
Feds Remove from Plane, Detain Civil Rights Advocate for Possessing TSA Docs - tsaoutourpants
https://professional-troublemaker.com/2016/09/10/detained-removed-from-airplane-by-feds-lax/
======
888uuii
This kind of stuff does happen and really needs more attention.

~~~
tsaoutourpants
Perhaps the best example is this kid...

[http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/10/arabic.flash.card.suit/](http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/10/arabic.flash.card.suit/)

...who was arrested after the TSA called the cops because he was studying the
Arabic language, and everyone knows that the terrorists speak Arabic. It was
lucky for me that the cops they called during my ordeal in this story used
their own judgment rather than that of the TSA.

------
BoorishBears
I'm not condoning the TSAs behavior, but with the name calling, put downs, and
nature of the writing, I wonder if the author's demeanor affected how the
incident was handled.

Justice should be impartial to mood, but realistically people are people and
don't respond well to the feeling they're being condescended upon.

~~~
tsaoutourpants
1) I was admittedly non-cooperative when it came to answering questions that I
had no obligation to answer, but always polite. When they asked me to explain
myself, I declined their offer, but did not mock them as I do after the fact
on my blog.

2) Will be submitting a FOIA request for checkpoint video so you can see for
yourself. :)

3) Sad that this is your first thought. The government just detained someone
illegally, then called them off a flight in front of a plane full of
passengers for no lawful reason... whether or not I have an attitude problem
is really not the newsworthy issue here. Reminds me of the people whose main
take-away from the Eric Garner incident that resisting arrest is a bad thing.

~~~
BoorishBears
>was admittedly non-cooperative when it came to answering questions that I had
no obligation to answer, but always polite. When they asked me to explain
myself, I declined their offer, but did not mock them as I do after the fact
on my blog.

I wasn't implying you called them names there, I was implying you calling them
names in the blog was a symptom that you were less than fully cooperative with
them, and in fact in exactly the way that you describe, not doing anything
more than the bare minimum required by law for them, because it's your right.

And it is your right.

But to me it's similar to people who start repeatedly asking if they're being
detained as soon as an officer pulls then over, yes it's in their right, but
it sets the tone for the interaction between them and the individual they're
speaking with.

I don't believe that if you had explained yourself you would have had Feds
coming down the jetway for you. You have the right not to explain yourself,
and as human beings they have the right to respond to what they think is
someone carrying classified documents with no offered explanation in the wrong
way.

And I don't think you should compare this to Eric Garner, but if you insist,
as a younger black man my main take away of Eric Garner is cops who think
their job has become a war on poor people (not just us blacks). Eric Garner
wasn't put in a chokehold because he moved his arm, he was put in a chokehold
because Pantaleo hated him as a person, probably for no more reason for being
a poor black male. He probably stopped him for the same reason.

I 100% think the attitude of parties involved in a confrontation is
newsworthy. Part of what was so sad about Garners death was that moving his
arm wasn't a violent gesture, so Pantaleo would likely have mishandled him
regardless of it ( Pantaleo's record supports that reasoning as well)

But there is a difference between a person detained after not cooperating
fully (which you don't have to) was then released after someone dug out the
details that were needed to acess the situation and detaining someone who has
fully cooperated and shown you that they're carrying documents which they're
allowed to carry. The law says there shouldn't be, but the nature of people
tasked to protect very similar looking documents will inevitably lead to
situations like this.

I think you know that, and wanted the exact out come you got because it'd make
an excellent case against the TSA. And I think that's totally fair, almost
like a type of "freedom fighting" through legal disobedience. But I don't
think that after the fact you should write a piece that focuses on that
particular instance involving you, because your own case is atypical, and you
did things that elevated a situation that might not need to have been
elevated. I personally would have seen it better as a springboard to talk
about the TSA's more general misgivings, but instead it read to me as a guy
saying "look at me, I did absolutely nothing wrong and the dumb TSA picked on
me" when it it really is "I did absolutely nothing illegal and the TSA picked
on me". What wrong, and what's illegal, are often two separate things once
you're dealing with imperfect human beings. It might not be illegal to flip
off a cop, but I wouldn't recommend it if you have somewhere to be.

Likewise, it might not be illegal to decline some of the TSAs questions, but
to the extent they need to ask questions about what appears to be classified
information in the wrong hands, I would answer questions if I had a flight I
wanted to get on. You can argue where that extent ends, and if to you it ends
where they've asked a question that you aren't legally obligated you're free
to, but to me going a few steps further and explaining why I have the
documents, and that the ones I have are redacted anyways, would be a
reasonable way to handle the situation maturely

