7 ms·

Disabled teen sues TSA, Memphis airport after bloody scuffle

45 points by jackgavigan 10y ago

2close4comfort 10y ago
So what has the TSA actually found/done since its creation that would be considered beneficial? Anything?
- ghostDancer 10y ago
  Someone has made a lot of money. Some of the money that goes in funding it gets in someone pockets. And also helps to spread the sense of fear and urgency that helps pass laws.
- Zikes 10y ago
  Whatever good they've done, it does not outweigh the bad.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  Create jobs?
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    Has to be proven, additional taxation for the TSA might of net loss for jobs.
- VLM 10y ago
  Create massive distrust of the government. Note you didn't specify or limit who benefits.
- lojack 10y ago
  Well there hasn't been a major attack on the US transportation systems since it was created. It's hard to say if this is a direct result of the TSA, but I'd also hesitate to say that they failed their mission.
  - WillKirkby 10y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw
  - bhickey 10y ago
    I bought tiger repellant from a door-to-door salesman. No tiger attacks to date.
    - lojack 10y ago
      To that I'd say it could be a good purchase if you had a tiger problem before buying it.
      - filoeleven 10y ago
        One anamolous attack does not a tiger problem make.
        lojack 10y ago
        I think this is where some people may disagree
        basseq 10y ago
        If the chance of a tiger attack is 0.1%, and I sell you tiger repellent that's 99% effective, how good is the tiger repellent?
    - nkrisc 10y ago
      If you are attacked by a tiger be sure to buy more repellent.
  - eric_h 10y ago
    Not to beat a dead horse, but I think it's fairly certain that reinforced cockpit doors and accompanying procedures made using an airplane as a missile very unlikely to be feasible anymore.
- tempodox 10y ago
  The TSA's creation was ill-advised in the first place, and in my book it's only gotten worse from there. Wasting tax payer money to the detriment of everyone involved is obviously good business.
throwaway049 10y ago
From the article: "our bags had gone to Chattanooga" After all that, they dropped the ball on the sensible security measure of never allowing bags to fly without their owners.
- throwawayReply 10y ago
  That measure isn't very effective against people who are willing to include themselves in any explosion. That's not to say it isn't effective against more traditional threats such as Pan-Am 103 after which those measures were introduced.
- CPLX 10y ago
  That's not actually a security measure any more. Bags fly without owners all the time, for example when you check in late and the bag misses your flight and gets on the next one. The prevalence of suicide attacks made the idea of bag matching as a way to prevent bombings somewhat obsolete. They still do remove bags from the flight if you miss it, ostensibly for this reason, but at least in theory they solve the problem of explosives in bags by scanning and searching checked luggage as well, which they didn't used to do in the old days.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    They do but they are also separately inspected. The normal SOP even for the shoddy US airline security is when a passenger with checked in luggage doesn't board the flight the aircraft is to be deboarded and the luggage searched. This is twice true when the passenger has been taken out of the flight by airport security even tho in this case it was utter stupidity and abuse.
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
Since the U.S. really doesn't have a terrorism problem the TSA, for the most part, has absolutely nothing to do except get themselves into conflicts with people. They're like paid bullies. The problem with terrorism in the U.S. isn't that there are actual terrorists[0], but that there is a crapton of money to be made making the American people feel unsafe. [0] Sure, there's an attack on occasion. But you're more likely to die choking on a soda watching GoT.
- nojvek 10y ago
  This. One one hand the gun makers will go to extreme lengths to lobby selling more guns. On the other hand TSA and friends will go to extreme lengths to make people feel unsafe. The system is broken. It's like throwing sand in the air to cover the sun.
- Smushman 10y ago
  Well stated. As long as there is money to be made and jobs to be had, our elected officials will continue to look the other way when it comes to incidents like this. Security theatre was job one behind the creation of the TSA; job two was a huge employment drive for the people under the auspice of a benevolent organization. Since these two drivers are so deeply embedded in the duties that government understands as its primary mandates, there is no way they can see any faults in the system. Also, consider what would happen if we eliminated the TSA TSA has 62,000 employees and an annual budget in 2013 of $7.9 billion [http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/homeland-security/tsa http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/homeland-security/tsa] Laying off 62,000 people from the government payroll and eliminating $8 billion in funding would constitute a significant hit on the economy, and practically guarantees you won't be re-elected.
  - basseq 10y ago
    The economic impacts plus the cover-your-ass excuse in the event of a terrorist attack makes eliminating the TSA political suicide. Which drives me crazy because it's the right move. The TSA does not protect the U.S. and the government is not a jobs program. You could give everyone at the TSA a $50k severance package and still recoup $4B. But the moment something happens, all the fingers are pointed your way. Wrongfully, of course, but human beings are bad at weighing risk and hindsight is 20/20.
whamlastxmas 10y ago
This is a pretty one-sided story. I dislike the TSA as much as anyone, but I doubt the employees are intentionally harming some disabled young lady. From what I can tell, she tried running away, they tried to stop her, and she fell to the ground hitting her head. It's unfortunate, and ultimately the TSA needs to be more accommodating of allowing guardians accompanying their dependents to help prevent these issues. But this is a non-story really.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  From what I can tell, she tried running away, they tried to stop her, and she fell to the ground hitting her head. No, she didn't just "fall", apparently. The article clearly implies that they forced her to the ground: She's trying to get away from them but in the next instant, one of them had her down on the ground and hit her head on the floor. There was blood everywhere," Shirley Cohen told WREG-TV. The language of the lawsuit concurs (in its use of the term "assault"). I assume you're not suspecting that they would use that term frivolously. But this is a non-story really. Very sadly, it isn't. The actions of the TSA employees most like weren't "intentional" in the sense that it wasn't like they specifically planned to take the course of action that they did. But the bigger fact remains that these people are (1) obviously inadequately trained in dealing with people with disabilities, (2) not only lacking in empathy, but -- again, by training -- apparently in "attack mode", or always on the verge of it.
  - pc86 10y ago
    I'm not pretending I have the facts of what happened, but your rebuttal to "From what I can tell, she tried running away, they tried to stop her, and she fell to the ground hitting her head." is a quote of the person suing the TSA. Not an unbiased source in the slightest. Presumably there are multiple angles of security footage to show exactly what happened.
    - kafkaesq 10y ago
      Your rebuttal... is a quote of the person suing the TSA. It was offered as a counterpoint to "she fell to the ground". Which was pure speculation, suggested by someone who wasn't even there.
aminorex 10y ago
She was attacked by a cop. Happens all the time. The only reason it was news is that she was a sympathetic victim. A healthy black man? Forget about it.
- pc86 10y ago
  TSA agents are not police officers, despite what they may tell you. There is no reason to bring racial nonsense into this.

45 points by jackgavigan 10y ago

2close4comfort 10y ago

So what has the TSA actually found/done since its creation that would be considered beneficial? Anything?

ghostDancer 10y ago
Someone has made a lot of money. Some of the money that goes in funding it gets in someone pockets. And also helps to spread the sense of fear and urgency that helps pass laws.
Zikes 10y ago
Whatever good they've done, it does not outweigh the bad.
TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
Create jobs?
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  Has to be proven, additional taxation for the TSA might of net loss for jobs.
VLM 10y ago
Create massive distrust of the government. Note you didn't specify or limit who benefits.
lojack 10y ago
Well there hasn't been a major attack on the US transportation systems since it was created. It's hard to say if this is a direct result of the TSA, but I'd also hesitate to say that they failed their mission.
- WillKirkby 10y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw
- bhickey 10y ago
  I bought tiger repellant from a door-to-door salesman. No tiger attacks to date.
  - lojack 10y ago
    To that I'd say it could be a good purchase if you had a tiger problem before buying it.
    - filoeleven 10y ago
      One anamolous attack does not a tiger problem make.
      - lojack 10y ago
        I think this is where some people may disagree
        basseq 10y ago
        If the chance of a tiger attack is 0.1%, and I sell you tiger repellent that's 99% effective, how good is the tiger repellent?
  - nkrisc 10y ago
    If you are attacked by a tiger be sure to buy more repellent.
- eric_h 10y ago
  Not to beat a dead horse, but I think it's fairly certain that reinforced cockpit doors and accompanying procedures made using an airplane as a missile very unlikely to be feasible anymore.
tempodox 10y ago
The TSA's creation was ill-advised in the first place, and in my book it's only gotten worse from there. Wasting tax payer money to the detriment of everyone involved is obviously good business.

throwaway049 10y ago

From the article: "our bags had gone to Chattanooga" After all that, they dropped the ball on the sensible security measure of never allowing bags to fly without their owners.

throwawayReply 10y ago
That measure isn't very effective against people who are willing to include themselves in any explosion. That's not to say it isn't effective against more traditional threats such as Pan-Am 103 after which those measures were introduced.
CPLX 10y ago
That's not actually a security measure any more. Bags fly without owners all the time, for example when you check in late and the bag misses your flight and gets on the next one. The prevalence of suicide attacks made the idea of bag matching as a way to prevent bombings somewhat obsolete. They still do remove bags from the flight if you miss it, ostensibly for this reason, but at least in theory they solve the problem of explosives in bags by scanning and searching checked luggage as well, which they didn't used to do in the old days.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  They do but they are also separately inspected. The normal SOP even for the shoddy US airline security is when a passenger with checked in luggage doesn't board the flight the aircraft is to be deboarded and the luggage searched. This is twice true when the passenger has been taken out of the flight by airport security even tho in this case it was utter stupidity and abuse.

JustSomeNobody 10y ago

Since the U.S. really doesn't have a terrorism problem the TSA, for the most part, has absolutely nothing to do except get themselves into conflicts with people. They're like paid bullies. The problem with terrorism in the U.S. isn't that there are actual terrorists[0], but that there is a crapton of money to be made making the American people feel unsafe. [0] Sure, there's an attack on occasion. But you're more likely to die choking on a soda watching GoT.

nojvek 10y ago
This. One one hand the gun makers will go to extreme lengths to lobby selling more guns. On the other hand TSA and friends will go to extreme lengths to make people feel unsafe. The system is broken. It's like throwing sand in the air to cover the sun.
Smushman 10y ago
Well stated. As long as there is money to be made and jobs to be had, our elected officials will continue to look the other way when it comes to incidents like this. Security theatre was job one behind the creation of the TSA; job two was a huge employment drive for the people under the auspice of a benevolent organization. Since these two drivers are so deeply embedded in the duties that government understands as its primary mandates, there is no way they can see any faults in the system. Also, consider what would happen if we eliminated the TSA TSA has 62,000 employees and an annual budget in 2013 of $7.9 billion [http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/homeland-security/tsa http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/homeland-security/tsa] Laying off 62,000 people from the government payroll and eliminating $8 billion in funding would constitute a significant hit on the economy, and practically guarantees you won't be re-elected.
- basseq 10y ago
  The economic impacts plus the cover-your-ass excuse in the event of a terrorist attack makes eliminating the TSA political suicide. Which drives me crazy because it's the right move. The TSA does not protect the U.S. and the government is not a jobs program. You could give everyone at the TSA a $50k severance package and still recoup $4B. But the moment something happens, all the fingers are pointed your way. Wrongfully, of course, but human beings are bad at weighing risk and hindsight is 20/20.

whamlastxmas 10y ago

This is a pretty one-sided story. I dislike the TSA as much as anyone, but I doubt the employees are intentionally harming some disabled young lady. From what I can tell, she tried running away, they tried to stop her, and she fell to the ground hitting her head. It's unfortunate, and ultimately the TSA needs to be more accommodating of allowing guardians accompanying their dependents to help prevent these issues. But this is a non-story really.

kafkaesq 10y ago
From what I can tell, she tried running away, they tried to stop her, and she fell to the ground hitting her head. No, she didn't just "fall", apparently. The article clearly implies that they forced her to the ground: She's trying to get away from them but in the next instant, one of them had her down on the ground and hit her head on the floor. There was blood everywhere," Shirley Cohen told WREG-TV. The language of the lawsuit concurs (in its use of the term "assault"). I assume you're not suspecting that they would use that term frivolously. But this is a non-story really. Very sadly, it isn't. The actions of the TSA employees most like weren't "intentional" in the sense that it wasn't like they specifically planned to take the course of action that they did. But the bigger fact remains that these people are (1) obviously inadequately trained in dealing with people with disabilities, (2) not only lacking in empathy, but -- again, by training -- apparently in "attack mode", or always on the verge of it.
- pc86 10y ago
  I'm not pretending I have the facts of what happened, but your rebuttal to "From what I can tell, she tried running away, they tried to stop her, and she fell to the ground hitting her head." is a quote of the person suing the TSA. Not an unbiased source in the slightest. Presumably there are multiple angles of security footage to show exactly what happened.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    Your rebuttal... is a quote of the person suing the TSA. It was offered as a counterpoint to "she fell to the ground". Which was pure speculation, suggested by someone who wasn't even there.

aminorex 10y ago

She was attacked by a cop. Happens all the time. The only reason it was news is that she was a sympathetic victim. A healthy black man? Forget about it.

pc86 10y ago
TSA agents are not police officers, despite what they may tell you. There is no reason to bring racial nonsense into this.