|Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O) (533521)|
|Home > SubChat|
Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O)
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Dec 14 14:27:02 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 14 14:03:34 2007.I'll wait for Sarge to see this and chide in if he wishes
Ahahahaahahahahahah! You mean the ex-cop who basically stated that while he was a cop, he would not hesitate to nonchalantly break someone's camera who photographed him in public and he didn't like it? Um, no, we're not going to take his word for it. Find a different cop.
DHS *wants* reports of "suspicious activities" that have any modicum of merit.
Piss off a cop, or cause an "incident" and REST ASSURED, you'll have a file. So no, don't dismiss what I said, all a matter of HOW you handle a situation. And there's PLENTY of morons with dossiers. :)
Again, irrelevant to the discussion, as I already said. I quote "We're discussing what the cops HAVE to do and/or what DHS says they HAVE TO DO, not what the cops may do contrary to the law."
The directive is "NOTIFY" of ANY "suspcious activity." You're being selective here. And yes, the bulletin as WELL as the video training make it VERY clear that photography of "infrastructure" *IS* terrorist activity and DHS *wants* names taken on ANY such!
Fine. But IIRC and AFAIK, neither the video nor the bulletin say that "photography of infrastructure *IS* terrorist activity" and that they instead say that they MIGHT be suspicious.
And as to the T/O ... for the LAST and FINAL time, they DID what they were INSTRUCTED to.
No she didn't. She was not told tell him that photography is not permitted. I've said that soooo many times.
LAST comment, bro ... you are *WRONG* ... every which way but loose. 1059c is *NOT* part of the instructions given, and is COMPLETELY irrelevant ... take THAT issue up with MANAGEMENT ... it is NOT the hourlies' concern! Their concern is "DO what you're TOLD ... OR ELSE!" :(
No, I am not wrong. Terrorism is a serious matter, and employees are given instruction on how to deal with suspicious behavior. They are specifically told to radio it in. They are not told anything about it being illegal, or that they should enforce the non-rule about it being illegal by directly confronting the person. In fact, confronting a terrorist (for the purpose of pissing him off by telling him he can't take photos) without having the training to do so is the worst thing you can do. That's the common sense part, and that's WHY they are told to RADIO IT IN. That is what I am discussing this whole time. I don't know what YOU are discussing, since she obviously did NOT follow the rules (of simply radioing it in), even though you claim she did follow the rules.
(There are no responses to this message.)