TSA Detains 3-year-old in Wheelchair

[Don Vito Corleone]

I agree with you in part, but parents have the right to record what the TSA was doing. The TSA should not retaliate against anyone for exercising their rights. I haven't looked at the video, but it sounds like those TSA agents were imcompetent (didn't understand that the recording was allowed) and vindictive.

So, had the TSA agents simply patted down the 3 year old while they were being recorded, this wouldn't have been an incident either. I'm surprised you would blame this on people exercising their rights, rather than an unreasonable reaction by the TSA to those people exercising their rights.

I imagine the TSA agents were not used to being recorded and mistakenly believed it was illegal. I agree it was not illegal to videotape them in Missouri, though it would be in several states. I don't see how the videotaping added anything positive to the situation - while not illegal, all it did was create unproductive conflict. As far as I'm concerned the mother was the principal instigator in this situation, and her wackiness is further demonstrated by her posting the video online, with the caption "Shh! TSA Wants to Touch Your Kids."

 

[waggy]

I agree with you in part, but parents have the right to record what the TSA was doing. The TSA should not retaliate against anyone for exercising their rights. I haven't looked at the video, but it sounds like those TSA agents were imcompetent (didn't understand that the recording was allowed) and vindictive.

So, had the TSA agents simply patted down the 3 year old while they were being recorded, this wouldn't have been an incident either. I'm surprised you would blame this on people exercising their rights, rather than an unreasonable reaction by the TSA to those people exercising their rights.

watch the video. the mother made it 10x worse then needed.

While i think TSA needs common sense the parents were out of line. I do think they have a right to video tape what they are doing to the kids the mother though made the situation worse.

TSA though needs to think a little harder. a 3 yr old in a wheelchair? really idiots. Also i wouldn't want ANYONE frisking and feeling up my daughter. sorry no.

 

[waggy]

I imagine the TSA agents were not used to being recorded and mistakenly believed it was illegal. I agree it was not illegal to videotape them in Missouri, though it would be in several states. I don't see how the videotaping added anything positive to the situation - while not illegal, all it did was create unproductive conflict. As far as I'm concerned the mother was the principal instigator in this situation, and her wackiness is further demonstrated by her posting the video online, with the caption "Shh! TSA Wants to Touch Your Kids."

agreed. I do side with video tapeing. how she handled it though was wacky

 

[DCal430]

I imagine the TSA agents were not used to being recorded and mistakenly believed it was illegal. I agree it was not illegal to videotape them in Missouri, though it would be in several states. I don't see how the videotaping added anything positive to the situation - while not illegal, all it did was create unproductive conflict. As far as I'm concerned the mother was the principal instigator in this situation, and her wackiness is further demonstrated by her posting the video online, with the caption "Shh! TSA Wants to Touch Your Kids."

It isn't illegal in any state as the courts have struct down such laws as unconstitutional.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Just a sensationalist greedy family looking for a free trip to Disney World, hoping The Disney Corporation sees this and gives them just that.
Sick people using their children to further their own goals
/end thread.

who took a crap in your Cherrios this morning>??

 

[Theb]

I imagine the TSA agents were not used to being recorded and mistakenly believed it was illegal. I agree it was not illegal to videotape them in Missouri, though it would be in several states. I don't see how the videotaping added anything positive to the situation - while not illegal, all it did was create unproductive conflict. As far as I'm concerned the mother was the principal instigator in this situation, and her wackiness is further demonstrated by her posting the video online, with the caption "Shh! TSA Wants to Touch Your Kids."

Knowing what's legal/illegal at the checkpoints is pretty much their only job.

I admit I'm biased because I've had a lot of annoying experiences with the TSA and because I think integrity should be priority one for anyone in any sort of law enforcement/security field, but I think this should be fire-able.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

It isn't illegal in any state as the courts have struct down such laws as unconstitutional.

You are mistaken. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of such laws, though it did decline to hear the appeal of a 7th Circuit order holding the IL law unconstitutional. Several states still have these laws on the books and they are legally enforceable. Usually these cases arise from the application of state wiretapping laws which require that both parties to a conversation consent to the recording of the conversation even where it occurs in public.

 

[DCal430]

You are mistaken. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of such laws, though it did decline to hear the appeal of a 7th Circuit order holding the IL law unconstitutional. Several states still have these laws on the books and they are legally enforceable. Usually these cases arise from the application of state wiretapping laws which require that both parties to a conversation consent to the recording of the conversation even where it occurs in public.

While the supreme court has never ruled, 7th circuit and 9th have ruled, 7th for IL and 9th for California. Generally the courts have struct these laws down. Technically yes, the supreme Court it self hasn't ruled any such case, but the circuit court rulings are just as important.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

While the supreme court has never ruled, 7th circuit and 9th have ruled, 7th for IL and 9th for California. Generally the courts have struct these laws down. Technically yes, the supreme Court it self hasn't ruled any such case, but the circuit court rulings are just as important.

They are not "just as important" because they do not affect anywhere outside of the circuit's geographical range. As it happens the 9th Circuit has not found these laws unconstitutional - it has merely ruled that videotaping police is a protected activity as long as the matter being taped is "a matter of public interest." I happen to agree that these laws are unconstitutional, and I think they should be blocked from enforcement, but that does not make it the case.

 

[DCal430]

They are not "just as important" because they do not affect anywhere outside of the circuit's geographical range. As it happens the 9th Circuit has not found these laws unconstitutional - it has merely ruled that videotaping police is a protected activity as long as the matter being taped is "a matter of public interest." I happen to agree that these laws are unconstitutional, and I think they should be blocked from enforcement, but that does not make it the case.

The 9th circuit ruling against California ban on recording police without consent should apply to the TSA as well, the courts have said that there must be compelling reason that the mater isn't of the public interest. The court has ruled that action of law enforcement are generally maters of public interest.

 

[Soundmanred]

who took a crap in your Cherrios this morning>??

Wat be a Cherrios?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The 9th circuit ruling against California ban on recording police without consent should apply to the TSA as well, the courts have shown that there must be compelling reason that the mater isn't of the public interest.

a) The Ninth Circuit did not rule the law per se unconstitutional.

b) Missouri is not in the Ninth Circuit, it's in the Eighth Circuit. (As it happens Missouri has no such law, but if it did it would be unaffected by any ruling in the Ninth Circuit.) As far as I am aware the Eighth Circuit has not ruled on the constitutionality of laws like these.

 

[Iron Woode]

what a sad story.

we had a lambie story here. A blind child lost his lambie on a bus and was very upset. The company had stopped making them. No one found the lambie so the company made a special run to replace his lambie. They sent him 2.

http://www.lfpress.com/2013/02/04/m...d-animals-after-online-search-for-lost-lambie

 

[Incorruptible]

Wow, I am posting in an incorruptable thread and I am agreeing with him.

Personally I would be in jail for at the very least making threats because as he told me he was going to put his hands on my 3 year old daughter (disabled or not) I would be telling him exactly how I am going to put my hands on him should he attempt to do what he said. If he didn't heed my warning I would have done my level best to break bones.

Then the "its illegal to videotape" bullshit, I blame that one on the parents.



The TSA (and LEO in general) get away with bullshit like that precisely because the people they deal with don't know the law or allow themselves to be intimidated. This guy KNEW the law but still allowed himself to be intimidated into turning the camera off. If everyone said "fuck you, there is no law that says I can't record so I am not going to stop" they wouldn't be able to get away with it. The cowards just didn't want their faces on the local news.

Nothing wrong with that, like I have said to other members I am always right.

And the parents have the right to record and should. Government always needs to be watched. The recordings help to expose cases like this to the people

 

[OverVolt]

Coulda been a terrorist seems legit.