TSA Detains Woman Due to 'Attitude'

[fatbuckRTO]

TSA Detains Woman Due to 'Attitude'

By Genevieve Shaw Brown | ABC News Blogs – 23 hours ago


A woman who claims the Transportation Security Administration detained her from her flight because the agent didn't like her attitude has posted a video of the confrontation on YouTube.
The 22-second video has 45,000 views as of Monday morning. It is posted under the name AirportVideoofTSA. The person who uploaded the video writes, "I was not allowed to board a plane (even though I had already been through airport security) because I drank my water instead of letting the TSA "test" it. The TSA agent finally admitted that it wasn't because they thought I was a security risk-it was because the TSA agent, Louis Godeaux, was mad at me!"

Though the audio is garbled, the exchange goes like this:

Woman: Do you think I'm honestly a threat? Do you think that?

TSA agent: No, no, no but with your attitude . . .

Woman: Wait, let me get this straight, this is retaliatory for my attitude? This is not making the airways safer, this is retaliatory.

TSA agent: Pretty much, yes. [Inaudible]

Woman: Is that legal?

TSA agent: Yes it is.

ABC News contacted the TSA which said, "In our initial review, we concluded that this individual was screened in accordance with standard procedures."

Though TSA has been testing liquid post-security since 2007, the issue made news last week when a video was posted of TSA agents testing passengers' liquids the airport in Columbus, Ohio.

"The test involves a test strip and a dropper containing a nontoxic solution. In case you're wondering, our officers don't place the test strips in your beverages/liquids," said the TSA's blog.

The incident took place at the Houston airport. The poster said she got out on the next flight. Attempts to contact the person who posted the video were unsuccessful.



http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs...ws-travel.html

[fatbuckRTO]

Any candidate that pledges to dismantle TSA gets my vote. No other questions asked.

[Homeslice]

One would have to ask why the video is so short though. Did she leave off parts to make it more favorable for her?

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

One would have to ask why the video is so short though. Did she leave off parts to make it more favorable for her?

I wondered the same thing but, honestly, the comment about detaining someone as retaliation for attitude should probably get the guy fired.

[OneSickPsycho]

But... but... they keep us safe...

[OneSickPsycho]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

Any candidate that pledges to dismantle TSA gets my vote. No other questions asked.

The closest thing you get this cycle is Gary Johnson

Originally Posted by GJ Campaign Site

The TSA should take a risk-based approach to airport security. Only high-risk individuals should be subjected to invasive pat-downs and full-body scans.
The TSA should not have a monopoly on airport security. Airports and airlines should be encouraged to seek the most effective methods for screening travelers, including private sector screeners. Screeners outside of government can be held fully accountable for their successes and failures.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I wondered the same thing but, honestly, the comment about detaining someone as retaliation for attitude should probably get the guy fired.

I've been in situations where if someone's asking a loaded question, I go to the extreme and say "Yeah you're right" which is kind of what he did, but then he tried to follow up by saying "To a certain extent..."

What he should have said is, "It may seem retaliatory but if a person like yourself refuses to obey a request, it raises suspicion and we feel compelled to investigate. The reason we test liquids is to protect passengers from being exposed to hazardous substances. You ingesting the liquid does not necessarily prevent such exposure."

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

I've been in situations where if someone's asking a loaded question, I go to the extreme and say "Yeah you're right" which is kind of what he did, but then he tried to follow up by saying "To a certain extent..."

What he should have said is, "It may seem retaliatory but if a person like yourself refuses to obey a request, it raises suspicion and we feel compelled to investigate. The reason we test liquids is to protect passengers from being exposed to hazardous substances. You ingesting the liquid does not necessarily prevent such exposure."

When you're dealing with the public, that's exactly the wrong thing to do. If you can't keep your composure then step out, and let another person deal with the situation. When you're that much in the public eye, you can't afford to lose your cool. If you're the sort of person who does, then you need to find another line of work.

[fasternyou929]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

What he should have said is, "It may seem retaliatory but if a person like yourself refuses to obey a request, it raises suspicion and we feel compelled to investigate. The reason we test liquids is to protect passengers from being exposed to hazardous substances. You ingesting the liquid does not necessarily prevent such exposure."

Have you ever dealt with a TSA employee? Most of them should consider themselves lucky if they can get through a shift without drooling on their shirt.

[azoomm]

Originally Posted by fasternyou929

Have you ever dealt with a TSA employee? Most of them should consider themselves lucky if they can get through a shift without drooling on their shirt.

Or, your shirt.

They scratched the visor on my new Schuberth helmet because the jerk wanted to play with it.