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