3 ms·

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

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.
    - pc86 10y ago
      My only point was that the rebuttal is a quote from someone who will make a quick $100k if her account is taken at face value. And even with a less pessimistic view of human nature, she's very closely emotionally involved, so even if her daughter just fell she might believe she was tackled.
      - kafkaesq 10y ago
        By Occam's razor, though, most likely things went down (as it were) pretty much the way her mother said they did. (You can default to the belief that she's just out for quick buck, and/or too emotionally fragile to make heads or tails of what actually happened, if you want to; but -- again, knowing the TSA, and their widely documented proclivity for callous and indefensible stunts like these -- I don't find either of those scenarios especially likely).
SN76477 10y ago
It seems that the TSA escalated the situation.
nojvek 10y ago
Mum did say the girl was disabled. The machines affected the thinking capability. Also putting her in jail after bleeding. WTF! TSA is one of my least favorite experiences.

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.
  - pc86 10y ago
    My only point was that the rebuttal is a quote from someone who will make a quick $100k if her account is taken at face value. And even with a less pessimistic view of human nature, she's very closely emotionally involved, so even if her daughter just fell she might believe she was tackled.
    - kafkaesq 10y ago
      By Occam's razor, though, most likely things went down (as it were) pretty much the way her mother said they did. (You can default to the belief that she's just out for quick buck, and/or too emotionally fragile to make heads or tails of what actually happened, if you want to; but -- again, knowing the TSA, and their widely documented proclivity for callous and indefensible stunts like these -- I don't find either of those scenarios especially likely).

SN76477 10y ago

It seems that the TSA escalated the situation.

nojvek 10y ago

Mum did say the girl was disabled. The machines affected the thinking capability. Also putting her in jail after bleeding. WTF! TSA is one of my least favorite experiences.