Obey the rules...or jail

I'm not trying to define "elderly" as a prescriptive age. We all know what old people look like, and some people are old at 70 while others aren't old at 80. Other people (eg. disabled) can have the relevant characteristics of "elderly" in the sense that their bodies don't work as well as they would like. My position is that old people should not, as a matter of course, be handcuffed unless they are a known or likely danger, or they are a serious risk of escaping; especially when their alleged crime is non-violent and trivial. Maybe I'm biased because I have travelled to the USA with my mother and think of her when I'm assessing whether it would be appropriate to handcuff her, if the USA's paperwork was wrong.

 

But for this argument, it's not relevant whether or not the original story is true, because it';s now become about general principles - should old people receive special consideration because they are old, or shouldn't they? I'm firmly in the camp that they should; other people are not.

Cuffing rules vary by department with some departments giving officers discretion on when to cuff and some departments limiting their discretion. So in the former case the officer can indeed use his or her judgment on whether to cuff someone. Personally I'm not going to second guess their decision.

But for this argument, it's not relevant whether or not the original story is true, because it';s now become about general principles - should old people receive special consideration because they are old, or shouldn't they? I'm firmly in the camp that they should; other people are not.

Where does this end? Should children receive special consideration? Should women receive special consideration? How about tall men, short men, overweight men? How about clergy, military personnel, doctors, whites, blacks, browns, the rich? Should they also receive special consideration because of who they are or what they do? Should YOU receive special consideration for whatever excuse you come up with?

If you select a certain group for special consideration, doesn't that discriminate all the other groups? Shouldn't they also get that same special treatment for whatever category they are in? When it comes to making sure a person is not a security risk, much better a "one size fits all" approach to maintain consistency. That would make it much more fair to everyone. And avoid mistakes due to different responses to the different categories you apparently put people in.

Where does this end? Should children receive special consideration? Should women receive special consideration? How about tall men, short men, overweight men? How about clergy, military personnel, doctors, whites, blacks, browns, the rich? Should they also receive special consideration because of who they are or what they do? Should YOU receive special consideration for whatever excuse you come up with?

 

If you select a certain group for special consideration, doesn't that discriminate all the other groups? Shouldn't they also get that same special treatment for whatever category they are in? When it comes to making sure a person is not a security risk, much better a "one size fits all" approach to maintain consistency. That would make it much more fair to everyone. And avoid mistakes due to different responses to the different categories you apparently put people in.

No. Frankly, you either haven't thought it through. If a fit and athletic young man arrives in the USA carrying a big stick (or baseball bat, for example), then it would be taken off him in the detention room. But if an elderly person who doesn't walk too well arrives in the USA carrying a big stick, then he or she will be allowed to keep it in the detention room. Is that what you would call discrimination against the young man? Or is it what I would call sensible and normal behaviour?

And yes, as well as the elderly, also children and the disabled should receive special consideration. The idea of taking the wheelchair off a disabled person and handcuffing them to the floor, if that's your idea, is barbaric. Less able people must be given extra consideration, even if it means allowing them not to be handcuffed to their walking frames.

 

...

 

And yes, as well as the elderly, also children and the disabled should receive special consideration. The idea of taking the wheelchair off a disabled person and handcuffing them to the floor, if that's your idea, is barbaric. Less able people must be given extra consideration, even if it means allowing them not to be handcuffed to their walking frames.

Of course EVERYBODY, and every case, should receive "consideration" - and professionals in the field of detention are likely more qualified to "consider" what action to take in any given situation. If it is reasonably believed that cuffing is indicated, then cuffing should take place.

It is overly simplistic to argue that there is a hard and fast age limit for any precaution.

I am curious, however: how do you handcuff a person

"to the floor"?

No. Frankly, you either haven't thought it through.

Oh, sir, I have thought it through. Instead second guessing situations we have zero accurate information on, I think the prudent approach is to defer to the people actually dealing with the situation and let them decide, based on their training and the rules that are in place, what action is appropriate for any and everyone. That you continue to argue that a certain demographic should receive special treatment tells me that all you are thinking about is political correctness, not actual risk assessment for the situation.

You have even admitted that some people do not look their age. So, what magical criteria do you insist should be used? Actual age on their documents? Appearance of the person? Or how many bills, and of what denomination, is surreptitiously passed on to the agent in charge?

Also, who said anything about "taking the wheelchair off a disabled person and handcuffing them to the floor"? Besides you, that is? No one said anything about that woman being handcuffed was actually in a wheelchair. How have you come to that conclusion? Looks like you are embellishing the story to try to shore up your sinking argument.

Let the experts determine how to handle the situations they are tasked to deal with. You have no credibility in these matters since you have only opinions, not the actual training nor the responsibility.

Homeland Security has much more leeway than the typical LEO.

The Supreme Court decision applies to ALL LE agencies, not just local.:)

Homeland Security has much more leeway than the typical LEO.

Just keep in mind that many Homeland Security personnel that wear uniforms, wear badges, and have "officer" in their job title are not LEOs.

Oh, sir, I have thought it through. Instead second guessing situations we have zero accurate information on, I think the prudent approach is to defer to the people actually dealing with the situation and let them decide, based on their training and the rules that are in place, what action is appropriate for any and everyone. That you continue to argue that a certain demographic should receive special treatment tells me that all you are thinking about is political correctness, not actual risk assessment for the situation.

 

You have even admitted that some people do not look their age. So, what magical criteria do you insist should be used? Actual age on their documents? Appearance of the person? Or how many bills, and of what denomination, is surreptitiously passed on to the agent in charge?

 

Also, who said anything about "taking the wheelchair off a disabled person and handcuffing them to the floor"? Besides you, that is? No one said anything about that woman being handcuffed was actually in a wheelchair. How have you come to that conclusion? Looks like you are embellishing the story to try to shore up your sinking argument.

 

Let the experts determine how to handle the situations they are tasked to deal with. You have no credibility in these matters since you have only opinions, not the actual training nor the responsibility.

If you need a walking aid to move about, then you can't move safely in handcuffs. That's not political correctness, that's common sense and common decency. I'm not talking about specific numbers or dates of birth, here; I'm talking about elderly people. When you're judging whether someone needs help in opening a door (if you ever do help anyone to open a door), do you ask to see a birth certificate before you decide whether help is needed? Or do you go by appearances, whether it looks like the person needs help?

The point of wheelchairs is that you apparently don't believe in discrimination on the grounds of age or disability. So if you would remove a faster-than-walking-pace motorised vehicle from the possession of a detained athlete, then surely for consistency you would also remove the faster-than-walking-pace motorised vehicle from the disabled person. To do otherwise would be to draw a line - and you'd rather not do that, would you.

If you need a walking aid to move about, then you can't move safely in handcuffs. That's not political correctness, that's common sense and common decency. I'm not talking about specific numbers or dates of birth, here; I'm talking about elderly people. When you're judging whether someone needs help in opening a door (if you ever do help anyone to open a door), do you ask to see a birth certificate before you decide whether help is needed? Or do you go by appearances, whether it looks like the person needs help?

 

The point of wheelchairs is that you apparently don't believe in discrimination on the grounds of age or disability. So if you would remove a faster-than-walking-pace motorised vehicle from the possession of a detained athlete, then surely for consistency you would also remove the faster-than-walking-pace motorised vehicle from the disabled person. To do otherwise would be to draw a line - and you'd rather not do that, would you.

Sheesh, you are really obsessed with that wheelchair!!! :rolleyes:

If, if, if. I stand by my assertion that the people responsible for checking proper documentation know what they are doing and it is a fools errand to continue to questioning their actions without the same training and experience they have. Your list of "ifs" is pointless speculation based on your opinion, not on actual facts. Especially considering that there is no indication that the woman in this story needed a wheelchair, nor was she described as being physically dependent on walking aids.

Your cheap shot at me by questioning whether I open doors for people is insulting. For your information, I open them for anyone, old, young, male, female. Try to be more civil if you want people to take you seriously. At this point, I certainly don't. :mad:

Keep tilting at that windmill. Maybe someday someone will write a book about you and turn it into a musical. :rolleyes:

Charlie Manson is 82 yrs old. So, he doesn't need body chains or cuffs?

Just keep in mind that many Homeland Security personnel that wear uniforms, wear badges, and have "officer" in their job title are not LEOs.

That was my point.

Just keep in mind that many Homeland Security personnel that wear uniforms, wear badges, and have "officer" in their job title are not LEOs.

CBP officers are LEO. And carry guns.

TSA officers are NOT LEO.

But the instance discussed, it would be CBP personnel.

Your cheap shot at me by questioning whether I open doors for people is insulting. For your information, I open them for anyone, old, young, male, female. Try to be more civil if you want people to take you seriously. At this point, I certainly don't. :mad:

That's fine. I'm not so undiscriminating - if I see someone a few yards out of my way who is opening a door unaided and without difficulty, I let them get on with it; if they look to be struggling or likely to struggle, I go and help. Are you quite sure that isn't what you would do? It would no doubt be very good of you to rush to help whether they need it or not, but would often be wasted effort IMO.

Charlie Manson is 82 yrs old. So, he doesn't need body chains or cuffs?

I think you misunderstood where I said "If an 80 year old is suspected of blowing up buildings, then handcuff them. If they're suspected of having an error in their paperwork, handcuffs is an overreaction". Charles Manson's crimes are IMO much closer to the "blowing up buildings" sort of crime than the "having an error in paperwork" sort of crime; so given that clarification, you can now see I would agree with handcuffing Manson.

Charlie Manson is 82 yrs old. So, he doesn't need body chains or cuffs?

And, of course, a suicide-minded jihadist would not consider doing anything "disruptive" once he passed his 80th birthday.

That's fine. I'm not so undiscriminating - if I see someone a few yards out of my way who is opening a door unaided and without difficulty, I let them get on with it; if they look to be struggling or likely to struggle, I go and help. Are you quite sure that isn't what you would do? It would no doubt be very good of you to rush to help whether they need it or not, but would often be wasted effort IMO.

It appears that we are similar at this.

While I don't rush up to a door to assist the average person, I will if it is someone who is disabled, is pushing a baby carriage, or otherwise could use assistance. If there is someone following me, no matter who, I hold the door open for them to follow rather than let the door close in front of them, or if they are elderly or with a child, will stand aside and let them go in before me. If someone arrives on the other side of a door at the same time, I will hold the door open and let them through if it swings out towards me. The few seconds it takes to be courteous is well worth it. I am in my late 60s and have always done this. I was raised in a time when children were taught to be kind and courteous, unlike what we see today.

Unfortunately, only about 50% will say thank you. But the ones who don't won't change my being courteous in the future.

And, of course, a suicide-minded jihadist would not consider doing anything "disruptive" once he passed his 80th birthday.

Of course, once past his 80th birthday those 72 virgins might not be such an incentive. :halo:

Of course, once past his 80th birthday those 72 virgins might not be such an incentive. :halo:

Right - then, of course there is the chance of a 78 year old using his brother's ID so he could slip through - the same way a college freshman might use his brother's license to get a drink.

That was my point.

The non-LEOs in Homeland Security have no authority when it comes to arrest, detention, or handcuffs. They need to get a LEO involved if they think that these measures are needed.

CBP officers are LEO. And carry guns.

 

TSA officers are NOT LEO.

 

But the instance discussed, it would be CBP personnel.

Yes, of course. My response was to the assertion that "Homeland Security has more discretion than a typical LEO" when in fact many have none of a LEO's authorities. This despite DHS's attempts to dress them like LEOs in an attempt to con people.

Yes, of course. My response was to the assertion that "Homeland Security has more discretion than a typical LEO" when in fact many have none of a LEO's authorities. This despite DHS's attempts to dress them like LEOs in an attempt to con people.

Yes.

But those others are officers, and have certain powers based on their position, even if they are not LEO.

The distinction between agent and officer is pretty minimal with regard to this.

This post may have been entered by voice recognition. Please excuse any typographical errors.

Agent, screener, whatever. "Officer" in a federal job title doesn't make one a LEO. And, their powers are pretty much limited to determining whether to authorize passage through a federal checkpoint.

Of course, once past his 80th birthday those 72 virgins might not be such an incentive. :halo:

Right - then, of course there is the chance of a 78 year old using his brother's ID so he could slip through - the same way a college freshman might use his brother's license to get a drink.

That's one optimistic 78 year old!:D

Those toupees always look fake. ;)