Bonam Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 Check out this article: http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/03/09/newark.airport.kisser/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn Basically, a man ducked under a security rope at an airport to give his girlfriend a kiss. Apparently, this caused hours and hours of delays as scores of security guards and officials figured out what to do about the situation. For this he was arrested and now has to pay fines and do 100 hours of community service. A senator proposed that similar offenses be punishable by fines up to $10,000 and 10 years in prison in the future... Now, I completely see the need for airport security. It is there to keep us safe. But when it is obvious that what someone did is an honest mistake and not intended to be harmful to anyone in any way... that should be taken into account. Where has the simple common sense gone? If someone does something silly like duck under a rope when they're not supposed to, wave them back through security and keep things moving along. No need to freak out and delay the whole airport by hours and go to court... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrGreenthumb Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 Check out this article: http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/03/09/newark.airport.kisser/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn Basically, a man ducked under a security rope at an airport to give his girlfriend a kiss. Apparently, this caused hours and hours of delays as scores of security guards and officials figured out what to do about the situation. For this he was arrested and now has to pay fines and do 100 hours of community service. A senator proposed that similar offenses be punishable by fines up to $10,000 and 10 years in prison in the future... Now, I completely see the need for airport security. It is there to keep us safe. But when it is obvious that what someone did is an honest mistake and not intended to be harmful to anyone in any way... that should be taken into account. Where has the simple common sense gone? If someone does something silly like duck under a rope when they're not supposed to, wave them back through security and keep things moving along. No need to freak out and delay the whole airport by hours and go to court... And then there is Helena Guergis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 (edited) I see the good Dr. already doesn't understand the difference between an anecdotal story from the US and a story based in Canada. In that Helena thread which is elsewhere on this forum, Sir Bandelot (to me he is SID), pointed to some "zero tolerance" rules that were supposedly in effect in Canada. Upon reading the links it became apparent that those firm ZT rules were ambiguous and, therefore, in Canada at least, discretion could be applied. I would like to think that had this happened in Canada a better result would have occurred - but who knows? It depends on who's working that day, whether or not they're grumpy or not, how much of the incident they did or did not witness, and how well they know the rules and are trained. If everyone remembered that we're all human from time to time maybe we'd have a breakthrough in common sense. It's just too bad that ZT policies try to thwart common sense. Edited March 10, 2010 by msj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 ....Where has the simple common sense gone? If someone does something silly like duck under a rope when they're not supposed to, wave them back through security and keep things moving along. No need to freak out and delay the whole airport by hours and go to court... Your analysis of the sitch is with 100% hindsight and camera backup from an airline (as the airport video was down). The checkpoint guard left his post. Whenever security containment is broken by a perp with unknown intentions, airport security has to assume worse case, inspect for devices/tampering, and re-screen. I hope this guy got one helluva kiss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 Check out this article: http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/03/09/newark.airport.kisser/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn Basically, a man ducked under a security rope at an airport to give his girlfriend a kiss. Apparently, this caused hours and hours of delays as scores of security guards and officials figured out what to do about the situation. For this he was arrested and now has to pay fines and do 100 hours of community service. A senator proposed that similar offenses be punishable by fines up to $10,000 and 10 years in prison in the future... Now, I completely see the need for airport security. It is there to keep us safe. But when it is obvious that what someone did is an honest mistake and not intended to be harmful to anyone in any way... that should be taken into account. Where has the simple common sense gone? If someone does something silly like duck under a rope when they're not supposed to, wave them back through security and keep things moving along. No need to freak out and delay the whole airport by hours and go to court... in hindsight it was an overreaction but can you take the chance?...it really annoys the crap out of me when I go through airport security these people are paranoid to the extreme but what choice is there? it pisses me off that there are idiots who I don't know want to make a political point by killing me for some issue I have no say in...both extremes are insane and we get caught in the middle is there a solution? I hate airport security but I'd hate being dead more... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted March 11, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 The checkpoint guard left his post. Then perhaps it is the guard who should be in all this trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 11, 2010 Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 Then perhaps it is the guard who should be in all this trouble. The guard is on administrative leave and faces termination. Jiang plead guilty and will pay a fine plus community service. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/03/man_charged_in_newark_airport_2.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 11, 2010 Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 Unfortunately there are times when it is necessary to take stupid people seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted March 13, 2010 Report Share Posted March 13, 2010 in hindsight it was an overreaction but can you take the chance?...it really annoys the crap out of me when I go through airport security these people are paranoid to the extreme but what choice is there? it pisses me off that there are idiots who I don't know want to make a political point by killing me for some issue I have no say in...both extremes are insane and we get caught in the middle is there a solution? I hate airport security but I'd hate being dead more... Well said. Unfortunately there are times when it is necessary to take stupid people seriously. Exactly. What good are the rules and regulations if they aren't applied to everyone in every case? How can someone in charge look at this guy being where he wasn't supposed to be and conclude he was innocent of any wrong-doing or that no one else slipped through, too? I can imagine the out-cry if it weren't an 'innocent' act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted March 13, 2010 Report Share Posted March 13, 2010 Exactly. What good are the rules and regulations if they aren't applied to everyone in every case? How can someone in charge look at this guy being where he wasn't supposed to be and conclude he was innocent of any wrong-doing or that no one else slipped through, too? I can imagine the out-cry if it weren't an 'innocent' act. I am wondering who is the stupid person in the story? I think it is more than just the guy kissing his girlfriend although it may not be fair to call the security guard stupid if he was following procedure.1 So, it could be systemic stupidity or just systemic weaknesses. 1The reason I use the word "if" is because the media is terrible at getting stories right which is why investigations are conducted to determine the facts rather than rely on the "facts" relayed to the media second and third hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted March 13, 2010 Report Share Posted March 13, 2010 (edited) According to this site, there's video showing .... a Transportation Security Administration officer ask the man, who had been loitering in front of him, to move away from the secure area. About four minutes later the officer leaves his post, and the unidentified man, who is wearing light pants and a tan jacket, enters the secure area. The man is then greeted by a woman wearing a white puffy overcoat; the two embrace and then walk together toward the gate area. There's a video showing him and his girlfriend walking towards the gate, and that's the end of the video. It would have been crazy for security not to close down the area and re-check everyone not knowing who he was or what he was up to. They didn't know who the man was or where he was; they didn't find out who he was and what he said happened until about four days later. According to the opening post: ....a man ducked under a security rope at an airport to give his girlfriend a kiss. Apparently, this caused hours and hours of delays as scores of security guards and officials figured out what to do about the situation. For this he was arrested and now has to pay fines and do 100 hours of community service. A senator proposed that similar offenses be punishable by fines up to $10,000 and 10 years in prison in the future... Now, I completely see the need for airport security. It is there to keep us safe. But when it is obvious that what someone did is an honest mistake and not intended to be harmful to anyone in any way... that should be taken into account. It wasn't "obvious" what was happening at the time,* and the man's actions, afer he was asked by security to leave, caused a lot of inconvenience and delays for a lot of people, and I'm guessing at no small expense, so I don't think a fine of $500 and 100 hours of community service is out of line by any means. He got off cheap considering the cost to others by his deliberately disobeying the Security Guard's request to move away. *About 200 flights were delayed or canceled, and thousands of passengers had to be screened all over again as officials looked for a suspect who was not only oblivious, but also long gone. He was tracked down and arrested on Jan. 8. link Edited March 13, 2010 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted March 13, 2010 Report Share Posted March 13, 2010 AW, I am not questioning the sentence handed down. All I'm saying is that when most of us posted our opinions it was based on incomplete information and likely still is despite the video evidence. We all rush to judgement far too quickly based on incomplete information.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 13, 2010 Report Share Posted March 13, 2010 If the guy had not gone into the restricted area, the airport security was still compromised, wasn't it? It seems to me that security was compromised the moment the guard left his station unattended, whether or not somebody was seen going under the rope. The issue was not that a guy was seen entering, but the possibility that someone else may have entered without being seen, yes? Hypothetically, if the guy had not entered, would they have still locked down the area and delayed flights once they realized that a security post had been left unattended? That would have been the right thing to do, under the circumstances. But would it have actually happened? We can only guess, but my bet is on "no." I think the response here was not because there was a hole in security, but rather because the hole was pointed out in a manner that embarrassed the security staff and necessitated an exaggerated response to create the impression that something extraordinary had occurred. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted March 13, 2010 Report Share Posted March 13, 2010 AW, I am not questioning the sentence handed down. I didn't mean to imply that you were, so if it came across that way, that wasn't my intention. My comments were in regards to other posts/comments that had been made too, since I had found more information on the incident. All I'm saying is that when most of us posted our opinions it was based on incomplete information and likely still is despite the video evidence. The video evidence certainly puts more light on the situation. A man was captured on camera entering the secure area and was last filmed walking towards the gate with the woman he embraced, after having been told to clear the area. Under the circumstances, the decision to re-screen passengers, etc., was hardly an over-reaction, as a previous post (not by you, I wasn't quoting you in my post) had suggested. So that's what I was responding to. The issue was not that a guy was seen entering, but the possibility that someone else may have entered without being seen, yes? Evidently not. The TSA officer had earlier asked Jiang to stand back, but became distracted and left his desk. When the officer walked away, Jiang slipped under the ribbon, a moment caught on a surveillance camera. Even though the TSA officer left his post, surveillance cameras were running; that's how it was known that someone had entered the secure area, so the camera would have also caught anyone else entering the area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 13, 2010 Report Share Posted March 13, 2010 If they had him on video the whole time, why did they need to lock the place down and search the whole area? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted March 13, 2010 Report Share Posted March 13, 2010 If they had him on video the whole time, why did they need to lock the place down and search the whole area? They didn't have him on video the whole time. They had the entrance to the secure area on video, so they would have seen if anyone else had entered the secure area, but they didn't have him on video past the entrance to the secure area; they last had him on video walking towards the gate with his girlfriend. So as I said, they didn't know who he was or where he went, which is why they shut down the area and re-screened everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.