snopes.com  


Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Social Studies

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 22 February 2013, 01:21 AM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,534
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Other then upsetting the girl what objectively did the TSA do wrong that's is big enough of a deal to be newsworthy.
They lied and they did not follow their own procedures. Perhaps you are comfortable with people in authority doing things like that but many others are not.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 22 February 2013, 01:23 AM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avril View Post
Whether these parents are right or wrong, I think the criticism of the TSA has at least as much to do with how people more generally feel about the TSA as anything else.
This. The TSA has a crappy job. They have to prevent another 9/11 without offending anyone. This seems to amount to "search everybody but me and mine". There is no winning for the TSA. Either they offend people who 'could not possibly' be terrorists, or they allow someone through who should have been thoroughly searched. I would not be a TSA agent for any amount of money.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 22 February 2013, 01:26 AM
Sylvanz's Avatar
Sylvanz Sylvanz is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Other then upsetting the girl what objectively did the TSA do wrong that's is big enough of a deal to be newsworthy?

Literally this is all I've seen. The TSA agents were evil because the little girl... was crying. That's it. The only objectively wrong thing is the false statement about filming a patdown, but it's pretty obvious this was already an issue before that.

Okay so the TSA "apologized" and "admitted they did wrong." Of course they did. What else where they going to do? Try to go on the offensive against the poor disabled child? Actually argue that the parents of a disabled child where somehow being unreasonable? Yeah that would end well for them. Next they could go on the internet and argue against cats and bacon.

They rolled over and genuflected because that is literally the only PR option they have that isn't suicidal.
Why yes. Poor widdo TSA so picked on. I've seen them defend themselves in the past, and agreed with them when they were in the right. That doesn't mean that I will reflexively support them at every turn. You sound like a conspiracy theorist. "They apologized? Ah ha! That just proves that they are INNOCENT!!!111!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 22 February 2013, 01:29 AM
JoeBentley's Avatar
JoeBentley JoeBentley is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 21,798
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylvanz View Post
Why yes. Poor widdo TSA so picked on.
Not so much picked on as placed in a situation they cannot possibly win.

Quote:
I've seen them defend themselves in the past, and agreed with them when they were in the right.
And I'm saying from a public relations standpoint there is no "in the right" when the other side is a crying disabled little girl.

Quote:
That doesn't mean that I will reflexively support them at every turn. You sound like a conspiracy theorist. "They apologized? Ah ha! That just proves that they are INNOCENT!!!111!!!"
*Shrugs* I'm just saying the image of the crying little girl is the kind of thing that the big bad faceless government meanies can't defend themselves against without looking worse.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 22 February 2013, 01:32 AM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Gloucester, ON
Posts: 6,943
Baseball

Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderwoman View Post
So, you are saying that any deviation from policy is the same as a brutal beating?
Not at all.

Just talking principle.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 22 February 2013, 01:32 AM
Sylvanz's Avatar
Sylvanz Sylvanz is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,368
Default

I don't wish to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that anytime there is a child involved (cute disabled or otherwise) that the TSA cannot ever be wrong? Can the TSA do anything to a child or parents of a child that would earn your disapproval or would you just assume since it's a cute kid it's all a set up?
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 22 February 2013, 01:35 AM
JoeBentley's Avatar
JoeBentley JoeBentley is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 21,798
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylvanz View Post
I don't wish to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that anytime there is a child involved (cute disabled or otherwise) that the TSA cannot ever be wrong?
I'm saying that they can never be seen as being in the right by the general public. I'm saying "OMG lookit the little girl in the wheelchair she's crying why are they being so mean?" is a pretty big emotional trump card that probably isn't the worth the effort of trying to fight, rather or not you are right to do so or not.

Quote:
Can the TSA do anything to a child or parents of a child that would earn your disapproval or would you just assume since it's a cute kid it's all a set up?
I never said anything about a setup. I have no clue as to the motivations of the parents in this case. They were concerned for their child and that is 100% understable.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 22 February 2013, 01:36 AM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,359
Default

The video in the linked article does not show the TSA lying to the parents. Nor does it show whether the TSA asked the parents about how to approach the child. The only quote from the linked article about TSA policy that I can find says:

Quote:
Citing information found on the TSA website, the New York Daily News noted that it is part of TSA policy to pat down passengers who use wheelchairs and to check their wheelchairs. However, the website also notes that "parents or guardians may offer suggestions on the best way to approach and screen" children with disabilities.
Does anyone have another link that shows the TSA lying to the parents or explicitly rejecting suggestions on the best way to approach the child? I can't search for one at that moment.

ETA: Failing that, does anyone have a link to TSA policy that was otherwise violated?
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 22 February 2013, 01:36 AM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Gloucester, ON
Posts: 6,943
Baseball

Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderwoman View Post
This. The TSA has a crappy job. They have to prevent another 9/11 without offending anyone. This seems to amount to "search everybody but me and mine". There is no winning for the TSA. Either they offend people who 'could not possibly' be terrorists, or they allow someone through who should have been thoroughly searched. I would not be a TSA agent for any amount of money.
If these specific people followed their own policies laid out by their own organisation, I would agree with you fully. In fact, I agree with you except what I have highlighted in blue.

In this case, where they violated policy, and their own organisation admits to it, I won't offer sympathy for these agents.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 22 February 2013, 01:37 AM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,534
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post


*Shrugs* I'm just saying the image of the crying little girl is the kind of thing that the big bad faceless government meanies can't defend themselves against without looking worse.
You might have a point if the TSA agents had been following the correct procedures and the TSA apologized anyway. Since that's not actually what happened I don't think it matters that the victim of their ineptness happened to be a "crying little girl". The agents were wrong and the TSA owned up to that. Not seeing why the TSA can't get a little credit here for doing that instead of ignoring the whole situation.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 22 February 2013, 01:38 AM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylvanz View Post
I don't wish to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that anytime there is a child involved (cute disabled or otherwise) that the TSA cannot ever be wrong? Can the TSA do anything to a child or parents of a child that would earn your disapproval or would you just assume since it's a cute kid it's all a set up?
Conversely, do you think that the TSA should forgo searching any child who is in a wheelchair?
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 22 February 2013, 01:42 AM
JoeBentley's Avatar
JoeBentley JoeBentley is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 21,798
Default

Okay can anyone here seriously and honestly argue that regardless of any objective fact in this situation the emotional scale is not heavily, heavily favoring one side?

That's all I'm saying.

ETA: Or look at it this way. Let's say you are in an honest disagreement with someone about how a situtation turned out. Let's even say you could have handled the situtation better and admit that you did certain things wrong. Would "Adorable disabled child" be your first choice for the other side you had to be judged against?

Last edited by JoeBentley; 22 February 2013 at 01:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 22 February 2013, 01:50 AM
Sylvanz's Avatar
Sylvanz Sylvanz is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderwoman View Post
Conversely, do you think that the TSA should forgo searching any child who is in a wheelchair?
No, I don't, and more importantly neither did the oh so odious parents in the OP. I have not walked a mile in their shoes, and I will give them the benefit of the doubt because they are not the ones who violated their own professional standards of conduct.

This story, UEL's story, and others make me very uncomfortable with the amount of power these people are handed virtually unsupervised. I am in support of the government being held responsible for security on airlines, that has always seemed to be a no brainer for me. However, there needs to be accountability, proper procedures, oversight, etc. etc. basically all the things everyone in every other profession private or government sector have to submit to. I have zero problems with them searching babies, children (cute or ugly), little old ladies, amputees, quadriplegia, business men/women or people of any race color etc. etc. However, there need to be rules and they need to follow them...all of them.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 22 February 2013, 01:54 AM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,359
Default

Okay, I was finally able to search and found a longer video. Except for one TSA agent, who undoubtably was trying to avoid finding herself a pariah on youtube and therefore lied and said it was illegal to tape her, I did not see any TSA agents being unprofessional or violating policy. Here is the video I watched. Can anybody point out to me any violation of policy that I missed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbDIWiE0E38

Oh, and the titling and captions aren't inflammatory at all!
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 22 February 2013, 01:56 AM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,534
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderwoman View Post
Okay, I was finally able to search and found a longer video. Except for one TSA agent, who undoubtably was trying to avoid finding herself a pariah on youtube and therefore lied and said it was illegal to tape her, I did not see any TSA agents being unprofessional or violating policy. Here is the video I watched. Can anybody point out to me any violation of policy that I missed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbDIWiE0E38

Oh, and the titling and captions aren't inflammatory at all!
So the TSA apologized as a PR move?
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 22 February 2013, 01:58 AM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue View Post
So the TSA apologized as a PR move?
One of the TSA agents said it was illegal to tape her. What other violation of policy took place?
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 22 February 2013, 01:58 AM
JoeBentley's Avatar
JoeBentley JoeBentley is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 21,798
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue View Post
So the TSA apologized as a PR move?
It would not surprise me. PR is all about appearance, not who is objectively right.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 22 February 2013, 02:00 AM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,534
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
It would not surprise me. PR is all about appearance, not who is objectively right.
And here I was giving them credit for owning up to their mistakes. Oh well.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 22 February 2013, 02:03 AM
Sylvanz's Avatar
Sylvanz Sylvanz is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
It would not surprise me. PR is all about appearance, not who is objectively right.
Then I would wager they all ought to be fired and replaced by people who can do the job properly. All the way from the top personel all the way down. And one person lied? No one corrected her? Well, that's different. It's perfectly fine to lie about your job and cover up for the liar especially when you are part of the public trust.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 22 February 2013, 02:04 AM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylvanz View Post
Then I would wager they all ought to be fired and replaced by people who can do the job properly. All the way from the top personel all the way down. And one person lied? No one corrected her? Well, that's different. It's perfectly fine to lie about your job and cover up for the liar especially when you are part of the public trust.
Are you certain she did not get disciplined or even lose her job? I suppose we will find out in the next few news cycles, but my guess is she's already gone. What do you think the others did that warrants firing?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lantana man allegedly sold over 40 gallons of moonshine to state agents Graham2001 Police Blotter 7 13 January 2013 05:29 PM
Smoking TSA Agents Jenn Fauxtography 9 02 July 2011 02:08 AM
Julia Child snopes Entertainment 1 31 May 2009 07:12 PM
East China police detain 60 people for spreading rumors, threats snopes Horrors 0 25 August 2007 06:49 PM
Civilian child vs. Military child Auntie Witch Glurge Gallery 23 03 April 2007 04:47 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.