Just where in this "Maybe event" story does it say he was told to film? It doesn't say that as far as I can tell. Notice how if you remove the letter e from his last name it becomes "Mock" hmmmmmmm

O.k. I just performed a brief search. Maybe it did happen but still what joke this guy is.

Lol, how about you give me a list of newspapers you accept as truth?

How about the TSA's own blog?

http://blog.tsa.gov/2011/01/new-mexico-v......ick.html

Good enough for you? Confirms it happened, and the video confirms how happened.

Interestingly they try to imply that things happened differently than the court determined, and differently than the video itself shows.

I didn't say he was told to film. Just that he was given explicit PERMISSION to film.

You apparently didn't read my last post fully did you. Again SO? Courts are known for making stupid rulings here and ther. as well. It doesn't happen all the time but they do make bone head rulings at times. Doesn't really mean he was right. The guy is joke still

To answer what newspaper I do stick up for? Well certainly not ones who's ads are mostly for bars night clubs, strip joints and oriental massage places. which are published once a week.

Care to explain HOW he was wrong? Was he wrong about not having ID? Was he wrong in filming? No on both counts.

I find it interesting that the tsa blog leaves up all the comments calling them on this. Maybe because if they didn't there wouldn't really be any comments?

Glenn another thing you don't ever seem to understand is this. Just because a court may find someone innocent doesn't mean that they are. It of course can mean that they are. But it also can mean that even though there was wrong doing by the suspect(s) the evidence didn't give enough supporting evidence against suspect. Doesn't mean that the person didn't do it. A person can still be 100 percent at fault for whatever and still be found free to go on his or her merry way. This can happen from petty crimes to murders.

The ruling in this case doesn't mean that he or anyone else can now get on a plane without I.D. in the future either. Of course you probably won't understand that either. Too bad the school systems just about everywhere have been so screwed up the past 30 years. Or we wouldn't be having such conversations I am sure. Because people like you would then actually understand how things really do work.

Yes the school systems are to blame in a large way for your and others warped ways of thinking. True 28 years ago when I was still in school the system wasn't perfect but it hadn't sunk to the cesspool level of teaching it did about 2 years after I was out.

GDW, seriously, if you are intellectually challenged maybe you should tell us so your inaccurate statements can be ignored, much like a kid w/ a helmet stampings his feet and flapping his arms.

I read your linkies, oh and the word isn't infringed it is infer, and let me, as a father figure to you, explain it.

1. A valid ID is, and has been long before the TSA, been required to get onto a plane. IF you forgot or lost your govt issued ID and you notify the airline and security and have birth cert and other cards w/ your name then they will be happy to work w/ you. If you walk up and refuse to show your ID you have become a problem and need to be dealt w/.

2. No where at all does it say that 'explicit permission' to film, he didn't even have regular permission. Let's be honest, I don't think you even understand the word. First don't insult those that really film, poking a camera phone at someone isn't filming, it is just another idiot w/ a phone that can video tape. There was no rule or law prohibiting photography so no permission was seeked or provided. He may have been asked to stop filming so they could get things done though.

This fellow reads to me to be a guy intentionly out to cause a problem, the trade term is an ***hole. Perfectly reasonable and logical safeguards exist to provide individual and public protection. He had no right to impede the movement of people who want to get through security and on w/ their day.

Santa, I was typing on my phone, and it auto completed the word, and I must have missed it.

As for the rest, you guys really need to reread my posts. Especially you RS1963.
As for what you were trying to articulate, RS, that would be why people are found "not guilty" rather than innocent.

As for this case, you guys are unbelievably laughable.

The amazing number of pages you can create just by trolling is amazing to me.

Santa, where was it shown he was impeding anyone?

If they have security that could be clearing people out of the area and this person is keeping those people from processing at the speed they would if he would pull his head out of his arse that is impeding. What is your fathers phone number? I wish to speak w/ him. Here is a link you want to consider:

http://www.yelp.ca/search?find_loc=Toron......c_and_mh

He was not keeping anyone Santa. They were keeping him.

By the way, RS, were you implying that, for an event with multiple cameras, as well as audio recordings, there just wasn't enough evidence to convict?
Or maybe there was plenty of evidence, and it all showed that the police and tsa lied?

So are you saying the proper way to handle someone causing problems at security is to let him through? Or are you suggesting they should have taken his knees out w/ a bat and shoved him to the side?

Sure Santa, what ever helps you sleep at night.

Gee I hope Glenn picks the 2nd option santa:p

Yeah...

It sounds like normal security procedures to me. I believe these incidents only occur when people feel entitled. As to being found not guilty I see their actions as just following standard protocols; where the goal was to remove a potential threat vice arresting a terrorist.

It was Narib. No matter what the court ruled. The guy was still in the wrong and if he does it again will still be wrong.

No sorry it was my fault RS1963. The point I was trying to make to Santa is that IMHO the Government generally don't care what the citizen thinks so what any of us think is academic. For what its worth I think you have had shadow government since 9/11 who are rolling out a plan.

The plan I refer to is the COG plan which came to light in the 1980s. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Oliver North and so on. Out which came warrantless eavesdropping, warrantless surveillance, warrantless detention, plans for martial law the overriding the posse comitatus act, deportation, USA Patriot Act and all that jazz. They might stop these planes they have started now they are aware of what magic santa and I and the rest of the gang at the magic Café think. We will will have to wait and see.