Since when is a pregnant woman a threat to airport security? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-28-2002, 09:24 AM   #21
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 05:40 PM
But even if the man did haul off before he knew the whole situation (which, granted, wasn't right), shouldn't the security personnel still have had more decency and sensitivity than to check the woman *in front of other passengers*? Couldn't they have taken her aside, out of public view, and had her examined confidentially by a female officer?
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 12-28-2002, 03:21 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Hallelujah Here She Comes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 3,528
Local Time: 04:40 PM
The man's wife hadn't had difficult pregnancies in the past. This was her first child, which is why her doctors wouldn't let her risk trying to deliver naturally when the baby had gone breach. In any case, I think why they chose to fly is really irrelevant to the story, whether this version of it is true or not.

From an objective standpoint, the man probably overreacted. But, frankly, I don't know many men who I think would act much differently when confronted with the same situation. And while I certainly understand the need to take him into custody, was it really necessary to prevent him from flying, ban him from the airport, and charge him with a felony? Maybe I'm not familiar enough with airport security procedure, but it would seem that once he calmed down and they determined *why* he'd reacted the way he did, there would be some room for leniency. Also, the fact that airport security lied in their report (if indeed then did) would seem to indicate that they even they felt they had to justify their behavior more than the actual circumstances allowed. But that's just my own sense of the situation.
__________________

Hallelujah Here She Comes is offline  
Old 12-29-2002, 12:13 AM   #23
The Fly
 
the olive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Above the golden arch
Posts: 282
Local Time: 09:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hallelujah Here She Comes
And while I certainly understand the need to take him into custody, was it really necessary to prevent him from flying, ban him from the airport, and charge him with a felony? Maybe I'm not familiar enough with airport security procedure, but it would seem that once he calmed down and they determined *why* he'd reacted the way he did, there would be some room for leniency. Also, the fact that airport security lied in their report (if indeed then did) would seem to indicate that they even they felt they had to justify their behavior more than the actual circumstances allowed. But that's just my own sense of the situation.
Totally agree. I don't get why some folks in "law enforcement" cannot back off after they figure out that a situation is not half as bad as they suspected. It's like they feel obligated to follow through in punishing someone just for being in a situation that APPEARED to be ugly, even if it was just a missunderstanding.
Does pride and ego play a role in these kind of situations? It sure seems like it.
the olive is offline  
Old 12-29-2002, 01:33 AM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 04:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hallelujah Here She Comes
The man's wife hadn't had difficult pregnancies in the past. This was her first child, which is why her doctors wouldn't let her risk trying to deliver naturally when the baby had gone breach. In any case, I think why they chose to fly is really irrelevant to the story, whether this version of it is true or not.
HERE in the Author's own words:

This is my wife, finally pregnant with our first child after months of failed attempts, after the depressing shock of the miscarriage last year, my wife whod been walking on a cloud over having the opportunity to be a mother...




As to their choosing to fly it most certainly is relevant! At 7 1/2 months pregnant, I sincerely doubt with months of failed attempts and a prior miscarriage, that should have been flying in the third trimester. I am not a doctor and would love to hear a doctor's opinion on this. I have read it is safe if there are NO PRIOR complications.

On top of this all, the two insurance companies my wife and I used we could not leave the state in her third trimester because of some prior complications.

This said, it most definitely lends itself to question the credibility of the author. Since there are no credible outside sources to collaborate this story, we most definitely have the right to question the credibility of the author. So did it happen?
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-29-2002, 01:16 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 04:40 PM
I have really tried to believe this happened.

If it did happen:

First, the woman was searched by a Female Security Agent. It was not some male gropping and getting his jollies as some have implied by their statements.

Second, It does not say she lifted her shirt up over her head or anything close to that. It is implied that the shirt was raised up over her belly to show that she was indeed pregnant.

Third, going through Military Police School, I was trained to search and remove caps. There can and have been incidents in which people have had items (drugs, razor blades, ect) stored inside of the cap. It is interesting that the author, in all of his wisdom, believes that the person is totally ignorant by searching the cap, when this is a standard police procedure which has been in place since at least 1989 when I was in the military. Already, a nice bias towards a person doing a cruicial job in this day and age. Anyone who is working one of these jobs must not have greaduated high school right? He entered the airport thinking these are ignorant people. He was annoyed at being searched.

Fourth, do any of you believe that this guy kept his mouth shut during the search? By his own words and disdain for the process that he went through, I am willing to bet he made and said comments and most likely was very uncooperative.

Fifth, instead of listening to his wife, he reacted irrationally. He returned to the screening station and screamed and yelled, holding up the boarding of the plane. After his first run through the screening station, I am sure they were happy to see him. This was seen by the POLICE. The three police officers arrested him for interefering with the boarding of the plane. I am willing to bet, he was asked and asked to calm down and he did not.

Sixth, the ACLU only handles cases for minorities???? Please. The ACLU would not take his case because the security personel were behaving appropriately. You do not think they would be all over this if there was a thread of legal ground to stand on. Sounds like he has an issue with minorities based on this ignorant statement. I wonder if the airport security personnel were minorities.

Seventh, since the airport screeners are an independant group from the police force I am really sceptical that there was a conspiracy to frame him. You would need the supervisors, the people at the screening station, the three police officers all working together to shaft this guy. It makes no sense.

Eight, he was not found guilty of a felony. The charges were reduced.

Finally, I am sure the three police officers were just waiting to find someone to arrest for no reason at all. I am sure they all said, lets get this guy. Lets frame him. They had enough to arrest him right there for disrupting the screening process. They did not need trumped up stories about scissors for the screeners to arrest him. This is rediculous.


If it is true, the article is one sided, and quite honestly, lends more to my believe that the author was a complete jerk at the airport that morning.

If this is true....Do I feel badly for his wife and child? Yes. And his actions, rational or irrational, are directly responsible for the way the day went down. Would I be very calm if I saw my wife upset? No I wouldn't. I am human.

The thinking rational side of me still believes that this is not a true story.

Peace to all.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-29-2002, 02:18 PM   #26
BAW
The Flower
 
BAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The OC....!!!!
Posts: 11,094
Local Time: 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I have really tried to believe this happened.

The thinking rational side of me still believes that this is not a true story.


At least not 100% true as told by the husband and wife. Dread makes some very good points here, most of which I had considered myself.

If this really happened, the husband probably could have prevented most of it by keeping his cool and cooperating.
BAW is offline  
Old 12-29-2002, 04:08 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 01:40 PM
True story- I think

here is additional info I found on this:



Hi, guys. I've been following the commentary here for a while. Both my brother and I have independent verification that this event actually took place. He and I took it upon ourselves to email several officials at Portland PDX to complain about the event. He and I were both contacted via email explaining "the other side of the story" from PDX point of view. I also received a phone call from someone at PDX, though I am not sure in what capacity they served. You can check out all the details at http://silflayhraka.blogspot.com

Here is the text of the email sent to both of us, along with the email I sent to PDX officials:

Dear Mr. NAME REMOVED:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide some details related to an article circulating on the internet written by Nicholas Monahan.

Please understand that the security checkpoints are operated and staffed by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), a federal agency, and the airport has no control over the management of the checkpoint or the screeners who work there. Therefore, the TSA is the appropriate organization to contact regarding traveler and baggage screening procedures at the checkpoint.

The Port does, however, have supervision and control over the Port of Portland Police officers who responded to this particular matter. Port Police were called to the checkpoint by the TSA to respond to an altercation with a passenger, who turned out to be Mr. Monahan. When Port Police arrived on the scene, they observed Mr. Monahan exhibiting aggressive and disruptive behavior which caused operations at the security checkpoint to be temporarily halted. Port Police first attempted to get Mr. Monahan to calm down, but when those efforts failed, the officers involved felt they had no other reasonable or safe recourse than to take Mr. Monahan into custody. He was detained for less than two hours, cited for disorderly conduct, and then escorted off airport property. After reviewing the citation issued by Port Police, the Multnomah County District Attorney elected to prosecute. According to Mr. Monahan, he plead no contest.

Mr. Monahan also contacted the Port's aviation director about this incident. After reviewing the incident, and understanding that Mr. Monahan had a business travel need to use the airport, the aviation director used his discretion to rescind the Port's exclusion order. Based on review of this incident, the Port believes the officers acted appropriately.

If you would like any information related to the screening process itself or the TSA, please contact Brian Doyle at (202) 494-9680.

Sincerely, NAME REMOVED TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT
Customer Information Specialist
Portland International Airport
Port of Portland
REMOVED EMAIL TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT

-----Original Message-----
From: REMOVED
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 12:10 PM
To: BillWyatt@portptld.com; chestm@portptld.com;
michael.d.schrunk@co.multnomah.or.us;
dozone@portptld.com; brantm@portptld.com;
PDXCustomerService@portptld.com;
brown.sen@state.or.us
Subject: Coffee, Tea, or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wife?s Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell at the Airport and Then Lying About Why We Put You There? by Nicholas Monahan

* Please note, the sender's email address has not been verified. (This message was forwarded from the page with the article itself)

I know that in the wake of Sept. 11 we are all more concerned with security, but blatant lying about security situations that happen on your watch is an assault on all of our civil liberties. I hope that the individual who felt it necessary to create "facts" and distort the situtation will be reprimanded, if not released outright from his or her responsibilities. I think it is disgraceful that it had to happen, but even more disgraceful that a few individuals felt it necessary to cover it up just to exonerate themselves and justify their own actions.

I hope that this matter will be investigated to the fullest extent and not just put on the back burner because you "have more important things to do" and "these things happen all the time". Perhaps these things happen all the time because they are continually relegated to the back burner? Perhaps all of our civil liberties are weakened because no one takes the time to stop even one occurrence. If you take time to deal with every injustice, perhaps they will not happen "all the time". Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,
NAME REMOVED FOR PRIVACY REASONS
News & Record
http://www.news-record.com
deep is offline  
Old 12-29-2002, 06:23 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Hallelujah Here She Comes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 3,528
Local Time: 04:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


HERE in the Author's own words:

This is my wife, finally pregnant with our first child after months of failed attempts, after the depressing shock of the miscarriage last year, my wife whod been walking on a cloud over having the opportunity to be a mother...




As to their choosing to fly it most certainly is relevant! At 7 1/2 months pregnant, I sincerely doubt with months of failed attempts and a prior miscarriage, that should have been flying in the third trimester. I am not a doctor and would love to hear a doctor's opinion on this. I have read it is safe if there are NO PRIOR complications.

On top of this all, the two insurance companies my wife and I used we could not leave the state in her third trimester because of some prior complications.

This said, it most definitely lends itself to question the credibility of the author. Since there are no credible outside sources to collaborate this story, we most definitely have the right to question the credibility of the author. So did it happen?
I misunderstood what you had meant by "difficult pregnancy." That was my bad. But I still say their choosing to fly isn't relevant in determing the validity of the story. What I meant when I said that it was irrelevant was that regardless of whether his wife should have been flying, their choice to fly doesn't have any bearing on whether he's telling the truth about the incident itself. It may raise issues about how wise he and his wife are in making medical decisions (Honestly, I'd also like to meet the doctor that sanctioned this). But just because he may have been an idiot in this regard, it doesn't make him dishonest.

Also, don't you think that his hostile attitude towards the security personel and being searched could be a result of this incident as opposed to a cause? He probably wasn't crazy about being searched, but I'd bet that his complaints about it weren't this venemous until after the fact.

And clearly there wasn't some wild government conspiracy to frame him. I don't think even he would claim that. But isn't it possible that the security AND the police AND the supervisors were all overzealous in the way they handled the situation? Isn't that the point? That incidents like this get blown out of proportion because everyone's nervous about airport security?

That said, you bring up some excellent points, most of which I hadn't considered. I certainly don't imagine that his version of events is what actually happened. And I can't say I'm outraged that he was taken into custody. It probably did appear that he was a threat to the police who got involved. I just think that once it was determined that he wasn't actually a threat, it may not have been necessary to hold him, ban him from the airport, and charge him with a crime.
Hallelujah Here She Comes is offline  
Old 12-29-2002, 08:40 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 04:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hallelujah Here She Comes


That was my bad.

No your not!!!! HEHE If we were in the same room we could talk about it to clarify things

I 100% believe that his actions were directly responsible for what happened. He was through the station. He had no business going back. He could very well have requested to speak with a supervisor without disrupting the security station.



TO DEEP:

I thought about posting what you found as well. I read it last night but I chose not to post it. I would be very, very surprised to find that the airport responded in as much detail as they did to a private citizen. I know, that when I worked in the hotel industry, and something happened involving a guest,the police, the FBI, the Texas Rangers, or the Secret Service, we NEVER answered questions. I am very tempted to call the airport and email them myself to see if I get a response.


Peace
__________________

Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×