This week in government control we have two excellent examples of how authorities misuse the legal processes to do their job. Law enforcement agents are experts in what they can legally do and better, what they can get away with. It’s part of the tribal knowledge they use to get what they want.
In a nice short video that moves well, we see a case where a passenger is leaving an airplane and the TSA decides the passenger needs to be examined again. Why? We don’t know. We do know that he was not on the no-fly list. We do know that he didn’t raise any suspicions before the plane took off. We also know that nothing he said or did in-flight was of enough concern to the pilot to land the plane. Maybe upon leaving he talked about a bomb. Maybe another passenger wanted to see him hassled. Again, we don’t know.
What we do know is that the TSA wanted to search him. We also know that nothing the passenger did aroused “reasonable suspicion” of a crime. That would have led to an entirely different video. The lead TSA agent tried to lead him into a secluded area. The passenger refused and started to argue. The TSA agent responded, “I’m not going to argue about the process.” While talking on his phone to his supervisor, the lead TSA gave as an example of the passenger “being objectionable” as “filming me.” The TSA agent then leveled his threat. Even though they could not detain the passenger, he would, “Reach out to Denver Police and they will apprehend you… for refusing our direction.”
That’s it. So in the view of the TSA not following “our direction” and filming is “objectionable” and warrants the threat of arrest. We know this TSA agent was at least rude and misdirected if not conflating not being able to do as he pleased with a threat the public safety. Limits to the TSA agents’ freedom apparently are a threat.
Bonus video. A man was arrested at his home by militarized police who did not know they were being filmed in the man’s garage. The police joking around is just too much to listen to. Apparently the guy also taped a magistrate hearing and the magistrate felt his privacy was invaded.