No Federal Charges for Atlanta Football Fan in Airport Security Breech

Newsday ^ | 11/18/01

[heleny]

If someone evades security, then the secure zone must be evacuated and checked, and everyone must be checked again because it's impossible to know what the guy did inside the secure zone.
The airport did not overreact; they simply did what they had to do -- to check everyone again. The entire event resulted from Lasseter's selfish, childish behaviour. If he evaded security because he were in a hurry, then future terrorists should just arrive late, too, and skip past security. No, that would portend a future of bombed airplanes, chemical attacks in airport gate/terminals, and perhaps more hijacked airplanes.
Unfortunately, the airport security still was unable to locate Lasseter on its own.
Also, I do not know the CFR's. I looked them up with the numbers people were quoting. They appear to be reasonable. Not knowing all the regulations (or not wanting to follow them) isn't a valid excuse for Lasseter to break them.

[WL-law]

My point was that he committed a serious crime, and that it really shouldn't be seen as "innocent" because such an action as running past security could have caused awful consequences for other people.

No he didn't. The Feds aren't charging him with anything, and the state won't charge him with anything serious, i.e., anything that requires criminal intent as an element. You really don't know the full meaning of the words "serious crime".

[Rodney King]

Also, I do not know the CFR's. I looked them up with the numbers people were quoting. They appear to be reasonable. Not knowing all the regulations (or not wanting to follow them) isn't a valid excuse for Lasseter to break them.

You keep seeting up straw men. I never said that not knowing the CFR's was a valid excuse for the guy. I simply said that the airport overreacted.

As for the CFR's, they appear reasonable to me as well. The issue is that Sbeck stated that any of us who did not know them was unintelligent and uninformed. Then, when asked which section was relevent, he refused. Then, he said "all of it" when clearly that is bogus. The guy was bluffing, and refusing to acknowledge it.

[lepton]

Subsequently, they didn't catch the box cutters and knives used in 911

None of the things I have seen proposed for on the ground would make a difference in even the last set of hijackings. Anyone with a bit of thought could MAKE bladed weapons while ON the plane, much less there being all kinds of things that could be taken onto the plane that are undetectable, or easily disguisable. Any proposal that does not take into account sufficient tools to deal with this level of weaponry is merely show.

Clearly most of the announced security procedures put in place after 9-11 are only to give the impression that something is being done...not an actual aid to security. Also, most are easily avoidable while complying with the stated checks.

[Rodney King]

All of FAR 107 and 108 are relevant and germane to the reaction

How is this part germane?:

Each aircraft operator shall allow the Administrator, at any time or place, to make any inspections or tests, including copying records, to determine compliance of an airport operator, aircraft operator, foreign air carrier, indirect air carrier, or other airport tenants with --

Why don't you just admit that you were bluffing when you said that you knew of a section of CFR 14 part 107 FAR 108 was relevent to this issue of whether or not the airport overreacted, and that we were all unintelligent if we were not familiar with CFR 14 part 107 FAR 108?

[SBeck]

Bluffing...geez, for a non-aviator you sure sound like a lawyer. Face it Rod, you want McFacts that you can digest very quickly and use as an uninformed sound bite. If you haven't figured it out by now, I've invested a great deal of time learning and appreciating what is my business. Your characterization of the Atlanta reaction as an "over reaction" certainly is in keeping with the standard attention deficit disorder that a good deal of Americans have.

I simply won't give you instant gratification because you don't want to invest the time to learn it yourself.

[Rodney King]

Avoiding the questions again. It is not my wanting instant gratification for you to simply post the section of CFR 14 Part 107 FAR 108 that you said we are all uninformed and unintelligent for carrying on a conversation about whether or not the airport overreacted without knowing.

[cidrasm]

I'm very happy that this guy won't have to suffer more than he has. He may have been a bit foolish, but these things do happen, and he should NOT have to suffer to a degree ridiculously disproportionate to his actions.

Are you serious? This person's actions, by bypassing a security checkpoint (established to help protect you and me) resulted in the shutdown of a major airport. No one, other than the fool involved knew that he was harmless.

These things don't "just happen", a moron caused financial losses not just to the airlines but to hundreds of business travelers who missed important meetings and contacts. It's easy to dismiss the actions of this fool if you only think on the surface, but if you dig a little deeper you find the consequences of foolish/dangerous behavior.

I think if you were there in Atlanta on travel to an important meeting you'd have a different opinion on his actions.

[SBeck]

Quite the lawyer aren't you? Nope Rod, you get no answer from me. Go take a couple of courses at a local community college on aviation security management and then tell me it was an over reaction. (And then you'll know what the relevant sections are from FAR 108). (Hint: it has something to do with sterile areas).

[heleny]

You really don't know the full meaning of the words "serious crime"

That is true; I do not know the legal definition of "serious crime," and I did not mean to imply any legal definitions.
I meant that the crime of running past security to avoid it was not simply an innocent mistake, and that it could have had serious consequences. His not being charged with a crime does not mean that he didn't commit crimes. Perhaps the prosecutors simply did not want to make a case out of the crimes for which they did not accuse him.

[Rodney King]

Great debating tactic. Tell people they are wrong and that you know exactly why they are wrong, but you won't tell them. I'll bet you have a lot of friends.

You bluffed, admit it. Then you made the ridiculous assertion that they were all relevent. Now, almost an hour later, you hint at something. I'm surprised it took you that long to find it.

[SBeck]

Wrong Rod. I knew it from the start and yes I have a lot of friends. Glad you can pick out out of context parts of the regulation, you must be a fine lawyer.

[Rodney King]

Out of context parts? YOU SAID THEY WERE ALL IN CONTEXT!! Did you or did you not say that ALL OF FAR 108 WAS GERMANE? And now when I quote some of 108, you say that it is out of context. You make me laugh.

[VA Advogado]

Excellent. This guy's only poor decision was rooting for the Georgia Bulldogs. Other than that I think he's fine to go. No harm, no foul.

[usconservative]

You did read the first part...where he'd already been through security?

Yes I did.

He'd been through security, and didn't want to go through the hassle again.

So because "Mr. I'm more important than everyone else" didn't want to go through the hassle of going through security again, because HE forgot something, 1/3 of the airline system gets shut down, thousands of passengers are inconvenienced, and hundreds are put the the "hassle" of going through security and baggage checks AGAIN, because this inconsiderate JERKWAD didn't want to?

Well, we know who's side you're on. I hope I never see the likes of you or him "running" through security when I'm at the airport.

[Romulus]

Fact of the matter is that this dimwit should have noticed that getting to the plane last Friday was a bit different than it was on 9/10.

I agree the man was a fool who handled his problem badly. He inconvenienced thousands of people, and millions of dollars in downtime and lost human productivity is directly attributable to his thoughtlessness. So I am not excusing him, nor suggesting that he should get off with nothing more than a stern lecture. If I neglected to make that point clearly in my original post, I'm happy to clarify the record here.

But that does not alter my larger argument that Big Brother's embrace of zero tolerance not only in airports but comprehensively, as a paradigm for control, has been successful because conservatives are so easily convinced that they love their property and tranquility more than freedom.

[theDentist]

Go right ahead. I think the airlines will be able to put on a good case, if they chose to take the twerp to court. If you think you can put on a decent case against everyone you deem stupid, then do it.