| Author | Post |
|---|
Sgt L
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 29th, 2007 |
| Location: | Statesville, NC |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30th, 2007 05:26 pm |
|
| Im not making him out to be an "Angel", all I'm saying is he reacted to what he had done. You idiots keep making it sound like he did the @#$% on purpose. It was a mistake, get over it.
|
Sgt L
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 29th, 2007 |
| Location: | Statesville, NC |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30th, 2007 05:26 pm |
|
| I still can't believe we're back to friend bashing,,,,,,,,HELLO-------AIRPORT SECURITY LET HIM WALK RIGHT THROUGH====WHAT IF IT HAD BEEN SOME ONE WHO MEANT BUISNESS. Last edited on Thu Aug 30th, 2007 05:52 pm by Sgt L
|
bayboy42
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30th, 2007 08:03 pm |
|
If marine dad could provide the rest of the information I requested, I'd be happy to dig into the issue more with the TSA to ensure that an event like this is not repeated with "someone who means business".
I'm still confused on the following issue:
Marine Dad stated: "He said the attendant at the screening station told him he needed to place his fanny pack on the belt to go through the screening process. he still had not thought anything about the firearm, and to be honest, was a little bit hungover. he placed his pack on the belt, and the screener started talking to the guy in line behind my friend, whom he seemed to know. when the pack came out the other end, the screener, who was still engaged in conversation with the other guy, handed the fanny pack back to my friend, who placed it back around his waist and went to the gate area."
Which screener was it that told him he needed to place his fanny pack on the belt vs which screener was it that started talking to the guy in line behind your friend? I'm just trying to figure out which role each of the two TSA screeners assinged to this particlar station played in the oversight of the handgun in the fanny pack.
Maybe a picture would help clarify my question?
|
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30th, 2007 08:13 pm |
|
Another thread derailed from it's intended purpose...
|
bayboy42
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30th, 2007 08:26 pm |
|
| What was the intended purpose of this thread PA?
|
Sgt L
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 29th, 2007 |
| Location: | Statesville, NC |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30th, 2007 08:50 pm |
|
Simply to let everyone know about a wild occurance that happened, and to point out that the so called "security" checkpoints are not as secure as one would think. It's very obvious that his friend made a mistake. "THAT WASN'T THE POINT !!!!!!!!"
|
bayboy42
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30th, 2007 08:57 pm |
|
| Sgt L - please re-read all of my posts. I have never accused your friend of making a mistake! I'm simply curious on some of the details surrounding the event and I am trying to trying to fill in the gaps by asking marine dad additional questions. Last edited on Thu Aug 30th, 2007 08:58 pm by bayboy42
|
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30th, 2007 09:08 pm |
|
bayboy42 wrote: What was the intended purpose of this thread PA?
Your question was answered, above, by someone closer to the source. So I'll just add MHO.
The guy goofed - yup. Big time. I too can't imagine NOT knowing I had my gun on me but hey, it wasn't me and it wasn't the point of the story.
The point was the interesting info regarding how it was handled by the "authorities".
Is that not obviously the point of this thread to you? Why repeatedly ask these types of obvious questions? Second thread in two days now.
Pounding on the guy that he did something dumb, which he already knows, and then picking apart his story for no real good reason other than to continue to degrade him is pointless to the information brought forward.
He did something dumb and now we have heard a nice little story about it and the consequences it brought.
Can't we just leave it at that or must we beat the dead horse some more? That's HanKT's job anyway and he'll probably get peeved that your cutting in on his territory 
Last edited on Thu Aug 30th, 2007 09:09 pm by Pa. Patriot
|
Sgt L
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 29th, 2007 |
| Location: | Statesville, NC |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30th, 2007 09:45 pm |
|
My statement wasn't intended solely for you, I didn't intend for it to sound that way. My point is, the purpose of the post wasn't to offer "marine dads" friend up to the firing squad, it was more banked torwards pointing out a notable security breach allowed by "TSA" and CPD Officers at O'Hare and in my opinion probably should have threaded torwards discussion on how to improve or solidify the process. Oh, and in reference to which attendant started chit-chating while "friends" fanny pak is in the x-ray machine...............I would pretty much assume it would be the x-ray machine screen watcher guy who's attention was on butt-buddy inline behind "friend" rather than the highly important x-ray display infront of him.
Im happy for the guy, I mean hell he could have gone to jail for a long time but things worked out for him this time. Mistake Made, Lesson Learned, Life Goes On
Attached Image (viewed 207 times):
 Last edited on Thu Aug 30th, 2007 10:14 pm by Sgt L
|
HankT
State Researcher
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30th, 2007 10:15 pm |
|
Sgt L wrote: My point is, the purpose of the post ... was more banked torwards pointing out a notable security breach allowed by "TSA" and CPD Officers at O'Hare and in my opinion probably should have threaded torwards discussion on how to improve or solidify the process.
In line with that, maybe we need to have the standard airline agent question set changed to:
1. Has anyone unknown to you asked you to carry anything onboard this plane?
2. Have your bags been in your possession and control at all times?
3. Do you have any firearms, ammunition, nunchucks, swords, daggers, brass knuckles or batons that you would like to report and secure at this time?
4. Hey, sleepy head! I'm asking you a question!
Another improvement might be in the area of educating internal security personnel of the necessity to actually follow the rules, regs and procedures already in place by TSA and local law.
For example, it would be good to remind all security personnel that they will be fired immediately for failure to report a person in possession of a prohibited weapon in the security area of an airport terminal. In addition to such dismissal, they would be subject to criminal charges.
I'm sure there are others that can be thought of...but these will do for now...
|
marine dad
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Aug 31st, 2007 12:26 am |
|
hank,
there are several issues in this situation that you failed to comment on as vigorously as you did about my friend, so i will attempt to post them using your terminology.
1. the goof with an x-ray scanner: even after being alerted by a metal detector that goof with a gun needed closer scrutiny, he still failed to detect a firearm passing through his scanner, and allowed goof with a gun to breach airport security. theoretically endangering the well-being and safety of airport patrons and personnel
2. the goof with a badge #1 after being advised that goof with a gun had breached airport security and was in fact in possesion of a firearm in violation of local firearms and concealed carry laws, goof with a badge #1 failed to arrest, shoot, handcuff, or feed concrete to goof with a gun , and further failed to immediately enact emergency sop, theoretically endagering the lives and well-being of airport patrons and personnel. he further chose to investigate the situation and determining the facts, opted to help goof with a gun rectify the situation, while callously "thumbing his nose" at the very laws he had been sworn to uphold and enforce. instead of being a true storm trooper, he insisted on being helpful and courteous. what an idiot.
3. goof with a badge #2 and #3: although they discussed the merits of notifying a supervisor and informing such of the breach of airport security and the violation of handgun and concealed carry laws, perhaps for the purpose of enacting emergency sop's, these goofs with a badge were easily persuaded by goof with a badge #1 to not do so, and in fact agreed to let him handle the situation. theoretically their lack of action endangered the well-being of airport patrons and personnel, and jeopardized their own carreers and livelihood, as they callously and deliberately "thumbed their noses" at the very laws they were sworn to uphold and enforce.
4. goof with a badge #4: he went out of the way to provide his own personal lockable storage case for goof with a gun , i.e. aiding and abetting the breach of airport security and violations of firearms and concealed carry laws, after the fact. by doing so he not only "thumbed his nose" at the laws he was sworn to uphold and enforce, he then conspired with goof with a badge #1 to cover up the incident, per agreeing with the statement that "this never happened" made by goof with a badge #1.
5. goof in authority : the supervisor of these men, who had the audacity to allow the employment of these slackards and incompetents, men who determined the facts, the identity, and the intent of goof with a gun and responded by helping rectify the situation, instead of the required knee-jerk gestapo show of force.
so i guess we can see that cpd hires imcompetent imbeciles who had rather use their brain than be "johnny bad-ass" or we can say that the planets must have been perfectly aligned to have allowed all theses goofs to be in the same place at the same time. L.O.L.
FWIW, I THINK THESE OFFICERS OF CPD SHOULD BE COMMENDED for choosing to investigate the situation, and after determining there was no threat, and verifying my friend's identity and intent, helping him, instead of automatically assuming the "cop vs. criminal" mentality often prevalent in law enforcement when dealing with the public.
marine dad
|
bayboy42
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Aug 31st, 2007 04:36 am |
|
Pa. Patriot:
The point was the interesting info regarding how it was handled by the "authorities". Is that not obviously the point of this thread to you? Why repeatedly ask these types of obvious questions? Second thread in two days now. Sure thats obvious to me, and thats what I'm trying to discuss, have been throughout the entire thread.
Pounding on the guy that he did something dumb, which he already knows, and then picking apart his story for no real good reason other than to continue to degrade him is pointless to the information brought forward. You copied my question at the beginning of your post so I can only assume you are directing this statement at me...but I'm not sure why since NOWHERE in any of my posts have I degraded "marine dad's friend".
I made my point and motives clear early on in this thread..page 1 earJust so my point and motives are clear:
1. Do I disagree that the security at a lot of major airports is a joke? NO
2. Do I agree that when flying you need to still be looking for suspicious characters and not let your guard down? YES
3. Do I believe that an individual walked into a major airport with a firearm in his fanny pack (that he intended to declare), checked his backage, walked to the security checkpoint, tried to first walk through the detector with his fanny pack on, make it through the TSA screening, realized he had his gun, bring it to the attention of not one but two police officers, was able to purchase a lock box "on the spot", and be politely escorted back to the ticket counter to fetch his already checked baggage and declare is firearm? NO
|
bayboy42
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Aug 31st, 2007 04:48 am |
|
Marine Dad, your analysis of the 5 additional goofs is still missing somebody.... shouldn't it should be 6? Each TSA checkpoint typically includes a minimum of two screeners. One is responsible for watching the x-ray screen as items move through, the other is responsible for instructing flyers on the procedures before they walk through the metal detector and then checking their boarding pass once they walk through it.
|
marine dad
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Aug 31st, 2007 11:57 pm |
|
yep. i missed goof #6
|
bayboy42
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 1st, 2007 04:18 am |
|
So where was goof #6 when this event went down??
|
marine dad
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 1st, 2007 12:49 pm |
|
| i dont know. he was at the metal detector i suppose.
|
Sgt L
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 29th, 2007 |
| Location: | Statesville, NC |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 1st, 2007 05:22 pm |
|
| It doesn't matter, TSA sucks. They do provide a pretty intimidating appearance for anyone who would be interested in "INTENTIONALY" bringing a weapon in. They serve their purpuse I suppose. I guess the "goof with an X-Ray machine" should be fired.
|
nakedshoplifter
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 1st, 2007 06:00 pm |
|
Last time I flew out of Reagan I had to walk through the air puffer machine, which detects trace amounts of suspicious chemicals. I had shot the night before the flight wearing a ball cap, and I walked through the puffer with the cap on. I know nitro is detected by the machine, which is a component of gunpowder and the GP residue. Not sure how sensitive those machines are, it did not go off. I had also been smoking outside the airport, lighting up with matches since you can't bring fluid lighters on planes (that has been changed since, they are now allowed). I also wondered if the match residue might set it off.
|
bayboy42
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 02:57 am |
|
| SgtL - what about the screener responsible for checking peoples tickets, ensuring they place all carry-on luggage on the x-ray belt, removing metal components before going through the metal detector, and moving individuals who set off the metal detector to the wanding area.........should he be fired too?
|
Sgt L
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 29th, 2007 |
| Location: | Statesville, NC |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 04:36 pm |
|
| I would think so wouldn't you, I don't think any one person is to blame. Im not a "Firing Commity" either. It was the failure of multiple individuals to do their part in preventing this mishap. Starting with "friend" and including every "TSA" agent at that post that he came into contact with. I don't really think the officers involved were to "blame" persay. They more or less resolved the issue using their best judement based on the circumstances.
|
Current time is 12:30 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4   |
|
