And my family wonders why I have problems with flying.....

From URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7806697/

Forgetfulness can cost you at airports
TSA fines: $250 for a knife; $10,000 for explosives
By Brock N. Meeks
Chief Washington correspondent
MSNBC
Updated: 5:06 p.m. ET May 10, 2005

WASHINGTON - Forgetfulness isn’t a crime, but these days it could get you fined and your name placed on a government security database.

The fines are being handed out at airports across the country to travelers caught trying to pass through security with banned items in their carry-on baggage. Fines can range as high as $10,000 and a criminal referral, according to the penalty guidelines established by the Transportation Security Administration.

Last year the TSA collected $1 million in fines from just over seven million banned items it collected. The money goes into the U.S. Treasury’s general fund. The average fine was $208 with just under 150 cases seeing fines of $1,000 or more, according to TSA figures. Of those seven million items collected, 81,600 were firearms, explosives, knives with blades over three inches and box-cutters that were “artfully concealed,” according to Amy Von Walter, a TSA spokesperson.

And simple forgetfulness isn’t going to be enough to get you off the hook anymore. Just ask Jon Zetterlund from the Minneapolis area, who was fined $250 when airport security found a Swiss Army knife in his shaving kit. In haste, Zetterlund had removed the shaving kit from an overweight piece of checked luggage and stuffed it into his carry-on when TSA passenger screeners nabbed him.

“I told them I screwed up, said I was sorry,” Zetterlund told the St. Paul Pioneer Press. He proffered no objection to having the knife confiscated. Yet several weeks later, he told the paper, a letter arrived demanding he pay the fine. Zetterlund was so taken aback, he thought the letter was some kind of elaborate scam; he eventually paid up after confirming the fine was for real.

'Aggravating circumstances'
“We typically don’t fine people for being forgetful,” Von Walter said. The TSA guidelines provide a broad outline for the types of fines that can be imposed and under what circumstances they can be modified, Von Walter said. “However, the guidance doesn’t require civil penalty in every incidence where a prohibited item is discovered,” she said.

And in fact, typically, with the more common items, such as small Swiss Army knives or sewing scissors, TSA won’t hand out a fine, “but we do have to look at cases where there are aggravating circumstances and typically that will influence the fee amount,” Von Walter said.

In other words, if you shoot off your mouth about being caught trying to take a banned item through airport security, be prepared to pay. It’s common sense, said Von Walter, and not unlike a situation in which you’ve been stopped for a traffic violation. “Be pleasant and apologetic and respectful and it could potentially impact your situation,” she said, meaning the difference between a hefty fine and a stern warning.

Disciplinary discretion
Federal security directors at each airport are given flexibility in deciding what offenses should be fined and for how much. “Like a judge on a bench,” has leeway to interpret the law to fit the circumstance, Von Walter said. And that includes handing down a fine that is less than the minimum $250, she said, especially in first time offenses.

This flexibility has led to questions from Congress about whether the fines are being fairly assessed. A person caught with a box-cutter at one airport may get off with a verbal warning while another person in similar circumstances might be hit with a $250 fine.

“Consistency is an issue that TSA struggles with,” Von Walter acknowledged, pointing out the agency’s somewhat confusing shoe screening that seems to differ from airport to airport. “Certainly, we want to insure greater consistency,” when it comes to fines, she said.

Ignorance is no excuse
Pleading your case in an apologetic way only goes so far, however. TSA is now three years old. The agency’s list of banned items is one of the best publicized post-9/11 government creations for no other reason than it’s often in heavy rotation of late night comedian monologues and is derided almost as much as the Department of Homeland Security’s terrorist-threat color code.

Bottom line: the TSA feels American travelers have had fair enough warning regarding the consequences of bringing a banned item through airport security.

“Certainly, we try and be as understanding as possible,” Von Walter said.

There’s another reason to keep your head clued in when traveling, beyond the annoyance of having to pay a fine: All the personal information collected during the process of being fined is stored on a government security database that doesn’t go away.

“It would be safe to assume that in some cases you may be placed on a ‘selectee list,’” said a TSA source with knowledge of the process. Such lists fall short of the infamous “no fly” list, which have erroneously ensnared politicians, celebrities and other innocent travelers. But this selectee list means you’re more likely to have your ticket flagged, and that means “you would go through additional screening at airport security checkpoints,” the TSA source said.

But you don’t have to just “take it.” There is an appeal process, the TSA says. One caution though: The procedure is tedious and if you want an in-person hearing, you have to return to the place where the infraction took place.

We can but hope that this out of control bureaucracy will be demolished soon ... the Bush administration as already told the current TSA director he's not needed after July, so there IS hope.

Being the cynical type, I don't hold out much hope the TSA would ever be dismantled.

I can imagine the bombastic speechmaking, thundering, and chest-thumping our esteemed lawmakers would do should any serious talk get going of decommissioning of the TSA.

I will place my money on "Ain't gonna happen." If it does, I will be happily wrong.

-- Craig

Like a $250 fine is going to deter a suicide terrorist hijacker. <img src="/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

I was flying from Anchorage to Kodiak for my first duty station. I boarded Wein Airlines. The flight attendant came walking aboard with two .375 H&H rifles to secure safely. Hunting was a major income for the island economy and Wein knew it. The government and the airline industry need to remember who is working for who.

You wanna tell THEM that? Don't think they're in the mood to listen.

-- Craig

Of course not. That's meant to intimidate the rest of us. It certainly intimidates me.

I was going to make a crack about the likelyhood of someone taking a plane with a box cutter or pointy scissors, but I don't want to end up on a list. <img src="/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

Another "happy" TSA story for those keeping score.

(Mind you, that Zippo Camera does merit a little gee-whizzing...)

There was a time when airplanes were perceived to be the next step in personal transportation after the car. Even Lindberg, dying on a plane over the Pacific recognised the dream had been lost with a terrible price to the environment instead. Every new form has left a longing for the older and perceived more genteel mode of travel. Carriage drivers went to work for the early raillines bemoaning their lost skills, though I can tell you driving or just riding in a four or six up carriage is no great fun after the first hour. The great ocean liners are almost gone, replaced by cruiseliners that manage to have periodic stopped up sewage or salmonella outbreaks and AMTRAK is a miserable insult to visions of The Orient Express. The airlines have gone the same sad route, pushed along by world terrorism, but not directed by it into the repeated bankruptcies, reduction in safety and, oh yes, loss of simple manners. The easiest way to tell these fools is by simple silence, the silence of our credit cards not sliding through the scanner, our change in the parking meters and paper bills not crinkling in skycabs hands. The stated agenda of the TSA and commercial air may be security, but whos?

My great-grandfather started out as a painter -- of carriages. Horse-drawn carriages. He was one of the last ones to do that. He eventually went into painting other things, such as houses.

The TSA's mission public mission is security. Its true mission is to provide the illusion of security. The flying public needs that show of security to continue flying and keep the economy rolling. That's all it really is -- a show.

People seem to have no idea what is really going on sometimes.

I had to laugh a few Christmases ago during one of the panic alerts. Someone commented on live TV news about how comforting it was to have their airliner escorted by F-16s. This idiot had no clue the jets were there not to guard them, but to shoot them down should they be hijacked.

-- Craig

That is hillarious. Without people like that there would be a little less laughter in my life. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I believe the government and the TSA can get away with what they are doing because the public is so effing stupid in the first place.

I'll sign that, about being stupid. Case in point, yesterday I was opening some boxes of supplies we had been waiting on for months (gotta love working for the government) and another employee came in and asked, "What's that?," pointing to my 79-cent boxcutter (you know the kind, the foldover piece of metal that holds one single-edged razor blace).
"It's a boxcutter," I replied, continuing to slash at the miles of packing tape.
"Like they used on 9-11?" she asked, her voice rising.
"No," I said, "I'm sure those were much nicer."
"But that could be dangerous!" she said, getting agitated.
"Only if you keep distracting me," I replied.
I found out later she went and complained to a supervisor that I had a deadly weapon. He came, took one look, and left laughing ...

The problem with such complainers are, they have a habit of suing to get their way. Companies, not wanting to risk a court case or sympathetic jury, will quickly settle out of court. The settlement usually involves:

(1) firing the employee who was complained about -- if you could cost them money, you've become a liability they can't afford, and/or

(2) equipping everyone with new gear far less capable of doing the job, but "safer" (AKA doesn't LOOK as dangerous), and/or

(3) making reparations to the complainant to account for the "mental cruelty" she endured while working in a "hostile environment."

Sad but true. Court costs and legal liability rule the workplace.

-- Craig

Graig:

I disagree in part.

In addition to being a show of security for the PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. flying public, which is a secondary concern, I believe it is a step to make the American public at large become more used to having liberties taken away in the name of security.

I haven't forgotten the late President Nixon's "no knock law" for entering private citizens homes passed under the guise of helping law enforcement, or former President Bush Sr. allowing the "assault weapons ban" to become law. The fact that the two Presidents are Republicans has no bearing as it is the act and not the actors that matter.

The taking of small pocket knives and tools from passangers does not engender safety after the first time it happens to good people, but they do not protest when they have to fear being placed on the "no fly" list.

This is basically a "guilty without even being able to prove innocence" law by a President and Congress which claims it wants to give people more control over their lives.

Bountyhunter

Maggot:

You may be missing the point on your situation.

If she in fact used the words you claim to your superior instead of asking him to see if you were using something illegal, you may be able to sue her for damages and demand her termination for her actions.

I definitely would and I would also go after anyone who supported her, even our respective superiors.

Bountyhunter

Craig:

All the more reason to go after her in the workplace and sue her if you have an honest cause of action!

Offensive action always has the advantage over defensive action no matter what those stupid action movies portray.

Bountyhunter

In all the cases I've read about or heard of, countersuits and pre-emptive suits were never filed or pursued, as far as I know.

-- Craig

Agreed. I have had more arguments with family members, acquaintances, and co-workers about their collective attitude of "They can take away anything they want or inspect anything they want because that will make us safer and protect us from terrorists."

What?!

They seriously believe that and they think I'm foolish for questioning governmental authority in this matter. It seems everyone has forgotten Vietnam and Watergate already. Memories fade quickly. Far too quickly.

-- Craig

Craig:

I'm sorry, I don't understand your last post.

Bountyhunter

You mentioned lawsuits and taking the offensive. I thought you were talking about proactive, pre-emptive, or first-strike lawsuits. If I assumed incorrectly, I apologize.

-- Craig

Craig:

No, actually you are correct.

Most people like that female PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. you mentioned have been conditioned or feel empowered to try and crush people like you simply because you possess something used in the 9/11 scenerio. If she accused you of having a dangerous weapon that was never really designed for use as a weapon, or has been used by you as a weapon, she is making statements on your character which may constitute slander (An attorney could better advise you of the validity of that being the case.)

I mean that you should start; not just threaten to start a lawsuit if you have cause of action, go after and destroy her financially, personally, and professionally so that others understand the gravity of accusing you or anyone else of being a danger to society or your workplace when all you are doing is using tools in a proper manner.

I recall some dipstick of a woman, (?Bella Abzug?) once saying all men are rapists because they possess a penis. That statement is so overreaching and absurd that the average individual and therefore the courts are not likely to consider it slanderous.

The woman in your situation cast your character in an incorrect manner to your boss, and I would bet, to your fellow employees and may have met the legal definition of committing slander.

Check with a lawyer, if it would be worth your while, and if so, take her to the cleaners and any of your co-workers or bosses who try to defend her actions.

Depending on what she said and how many people she said it to, you can probably get a good lawyer for less than $3500.00 or maybe even on a contingency basis for a percentage of the settlement. Anyone who agrees with you will understand, and anyone who disagrees will walk and talk more carefully from that point forward.

Good luck!

Bountyhunter

Bringing a lawsuit over this is merely reciprocating the lady's ignorance, and that is what it is, not premeditated malevolence. Now, Victorinox just purchased Wenger because of cheap knockoff copies and the 30% loss of sales at duty free stations. How would you like to help SAK sales AND make a friend and allie of this woman? Buy her a lady's SAK, send it with a note apologising if your demeaner caused concern. Real men, more importantly gentlemen always take the moral high ground. Rhett Butler always had a handkerchief for Scarlett, even when he "frankly didn't give a damn."

Chris,

That is one of the most practical approaches to obnoxious office mates I've heard.

John

My last Coast Guard duty while being put back together was as medical driver in the bay area. We were always begging supplies from the big Navy Hospital. One day I get read the riot act from this CPO African American lady for our constant begging. I returned to base and had to explain the situation to my CPO, a skinny Georgia Cracker with the complexion of the banjo playing kid in Deliverance. He immediately had a bouquet of flowers sent to her with an apology. After that I could have walked out with the whole pharmacy. Problem was, she asked about my CPO and I described him in glowing terms as being Mohammed Ali , Lou Rawls and Sidney Poittier rolled up in one. Like the mythical Lt Kinje in Russian classical music I had to kill him off one day. I think I said he was eaten by a great white shark off Hawaii during a SAR or something. But it was a good lesson in diplomacy <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

LOL <img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Why bring the lawyers into it? They're part of the problem.

Besides, now you know what to get her for Christmas... <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Steve

And then there's Iraq...

Steve

There's always something, isn't there?

-- Craig

<<I haven't forgotten the late President Nixon's "no knock law" for entering private citizens homes passed under the guise of helping law enforcement, or former President Bush Sr. allowing the "assault weapons ban" to become law. The fact that the two Presidents are Republicans has no bearing as it is the act and not the actors that matter.>>

Well, evidently you forgot something: that it was Clinton who signed the self-loading weapons ban in 1994--2 years after the election. <img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Bush Sr was no friend of gun owners that's for sure. But don't blame him for Clinton's sins. Notice his son didn't make the same mistake this time around.

Regards, Vince

Norad45:

I don't remember a self-loading weapons ban being passed into law.

The assualt weapons ban was.

I remember talking personally to former Senator Bill Proxmire when they were debating the gun control act of 1968 and my objecting to its passage. He stood with me in front of the old Treasure Island store on Highway 100 in West Allis, Wisconsin trying to dance his way around without giving a direct answer to me. I remember this so vividly because behind him at both flanks stood the ultimate in hippocracy; two armed State of Wisconsin troopers in civilian clothes. Senator Proxmire was a PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. who up until that time had given blanket support to Wisconsin gun owners. He never got another one of my votes.

By the by, I voted for Bush Jr. the first time, but consider him too Facist in policy and dispite my general dislike (Not just the gun issue.) of John Kerry I felt the country as a whole would have been better off, I voted for Kerry.

History is showing that for my purposes and beliefs, I was right.

Bountyhunter

Stevez:

I'd rather make her poorer, marked as a stupid reactionary, and unemployed.

She can buy her own gifts as she would probably misinterpert anything I gave her.

Bountyhunter <img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

1. Didn't Hillary Clinton work for Proxmire for awhile? Maybe it was some other gun-grabber.

2. True "assault weapons"--ie., fully automatic weapons--have been forbidden to private citizens without permit since the reign of Roosevelt the 2nd and the National Firearms Act of 1934..

3. I think history will be kinder to GWB than you are. But I also think that not enough history is in the books yet to make a final determination.

At least there is no further gun control legislation on the horizon that has any chance of passage.

Regards, Vince

Bounty,

We all have our own methods of dealing with situations. But aside from that, can you just picture the look on her face when she opens her present? Would that not be priceless?

Steve

Chris:

I remember the statement of former Hollywood gun instructor to the movie industry. He said male actors who had never used firearms tend to flinch and close their eyes as the firearm goes off, female actresses with the same lack of experience didn't. Women are colder when deciding to do something even if they feel more emotional later on.

If an individual of either sex defames you, they will do it to you or someone else again, it is like the old saw of cold blooded killing being easier the second and subsequent times it is done.

If you take the "high road", you demonstrate to individuals that they can control and even expect gifts from people they intimidate without cause. If you also apologise, they will believe what they did is right. and continue do it.

I remember an old Van Heflin movie whose title I cannot remember concerning the Yugoslavs fight against the Nazi's. A man and woman from their group had been selected for perimeter guard duty and in the boredom had retreated deeper into the bushes to make love. A Nazi patrol went past their position without being noticed and by good fortune was spotted and eliminated before they could escape.

The man and woman were found guilty by the group and were judged to be executed. They were positioned on the road and as the leader of the group, Van Heflin ordered the firing squad to fire; all six shot the man. The woman was a childhood friend of Van Heflins, not a former lover. He shot her and berated his comrades for failing in their duty to protect the cause and not the individual.

If you get shot in the chest by a woman, it is not going to do any less damage to you than if you are shot by a man. The same applies if you are fired, hit, cheated, lied to, or defamed by a woman.

Bottom line, judge the act and not the actor. If the act was slanderous destroy her not only for your sake and future serenity, but also for the millions of us who could suffer the same fate from her or others like her.

I like women wheather they are mine or not, but I will not let anyone intentionally hurt me in any way.

Bountyhunter

Norad45:

You can thank the second most effective lobbying organization in the United States, right behind the American Medical Association (which has more money, not better lobbiests.); The NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION .

Bountyhunter

Stevez:

It would probably be viewed and reported by her as a backhanded threat if you are talking about sending her a knife which you know she does not like.

Sad to say, in todays political atmosphere she would probably find a sympathetic company, boss, and prosecutor, and you would end up poorer, labeled as a dangerous sociapath, and unemployed.

Forget phsychology and go for any legal juglar you have a right to pursue within reasonable costs.

Bountyhunter

Johnbaker:

You must be older than I am if you remember women being much more genteel than they are today.

Bountyhunter <img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

I would suggest renting Harvey with good old Jimmy Stewart and taking notes. There are to many Annikan Skywalkers succumbing to the dark Side. I' m not Catholic nor Buddhist. But I am always inspired by the example of Pope John Paul2 and his holyness the Dalai Lama. They help me a lot dealing with my fellow human beings dsiplaying the commonality of stupidity we all share to some degree. Them, classical music and a big Starbucks <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Bounty,

But I AM a dangerous sociopath!

Going back to Maggot's comments about his encounter, it's doubtful that one could get any lawyer to take an interest. Woman cried wolf, manager found no wolf, everyone went back to work unharmed, end of story. Hopefully the manager explained to her that a box cutter is the appropriate tool to open boxes. That's why they're called "box cutters".

Maybe from now on put her in charge of opening boxes, and by all means, don't let her see the paper cutter! Better yet, let's remove all sharp and pointy objects from the workplace. Gotta keep the lawyers and the WSA (Workplace Security Administration) happy.

It's time to reel in the lawyers and get back to the real world.

Steve

ENOUGH BAD-MOUTHING OF LAWYERS! LAWYERS ARE NOT THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL!

As far as I know, I am the only admitted lawyer active on this forum. The facts described do not give rise to any lawsuit I can think of. The matter is too petty to be litigated. No lawyers have suggested any action. All the trouble is being made by you non-lawyers. SO STIFLE!

Incidentally, this thread is supposed to be about TSA. More than half the posts in this thread do not relate to the TSA. Lets stick to the subject.


Growling under breath while stomping back to cave,

John

Bounty,

I'd answer your question, but my wife tells me that my memory was the second thing to go.

John

two quotes:

The guilty man flees when no one persues

and

me think thou protestith too much


<img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Bounty... I'm surprised, that sounds like something I'd come up with... didn't somebody compare me to the "Paperhanger" when I suggested the same actions albeit on a bigger scale from our government?

Troy

P.S. If it's good enough for me, it's good enough for my nation. "Grab 'em by the nose 'n' kick 'em in the pants"... George S. Patton.

I just started working part time at JFK in NYC as a paramedic. I hate TSA because of the same reasons you guys do. Now mind that I'm a street medic. If 12 lead EKG machines for my PDA were affordable most likely I would have one in my pocket so short of that I'm pretty much set. Gotta be ready when ankle pain stuff turns out to be a shooting with traumatic arrest. Job at JFK even thou is a paramedic work is not as unpredictable as street work plus we always have backup so being well equipped is optional. Not for me. I still carry all my junk and make sure it is seen especially when I'm going thru the TSA check points. It gives me huge satisfaction. I have my folder on my belt and fixed blade in my boot plus a multitool and yes zippo lighter and shears and rescue hook. Screw them, I know they are just doing their jobs but I also know that some of them are pushing the limits.

That boot knife of yours is a double-edged Applegate too isn't it? LOL I bet they love that one.

Concerning your response, -"Only if you keep distracting me,"-(Refering to her feeling a danger in the matter), -That too could potentially be a real Hot Potato to step on!, -with such a person, in such a Situation.

Of course I'm sure you were referring to dangers such as tool Slippage, etc, -which could occur by accident, -as a result of the distraction.

But such a person could conceivably take that as a direct / personal threat.

We can't, and shouldn't have to step gingerly on every last little thing in Life. But we wisely should on some, -and I think that this may well count, -as one of them!

I speak so here, -to Alert you or others, -to a Real Potential Pitfall and Danger here! [color:"black"] [/color] [email]Maggot[/email]

A person such as her, -conceivably could take this sort of Gift Giving, -the wrong way too. (See my earlier response in this thread to Maggot.). My view could well be, -"I Wouldn't if I were you!", -to quote an early 80's Hall and Oates line! Done Intentionally or Not by her, -She *could* so function as a sort of "Maneater"! [color:"black"] [/color] [email]Chris Kavanaugh[/email]

Yeah well I'm alternating between Applegate and Aviator.

You're right, it's the love of money that is the root of all evil. And it's the love of money that seems to be the focus of so many lawyers. Unfortunately for your profession, it is those "bad apples" who have cast a dim light on the rest. There are many of us "non-lawyers" who have been biased with negativity and distrust of both lawyers and our legal system by the rediculous antics we see happening all around us. Get rid of the liars, crooks, swindlers and other miscreants who are bringing the profession down, and you'll probably see a reduction in the bashing from those of us on the outside, looking in.

On the positive side, I know a few lawyers who have gained my trust and respect. I'm sure that most would. And, you've got to admit, some of the jokes ARE funny - please tell me that you think some of the jokes are funny.

Please accept my apology if I offended you with previous comments. It's just that lawyers, in general, make such juicy targets.

As for keeping this thread on track, I agree. My digression ends here.

Steve

Steve,

Thank you very much for your apology. However, I did not find your posts offensive. Nor for that matter was it any single post that was offensive. The whole tenor of the thread had mutated from legitimate complaints about the TSA, to a discussion of the alleged need to harass, attack, and oppress by means of petty and greedy lawsuits filed by unscrupulous lawyers. Sure, the behavior of the woman was stupid and obnoxious, but she was properly put back in her place by her supervisor. I thought the idea of giving her a lady's SAK was downright inspired as well as hilarious.

As a lawyer, I despise petty and grasping litigiousness. I want to see it discouraged, not nurtured.
You're right that we have a lot of unethical lawyers, but they are enabled by equally unethical and greedy clients. Sometimes it's hard to tell which came first. But in any case, both are equally problematic.

I guess what really bothered me was the unnecessary intrusion of obsessive litigiousness into a forum focusing on survival issues. Actually, it sounds too much like work. :^} Also, a great feature of this forum is the overall civility maintained in it.

Incidentally I love good lawyer jokes.

Thanks for your graciousness,

John

John,

I seems like we're thinking along the same lines here. It is very refreshing to hear your views on some very ugly topics. I'm looking forward to hearing more from you - in other threads of course.

It's good to have you around.

Steve