Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No Federal Charges for Atlanta Football Fan in Airport Security Breech
Newsday ^ | 11/18/01

Posted on 11/19/2001 11:43:39 AM PST by 11th Earl of Mar

Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:34 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

ATLANTA -- A man who dashed through a security checkpoint at the nation's busiest airport, forcing officials to halt flights and evacuate passengers, will not face federal charges, prosecutors said Monday.

Michael Lasseter did not violate any federal laws because he did not board an airplane, and because the screening station guards are not federal agents, said Patrick Crosby, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office.


(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-211 next last
To: SBeck
I'd rather have an armed unskilled pilot, that an unarmed pilot. The first airline which arms its pilots WILL BE the #1 carrier in the US. Bank on it.
161 posted on 11/19/2001 5:43:31 PM PST by VRWC For Truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
All of it, every last sentence including the preambles from both regulations and especially the comments to the FAA from interested parties concerning the cost benefit analysis that is a required part of the rulemaking.
162 posted on 11/19/2001 5:46:50 PM PST by SBeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: VRWC For Truth
So you'd rather have a pilot who is a better gunman than pilot? I hope not. Besides we went through this in 1995.
163 posted on 11/19/2001 5:48:51 PM PST by SBeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
You can go to http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=14&PART=108&SECTION=9&YEAR=2001&TYPE=TEXT for CFR Title 14 Part 108 Section 9, "Screening of passengers and property," to see that everyone must be screened.
Also see my post #114 for Part 107 Section 20:
No person may enter a sterile area without submitting to the screening of his or her person and property in accordance with the procedures being applied to control access to that area under Sec. 108.9 or Sec. 129.25 of this chapter.
I think it's common sense that everyone must submit to security to enter the secure area of an airport.
164 posted on 11/19/2001 5:49:13 PM PST by heleny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: SBeck
HAH HAH!!! You don't know. You cited a rule to support your arguments. You refused to post which section was relavent. The only conclusion is that you don't know. There are tons of pages, they are not all relavent. Which one addresses a guy running past security? Which one? You said we were all uneducated because we didn't know this. You don't either!!

And don't say that it is all relavent. How is this section relavent to the events we are discussing:

a) No aircraft operator may use any person as a Ground Security Coordinator unless, within the preceding 12-calendar months, that person has satisfactorily completed the security training as specified in the aircraft operator's security program.

165 posted on 11/19/2001 5:49:50 PM PST by Rodney King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: SBeck
Also, it is awfully difficult to shoot and kill armed assailants - box cutters and knives - when those instruments are being held to the necks of passengers or other crew members.

If so, then I must be some sort of demigod of firearms. The negotiating is the hard part. Shooting's easy - at least shooting well enogh. In any case, all one is looking for is doing what he can. Banning them reduces what they can.

Having the tools gives more options. Having the threat requires the opponents to do more planning or logistics to counter it.

It takes hours and thousands of rounds down range in tire rooms for operators to gain proficiency in doing just that and pilots don't have the time to gain that type of proficiency.

OTOH, a great many used to do just that, when they were in the USAF.

166 posted on 11/19/2001 5:52:08 PM PST by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: heleny
Thank you. You knew. SBECK did not. By the way, that is still not relavent. We all know that eveyrone must be screened. The question was, did the airport over-react. The was SBECK was bluffing, I assumed that there was a section that said "if someone gets by, the airport must be closed down".

Of course everyone must be screened. Who said that they didn't? The issue is, what is the response when someone gets by? SBECK question the intelligence of everyone who did not know which section oc CFR 14 107 FAR 108 addressed this, but he does not know either.

167 posted on 11/19/2001 5:52:35 PM PST by Rodney King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
Please spell "relevant" correctly the next time you use it repeatedly. Thanks.
168 posted on 11/19/2001 5:53:15 PM PST by heleny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
a) No aircraft operator may use any person as a Ground Security Coordinator unless, within the preceding 12-calendar months, that person has satisfactorily completed the security training as specified in the aircraft operator's security program.

That particular piece harks back to the December 5, 1972 emergency regulation which required the airlines to put screeners in place within 30 days. It was in response to two separate incidents that occured in October and November of that year when convicted felons stormed an Eastern Airlines plane in Houston and a Southern Airlines plane in Birmingham, Alabama. The "fleeing felon" decision caused the airlines to use contractors as screeners because the airlines weren't equipped to deal with hiring process. Flip 30 years later and you can see that the contractor's, looking at their bottom line, deemphasized training and sent the screeeners out to the concourse. Subsequently, they didn't catch the box cutters and knives used in 911.

Anymore questions?

169 posted on 11/19/2001 5:55:46 PM PST by SBeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: lepton
None of whom were pilots. Most were CCT or PJ.
170 posted on 11/19/2001 5:57:07 PM PST by SBeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: SBeck
Perhaps I misunderstood who you were calling "operators". A great number of Commercial Airline pilots were previously in the USAF. What did you mean?
171 posted on 11/19/2001 5:59:19 PM PST by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: SBeck
Furthermore, Rod, the security coordinator is an airline employee while the screeners are not. The decision to create a separate level of administration was a result of Lockerbie.
172 posted on 11/19/2001 5:59:52 PM PST by SBeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: lepton
Special operation forces.
173 posted on 11/19/2001 6:00:28 PM PST by SBeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: SBeck
Yes, the same question I have posed numerous times. The original conversation that you started out insulting me on for not having memorized FAR 108 was whether or not the airport overreacted. You stated that FAR 108 was relevent to that. Please post which section of FAR 108 addresses whether or not the airport overreacted. You have avoided this question numerous times. So please answer it this time, or admit that you were just throwing around regulations and were not prepared to be called on it.
174 posted on 11/19/2001 6:01:44 PM PST by Rodney King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: lepton
Personally, my solution would be to depressurize the cabin to the point of inducing hypoxia and then let everyone drift off to sleep.
175 posted on 11/19/2001 6:02:15 PM PST by SBeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Big E
This is a willful act of negligence..

Methinks you just contradicted yourself...

176 posted on 11/19/2001 6:04:44 PM PST by WL-law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
All of FAR 107 and 108 are relevant and germane to the reaction. Every last word. The responsibilities of the airport operators and the air carriers are right there and their reactions are completely justified.
177 posted on 11/19/2001 6:05:08 PM PST by SBeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: SBeck
SOFs are not required. Much less training is required to do "well enough".
178 posted on 11/19/2001 6:05:19 PM PST by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: SBeck
That particular piece harks back to the December 5, 1972 emergency regulation which required the airlines to put screeners in place within 30 days. It was in response to two separate incidents that occured in October and November of that year when convicted felons stormed an Eastern Airlines plane in Houston and a Southern Airlines plane in Birmingham, Alabama. The "fleeing felon" decision caused the airlines to use contractors as screeners because the airlines weren't equipped to deal with hiring process. Flip 30 years later and you can see that the contractor's, looking at their bottom line, deemphasized training and sent the screeeners out to the concourse. Subsequently, they didn't catch the box cutters and knives used in 911

That's nice. But you did not answer the question. The question was not "what is the history of this regulation", the question was how is that relevent to the discussion of whether or not the airport overreacted.

As a bit of background, you stated that we were all unintelligent for not know what FAR 108 said, while we were discussing whether the airport overreacted. When I asked which part of 108 was relevent to that, you at first refused, and later said "all of it". Well, how is the above section relevent as to whether or not the airport overreacted, or were you just being a blowhard when you said "all of it"?

179 posted on 11/19/2001 6:05:31 PM PST by Rodney King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Protect the Bill of Rights
if you're really concerned about that, contact your local congressman and senator and tell them to repeal the "patriot" act.
180 posted on 11/19/2001 6:06:53 PM PST by folly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-211 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson