Procedures were followed. We did nothing wrong.

[draco664]

Link

More TSA shenanigans.

[bex1218]

I have no words for this at all.

[Duelist925]

I have no words for this at all.

I have several. The only ones I would repeat around a little girl are "Lawsuit"

ONce the girl left I might indulge, in, say "Fucking ASSchewing CLOWNS with the sense of a AROUSED DUCK should be bludgeoned into unconciousness with a bat labeled "CLUE STICK""

[Andara Bledin]

Now, it seems to me that were granny to have passed off her concealed firearm to princess terrorist there, then princess, and not granny would set off the metal detector.

But, no, I guess that involves too much thought and common sense and is just to quick and easy, whereas chasing down and then feeling up a terrified 4-year-old is far more desirable.

^-.-^

[Seifer]

Um...why exactly couldn't the girl go back through the metal detector? Does a metallic weapon not set off a detector if it's been magically handed from one criminal to another? Why exactly did they have to pat down a young child who was clearly afraid of them?

Oh, and TSA - screaming at a child and ordering them to stop crying isn't going to keep them from crying. It tends to make them cry more. Duh hur hey.

[Slytovhand]

I have several. The only ones I would repeat around a little girl are "Lawsuit"

ONce the girl left I might indulge, in, say "Fucking ASSchewing CLOWNS with the sense of a AROUSED DUCK should be bludgeoned into unconciousness with a bat labeled "CLUE STICK""

No lawsuit will be allowed - it's in the "nation's safety".

Let me also suggest, given that there is so much more (stupid) security, if someone does want to set off a bomb or similar, hiding on a young child would actually be the smartest thing to do... precisely because of this sort of situation. If it does happen in the future, what sort of stink would happen???


Ordering a 4-year old child?? Bwahahahahaaaa..... that's just funny!

[DrFaroohk]

We are having our common sense bred out of us I think.

Seriously...the brains or lack thereof...what is the MATTER WITH PEOPLE??????

I don't understand how someone can make a choice like this and still be able to stand, walk, breathe, etc....

[Rageaholic]

I guess this is what happens when you watch too much 24.

[ExRetailDrone]

I consider this nothing short of child abuse on the TSA's part. And they say that their officers followed proper protocol? Bullshit, those policies are not proper in any sense of the word.

[Rapscallion]

Hi all - Mr Unpopular here

I'd love to see the reactions if a weapon or bomb had been passed and used on the plane.

I think the pat-down would have been unecessary, but a quick once-through the metal detector would have been sufficient. However, looking at that article I can only see the mother's side and her language is ... how can I say it, emotive? I get the feeling that she's hamming this up.

Rapscallion

[NateSean]

Hi all - Mr Unpopular here


Rapscallion

I've never been popular in my life so why fix it if it ain't broke.

It's important for me to point out that this is a blog post and not a news article. Not saying it didn't happen and I'm not justifying the actions of the TSA employees if they did in fact occur in the manner described, but as Raps pointed out, the only sides we're hearing from are the overly distraught mother and the blog writer who read the remarks.

That said I do agree that when dealing with children, the elderly and people with mental impairments there should be a heavy level of sensitivity involved. What happened here may full well have been a case of power mongering, which there are more than enough incidents of in the media that it supports the mother's reaction.

[crashhelmet]

I wondered that too. It may be safe to assume that the child was indeed frightened, but to be having nightmares? Also, it isn't typically "Airport employees" that greet people coming off the plane for security issues. It's the FBI and/or Marshalls.

A lot of this seems over-embellished.

[Andara Bledin]

Well, here's an article from Business Week, news, not a blog.

One quote in particular stands out:

The statement noted that the agency recently implemented modified screening procedures for children age 12 and younger to further reduce the need for pat-downs of children, such as multiple passes through a metal detector and advanced imaging technology.

The agency might have "implemented" them, but the Wichita TSA agents completely ignored them, going straight for the pat down as opposed to having the girl go through the detector for "multiple passes."

And, another highlight:

In a phone interview from her home in Fountain Valley, Calif., Croft said Brademeyer tried to no avail to get TSA agents to use a wand on the frightened girl or allow her to walk through the metal detector again. She also said TSA agents wanted to screen her granddaughter alone in a separate room.

So, apparently the TSA has procedures in place for re-screening kids and the mother asked to have her re-screened, but the agents held fast to their "need" to chase, yell at, and eventually pat down a screaming and frightened 4-year-old.

Who, exactly, was the terrorist in this scenario?

^-.-^

[DrFaroohk]

In retrospect, I'm reminded of my C-store job.

I had to make a lot of shitty decisions about who to sell booze to. Lot of judgement calls, and I typically made the wrong one.

Why? Because I was never really given clear, definitive instructions on any one part of that. For instance, selling booze to intoxicated people. At my training, I was told that anyone who has consumed any amount of alcohol cannot buy anymore. Wow didn't the customers love me after that! "I detect a slight whiff of alcohol, NO BOOZE FOR YOU!"

I know, dumb right? But that's how it was. Wouldn't surprise me if these security guys have had their heads fucked right up from so many different rules and regulations that they don't know what to do.

[Nekojin]

In retrospect, I'm reminded of my C-store job.

I had to make a lot of shitty decisions about who to sell booze to. Lot of judgement calls, and I typically made the wrong one.

I had one of those once. The doctrine at one gas station I worked at was that you didn't sell gas to people who were obviously drunk, because that could be a lawsuit for the station - we "enabled" him to get into an accident down the road. But one time, I had a guy stagger in, completely sloshed, and I could tell by looking at him that he was going to be a belligerent drunk. He wanted gas, I took his money and activated the pump, because I believed that there was a significant likelihood that he'd bust up the place, forcing me to call the cops, if I tried to follow doctrine.