How the heck did you come to that conclusion? My point is that sometimes exercising a little common sense would probably be the best course of action. Sure this guy broke the law, but when he is talking to TSA, and wants to rectify the situation, the solution is to arrest him?!?!?! The obvious perverse incentive is that people who don't want to fly with a gun might opt for just that option.

The former seems imprudent. The latter is a suggestion that the TSA employee should have exceeded his or her authority. It isn't up to the TSA employee to decide how, whether, or when the law should be enforced.

Actually Law Enforcement Officers are allowed discretion. That is why sometimes the police let people off with a warning vs. writing a speeding ticket.

And here I am agreeing with Tlaloc again. Let me, yep it is now 20 deg. F in Hell.

He was ticketed for a misdemeanor.

Given the rather draconian things that could happen to someone who, even mistakenly, brought a gun into an airport, he basically got off as lightly as he possibly could, without the cops in question actually ignoring the gun completely.

They don't have to ignore it they can say "go home put the gun away and come back, or surrender it to us now and get on your flight. Your choice."

I agree that the misdemeanor charge is certainly better than the one way trip to Guantanamo treatment, but it is still overboard for a person with no intent to break the law who turned themselve in when they accidentally took something legal someplace it wasn't supposed to go.

Once again. Discretion is not for the law enforcement officers. It's for the courts.

I don't get this, Dave. It sounds like you are arguing for the police to be robots. It sounds in fact like a case of putting ideology WAY ahead of reality.

There is a very good reason to allow the police to use a *modicum* of discretion- the law is imperfect and the only way to keep it from being downright anti-human is to inject a little humanity into the process. At every step.

He was ticketed for a misdemeanor.

Given the rather draconian things that could happen to someone who, even mistakenly, brought a gun into an airport, he basically got off as lightly as he possibly could, without the cops in question actually ignoring the gun completely. As the article says, he's only got to appear in court in April, where I'm pretty sure the judge will exercise some of that 'discretion' discussed above...

Discretion is not for the law enforcement officers. It's for the courts... we shouldn't have cops deciding when the laws should or should not be enforced.

Complete nonsense. The police constantly exercise discretion as part of their jobs. Evaluating intent is part of that. The man was clearly attempting to cooperate with the law, not break it. The policeman should have treated the instance as though the man had declared the weapon properly, as he was trying to do.

Come on, Dave. Do you expect the police to arrest everyone they see jaywalking, or who speeds one mph over the limit? We have to allow some leeway for common sense in the application of law enforcement. Or to put it another way if your mob informant litters do you arrest him, even though it damages your ability to get at bigger crimes?

Once again. Discretion is not for the law enforcement officers. It's for the courts. One man's discretion is another man's police state.

If we don't want laws against jaywalking or littering, we shouldn't have any. But we shouldn't have cops deciding when the laws should or should not be enforced.

The problem is that the airlines don't want the job and they didn't take it seriously when they had it.

While I tend to agree with you this is a hard argument to take seriously in the wake of the TSA obviously passing a guy with a loaded gun.

I'm just saying is all...

The latter is a suggestion that the TSA employee should have exceeded his or her authority. It isn't up to the TSA employee to decide how, whether, or when the law should be enforced.

Come on, Dave. Do you expect the police to arrest everyone they see jaywalking, or who speeds one mph over the limit? We have to allow some leeway for common sense in the application of law enforcement. Or to put it another way if your mob informant litters do you arrest him, even though it damages your ability to get at bigger crimes?

What affect does this have on law enforcement? Is the next guy who makes a dumb mistake going to own up to it? Or are they possible going to do something much more reckless like take the gun with them on the plane or even stash it in the terminal?

Look, cops are cops, they are the proverbial hammer looking for nails. It doesn't matter if the guy was a good guy or not the cops aren't going to pass up the opportunity to write a ticket or make an arrest. It's what they are trained to do.

If you want common sense and discretion then train them that way.

The problem is that the airlines don't want the job and they didn't take it seriously when they had it.

The former seems imprudent. The latter is a suggestion that the TSA employee should have exceeded his or her authority. It isn't up to the TSA employee to decide how, whether, or when the law should be enforced. That's the responsibility of the court and I suspect the accused will just be put on probation, at least that's what I think the prudent and appropriate judgment would be.