē/
1. In a way that is appropriate to the particular circumstances.

If they believed she had a bomb they should have called the bomb squad and the police. If they really thought that she could have had a bomb they acted in a criminally negligent manner. Unless their rooms are blast proof (and I highly doubt that) they were putting hundreds of people lives at risk.

how do you know they aren't bomb proof?

i would think that, with all the money TSA has invested throughout the years, there are some kind of measures in place to mitigate a bomb being detonated, or the blast it would create, while the person is being searched.

everyone keeps saying it's criminally negligent to 'stick their hands down their pants' but that's a gross misrepresentation of the search and secure process. yes, there is a potential threat when someone is identified as 'carrying contraband' but i dont see how TSA could handle it any different. isolate the threat, secure it and verify if it is or isnt a threat... what would you suggest they do with a person who has just set off an alarm indicating they're carrying explosive material?

I'd look the stroller over very carefully, and have the person wait over to the side being watched very carefully. I would not make a person take off their clothes when I had 0 reason to believe they had anything under them. Knowing the limitations of the test that I was running (and that it mistakes glycerin for something else) I would then move on with my day.

then im glad you're not a TSA agent!! lol

you're literally writing that you would want a TSA agent to look at a woman and because they think, 'nah - she probably doesn't have any explosives, even though the alarm went off' just let her get on the plane?!?

that's incredible.

[Wisewr]

Sorry about your wife, glad they left your daughter alone.

I told my wife next time I go to the airport, I'm not wearing any underwear.

We'll see who's uncomfortable then.

[schufflerbot]

I told my wife next time I go to the airport, I'm not wearing any underwear.

We'll see who's uncomfortable then.

HAHAHAHAHA now THAT'S more effective than a letter to representatives, imho.

[mamabearCali]

then im glad you're not a TSA agent!! lol

you're literally writing that you would want a TSA agent to look at a woman and because they think, 'nah - she probably doesn't have any explosives, even though the alarm went off' just let her get on the plane?!?

that's incredible.

Ummm no what I said is that they should investigate what set off the alarm (the stroller)--and then when it proved innocuous move on. As for being a TSA agent. I am glad you aren't one either as you seem to have no sense of the Bill of Rights or human dignity or the level of risk a mom with an infant is. You would force everyone to endure unbelievable assaults on their bodies and "prove" that they are not a threat before boarding a plane because there are a few crazies out there. That has much more of a place in fascists society than what is supposed to be the land of the free.

[VMI77]

i would think that, with all the money TSA has invested throughout the years, there are some kind of measures in place to mitigate a bomb being detonated, or the blast it would create, while the person is being searched.

Well, I've never seen any in any airport I've ever been to. There is a line full of people waiting to pass through screening and no blast protection of any kind. You're not seriously trying to contend that the hypothetical terrorist is going to wait to detonate themselves until the TSA has walked them to some kind of private room, are you? Seriously? The INSTANT any such suicide bomber thinks they've been detected they'll set themselves off --right there where the TSA agents are and the passengers are lined up for screening. In fact, smart terrorists might put a bomber at the front and the middle or back of the line too, rigged to set off both bombs if either one is detected.

everyone keeps saying it's criminally negligent to 'stick their hands down their pants' but that's a gross misrepresentation of the search and secure process. yes, there is a potential threat when someone is identified as 'carrying contraband' but i dont see how TSA could handle it any different. isolate the threat, secure it and verify if it is or isnt a threat... what would you suggest they do with a person who has just set off an alarm indicating they're carrying explosive material?

Well, not everyone. However, you seem to be deliberately trying to muddy the water when you use the word "contraband." We're not talking about someone packing cocaine, we're talking about explosives. Current TSA actions can isolate the threat of cocaine but they do nothing for the threat of suicide bombers.

How do you handle someone if they've really got a bomb? You isolate those waiting from those being screened and the screeners. There are a variety of ways to do this, but of course, for it to really work, you'd have screen people before they congregate inside the airport....in other words, through multiple outside access points because the system you use has to be designed to minimize causalities --there's not so much point in a suicide bombing that kills one or two people. But really, in the end, all you can do is deflect attacks to softer targets. The thing is, there are plenty of soft targets in this country and no attacks. The threat is greatly over-hyped.

[VMI77]

the reason she was searched is because she set off an explosives alarm. she was not randomly selected and stripped on the spot, she was taken to a private room and searched because there was reason to believe that there might be something of an explosive nature on her person.

and don't confuse 'accordingly' with 'appropriately.'

ac·cord·ing·ly Adverb/əˈkôrdiNGlē/
1. In a way that is appropriate to the particular circumstances.

If they believed she had a bomb they should have called the bomb squad and the police. If they really thought that she could have had a bomb they acted in a criminally negligent manner. Unless their rooms are blast proof (and I highly doubt that) they were putting hundreds of people lives at risk.

how do you know they aren't bomb proof?

i would think that, with all the money TSA has invested throughout the years, there are some kind of measures in place to mitigate a bomb being detonated, or the blast it would create, while the person is being searched.

everyone keeps saying it's criminally negligent to 'stick their hands down their pants' but that's a gross misrepresentation of the search and secure process. yes, there is a potential threat when someone is identified as 'carrying contraband' but i dont see how TSA could handle it any different. isolate the threat, secure it and verify if it is or isnt a threat... what would you suggest they do with a person who has just set off an alarm indicating they're carrying explosive material?

I'd look the stroller over very carefully, and have the person wait over to the side being watched very carefully. I would not make a person take off their clothes when I had 0 reason to believe they had anything under them. Knowing the limitations of the test that I was running (and that it mistakes glycerin for something else) I would then move on with my day.

then im glad you're not a TSA agent!! lol

you're literally writing that you would want a TSA agent to look at a woman and because they think, 'nah - she probably doesn't have any explosives, even though the alarm went off' just let her get on the plane?!?

that's incredible.

And you want them to go, she may have explosives, so let's cause her to set them off and kill all us TSA agents and any of the passengers that are in the blast radius waiting to be screened. The fact is, American moms aren't rigging their babies with explosives, and out of all these alarms that have triggered these intrusive searches, not a single mom, granny, or baby has been found rigged with a bomb. If it makes you feel better to believe that the TSA is making you safe by searching mom's, babies, and grannies for bombs, then by all means, take that comfort where you can get it. However, your desire to believe is not going to stop an actual terrorist from killing people. I'm more in tune with our Founders, like Franklin, who said: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[VMI77]

I'm not understanding your logic or perspective here, i guess. the 'reality based' assumptions that the agents are basing these searches on are their equipment. the OP stated that THE ALARM WENT OFF and the agent investigated accordingly. yes, very few people have the cojones to pull something like a bomb or hostile takeover... i'd rather someone be there to thwart as much of it as possible by way of deterrence, hence the TSA.

That's certainly not what I read in his post. But even if he thought the "agent investigated accordingly" I have to disagree. You have a machine that says someone may have explosives on them the kind of search they conducted was suicidal. In fact, the entire process is a suicidal process, since it makes no provision whatsoever for the possibility that the alarm is real.

lol

read the OP again, then!

the reason she was searched is because she set off an explosives alarm. she was not randomly selected and stripped on the spot, she was taken to a private room and searched because there was reason to believe that there might be something of an explosive nature on her person.

and don't confuse 'accordingly' with 'appropriately.'

ac·cord·ing·ly Adverb/əˈkôrdiNGlē/
1. In a way that is appropriate to the particular circumstances.

Exactly. She set off an explosives alarm. How does taking her to a private room accomplish anything? If she was a suicide bomber they'd never get her to a private room, she'd simply detonate the bomb as soon as she thought she was going to get additional screening: boom, dead TSA agents and dead airline passengers.

Your dictionary citation is amusing. You say don't confuse 'accordingly' with 'appropriately' then provide a definition that says: Accordingly --in a way that is appropriate to the "particular circumstances." I repeat, using your definition: what TSA did was not appropriate to the particular circumstances --those particular circumstances being an alarm indicating that someone might be carrying a bomb. Furthermore, TSA doesn't even have a process or procedure that is appropriate to those particular circumstances.

and again i ask, what alternative does TSA have to isolating the potential threat? it accomplishes the same thing a bomb squad would... getting the bomb away from people or getting people away from the bomb. not sure why youre hung up on them taking her to a room and searching her. if she were a suicide bomber and just out to take out a huge crowd, there's really no stopping her in the first place, right? but if she's attempting to make a political statement by detonating a certain plane, or any plane over a certain area and needs to have the bomb on the plane, then it's a pretty good bet she's going to try to wait. moreover, if she's just out to blow up a crowd... why would a suicide bomber select an airport security terminal? why not a baseball game?

and the definition is perfect... the appropriate action after the alarm went off would be to investigate.

the OP didn't think it was appropriate, that's what i meant.

You are desperate to believe things that have no basis is reality. Where is TSA isolating any threat? And she's gonna wait? For what --her new prison cell? I'm hung up on the room? YOU'RE the one who was talking about taking people to a private room to be searched. You're a Jihadist, a suicide bomber that intends to kill yourself in a bomb blast, but because your plan didn't work out exactly like you wanted, you're just going to let TSA detain you, take your bomb, and put you in prison for the rest of your life? You seriously believe this? You seriously can't tell the difference between setting out to blow up a specific plane and then settling for whoever you can take out in the airport when you get caught?

OK, you win, I give up.

[mamabearCali]

You know we do have places in this country where searches like this one are routine and customary. Where saftey and security is observed first and foremost. They are called prisons. And they are for felons and people who have proven to be irresponsible and criminal. They are stripped of their civil rights. I, as a law abiding american, choose to be a little less safe and much more free. If I have to choose between saftey and freedom I choose freedom. So did all those that came to our country from around the globe.

[schufflerbot]

You are desperate to believe things that have no basis is reality. Where is TSA isolating any threat? And she's gonna wait? For what --her new prison cell? I'm hung up on the room? YOU'RE the one who was talking about taking people to a private room to be searched. You're a Jihadist, a suicide bomber that intends to kill yourself in a bomb blast, but because your plan didn't work out exactly like you wanted, you're just going to let TSA detain you, take your bomb, and put you in prison for the rest of your life? You seriously believe this? You seriously can't tell the difference between setting out to blow up a specific plane and then settling for whoever you can take out in the airport when you get caught?

OK, you win, I give up.

lol what?

what that statement meant: if a terrorist has a specific plane they want to destroy - i'd bet they, when given a choice between a crowd at the airport and the plane itself in the air, would choose to take out their original target.

don't make assumptions about what i do or do not believe, this thread has turned into me playing the role of devil's advocate which i have stated several times.

don't make it personal, i'm just indulging the masses while the work day drudges on.