Was this a spite search?

Until last month, I hadn't flown on an airliner for about 8 years.
Last month, however, my father was suddenly hospitalized and because
the weather was bad I decided to fly down via Delta instead of flying
my own plane as I usually do. In the line for the security screening
at the airport, the two gentlemen behind me were discussing what would
likely cause the walk-through metal detector to beep. One of them
said his belt buckle frequently sets it off. Well, my belt buckle has
a substantial amount of metal too. When I got to the screening area I
put my carry-on suitcase on the conveyor belt and put my pocket change
and keys into the plastic bucket. Remembering the belt buckle
conversation, I took my belt off and placed it into the bucket as
well. As I was placing it into the bucket the screening agent
(female) said, "Don't take off your belt." Well, the belt was
already off and in the bucket. Before I could do or say anything, she
called over the agent at the walk-through metal detector, gave him my
boarding pass, and mumbled something to him which I didn't quite make
out. As I passed through the metal detector, the agent already had
his arm up blocking my way and ushered me to the area for a wand
search. No, the walk-through metal detector didn't beep when I went
through. In your opinion, was this a "spite search" for daring to
disobey the first agent (the one who apparently ordered up the wand
search) or did my actions truly warrant a wand search?

Anon wrote:

In your opinion, was this a "spite search" for daring to
disobey the first agent (the one who apparently ordered
up the wand search) or did my actions truly warrant a wand search?

Who cares...... You come in as Anonymous, and want anonymous
people in a newsgroup to comment on an anonymous security
guard's split second decision to have another anonymous guard take
a closer look at you....... perhaps, maybe, you don't really know.

Now do you....????????

This underpaid and overworked guard is expected to make split second
decisions hundreds if not thousands of times each day when anonymous
people like you stand in front of them for what 30 to 120 seconds.

Give us a break.

Why don't you tell us whether your dad died or not.

Better yet why don't you tell us a flying story instead of trying to
create controversay when the only problem is the problem in your head.

"Anon" wrote in message
...


[snip story]
In your opinion, was this a "spite search" for daring to
disobey the first agent (the one who apparently ordered up the wand
search) or did my actions truly warrant a wand search?

More likely a power-trip from someone who was passed over as hallway monitor
in school.

Am I missing something, or is the US really cutting new trails on the road
to adolescence for our "adults"?

..

"Anon" wrote in message
...
[...] In your opinion, was this a "spite search" for daring to
disobey the first agent (the one who apparently ordered up the wand
search) or did my actions truly warrant a wand search?

How would we know? Never mind why would we care, why would YOU even care?
They waved a wand at you. Get on with your life.

Becasue you showed a sudden interest in removing extra metal that would
trigger an alarm on the metal detector, they then waved the wand over you to
ensure you didn't do it to hide the small amount of metal in the firing pin
of your plastic concealed firearm.

Reducing the overall level of metal which would otherwise trigger an alarm
has to trigger a warning with the security guard. Doing it in full view and
probably looking scared of being detected while doing it would arouse extra
suspicion.

I would much rather the guard spend extra time checking you properly after
you had shown a suspiciouos act to hie the amount of metal in total you were
wearing.

Of course, if I had been a security officer I would have held a gun at your
head, kicked you to the ground and made you strip while the search was
carried out as you were obviously suspicious!

Hope this helps,
Peter

Bushy wrote:

Reducing the overall level of metal which would otherwise trigger an alarm
has to trigger a warning with the security guard.

Doesn't *everyone* try to avoid setting off the detection mechanism?

- Andrew

On Mon, 24 May 2004 at 00:28:42 in message
, Anon
wrote:


Until last month, I hadn't flown on an airliner for about 8 years.
Last month, however, my father was suddenly hospitalized and because
the weather was bad I decided to fly down via Delta instead of flying
my own plane as I usually do. In the line for the security screening
at the airport, the two gentlemen behind me were discussing what would
likely cause the walk-through metal detector to beep. One of them
said his belt buckle frequently sets it off. Well, my belt buckle has
a substantial amount of metal too. When I got to the screening area I
put my carry-on suitcase on the conveyor belt and put my pocket change
and keys into the plastic bucket. Remembering the belt buckle
conversation, I took my belt off and placed it into the bucket as
well. As I was placing it into the bucket the screening agent
(female) said, "Don't take off your belt." Well, the belt was
already off and in the bucket. Before I could do or say anything, she
called over the agent at the walk-through metal detector, gave him my
boarding pass, and mumbled something to him which I didn't quite make
out. As I passed through the metal detector, the agent already had
his arm up blocking my way and ushered me to the area for a wand
search. No, the walk-through metal detector didn't beep when I went
through. In your opinion, was this a "spite search" for daring to
disobey the first agent (the one who apparently ordered up the wand
search) or did my actions truly warrant a wand search?

Intriguing, I had almost the opposite experience when visiting with
friends and going to see the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia. Security
there was airline check standard but taken even more seriously. Despite
my protestations that my belt had no metal in it, I was told in no
uncertain terms to remove it! My friend and host was more concerned than
I was as he had grave doubts that his pants (trousers for Britons like
me) would stay safely up without his belt!

I guess they had decided that you were going to be a problem!




--
David CL Francis

Andrew Gideon wrote:

Doesn't *everyone* try to avoid setting off the detection mechanism?

- Andrew

Of course they do, Andrew. "Bushy" was just doing his best to be an
asshole. In that, he succeeded. Unfortunately, his logic failed
miserably.

David CL Francis wrote:

Intriguing, I had almost the opposite experience when visiting with
friends and going to see the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia. Security
there was airline check standard but taken even more seriously. Despite
my protestations that my belt had no metal in it, I was told in no
uncertain terms to remove it! My friend and host was more concerned than
I was as he had grave doubts that his pants (trousers for Britons like
me) would stay safely up without his belt!

I guess they had decided that you were going to be a problem!

And, of course, I wasn't a problem. I cheerfully went along with
everything. The wand search was quick and painless. Didn't even have
to take off my shoes, and, of course, my belt was already off. And
no, to answer another reply, it didn't bother me much then and doesn't
bother me now. I was just curious. Interesting, though, and quite
ironic as well, that some of the respondents here chimed in with
mean-spirited and hateful replies and then when on to suggest that
similar behavior couldn't be expected of a security agent. :-)

"anon" wrote
And, of course, I wasn't a problem. I cheerfully went along with
everything. The wand search was quick and painless. Didn't even have
to take off my shoes, and, of course, my belt was already off. And
no, to answer another reply, it didn't bother me much then and doesn't
bother me now. I was just curious. Interesting, though, and quite
ironic as well, that some of the respondents here chimed in with
mean-spirited and hateful replies and then when on to suggest that
similar behavior couldn't be expected of a security agent. :-)



You gotta remind yourself what type of people these are. Bottom of the
bucket on pay, intelligence, and everything else. Now give these people a
job with absolute power, power far above what they have ever had before, and
they will make sure, at every opportunity, to let you know who is in charge
there.

Same thing with security guards and building inspectors. There are good
ones, too. But there are bad ones.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.688 / Virus Database: 449 - Release Date: 5/18/2004