TSA Workers Want to Arrest You

You know what sucks? Not being able to arrest people who piss you off when you're on the job. Who wouldn't want to have the power to slap cuffs on the grumpy people they deal with at work? But no. When I want someone arrested, I have to call the cops and wait around until they show up to do the arresting for me. Lame.

The employees of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) feel the same way. In an article for In These Times, writer Mike Elk (who was fired from the Huffington Post last year for letting union organizers borrow his press credential in order to disrupt a conference of mortgage bankers) describes the work of the nation's 44,000 TSA screeners as one of "the most dangerous jobs in America," citing the 30 (30!) guns a week they pluck from the nation's baggage.

Worse, sometimes people get shouty or even—very occasionally—cross the line into assault when TSA workers are just doing their jobs. When that happens, "the passengers were allowed to board flights because TSA screeners are unable to arrest passengers who assault them." All because of the finicky detail that "TSA cannot legally arrest or detain power under powers granted to it by the federal government," and must instead "call local police situated in the airport." So inconvenient.

Elk's complaint is situated in the middle of a larger argument about the need for collective bargaining to improve the "often brutal working conditions" of TSA employees—which seem to consist of some male-female pay disparities, low pay overall, and low morale—but it's not clear that arresting unruly passengers who are not otherwise a threat to national security is the sort of thing that would be on the table, should robust collective bargaining rights be granted.

Anyway, it's the media's fault. If "those conditions had received as much media attention as the search procedures they are charged with implementing, it's possible America's newly unionized airport screeners might have had a first contract by now. Instead, negotiations with the federal government continue."

Speaking of which: Check out our January issue about those search procedures the TSA employees are charged with implementing!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Tim||

    Next they'll want guns.

  • sarcasmic||

    How else will they be able to defend themselves from old women in wheelchairs who don't want to remove their diaper?

  • ||

    if you want to elimate the TSA,fire all of them, and end the racist drug war, then go to the drudge report and vote for Ron Paul

  • PIRS||

    +10

  • WWNGD?||

    I did do that and it didn't work. The TSA are still employed, the drug war is still going on.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    I want a refund of my newsletter subscription.

  • Desperation and Descent||

    into madness is the need to be accepted by a group of people who disagree with me.

  • Gimlet||

    Thanks for the tampon.

  • ||

    the "often brutal working conditions" of TSA employees

    Feeling people up is a tough gig.

  • PIRS||

    If it is that damned bad why don't they do us all a favor and quit!

  • TSA Employee||

    What?! And lower morale even more?!

  • PIRS||

    Befehl ist Befehl?

  • Tim||

    Roofing a house in January (or June) is brutal. Standing around in an airport is luxury.

  • Tim||

    Roofing a house in January (or June) is brutal. Standing around in an airport is not physically demanding.

  • Tim||

    Squirrels.

  • ||

    I knew roofing in January sucks, but had no idea squirrels pose such a danger.

  • WWNGD?||

    Have you ever see them try to bypass an airport scanner with a mouthful of nuts?

  • Loki||

    I've TSA screeners with handfulls of nuts.

  • Tony||

    Mouthful of nuts.....? The screener?

    Well I know who is applying to TSA first thing tomorrow!!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You're way over-qualified for that gig, Tony.

  • ||

    i have to agree. anybody who whines about their job (cops and firefighters included) should try some manual labor and get back to me.

    try working in a field picking produce for 8-10 hrs in blazing heat (like many illegal aliens do) for shit pay and then talk to me about brutal.

  • Hidden Bek||

    I'd say the slaughterhouse conditions are worse. Maybe cooler but the repetitive nature of the work, the blood and guts and pathogens that abound and the ending of life after life after life must be worse than being hot picking fruit or lettuce.

  • Matrix||

    Allowing them to arrest people will be hilarious. I can't wait, because they will be sued into oblivion with civil rights suits. Bring it on!

  • ||

    Yes they will. This guy is beyond stupid. The last thing you want to be able to do is arrest people. The kind of training requirements that imposes are ridiculous.

  • ||

    generally speaking, that's true. there are exceptions

    Mass, and texas for example have town constables. these are elected positions that give FULL police powers AND more (in MA, they can also do civil process that cops can't do), without ANY training required.

    get elected town constable - instant full arrest powers, etc.

    most town constables do it more as an honorary position and serve papers sometimes. they don't go patrolling around looking for crime, at least in MA

    in texas, they often do full fledged law enforcement. constable darrell lunsford (sp?) the cop who was killed in that famous video when he was tackled by the MJ traffickers was an elected constable.

    no required training or academy in MA, and iirc the same is true in texas

  • ||

    Constables are not the feds. You can't be a federal agent with LE power without going to FELTC I don't think. Do these clowns all want to go to FLETC?

  • ||

    true this. i was speaking generally. i think you are correct that all FEDERAL LEO's go to FLETC or one of its equivalents (like FBI doesn't go to FLETC because they have their own academy)

    there might be some exception somehwere, but its my general understanding that federal agents with arrest powers must get that training

  • ||

    Good luck with that. I would imagine it is the other federal LEOs who are opposing this idea.

  • ||

    Now do they go to FLETC before or after it's determined that their IQ is low enough for the job?

  • ||

    i commented on the CT case YEARS ago. my grandfather (former NYC police captain) told me early on that with such a high IQ, i would get bored with police work.

    he was wrong, but the two major concerns about people with high IQ are

    1) they will get bored and quit, which means wasted money to train them
    2) they will tend to not get along well with other officers, have a superior attitude, damage esprit de corps etc.

    every agency has different standards in MMPI stuff and IQ stuff

    like i said, i purposefully answered a few standford binet questions wrong on purpose.

    the ONE study i have seen (from the feds) in FBILEJ claimed that nationwide, LEO's average 108-110 IQ

    not sure if that is right, but that was the claim.

    my agency gives an actual IQ test (not a similar test, but the actual stanford binet).

    according to our psychologist, they have never disqualified any applicant for having an IQ that is too high

  • jasno||

    I'm not so concerned with a LEOs IQ. How about they test them on their understanding of the constitution and their views on a free society?

  • ||

    they already do. just like they test lawyers. to my knowledge, they don't test judges

    just a few days ago, i responded to a case where a JUDGE (granted, pro tem) wrote a completely illegal order, and the woman expected us to enforce it

    if we had, we would have violated the law and arguably the constitutional rights of a person

    we didn't. the only thing that prevented it was that we knew the law (and the constitution)

    sadly, the judge did not

  • ||

    Or so you claim.

  • Maxxx||

    we didn't. the only thing that prevented it was that we knew the law (and the constitution)

    sadly, the judge did not

    That's unpossible.

    Everyone knows that judges are superhuman overlords of liberty and perfect in every way.

  • Grammarian Contrarian||

    ---"like i said, i purposefully answered a few standford binet questions wrong on purpose."---

    Let me guess. It was the question on sentence structure.

  • TSA Goons||

    The kind of training requirements that imposes are ridiculous.

    We don't need to be trained. We know bad guys on sight.

  • Other TSA Goon||

    Any elderly person in a wheelchair, or anyone with a catheter, ro anyone getting a little "uppity" about being groped in public for starters.

  • TSA Goon Wrangler||

    That guy over there, with that book Reason was hawking last year? He's gotta be a terrorist.

  • romulus augustus||

    Let's hope Mr. Elk gets cavity searched the next time he tries to fly!

  • juris imprudent||

    The guy is a puppet, he's used to someones hand up there.

  • ||

    "When I want someone arrested, I have to call the cops and wait around until they show up to do the arresting for me."

    not in most jurisdictions. most anybody (in most states) can make an arrest, or the functional equivalent thereof IF they witness a crime (generally speaking, cops can arrest on PC and detain on RS whereas non-cops in many, if not most states, have to actually witness the crime, although that's kind of a simplification.)

    in some jurisdictions, it is called a citizen's arrest. in other jurisdictions, it isn't, but it's functionally the same thing

    every time a store employee detains somebody for shoplifting, that's an arrest.

    they don't need to be security officers. if somebody steals from you, you can detain them, even slap cuffs on them

    a substantial # of cases we deal with are pursuant to people (non cops) detaining/arresting people they find breaking into their property, tresspassing on their property, stealing from them, etc.

    generally speaking, the right to arrest means the right to arrest on PC and.or detain on RS

    in most places, you have the right to arrest/detain if you witness a crime.

    the difference is you better be damn sure about your actions, because you do not have qualified immunity if you make a bogus arrest, and while some states offer cops a good faith exception (mine doesn't), as a non-cop, the standard is a bit higher

    also, technically speaking, shooting somebody is an arrest (granted, not a custodial one, but an arrest in a sense since its a seizure), or using force against them to detain them, etc

    TSA may have POLICIES against arrestign somebody, but if TSA witnesses a person committing a crime (e.g. threatening to bomb for example), they have the same right to detain that person pending police arrival as anybody else.

    i realize the author's point, but it's untrue to say that non-cops don't have powers to arrest. most places, they do

    what TSA probably wants is full peace officer status, which is more than merely arresting, but includes all the other trappings.

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    We ARE in a war, and the airport security lines are the battleground. Could we just make the TSA a new branch of the armed forces?

  • ||

    STFU!! Don't give them ideas!!

  • PIRS||

    But what about Posse comitatis? Oh, forgot, that doesn't exist anymore either .....

  • ||

    posse comitatus?

    911 CHANGED EVERYTHING!!!!!!!

  • PIRS||

    Yes, like Bush said about Capitalism: We must abandon the Constitution in order to save the Constitution.

  • ||

    yes. we must also destroy the village in order to save it

    plus ca fucking change.

  • ||

    Now that the NDAA has passed, every airport manned by TSA should have a direct shuttle to Guantanamo Bay, where TSA will now have a branch office. If we're going to give the the LEO powers, then we need to go full retard and give them their own judicial powers as well.

  • Tim||

    Cuffs, guns, machine guns, armored vehicles, pepper spray, tasers.

    I thought one of the virtues of TSA was to not introduce guns to a sterile area?

  • tarran||

    Isn't there a difference in liability for arresting someone on suspicion of a crime they didn't commit?

    For example, while walking by a property with no trespassing signs, I hear a burglar alarm making noise and a scrofulus kid running away from a hole in a chain link fence and I arrest him. Ifit turns out the kid had *not*robbed the property but had been walking down the road too and had decided that the place was an uncoool place to be and was running home, I would face some serious problems if I wasn't a cop.

  • ||

    yes. most states limit citizen arrest power to "in fact committed' standard, iow gotta see the person ACTUALLY do the crime

    i mean if you see an armed bank guard chasing a guy with die all over his hands running from a bank, nobody is going to fault you for assuming he's the robber and tackling him, but generally speaking, if you don't witness it - don't arrest for it.

    when it comes to crimes against YOUR OWN property, you ave a bit more leeway. most of the time, it's an in fact committed. you catch a guy inside your house at 2 am, you are witnessing the crime in progress. you catch a guy standing by your door of your car at 2 am with a slim jim, etc.

    otoh, your car has just been broken into, and you see a guy on a deserted street at 2 am walking away from your property- THAT seizure will get you in trouble

  • ||

    Also, I believe the crime has to meet certain criteria. E.g., a citizen can't legally detain someone for failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign.

    I suspect that the crime would have to be a misdemeanor, at least, and possibly a felony.

    Deadly force can be legal when used to detain someone in a "citizen's arrest" situation. That generally requires a crime above a certain threshold.

  • ||

    by definition if it's not at least a misdemeanor (or petty misdemeanor), it's not a crime

    in most states, failing to come to a stop is a civil infraction. thus, not even a cop can make a CUSTODIAL ARREST for it, generally speaking.

    in my state, non-cops actually have a slightly lower standard under the RCW for when they are justified in deadly force, with some exceptions

    i've had a # of cases where citizens (noncops) have detained people for DUI and/or reckless driving

    both crimes, and not a problem

    i went to one where two guys were holding a suspected DUI driver down after he was running from the scene

    not a problem

    i had one case where a woman SHOT at her bf's car as he drove off because he was drunk and she wanted him to stop

    lol

    believe it or not, the only crime that applied was a misdemeanor

  • Koan||

    DUUUUUUUNNNNNNPPPPHHHHYYYYY!

  • Short Viking||

    Are they able to detain each other for child molestation?

  • ||

    They want badges and guns. And they want to be able to slap on the obligatory "resisting arrest" or "interfering with an officer" charge.

  • Tim||

    Wrong. They want Badges and guns so Bruce Willis can make an action movie about TSA.

  • Loki||

    Die Hard 5: Touching Sensitive Areas

  • fish||

    I was hoping there would be a chick flick made about the TSA. Something along the lines, Touching Sarahs Anus.....you know a movie you and the missus could enjoy together.

  • ||

    "Disorderly conduct", "obstructing an officer", etc. Those wonderful crimes that can be invented in the moment, to arrest and charge a citizen who does nothing that is actually against the law, for the "crime" of pissing off a cop.

  • ||

    more true in some places than other.

    many obstructings are bona fide crimes. many others are "contempt of cop"

    a GOOD cop if he knows how to talk to people, should very rarely have to make such arrests.

    people who deal with very drunk people a lot tend to have to do more of them

    my state, fortunately, has a very narrow disorderly conduct statute

    for example, even fighting in public (illegal in most states) is not illegal here, nor is public drunkenness

  • ||

    Or a cop could be coming around a corner, late for donuts or something, and arrest a random guy because he happened to be walking in a crosswalk when the cop drove up to it.

    It wasn't me who was arrested, but I have direct knowledge of such an incident.

    The "rule of law" has no place for non-specific "crimes". "Brawling" and "drunk in public" are specific crimes. "Disorderly conduct" is a catch-all.

  • ||

    there are tons of cases where disorderly conduct laws ARE justified and they often include very specific crimes

    for example, purposefully standing in the roadway to obstruct traffic falls under disorderly conduct in my state

    again, depends on the state, the statute, and of course some officers abuse the statute.

    again, having DIRECT KNOWLEDGE often means being told one side of the story by somebody who is butthurt

    i mean, sure it AMAY be true. or there may be something your buddy conveniently left out

    and again, i realize every thread is an occaion for somebody to tell their tale of woe about how some cop somewhere did something wrong

    the point being what? nobody denies some cops are just fucking scum, and many others occasionally fuck up

    misconduct exists. i know... shocking

  • ||

    But is rarely punished. I know... Shocking.

  • Some Sock Puppet||

    This.

    Interfere with arrest charge = LEO's can't be sued for actions during.

    It's standrard procedure in NY. 9 out of 10 times they're hit with a resisting arrest charge.

    Hate to tell you pal, there's going to be some resistence if you starting jamming my arm behind me in all sorts or painful ways. It's the nature of physiology.

  • Gomer Pyle||

    most anybody (in most states) can make an arrest, or the functional equivalent thereof IF they witness a crime

    Didn't work out too well for me.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    "Citizen's arreyest! Citizen's arreyest!"

    Heh - I remember that episode.

  • Paul||

    describes the work of the nation's 44,000 TSA screeners as one of "the most dangerous jobs in America," citing the 30 (30!) guns a week they pluck from the nation's baggage.

    How is plucking 30 firearms from baggage dangerous?

  • ||

    This. +1000

    The author is probably playing on the liberal attitude that the mere existence of a gun is dangerous. Last year we got an email that the campus police had found an unloaded gun in a janitor's locker, and several of my colleagues went ape shit about how terrified this made them feel. I was like -- huh? I wish they'd let me keep a piece in my office, I'd feel safer.

  • Paul||

    How do you not kill your colleagues with an unbraided network cable?

  • Brett L||

    It seems like the janitor would have better options if he wanted to beat the hell out of someone than an unloaded pistol. Especially one of the plastic ones.

  • juris imprudent||

    I guess for that kind of person, touching a gun is a traumatic stress inducing event.

  • ||

    this is true. for example, most cops in open carry and.or shall issue states KNOW that those people are about the least risky encounters they will have.

    but people (and even cops) in places where firearm carry is severely restricted have commented to me (and you see it in media), that it must be "scary" working an area where so many people have guns.

    it's not a matter of statistical risk, it's a matter of FEELINGS

  • Paul||

    this is true. for example, most cops in open carry and.or shall issue states KNOW that those people are about the least risky encounters they will have.

    Washington is an open-carry state, Dunphy and I can tell you from (second-hand) experience that the cops get very jumpy when they see a firearm. I can't speak for the entire state of Washington, but if a Seattle cop sees a legal firearm, your afternoon is probably ruined.

  • ||

    and i can tell you from first hand experience that officers in MY AGENCY do not

    sure, some do.

    PEOPLE (not cops) get WAY WAY WAY more jumpy

    we get calls all the time from hysterical noncops complaining aobut some guy walking around iwth a gun on the hip. we have to tell them it's legal and THEY flip out

    frankly, if i was not a cop, i'd conduct this experiment

    remember, again... seattle is a liberal fuckhead stronghold. their cops, moreso than pierce county SO, enumclaw PD,king county SO, and other places that have more rural areas, are going to be more suspicious of open carry

    they SHOULDN'T be.

    regardless, if i was not a cop, i'd go to the toniest, most liberal area of seattle and just walk around with a gun on my hip

    i'd have a couple of guys nearby filming

    inevitably a stream of phone calls from irate liberals and hipsters would come in

    if they were smart, the cops would do nothing

    however i certainly find it plausible that some cop might, especially if he has a stupid asshole supervisor who orders him to, make a stop of that person which is an UNJUSTIFIED STOP

    period

    it does not matter how many people COMPLAIN about a guy with a gun in the holster. there is ample case law that it is a fully protected constitutional activity and anybody afraid of same is being UNREASONABLE and the cops should not act on their complaint

    anyway, if you were lucky enough to get proned out, or something like that, i'd sue the fuck out of SPD

    but i say this as a field training officer, that we have very specific training and policy - LEAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE OPEN CARRYING ALONE

    fwiw, open carry WA has gone to several public events and open carried. they have NEVER been harassed based on the reports i have seen

    cops who get nervous about open carriers are ignorant

    that's fine

    but if thye act on it, in a way that's illegal, they should be challenged (in court)

    period

  • Some Sock Puppet||

    Well we all know NY isn't part of America anymore anyway, but they get so fucking jumpy they're like to kill you if a gun is involved.

    I had a punk over the summer threaten me with a handgun from across the street, ran inside my house, grabbed my rifle, kept it out of sight, called 911 and when the officers came over to take my statement and saw the rifle propped up against the wall inside my house got really twitchy. I told him to relax it was unloaded (now) and I didn't let the kid see it. Only in case things escalated.

    One of the other responders threatened me for recording the punks arrest. NY can fuck itself with a rusty chainsaw.

  • ||

    Washington is an open-carry state

    I watched a back episode of Monster Quest on the History Channel today, this episode was about sasquatch, aka Bigfoot. Apparently that shit is for real, so there is no way in hell I'm setting foot in WA state unless I'm carrying.

  • ||

    Or on the Reason Cruise....

  • ||

    STEVE SMITH goes on Reason cruises. No way in hell am I setting foot on a Reason cruise unless I'm carrying.

  • Thom||

    The author is playing on the liberal attitude that the mere existence of a gun in the hands of somebody other than a government agent is dangerous. Lefties love for government to have guns because they love for government to have power.

  • sarcasmic||

    Because guns cause murder, just as swimming pools cause drowning and spoons cause obesity.
    Plucking a gun from baggage is dangerous because you never know what the gun will cause a person to do.

  • Zeb||

    Plus, guns just go off completely at random and can't be handled safely under any conditions.

  • ||

    unless you are an ATF agent in front of a bunch of kids, of course

  • shamalamadingdong||

    One of the funniest videos ever! Embarassing for "the only guy in the room qualified to handle a Glock 40", though.

    The federal agent who shot himself went on to sue his agency for destroying his reputation.

  • ||

    bwahahahahahaha!

    now THAT is chutzpah

    he destroyed his own reputation

    iirc, the star wars kid (his parents) also sued for the whole viral video thang

    people need to man the fuck up

  • Trespassers W||

    Did you/he mean a Glock .40? I don't think the models go up to 40.

    /end pedant

  • Appalachian Australian||

  • ||

    i meant ATF agent, but i was wrong

    it would be even funnier if he WAS an ATF agent, but he was DEA.

    my bad

  • ||

    unless you are an ATF agent in front of a bunch of kids, of course

    That is the funniest, most emotionally gratifying videos on the 'tubes. The comic timing ("I am the only one in this room qualified-- " BANG!!) was a thing of beauty. I laughed, I cried, pretty much the full gamut of emotions.

  • ||

    Actually, I'm unclear on how you follow rule #1 of gun safety (always point in a safe direction) if your gun is in a carry on bag that you're throwing around on conveyor belts and such.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    The safety mechanisms of any decent gun should prevent accidental firings even in the case of conveyor systems used to move packages or luggage (as you can imagine, package systems are more demanding on their passengers than luggage).

    Having said that - no one should ever ship or put in luggage a loaded firearm. Firearms can be easily transported, preferably in multiple pieces, but explosives (gun powder in ammo) requires additional safety measures for hopefully obvious reasons.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Dude, haven't you heard? Guns kill people.

    You never know when one is just gonna jump out of a bag and start taking people out left and right.

  • ||

    How is plucking 30 firearms from baggage dangerous?

    Carpal tunnel?

  • Paul||

    With 30 million uninsured... this is more serious than you think.

  • Loki||

    30 firearms a week out of how many bags "screened" (by screened I mean illegally searched) each week?

  • protefeed||

    So they are saying that a TSA screener working for one year has a 1 in 30 chance of getting to violate someone's Second Amendment rights?

  • MrDamage||

    So they are saying that a TSA screener working for one year has a 1 in 30 chance of getting to violate someone's Second Amendment rights?

    no, you have to multiply the 30 by the number of TSA agents who perform searches

  • Spoonman.||

    Do we have to establish the rule that at least one person must have gotten killed in a particular job for it to be one of the most dangerous in America?

  • TSA Employee||

    I heard that comment, Sir. Kindly step over here.

  • TSA Employee Redux||

    Where's my parade?!?!?!

  • ||

    Then TSA would have to concede that they're at less risk, ostensibly dealing with terrorists, than cartoonists are, drawing pictures about them.

  • Pole Dancers||

    ......for those who have served

  • Paul||

    Elk's complaint is situated in the middle of a larger argument about the need for collective bargaining to improve the "often brutal working conditions" of TSA employees—which seem to consist of some male-female pay disparities, low pay overall, and low morale—but it's not clear that arresting unruly passengers who are not otherwise a threat to national security is the sort of thing that would be on the table, should robust collective bargaining rights be granted.

    So Elk is really just a Union hack, seeing every problem in America as resulting from a lack of collective bargaining rights- not from the perspective of too much, or abused government power.

  • juris imprudent||

    I love how a union must be needed to rectify these abysmal working conditions in a federal agency.

    I would think even a 3rd rate hack would have more perspective.

  • Tman||

    Is there a current group of laborers in America that most Americans could possibly care less about getting MORE money and MORE authority than TSA workers?

    I mean seriously you guys, most Americans DESPISE the TSA with a passion. And the fact that every time you read another story about how said workers were "just following orders" when leaking a colostomy bag all over some poor grandmother doesn't exactly lend more sympathy in your direction.

    They should be getting LESS money and LESS authority until the government gets smart and shuts the whole damn thing down.

  • Zeb||

    I'd like to believe that most Americans despise the TSA, but I doubt that that is the case. Most people don't fly much if at all and probably don't care much one way or the other. And a lot of other people, while they may find it a pain in the ass, actually believe that it is necessary and accomplishes something. It's theatre to make people feel safer and sadly it seems to be working.

  • ||

    personally, i've read the TSA horror stories, but personally (and i fly about a half dozen times a year) have never witnessed any bad conduct by TSA, whereas i have witnessed several ... by passengers.

    i am sure TSA has some fucknuts in it, and of course what they are authorized to do under the law (which is a fault of legislators/admin not the individual TSA guys) is ridiculous security state theater

    flying, even post 911 has been pretty hasslefree for me.

    i realize reason is not going to print "TSA guy does good job " story, but i have had no bad experiences with them

  • MrDamage||

    Just curious, when you fly, do they have any reason to believe you are a Police Officer?

    I'm pretty confident that in uniform, you'd slide right through screening but I rather doubt that you fly in uniform. OTOH, if they ask for ID, your law enforcement credentials are likely to be right there.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Wasn't there another organisation in western Europe whose foot soldiers claimed they were just following orders?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Elk's complaint is situated in the middle of a larger argument about the need for collective bargaining to improve the "often brutal working conditions" of TSA employees—which seem to consist of some male-female pay disparities, low pay overall, and low morale

    I know a way to make all those problems go away.

  • Paul||

    If 9/11 changed everything, is there a kind of terrorist attack that would change everything back?

  • PIRS||

    Electing Ron Paul would help - and yes, many establishment politicians would consider that an "attack" on them.

  • TSA Employee||

    I heard that comment, Sir. Kindly step over here.

  • PIRS||

    If you haven't already please visit Drudge Report and vote for Ron Paul in their online poll. Giving the URL blocked me from posting last time but I am sure most of you know the URL already.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    I kind of wish you Paulbots would stop doing that.

  • ||

    If they want the power of arrest, they're free to go through the standard police training every REAL officer goes through.

    Until then, they should be stripped of those fake badges they wear. They are NOT officers, and it is against the law to impersonate officers.

  • ||

    Union shill thinks thugs should be more thuggish. News, 11, you know the drill.

  • Tim||

    OT: also contains industrial level STUPID:

    According to the report, David Youree Elementary School officials said Taylor "threatened other students" with a slice of pizza that had bites out of it in a way that made it look like a gun.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....aing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec3_lnk1&pLid=124512

  • Raston Bot||

    and I thought public sector unions jumped the shark years ago but this is a whole new level of shark jumpery.

  • juris imprudent||

    Sharks with tasers on their heads.

  • ||

    Dunphy, is your department in the habit of not arresting drunken off-duty cops that break into other peoples' homes and physically attack them? Or is it just in New York?

    And don't give me any bullshit about due process. If this had been a non-cop, he'd be in the slammer, not waiting for the results of an internal investigation.

  • ||

    the not being charged thing is not unusual. we often wait up to 72 hrs to charge and sometimes will release W/O charges based on the need to do more investigation

    but the "no arrest" thing i cannot see how it was justified. again, this is a terse media article, so hard to know if there is not some weird aggravating factor, but in general - it seems like a no brainer. should have been arrested, EVNE IF THEY WERE ONLY GOING TO ROR, arrest him and book him

    fwiw, in my state, we do NOT (generally) book DUI's. people might assume that, but i found it totally bizarre. we take em to the station for breathalyzer, then drive them home (unless special circ's exist)

    and generally speaking, unless you are personally attacked, an off duty cop should NOT do any sort of police shit if he is drunk. full stop.

    very rarely could there be an exception

    yes, this SOUNDS like special treatment. given the fact pattern as presented, it is

  • ||

    I never brought up DUI. Please don't change the subject. And he wasn't doing any police stuff. He broke into a house and proceeded to assault the property owner, who promptly PWNed his dumb ass.

    I'd also like to get your opinion of cops going to the houses of 5 year old children to collect overdue library fees and using the "just following orders" excuse...especially when they basically told me to fuck myself when I told them I know who stole my $3000 bike and where to get it.

  • ||

    i wasn;t changing the subject, except as an aside. because people oftne read of cops arrested for DUI, see they were driven home after processing AND assume special treatment.

    i'm not sure what your point about library fees was.

    i've never even heard of a cop getting involved in library fines, nor should they

    i realize you are butthurt and the cops blew off you case, or so you claim. wouldn't be the first time

    again, sloopy i am ASSUMING based on the article he was wrong, and not doing police stuff

    but again, it's based on the fact pattern

    the article also mentions that the house was until recently - vacant

    maybe he assumed they had broken in, and in his highly inebriated state, thought it was a crime in progress

    who the fuck knows? i don't, nor do you.

    but again, based on the fact pattern, it APPEARS to be special treatment

    unlike you, i can't comment FOR SURE, but it SOUNDS like it

    you have to understand something. i have been to literally dozens of scenes where i later read a media article and they just completely missed something (either they weren't told, or didn't do due diligence) and/or just totally misstated shit, etc.

    it happens. i have learned not to assume a media article is correct.

    so, my point is ... again, ASSUMING the facts happened as the article claims, it cleary WAS special treatment

  • sarcasmic||

    Cop makes five year old girl cry.

    http://boston.cbslocal.com/201.....-year-old/

  • ||

    the article also mentions that the house was until recently - vacant

    What does that have to do with anything? Is it OK for drunk off-duty cops to bust down the doors of private property if it's vacant?

    maybe he assumed they had broken in, and in his highly inebriated state, thought it was a crime in progress

    That'll probably be the defense the Union puts on at his trial disciplinary hearing.

    it happens. i have learned not to assume a media article is correct.

    Must be something new. As a rule, you've always parroted the media's retelling of the police press release as the gospel truth.

  • ||

    no, i have not parroted that, sloopy.
    again, you misstate

    what i am saying is that we are just reading a media article and making assumptions

    again, BASED ON THE FACT PATTERN AS PRESENTED he should have been arrested

    drunk people do stupid shit.

    duh

    but again, i have no idea why he did it. i offered a speculation. that was ALL IT WAS

    trespass and burglary are illegal. we have had vacant houses repeatedly burglarized during this market (homes left on the market unoccupied)

    a few months ago i caught some guys in a vacant house stealing copper

    i am in no way justifying what this cop did. i am trying to explain to you that there are any # of possible reasons why he did what he did

    it doesn't justify it

    again, BOTFPAP (a term i am going to use for simplicity - based on the fact pattern as presented), he absolutely should have been arrested

    i realize you want to argue, but i am agreeing with you

    botfpap he should have been arrested.

    and like many stories, when the facts come out later, sometimes it turns out tfpap was reasonably accurate, and other times, it was either totally wrong, or missed some crucial point

    but am i surprised that some drunk off duty cop broke the law (again atfpap) . of course not

  • ||

    i realize you are butthurt and the cops blew off you case, or so you claim. wouldn't be the first time

    What are you implying?

  • sarcasmic||

    What are you implying?

    You know what he's implying.

  • ||

    Auto Circus Cop: [the Dude asks the Auto Circus Cop if there are any leads on who stole his beater car] Leads, yeah, sure. I'll just check with the boys down at the crime lab, they've got four more detectives working on the case. They got us working in shifts!
    [laughs]
    Auto Circus Cop: Leads!
    [laughs as he walks away]
    Auto Circus Cop: Leads..

  • ||

    That was the only scene in the movie that was totally plausible.

    Of course, you laugh about it because if it was your car, your brothers in blue would extend you professional courtesy and actually investigate the theft.

  • Some Sock Puppet||

    I actually asked a GA local PO if they could fingerprint the car after mine had been broken into in college. We had a nice chuckle. I was so naieve.

  • sarcasmic||

    especially when they basically told me to fuck myself when I told them I know who stole my $3000 bike and where to get it.

    Similar thing happened to me, though the bike was only worth two grand.

    After being blown off for being assaulted, robbed, and burglarized I have come to the conclusion that cops don't really give a flying fuck when crimes are committed against little people.

    Who the fuck are you and why should they care?

    If you can't answer the question, don't bother wasting their time.

  • ||

    and so you claim.

    the cops i know work damn hard to try to solve cases where "little people " are victimized.

    i would way rather catch the guy who stole the two bicycles from under a poor person's christmas tree and get those bikes back to the kids the day after christmas than arrest somebody for some stupid shit.

    oh, and guess what... i did

    but again, your anecdotes prove that all cops are callous and don't care aobut anybody but themselves bla bla

    i realize it's cathartic in some way for you to constantly wank about how horrible cops are , etc. but they are people.

    imo, most are good people doing a pretty good job and trying to help people

    i realize you disagree

    film at 11

  • ||

    It's just anecdotal evidence when we tell our stories, but when dunphy does, we're to assume it's indicative of police behavior in general.

    And: i would way rather catch the guy who stole the two bicycles from under a poor person's christmas tree and get those bikes back to the kids the day after christmas than arrest somebody for some stupid shit.

    So because I'm wealthy enough to afford a $3k bike, it's not worth following up on? He said little people, not poor people.

    From my experiences, I can tell you cops treat people who can easily replace what has been stolen like shit. They take your report and once you answer the insurance question, they tune out. This is further evidenced by them not assigning the case to anybody.

  • ||

    oh, and guess what... i did

    So you claim.

  • sarcasmic||

    In my experience cops are assholes who care more about intimidating and bullying than anything else.
    I'm not saying ever cops is like that. But every one I have met, with no exception, has fit the bill.
    I'm talking from the first interaction where the cop whispered into my ear "give me one reason, please, you know I want to, I'm begging you, give me one fucking reason" to that last speeding ticket where I was given a slip saying I was traveling 65 in a 45 when I was going 60 in a 55.

    Yes I'm sure there are exceptions. But I have yet to meet one.

    Honestly I would like to, just so I could trust the people who are supposedly sworn to "serve and protect". As far as I'm concerned you guys are sworn to "harass and intimidate".

    Fuck off.

  • Restoras||

    Don't forget the paid vacation!

  • ||

    Question for the Paul supporters out there. Where the hell are the liberals getting the "Paul is a homophobe" line? I have said lots of bad things about Paul. But I have never thought of him as being prejudiced against homosexuals. Where is this talking point coming from?

  • Tim||

    (Shatner style)

    Don't. Summon the. Trolls John.

  • juris imprudent||

    Standard issue complaint about Republicans from proggies. Or you could possibly blame it on the flood of Santorum coverage.

  • Hank||

    flood of Santorum

    Yuck.

  • sarcasmic||

    Liberals can just say stuff and the burden of proof is on those who say they are wrong.

  • ||

    There is something behind it. Liberals have stupid logic. But they usually have some kind of bullshit reason for saying the stuff they do.

  • sarcasmic||

    Maybe he doesn't believe it is the role of government to define marriage. If you don't want to redefine marriage to include same sex couples then obviously you are a bigoted and hate filled homophobe.

  • sarcasmic||

    Could have been the newsletter.

  • Hugh Akston||

    It comes from a reliable source that has no ulterior interest in derailing Ron Paul in favor of a more authoritarian warmongering GOP candidate.

  • ||

    Even Dondero doesn't say that. Dondero also says that Paul isn't racist.

  • Hugh Akston||

    He doesn't say that Ron Paul hates gays, blacks, and messicans, but he does give the liberal critics just enough implication to run that idea on.

  • ||

    DONDERRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOO

  • ||

    I've been meaning to ask the same thing. The blathering idiots over at Jezebel's favorite snark (god I hate that word) about Paul is something along the lines of "Ron Paul hates gays, blacks, everyone" or words to that effect. I doubt even they know where they got the gay part.

  • ||

    Yet you continue to read them. Your masochistic streak is strong, grasshopper.

  • ||

    It's a shameful addiction. I blame SugarFree for it, and for so much more besides.

  • ||

    they probably think he hates gays because he doesn't support hate crime legislation

    i don't support it either, and i am a minority and have been a victim of a hate crime

    BFD.

  • ||

    Cops are a minority?

  • sarcasmic||

    Perhaps he's one of the 1% of cops that get a bad rap from the other 99%.

  • ||

    I see the anti gay slur on facebook all the time. And I can't see where they are getting it. At least the racist charge has the newsletters. But what has Paul ever done that is anti-gay?

  • sarcasmic||

    Google "borat ron paul".

    He was visibly uncomfortable when cornered and practically assaulted by an incandescent flamer.

    Obviously he must hate gays.

  • sarcasmic||

    "bruno" not "borat". same actor, different characters.

  • ||

    to their credit, i saw a few people on DU even stand up for ron paul in the bruno incident. if a woman had come on to him in a way similar to the way bruno did, i think he would have had a similar reaction.

    i would suggest that his lack of support of hate crime legislation is more relevant to the "he's anti-gay" people

  • shamalamadingdong||

    Is he against gay marriage?

  • ||

    I don't think he's for state's rights.

  • ||

    Oops. I meant, I think he's for states' rights.

  • ||

    Found this quote:

    “I think the government should just be out of it. I think it should be done by the church or private contract, and we shouldn’t have this argument,”

    But that is too damn reasonable so let the idiotic 'hating gays' soundbite continue apace.

  • Paul||

    But what has Paul ever done that is anti-gay?

    He registered GOP. Anti-gay, QED.

  • PIRS||

    The funny thing is that in a Republican primary that particular lie might actually HELP him get the nomination - not in the General election of course but this is the Republican primary going on right now.

  • Paul||

    Although in all serialness, anyone who wants less/smaller/fewer (hopefully that'll satisfy Cavanaugh) government is anti-whatever-subgroup said government agency is supposedly "protecting."

  • ||

    I would think the GLBT vote would adore Ron Paul. Although Paul's campaign site doesn't say, it seems logical that Paul would support the end of government control over marriage. You'd think that's pro-gay, not anti-gay. But I haven't any citations for Paul's position on this.

  • Paul||

    I'm probably not going to make many friends with this comment, but most gay people swing left and it's been my experience that if you're in a lefty subgroup, the general leftist ideology trumps the needs and wants of your subgroup.

    Getting the government out of anything runs counter to leftist ideology. Therefore getting the government out of the marriage business is anti-gay. Because gay people want to be married!

  • ||

    He's not a lefty, so according to the Narrative, he must be anti-gay.

    I doubt there's more to it than that. Sure, they can indulge in confirmation bias by pointing to Borat and whatever, but its really just the tribal narrative at work.

  • tarran||

    I don't have the link immediately handy, but Dondero has on several occasions accused Ron Paul of refusing to shake hands with gay people.

    That and he ran away when Sasha Cohen tried to seduce him in a hotel caveman-style.

  • Brett L||

    Eh. 76 year old man has the prejudices of the society he came of age in, refuses to force them on others by government fiat, news at 11.

  • romulus augustus||

    Doesn't he have an openly gay staffer?

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    which seem to consist of some male-female pay disparities, low pay overall, and low morale—

    The low morale has little if anything to do with the pay, and everything to do with the nature of the work. Bargaining collectively for better pay and work rules isn't going to change the nature of their work, which involves boredom punctuated with moments of annoying people, all for the meaningless work of security theater, the fact of which I'm sure they keenly aware.

  • TNA||

    They want to be cops? Fine. First we need educational requirements. College degree as a minimum. Height/weight standards, annual physical fitness testing, etc.

  • ||

    Is it against the law to physically assault and threaten a person with imprisonment or further violence when they are not breaking the law? Apparently not, if you're a glorious first-responder putting his life on the line every day for New York. Oh, and 9/11!

  • ||

    Name-fail. That was me.

  • GILMORE||

    Worse, sometimes people get shouty or even—very occasionally—cross the line into assault when they TSA workers are just doing their job

    ..'their job', which happens to be feeling up your granny... just in case she's a terrorist.

  • Wholly Holy Cow||

    Oh, what's that? Oh, no, Leftys are smearing Ron Paul?!

    Whoa! Shocking.

    Of course, when the very same lefties accuse Bush of lying about WMD or that the Minuntemen (of AZ border fame) are all racists or that some cop somewhere shot a dog, went back in time and donated a testicle to Hitler (thus allowing Der Furher that extra edge he needed to overcome Saint FDR), why you all believe it.

    Fits the easy narrative.

    And you joke about it.

    And gloat about it.

    Well, fuck you, too. All these jokes about Santorum? Really? Where is the daylight, issues wise, between Paul and Santorum, aside from foreign stuff? (Neither have a shot at the nomination and because of the media and, both sadly would get crushed by Omarxa.)

    You think Ron Paul will stand up for domestic libertarianism, when he runs out of the room during a fucking CNN interview over what he and everyone on his team says is nonsense? I can't wait to see how deals with an insanely hostile media who want to know why he wants kids to starve in the streets while granny has to turn tricks to pay her aspirin bills?

    Happy New Year!

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Hi Mr. Team Red,

    Nice job repeating the myth that he ran out of the room. It's already been adequately covered that CNN tried (and failed) to edit the interview to make it look like Paul stormed out.

  • Trespassers W||

    Where is the daylight, issues wise, between Paul and Santorum, aside from foreign stuff?

    Um. What?

  • Trespassers W||

    And stop trying to smear Paul with santorum.

  • ||

    Where is the daylight, issues wise, between Paul and Santorum, aside from foreign stuff?

    You mean, aside from Santorum's avowed hostility to individual liberty? And votes for big government spending?

  • Larry Flynt||

    "At a forum on TSA workers hosted at the AFL-CIO's Washington D.C. headquarters on December 20, female TSA workers complained that it is difficult for women to obtain more highly paid TSA jobs working as baggage handlers. Since there is a shortage of women in the TSA and women TSA workers are requested to pat down other women, most women are required to work in passenger screening—a lower paid job category in the federal agency."

    Here's an idea. Let's employ some females to pat down male passengers. The men who chose this method can pay $50 for the services.

    The ladies will be bringing in money that the baggage handlers and their ex-military supervisors could only dream about.

  • adam||

    Apparently you've run into a different breed on female TSA employee than I have.

  • Loki||

    I wouldn't let any of the TSA wenches I've seen anywhere near my junk. If I did I'd probably have to dip my wang in Clorox afterwards.

  • ||

    fwiw, in regards to TSA, when i worked as a cop in hawaii, they had frigging WACKENHUT security at the airport

    omg.

    i walked on to a plane with a handgun by simply walking up to the gate checkpoint, flashing a badge and telling them "extradition" adn they waved me on board.

    fucking amazing

    TSA has a bunch of ridiculous security theatre, but the state of airport security, at least in hawaii, pre 911 was ridiculous

    a fake badge was all you needed to walk onto a plane with guns

  • ||

    a fake badge was all you needed to walk onto a plane with guns

    And why in the fuck should I even need that? Unless it's against the airline's policy, I should be able to open carry wherever I want...without being treated differently because I'm not carrying a shiny piece of tin.

  • ||

    even cops can't carry on a plane, sloopy UNLESS they are doing an extradition

    you are making a normative argument about whether people in general should be allowed to carry on planes

    that's nice, but the point is - they are not supposed to, and security is supposed to be tight. pre911 on hawaii, it was a joke

  • ||

    The point is: why was it even a crime pre-9/11 for me to have a gun on a plane, but it wasn't for you?

    And it should have been (and should be now) a matter of airline policy, since the airplane is private property. IOW, keep your restrictions out of my private contract with another party.

  • protefeed||

    I'm waiting for the link to all the gun-related airport crime in Hawaii, pre- or post-9/11.

    Why take away people's Second Amendment rights for a non-problem?

  • ||

    jesus christ. first of all, the fact that nobody has exploited a security loophole does not mean one does not exist.

    the fact that you could walk on to a commercial airliner with a gun by merely flashing a badge was a problem

    the 2nd amendment issue is tangential. GIVEN that it was de jure not a RKBA right to carry a handgun on a plane, that wasn't the issue

  • ||

    jesus christ. first of all, the fact that nobody has exploited a security loophole does not mean one does not exist.

    The "security" you speak of that had never been a problem before? And that was on the private property of an airline?

    the fact that you could walk on to a commercial airliner with a gun by merely flashing a badge was a problem

    I agree. Flashing a badge shouldn't grant someone special rights unless they are investigating a crime at that moment.

    the 2nd amendment issue is tangential. GIVEN that it was de jure not a RKBA right to carry a handgun on a plane, that wasn't the issue

    It should be a matter of contract between two private parties. If it's legal for me to have a gun on the private property of another business, why is illegal on the private property of an airline? Cops should have nothing to do with it.*

    *For the same reason that a cop should not be allowed, by statute, to carry his sidearm into a bar/restaurant that serves alcohol while I'm not. It should be a matter between the bar/restaurant owner and the patron, regardless of his profession.

  • ||

    again, great ... but not the issue. one of the primary goals of airplane security was not being nmet

    you are arguing the goal was bad

    again, so what?

  • ||

    The goal is the larger and more important issue. The fact that there are two sets of rules (one for people with badges and one for those without) is so much larger than the nickel and dime argument you are making, but you're a have, so why would you give a fuck?

  • ||

    again, nice evasion. you can't admit to either your logical fallacy, or your ridiculous claim that it is MORE important than the 2nd amendment, what is spent on a cop funeral

    incredible.

  • ||

    reading comprehension fail: I was talking about guns on planes and the different sets of rules that exist for the haves (badge carriers) and the have-nots (the rest of us) that exist in general...and that you have conceded exists on many occasions.

    If you want to talk about tax dollars being spent on state funerals for fallen cops, that's further downthread.

    Seriously, you might want to take a break. Either you're getting delirious from all of your spinning and gyrating, or you're having a flashback from when you were doing drugs as a world-class surfing champion/rock star/world-class athlete/king of Bolivia back in the day. Either way, it's bad.

  • ||

    Fire every one of the bastards and charge the Airport Authorities with security on the land and the airlines in the air.

    All security measures IRT passengers and baggage will be up to the airlines. That way, pants-wetting idiots can fly "Feel Me Up Air," and people like me can fly "Run Em Through Airline."

  • ||

    If you think TSA agents with arrest powers are fun, wait until you meet TSA SWAT teams.

  • Loki||

    Shhh, stop giving them any more ideas will you?

  • ||

    jesus fucking christ!!!! i KNEW it...

    what the fuck does the law now allowing carry of firearms in the park have to do with this incident?

    NOTHING.

    this guy just (allegedly) shot four people at a party and was heading to the park to hide in the woods...

    the fact that (assuming he was not a felon, etc.) he could now have a gun legally in the park vs before has fuck all to do with this case. does ANYBODY really think if gunz were not allowed in the park, that he wouldn't have come anyway, AFTER (allegedly) shooting 4 other people

    cmon
    !!!

    SEATTLE (AP) - Employees at Mount Rainier National Park are gathering together Tuesday to grieve the loss of a park ranger who was fatally shot inside the park.

    Park spokesman Greg Shine says park employees are in an all-staff meeting to come together as a community and begin the healing process following Sunday's shooting of Margaret Anderson.

    Searchers found the body of the suspected gunman Monday. Benjamin Colton Barnes was lying partially submerged in a frigid mountain creek with snow banks standing several feet high on each side.

    The park remains closed while the investigation continues.

    Shine says it is still unknown when the park might reopen. He says discussions will begin Tuesday about memorial services for Anderson, who was married to a fellow park ranger and had two young daughters.

    "We have been through a horrific experience," said park superintendent Randy King. "We're going to need a little time to regroup."

    Barnes, an Iraq War veteran, did not have any external wounds and appears to have died from the elements, Troyer said. It wasn't clear whether Barnes had shed clothes before dying, as some hypothermia victims do.

    Troyer said Barnes did not have sufficient outdoor gear, and that two weapons were recovered along with his body.

    According to police and court documents, Barnes had a troubled transition to civilian life, with his former girlfriend saying in a custody dispute over their toddler daughter that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and was suicidal.

    Nicole Santos sought a temporary restraining order against Barnes, according to court documents.

    Santos alleged that he got easily irritated, angry and depressed and kept an arsenal of weapons in his home. She wrote that she feared for their daughter's safety. Undated photos provided by police showed a shirtless, tattooed Barnes brandishing two large weapons.

    She told authorities Barnes' troubles began after he returned from Iraq in 2008, and that he had once sent her a text message saying, "I want to die."

    In November 2011, a court official recommended parenting and communication classes for both parents as well as a visitation schedule for Barnes, pending domestic violence and mental health evaluations and potential treatment orders.

    The Seattle Times reports that the Army confirmed Monday that Barnes had been a private first class whose service ended in 2009, when he received a misconduct discharge after being charged with driving under the influence and improperly transporting privately owned weapons.

    Maj. Chris Ophardt, an Army spokesman, told The News Tribune that Barnes had been stationed at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, near Tacoma, and had served two years and seven months on active duty at the time of his discharge.

    Barnes pleaded guilty to DUI in the March 2009 incident, according to the Times. The result of the weapons charge was unclear.

    Authorities think Barnes fled to the park Sunday to hide after an early morning shooting at a New Year's house party near Seattle that wounded four, two critically.

    King County Sheriff's spokeswoman Sgt. Cindi West said Barnes is a suspect in that shooting, as well. West said the shots were fired around 3 a.m. after a dispute over a gun. However, further details, including the vicitms' identities, were not immediately available.

    Parks spokesman Kevin Bacher said: "The speculation is that he may have come up here, specifically for that reason, to get away. The speculation is he threw some stuff in the car and headed up here to hide out."

    Authorities think Barnes encountered the 34-year-old Anderson at a roadblock after blowing through a checkpoint rangers use to establish whether vehicles have tire chains for winter conditions.

    The gunman who killed Anderson got out of his vehicle and fired at her and a ranger trailing him, but only Anderson was hit.

    Anderson would have been armed, as she was one of the rangers tasked with law enforcement, Bacher said. But she was shot before she got out of her vehicle, Troyer said.

    Police immediately began a manhunt. Park officials fearing that tourists could be caught in the crossfire of a potential shootout held more than 100 people at the visitors' center before evacuating them early Monday.

    King, the park superintendent, said Anderson had served as a park ranger for about four years and was married to another ranger who was working elsewhere in the park at the time of the shooting. The couple has two young daughters.

    The shooting renewed debate about a federal law that made it legal to take loaded weapons into national parks. The 2010 law made possession of firearms subject to state gun laws.

    Bill Wade, the outgoing chair of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, said Congress should be regretting its decision.

    "The many congressmen and senators that voted for the legislation that allowed loaded weapons to be brought into the parks ought to be feeling pretty bad right now," Wade said.

    Calls and emails to the National Rifle Association requesting comment were not immediately returned Monday.

    The NRA has said media fears of gun violence in parks were unlikely to be realized.

    "The new law affects firearms possession, not use," the association said in a statement written after the law went into effect.

    The group pushed for the law, saying people have a right to defend themselves against park animals and other people.

  • ||

    More importantly, how much taxpayer money will be spent on the full dress funeral, parade, honor guard, overtime for the attendees and all the other associated costs for somebody that got killed doing a job they volunteered for.

    I'm not trying to be callous or anything, but I don't remember them pulling out the bagpipes for John T. Williams.

  • ||

    Outside of the Imperial March, his work was fairly lackluster.

  • ||

    His woodcarving wasn't bad before he was violently murdered.

  • ||

    jesus christ dood. how fucking compulsive and obsessed are you? does EVERYTHING have to get filtered through your anti-cop bias?

    you remind me of those anti-semites, where EVERYTHING is about "but the jews"

    sure, it's MORE important than RKBA - the cost of a cop's funeral

  • ||

    You're right, of course. The use of taxpayer dollars in a wasteful manner not afforded to everyday citizens is in no way important.

    And yes, most things pertaining to how cops are treated as our betters in every way from their professional courtesy to confiscating our tax dollars so they can give a state funeral to one of their own are filtered through the perception I've cultivated of police based on my own experiences and those of people I trust.

    And your concern for RKBA is more than tempered by the persistent and overwhelming number of stories where police chiefs and sheriffs call for restrictions on non-cops' 2A Rights in the name of "Officer Safety."

  • ||

    nice strawman. this is where you consistenly devolve into illectual dishonesty

    the specific logical fallacy is referred to as "excluding the middl;e"

    i didn't say it was "in no way important"

    i responded to your claim, "more importantly" iow that it was more important how much is spent on a cop's funeral VS. an issue of RKBA

    i am sorry, but here in the real world, constitutional issues surrounding the 2nd amendment ARE more important than how much a cop funeral costs

    to which you responded with your strawman .

    that's the kind of intellectual dishonesty that gets old.

    and for the 100th time, what police chiefs and sheriff say

    DOES NOT REPRESENT COPS

    POLICE CHIEFS AND SHERIFFS ARE MANAGEMENT, AND THEY ARE (USUALLY ) COP-O-CRATS

    FOR FUCK'S SAKE. THEY DO NOT REPRESENT POLICE ANY MORE THAN THE CEO OF GENERAL MOTORS REPRESENTS ASSEMBLY LINE WORKERS

    this has been explained to you ad nauseum

    i don't give a flying fuck what some chief from some city says about RKBA. chiefs are political appointees first, cops second

    for the umpteenth time

    furthermore, i am not responsible for anybody's opinion but my own.

  • ||

    Um, as the CEO of GE represents the company, chiefs of police represent their departments.

    I can't recall all of those cops protesting (with the protection of their union) "management's" stance on many issues except for when they authorize IA investigations, charge cops with crimes or generally check power cops have over the rest of us. But you're free to cite examples where line cops have done this.

  • ||

    jesus, sloopy. can you be intellectually honest for a little bit here?

    the point is that you trot out statements of police chiefs and sheriffs to counter my claims about RKBA and the fact that most cops i work with support RKBA.

    you go "see, look at all these chiefs and sheriffs who always come out anti gun"

    so what?

    chiefs represent primarily one thing. i keep explaining it to you. they represent the people who appoint them. and if they don;t, unless they have a LOT of moxie, they don't last.

    sheriffs are often better than police chiefs, and as past articles here have shown, (like the ones in california east of the big cities who support RKBA and support permitting), some of them are pretty good on RKBA etc.

    but a police chief from a big liberal city, appointed by a liberal city mayor or city council is going to be a butt boy for them

    they are POLITICIANS . they are not cops

    so, again, i am talking about what COPS think. your claim about the chief representing "the dept". what does that even mean?

    if a dept has 500 line cops and a chief, and the chief is anti RKBA and 400 of 500 line cops support RKBA does that dept. support RKBA or not?

    according to you, the dept is the chief.

    and i am telling you that i am talking about cops, NOT cop-o-crat politicans.

    i don't know cops who spend time publically protesting on much of anything ( i personally protested CAO and i know two cops who protested WTO but in general, they are not political animals)...

    line cops CAN'T protest in uniform, so they very well may be in any # of protests and you won't know

    regardless, it is fundamentally intellectually dishonest to use the viewpoints of police chiefs, IACP etc. as a proxy for "see, this is what cops think"

    that's horseshit. we cops (line cops), with rare exception, identify with, feel like we are represented by, or agree ideologically with the politicans who run our dept.

    feel free to read any old wambaugh book, etc. to get a taste of how the average line cop views the admin, those in the puzzle palace, etc

    we tend to think similarly about them, as you do about obama.

    do you grok that?

    it's incredibly offensive when you use such creatures as proxies for what you THINK we think or what our positions are.

    so, for the umpteenth time, drop it

    i've never been able to find a poll, for example, about what officers in my agency, or western WA etc. think about RKBA

    so, all i can go on is what the people i work with TELL me, and in that case, the majority support CCW. we can all point to numerous examples of people with CCW's HELPING us, but rare if any examples of CCWers hurting us

    and we could give a flying fuck what our fearless leaders think

  • ||

    Those chiefs and sheriffs are the mouthpieces of the departments. So when the only opinion publicly voiced is that, or when line cops implement their policies IRT going after guns, are we not to believe our lying eyes?

    Maybe if cops, hell any number of cops, had the courage to come out and vocally go against their chiefs and sheriffs restrictive policies, you might get more benefit of the doubt. As things stand, however, the silence speaks volumes about cops' lack of courage to stand up to their chiefs when they want to limit freedom for the rest of us.

    When you risk your safety to speak out for my rights, then you'll earn my respect. As long as you let the voice of oppression be the voice of record, you will get none.

  • ||

    sloopy, this is such horseshit.

    i don't give a flying fuck about your respect. we have the respect of the vast majority of americans, as polling shows. a few bigots are not my concern

    but it is disingenuous, and you can ignore it all you want, to take the views of police chiefs and apply them to cops

    if you are too much of a liar to stop doing it, i can't stop you.

    but they don't represent us, despite your evasions

    you move the goalposts, as is your tendency. now, since you won't admit your claim about cops (based on the views of police CHIEFS) is bullshit, you are now saying a bunch of cops have to protest in the streets , write letters to the editor (which i HAVE done btw but i digress), that our viewpoints don't matter

    keep moving those posts and ignoring the evidence

    and keep falsely claiming that cops think X because chiefs say X

    that's as disingenuous as me saying YOU respect and admire the police, because polling shows most americans do

  • ||

    Like I've said, I'll believe cops have different opinions than their chiefs when they start voicing those opinions en masse.

  • ||

    Amen, in a secular kind of way.

  • ||

    To be fair, I think sloopy is calling out the pervasive double standard from which cops benefit, hugely, and which imposes real costs on the rest of us.

    I know its hard to see a double standard from the inside, dunphy, but trust me, from the outside, it is completely undeniable.

  • ||

    as i have said, and given numerous examples of, the double standard works both ways. in some ways, it benefits cops, in other ways, it hurts them

    as an example of the latter, i gave an example of a judge in WA who gave a cop over 20 yrs in prison for an (off duty domestic violence type )assault, that nets the AVERAGE offender about 2 yrs.

    iow, 10 times as harsh a sentence and the judge SPECIFICALLY said it was because he was a cop.

    of course the double standard sometimes benefits cops. otoh, it sometimes hurts cops.

    sloopy ONLY sees one side of it, and of course his perception is colored by the fact that he only knows what he sees in reason.

    regardless, the point isn't about the double standard per se, it's about the fact that you could be discussing wind in china, and sloopy comes back with "yea, but the cops..."

    it's an obsession.

  • ||

    as an example of the latter, i gave an example of a judge in WA who gave a cop over 20 yrs in prison for an (off duty domestic violence type )assault, that nets the AVERAGE offender about 2 yrs.

    You always make this claim but never support it. I'm calling bullshit until you substantiate it.

    of course the double standard sometimes benefits cops. otoh, it sometimes hurts cops.

    I have been consistent in decrying the double standard, period. Whether it benefits cops, which is the overwhelming majority of the time, or hurts the cops, which I've yet to actually see but assume exists in some limited way, it is wrong. For some reason, you seem OK with there being two sets of rules. Hell, you've even laughed about professional courtesy being a perk of the job and laughing about it on here.

    regardless, the point isn't about the double standard per se, it's about the fact that you could be discussing wind in china, and sloopy comes back with "yea, but the cops..."

    Um, bullshit. I comment on just about every topic. It's just that police abuse and the double-standard that exists is just important to me, therefore I bring it up when I see reports of it in the press. You just think that's all I talk about because there are just so damn many reports of it in the news, it becomes overwhelming to you and your sensitive nature.

    And just because I have a pet cause, doesn't make me obsessed. Hell, do you say the same about Lucy when the bulk of her stories deal with bad cops? Or Balko?

  • ||

    ok, here's the link... again

    and for the hundredth time, and i know you fail to see this... WHAT YOU SEE is what you read, which is what is chosen as important stories by the media outlets you choose to read e.g. Reason.

    is it really that hard for you to understand that reason mag is not going to go and look for evidence that cops are treated unfairly (the other side of the double standard)? why would they do that?

    that would be like a defense attorney searching for evidence of his client's guilt.

    again, you really can't seem to grasp that just because you don't read it in reason, or the mainstream media, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen

    i see this shit all the fucking time. i see, for example,a cop fired based on a bogus DV that never would have seen the light of day EXCEPT the DV advocate reviewed the case, saw one party was a cop, contacted the female (his wife) , persuaded her to CHANGE her statement, which resulted in the cop being fired based on no evidence and two conflicting statements from the same person, and it took him a year to get his job back and get back pay

    our agency isn't going to make a press release about a guy they wrongfulyl fired based on flimsy evidence and a vendetta by a hyperfeminist DV advocate against cops

    so, again... you need to understand that there is a whole world of stuff that happens outside the comfortable pages of reason that exists to confirm your conception of the world - that cops get this "double standard' that benefits them (which is true sometimes).

    but the fact that cops face double plus ungood scrutiny in all sorts of area and get fucked over by trumped up shit will not make the pages of reason.

    another example i gave was the Seattle P-I. as a matter of policy, they do not name criminal suspects unless they are charged

    what exception do they make? cops. they not only publish their names, but PICTURES of them based on not even an arrest, let alone a charge.
    stuff like that.

    here's the article. and again, you would never read about this in reason. so, just for ONE SECOND, consider that yes... there is shit that happens involving cops and double standards that does not meet the reason approved metanarrative.

    there are more things in heaven and earth, horatio...

    http://www.columbian.com/news/.....-sentence/

    here : find me another guy charged under this code in the RCW, let alone in liberal western WA and who has no priors get TWENTY THREE YEARS for this assault.

    i've seen guys with priors get less than this for HOMICIDE.

    PORT ORCHARD, Wash. (AP) -- A former Port Orchard police officer convicted of pushing his girlfriend out a window was sentenced Thursday to 23 years in prison for assault.

    The Kitsap Sun reports (http://bit.ly/rwA3oz) 49-year-old Dennis L. McCarthy was given the maximum sentence for his conviction.

    The woman injured in the May 2010 fall is now confined to a wheelchair.

    McCarthy had a 28-year career as a Port Orchard police officer and as a Defense Department officer at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.

    Kitsap County Superior Court Judge Theodore Spearman said police officers should be held to higher standards of conduct.

    ___

  • ||

    again, you really can't seem to grasp that just because you don't read it in reason, or the mainstream media, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen

    The man that will not hear of us using anecdotal evidence wants us to believe that cops get persecuted en masse just because he said so?

    A former Port Orchard police officer convicted of pushing his girlfriend out a window was sentenced Thursday to 23 years in prison for assault.

    Oh, you disingenuous fuck. I've got you by the balls on this one. Link to the full story. He was found guilty of 1st and 2nd Degree Assault, pleaded guilty to 10 counts of violating a protective order, had entered a pretrial diversion program earlier (which the guilty verdict voided) of setting her property on fire. The victim did not push for prosecution of that case out of fear.

    Haha, you slippery fuck. If you're gonna hold this up as your shining example of how cops get treated worse than the rest of us, at least have your shit together.

    Kitsap County Superior Court Judge Theodore Spearman said police officers should be held to higher standards of conduct.

    He said that before sentencing, and in no way in intimated it had anything to do with the length he imposed. Maybe a more pertinent question is, why would a man with 10 protective orders against him who had to go to pretrial diversion for setting someone's property on fire still be a fucking cop!

  • ||

    the "10 counts' were in relation to ONE incident in 2008, and it was a MISDEMEANOR

    again, show me a similar case where a guy got 23 yrs for assault

    i've never seen it

  • ||

    also, i realize facts are difficult for you, but it says 10 counts stemming from one incident, and he had NO priors. he had a protective order against him , which means JACKSHIT, it's not proof of a crime and all that is needed is preponderance in a civil court with NO JURY to get one.

    again, you can't even fucking read.

    NO PRIOR convictions

  • ||

    Um, the pretrial diversion for burning her shit became a condition when he threw her out the window. There's one. The 10 counts of violating a protective order, which he pleaded guilty to, are 10 more convictions.

    We're up to 11 priors so far. And he was convicted of 2nd Degree and 1st Degree assault, according to the article (unless it was written poorly). That's 2 counts in my book, not one.

    And if you follow the links, you'll see that even his attorney expected him to get 15 to 17 years, so to say it's 10 times the norm for non-cops is a bullshit claim on your part.

    Nice try. Next time, make sure you're arguing with someone that won't actually dig a little bit into your bullshit narrative to find out the full story.

  • ||

    jesus christ./ the 2nd and 1st degree are the ONE incident. that's how charging works. it's one assault, just like if you steal something during a burglary, it's a theft and a burglary.

    the prior incident was ONE incident. contrary to your claim, there wasn't 10 orders. there were 10 charges, which could be as simple as he burned 10 PIECES of her clothing.

    all he has are a protective order against him, which isn't proof of ANY crime

    the pretrial diversion is par for the course for first offense. i missed that, in other other article. that is MY BAD. unlike you, i can admit when i make an error.

    so, he has a misdemeanor prior for burning her clothes.

    omg./

    crime of the century

    and the only other crime was this one

    and he got 23 yrs

    and of course the judge wasn't biased when he said PO's should be held to a higher standard. OF COURSE that didn't come into play when he sentenced the guy. how gullible ARE YOU?

  • ||

    FTA: 10 counts of violating a protection order, to which he pleaded guilty after his arrest in November 2010.

    Um, last I checked, those guilty pleas count as convictions.

    And I will repeat, loudly, this nugget: HIS LAWYER EXPECTED HIM TO BE SENTENCED 15-17 YEARS! You know, a guy who probably has a better grasp on sentencing guidelines than you do, so I'm gonna take his word for it that the sentence is nowhere near the "10x that of a non-cop" claim you made earlier.

    You should heed Sir Walter Scott's words: "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

  • ||

    I will go back to your quote that started this: as an example of the latter, i gave an example of a judge in WA who gave a cop over 20 yrs in prison for an (off duty domestic violence type )assault, that nets the AVERAGE offender about 2 yrs.

    Now, here's a quote from his defense attorney: Dennis L. McCarthy, 49, likely faces between 15 and 17 years in prison when he's sentenced Nov. 10 in Kitsap County Superior Court, according to his attorney, Tim Kelly.

    [sniff-sniff]

    Do I smell bullshit?

    And I hardly think pushing someone out a second-story window and ignoring 10 protective orders counts as an (off duty domestic violence type )assault.---Your words, by the way.

  • ||

    Amen again.

  • Jerry Seinfeld Survival Report||

    The shooting renewed debate about a federal law that made it legal to take loaded weapons into national parks.

    Wow, in only one day the debate was renewed? The AP really has its finger on the pulse of the populace to be able to detect this so quickly.

    Bill Wade, the outgoing chair of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees

    Wow, immediately after this happened, I was wondering what the chair of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees thought about this. He's the go-to guy for opinions on National Park stories!

    Or, they called 25 people with something to do with the NPS and cherry picked the one who could be prodded into blaming the new law.

  • ||

    Oops, joke alias

  • Wholly Holy Cow||

    Waaaaahhhh waaaaaaaah. Editing made Ron Paul look bad! Foul! Not fair! Do over! Do over! Gotta change my skirt!

    Well, thank gaia that CBS aired all 7 hours of the unedited Sarah Palin/Katie Couric lovefest. They didn't? Huh?

    Anyway, what is RP's final answer concerning the newsletters?

    All I've heard was "Who knows? Who cares? I'm Ron Paul, damnit!"

    Followed by the sound of America's 1,291 True Libertarians coming in the Scooby-Doo footsie pajamas. Then the turgid footsteps of an aged social conservative running away....

  • Trespassers W||

    Um. What?

  • ||


    [TSA] want badges and guns. And they want to be able to slap on the obligatory "resisting arrest" or "interfering with an officer" charge.

    TSA want LEO status so they can retire early. Federal LEOs are forced to retire at 57yo.

    Ex-girlfriend is a retired federal probation officer. Becuase she was considered a LEO she was forced to retire at 57 and had some sort of kicker put into her retirment to "compensate" her for having to retire at 57.

  • L13||

    It's the fucking TSA agents that should be arrested!

  • ||

    TSA has many workers with prior criminal convictions and. giving this people the power to arrest passengers would result in the agency becoming a larger disaster than already is. Their hiring standards state that the worker may not have had a criminal conviction in the past five years and excludes juvenile convictions when the applicant becomes 18 even if the conviction is less than a year old. So many TSA workers have past criminal histories yet we’re supposed to trust them with airline security.

    They are using fake police uniforms to aid them in doing to passengers searches what the new FBI definition describes as rape. TSA has proven unwilling and unable to adequately police it the conduct of its screeners and, like a rapist, has blamed the victim in even the most egregious assaults. They have been reciting the same tired lies of “treating all passengers with dignity, respect and courtesy” for the past year and the assaults have only become worse.

    In 2011 there were 62 TSA screeners arrested for serious crimes, including rape and murder. Of these, 11 were for sex crimes involving children and 4 for smuggling contraband through security. They can’t prevent crime within their own ranks, but we’re supposed to trust them with airport security.

    The ridiculous misconduct by rogue screeners demonstrates the lack of adequate hiring standards at TSA and does nothing to improve airline safety. This agency and its workers are a disgrace and should be replaced with a system that actually works.

    TSA Crimes & Abuses
    bit.ly/TravelUndergroundTSAabuses

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement