United flight attendant arrested for carrying gun on flight

Bitch should have kept her mouth shut?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id)98356&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
Flight Attendant Arrested for Weapon

Uniformed Flight Attendant Arrested at D.C. Airport After Taking Gun on
Flight, Officials Say

By LUBNA TAKRURI

WASHINGTON Mar 31, 2007 (AP)— A uniformed flight attendant was arrested at
Dulles International Airport after she turned herself in for allegedly
carrying a concealed handgun aboard a flight from Atlanta, authorities said
Saturday.

The Transportation Security Administration, the FBI and other law
enforcement agencies were investigating if the woman had gone through
security and if the gun passed through a checkpoint unnoticed in Atlanta,
TSA spokesman Barry Phelps said.

Janet Tucker, 45, of Lithonia, Ga., turned herself in Friday for carrying
the weapon on United flight 7591, said Rob Yingling, a spokesman for the
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. She was in uniform but was not
part of the duty crew at the time, he said.

"It seems it was an inadvertent incident, from her description," he said.

Tucker was arrested and cited on charges of having a concealed weapon at
the airport. She was interviewed and released on a summons to appear in
Loudoun County Court in Virginia at a future date, Yingling said. It was
not clear whether a court date had been scheduled and he didn't know
whether Tucker had a lawyer.

United Airlines spokesman Jeff Kovick said a United employee had been
arrested but would not confirm any other information.

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport spokesman Herschel
Grangent had no further comment. A telephone message seeking comment from
FBI officials in Atlanta was not immediately returned.

"datsdenews" <dats@news.2.me> wrote in message
news:cgfv03pq5k39cfcjheeuqjp9bf902237ag@news...
> Bitch should have kept her mouth shut?
>

No shit, they never search you LEAVING a plane. If it was inadvertent, she
should have just called out sick or something and found another way
ome. -Dave

Dave wrote:
> "datsdenews" <dats@news.2.me> wrote in message
> news:cgfv03pq5k39cfcjheeuqjp9bf902237ag@news...
> > Bitch should have kept her mouth shut?
> >
>
> No shit, they never search you LEAVING a plane. If it was inadvertent, she
> should have just called out sick or something and found another way
> ome. -Dave

Oh, I see. It's OK to commit a felony if you don't get caught! Use
the rule that Washington Politicians use: "if you don't get caught
then there is no crime"!

Nope, I think it's pretty sensible. Any person, United employee or
not, who tries to have the means of self-defense at hand is obviously
a criminal at best and perhaps even a terrorist. "Bearing arms"
clearly only applies to the army and government employees not to
airline personnel even if they have a uniform.

Methinks a quick flight to Egypt or Jordan is in order where a little
taste of the rack will loosen her tongue! At least after she confesses
and is convicted she'll never have to worry about this sort of thing
again since then even TOUCHING a gun will be a new felony.

Benj writes:

> Oh, I see. It's OK to commit a felony if you don't get caught!

More like: If you commit a felony by accident, it's best not to admit to it.

Oddly enough, this correlates very well with legal advice from attorneys that
I've read in a number of books. The reality is that honesty is _not_ the best
policy.

> Nope, I think it's pretty sensible. Any person, United employee or
> not, who tries to have the means of self-defense at hand is obviously
> a criminal at best and perhaps even a terrorist. "Bearing arms"
> clearly only applies to the army and government employees not to
> airline personnel even if they have a uniform.

Nobody on an aircraft needs a gun.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ogb013tl40qnviate4550eb100blhhv8au@4ax.com...
> Benj writes:
>
>> Oh, I see. It's OK to commit a felony if you don't get caught!
>
> More like: If you commit a felony by accident, it's best not to admit to
> it.
>
> Oddly enough, this correlates very well with legal advice from attorneys
> that
> I've read in a number of books. The reality is that honesty is _not_ the
> best
> policy.
>
>> Nope, I think it's pretty sensible. Any person, United employee or
>> not, who tries to have the means of self-defense at hand is obviously
>> a criminal at best and perhaps even a terrorist. "Bearing arms"
>> clearly only applies to the army and government employees not to
>> airline personnel even if they have a uniform.
>
> Nobody on an aircraft needs a gun.
>
'Cept the guy taking out the guy with the box cutter......

But yeah, in this case, I think the woman should have kept her mouth shut,
gone to the hotel, and fed-ex'd the thing back to herself in pieces, in at
least 2 seperate envelopes.

And if you think the security perimeter is porous for uniformed on-board
crew, next time you are at the airport, watch through the window at all the
faceless guys driving the catering truck, honey wagon, luggage train, etc,
and see how they have full access to the plane. Think they go through a
metal detector?

aem sends....

aem sends...

In article <adXPh.6583$VU4.2132@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"aemeijers" <aemeijers@att.net> wrote:

> "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ogb013tl40qnviate4550eb100blhhv8au@4ax.com...
> > Benj writes:
> >
> >> Oh, I see. It's OK to commit a felony if you don't get caught!
> >
> > More like: If you commit a felony by accident, it's best not to admit to
> > it.
> >
> > Oddly enough, this correlates very well with legal advice from attorneys
> > that
> > I've read in a number of books. The reality is that honesty is _not_ the
> > best
> > policy.
> >
> >> Nope, I think it's pretty sensible. Any person, United employee or
> >> not, who tries to have the means of self-defense at hand is obviously
> >> a criminal at best and perhaps even a terrorist. "Bearing arms"
> >> clearly only applies to the army and government employees not to
> >> airline personnel even if they have a uniform.
> >
> > Nobody on an aircraft needs a gun.
> >
> 'Cept the guy taking out the guy with the box cutter......
>
> But yeah, in this case, I think the woman should have kept her mouth shut,
> gone to the hotel, and fed-ex'd the thing back to herself in pieces, in at
> least 2 seperate envelopes.
>
> And if you think the security perimeter is porous for uniformed on-board
> crew, next time you are at the airport, watch through the window at all the
> faceless guys driving the catering truck, honey wagon, luggage train, etc,
> and see how they have full access to the plane. Think they go through a
> metal detector?

Actually, they do.

I didn't know that crew members weren't required to remove shoes at
security. I guess I wasn't paying attention. I found this out on
Saturday when a pilot's boots set off the metal detector and he had to
remove them. The pilot with him had walked through with his shoes on.
I guess I am confused by the point of having a crewmember go through the
inspection process, but not being inspected the same way.

BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:btr1702-F242F6.21303401042007@news.giganews.com:

> In article <adXPh.6583$VU4.2132@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "aemeijers" <aemeijers@att.net> wrote:
>
>> "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ogb013tl40qnviate4550eb100blhhv8au@4ax.com...
>> > Benj writes:
>> >
>> >> Oh, I see. It's OK to commit a felony if you don't get caught!
>> >
>> > More like: If you commit a felony by accident, it's best not to
>> > admit to it.
>> >
>> > Oddly enough, this correlates very well with legal advice from
>> > attorneys that
>> > I've read in a number of books. The reality is that honesty is
>> > _not_ the best
>> > policy.
>> >
>> >> Nope, I think it's pretty sensible. Any person, United employee
>> >> or not, who tries to have the means of self-defense at hand is
>> >> obviously a criminal at best and perhaps even a terrorist.
>> >> "Bearing arms" clearly only applies to the army and government
>> >> employees not to airline personnel even if they have a uniform.
>> >
>> > Nobody on an aircraft needs a gun.
>> >
>> 'Cept the guy taking out the guy with the box cutter......
>>
>> But yeah, in this case, I think the woman should have kept her mouth
>> shut, gone to the hotel, and fed-ex'd the thing back to herself in
>> pieces, in at least 2 seperate envelopes.
>>
>> And if you think the security perimeter is porous for uniformed
>> on-board crew, next time you are at the airport, watch through the
>> window at all the faceless guys driving the catering truck, honey
>> wagon, luggage train, etc, and see how they have full access to the
>> plane. Think they go through a metal detector?
>
> Actually, they do.
>

They are still performing background checks on some of them. That wasn't
even a requirement until several months after 911.

RD

"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:btr1702-F242F6.21303401042007@news.giganews.com...
> In article <adXPh.6583$VU4.2132@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "aemeijers" <aemeijers@att.net> wrote:
>
>> "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ogb013tl40qnviate4550eb100blhhv8au@4ax.com...
>> > Benj writes:
>> >
>> >> Oh, I see. It's OK to commit a felony if you don't get caught!
>> >
>> > More like: If you commit a felony by accident, it's best not to admit
>> > to
>> > it.
>> >
>> > Oddly enough, this correlates very well with legal advice from
>> > attorneys
>> > that
>> > I've read in a number of books. The reality is that honesty is _not_
>> > the
>> > best
>> > policy.
>> >
>> >> Nope, I think it's pretty sensible. Any person, United employee or
>> >> not, who tries to have the means of self-defense at hand is obviously
>> >> a criminal at best and perhaps even a terrorist. "Bearing arms"
>> >> clearly only applies to the army and government employees not to
>> >> airline personnel even if they have a uniform.
>> >
>> > Nobody on an aircraft needs a gun.
>> >
>> 'Cept the guy taking out the guy with the box cutter......
>>
>> But yeah, in this case, I think the woman should have kept her mouth
>> shut,
>> gone to the hotel, and fed-ex'd the thing back to herself in pieces, in
>> at
>> least 2 seperate envelopes.
>>
>> And if you think the security perimeter is porous for uniformed on-board
>> crew, next time you are at the airport, watch through the window at all
>> the
>> faceless guys driving the catering truck, honey wagon, luggage train,
>> etc,
>> and see how they have full access to the plane. Think they go through a
>> metal detector?
>
> Actually, they do.

Actually THEY DO NOT!!!!

In article <zpbQh.2173$k%2.1744@trndny01>,
"My Name Is Nobody" <nobody@msn.com> wrote:

> "BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:btr1702-F242F6.21303401042007@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <adXPh.6583$VU4.2132@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "aemeijers" <aemeijers@att.net> wrote:

> >> And if you think the security perimeter is porous for uniformed on-board
> >> crew, next time you are at the airport, watch through the window at all
> >> the faceless guys driving the catering truck, honey wagon, luggage train,
> >> etc, and see how they have full access to the plane. Think they go through a
> >> metal detector?
> >
> > Actually, they do.
>
> Actually THEY DO NOT!!!!

Yes, they do. I've seen them going through security with my own eyes.

"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:btr1702-DE86FC.17551702042007@news.giganews.com...
> In article <zpbQh.2173$k%2.1744@trndny01>,
> "My Name Is Nobody" <nobody@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> "BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:btr1702-F242F6.21303401042007@news.giganews.com...
>> > In article <adXPh.6583$VU4.2132@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> > "aemeijers" <aemeijers@att.net> wrote:
>
>> >> And if you think the security perimeter is porous for uniformed
>> >> on-board
>> >> crew, next time you are at the airport, watch through the window at
>> >> all
>> >> the faceless guys driving the catering truck, honey wagon, luggage
>> >> train,
>> >> etc, and see how they have full access to the plane. Think they go
>> >> through a
>> >> metal detector?
>> >
>> > Actually, they do.
>>
>> Actually THEY DO NOT!!!!
>
> Yes, they do. I've seen them going through security with my own eyes.
At every airport? Including a full sweep of every incoming truck, including
the honey wagon? (Not every airport has their own dumping station.) I've
read numerous reports that claim both ways. I think it varies greatly by
site. Of course TSA/DHS and the airports refuse to talk about it these days,
but I've also seen with my own eyes how the back fence at many airports,
especially smaller ones, is just three strands of wire with no cameras or
alarms. Walk in after dark wearing a faux ground uniform, hide in an empty
truck, and pop out when needed. Shades, earmuffs, and baseball cap are a
pretty good disguise.

IMHO, the security in place stops the idiots, and the clueless, but is
mainly a PR gesture. Am I losing sleep over it? Not really. There are plenty
of other soft targets in this country, and I'd be real suprised if the bad
guys try the same thing a second time. I think they WILL try again, but at
something we haven't even thought very hard about, like the potable water
supply, or the power grid, or something.

aem sends...

In article <SjiQh.9796$VU4.9387@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"aemeijers" <aemeijers@att.net> wrote:

> "BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:btr1702-DE86FC.17551702042007@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <zpbQh.2173$k%2.1744@trndny01>,
> > "My Name Is Nobody" <nobody@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >> news:btr1702-F242F6.21303401042007@news.giganews.com...
> >> > In article <adXPh.6583$VU4.2132@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> >> > "aemeijers" <aemeijers@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >> And if you think the security perimeter is porous for uniformed
> >> >> on-board
> >> >> crew, next time you are at the airport, watch through the window at
> >> >> all
> >> >> the faceless guys driving the catering truck, honey wagon, luggage
> >> >> train,
> >> >> etc, and see how they have full access to the plane. Think they go
> >> >> through a
> >> >> metal detector?
> >> >
> >> > Actually, they do.
> >>
> >> Actually THEY DO NOT!!!!
> >
> > Yes, they do. I've seen them going through security
> > with my own eyes.

> At every airport?

No, but that wasn't the assertion, now was it?

More to the point, FAA rules are standardized and if some airports
aren't following them, then it's not because the system doesn't call for
security screening of ramp crew, it's because those airports are
mismanaged.

aemeijers wrote:
I think they WILL try again, but at
> something we haven't even thought very hard about, like the potable water
> supply, or the power grid, or something.

No kidding. Look at the size of the California Aqueduct
Not really "potable" for the length of the trip, but severe damage to it
would cause quite a bit of financial damage. Of course, not as much as
hundreds of billions of dollars worth of military occupation force, but
still damaging.

aemeijers wrote:

> "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ogb013tl40qnviate4550eb100blhhv8au@4ax.com...
>
>>Benj writes:
>>
>>
>>>Oh, I see. It's OK to commit a felony if you don't get caught!
>>
>>More like: If you commit a felony by accident, it's best not to admit to
>>it.
>>
>>Oddly enough, this correlates very well with legal advice from attorneys
>>that
>>I've read in a number of books. The reality is that honesty is _not_ the
>>best
>>policy.
>>
>>
>>>Nope, I think it's pretty sensible. Any person, United employee or
>>>not, who tries to have the means of self-defense at hand is obviously
>>>a criminal at best and perhaps even a terrorist. "Bearing arms"
>>>clearly only applies to the army and government employees not to
>>>airline personnel even if they have a uniform.
>>
>>Nobody on an aircraft needs a gun.
>>
>
> 'Cept the guy taking out the guy with the box cutter......
>
> But yeah, in this case, I think the woman should have kept her mouth shut,
> gone to the hotel, and fed-ex'd the thing back to herself in pieces, in at
> least 2 seperate envelopes.
>
> And if you think the security perimeter is porous for uniformed on-board
> crew, next time you are at the airport, watch through the window at all the
> faceless guys driving the catering truck, honey wagon, luggage train, etc,
> and see how they have full access to the plane. Think they go through a
> metal detector?
>
> aem sends....
>
> aem sends...
>
>

It would not be necessary to use Federal Express to ship the gun back to herself. She could put the gun in checked baggage and fly home.
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1666.shtm

In article <qsadnWXC5oDuXI3bnZ2dnUVZ_rKvnZ2d@comcast.com>,
FerdinandAkin <FerdinandAkin@comcast.net> wrote:

> It would not be necessary to use Federal Express to ship the gun back to herself. She
> could put the gun in checked baggage and fly home.

Does she have checked lugagge?

--
Randy Hudson