Tuesday, February 12, 2013

TSA Sued for $5 Million After Peanut Butter Drama

You won't read about this in Baghdad TSA Bob's blog.

The TSA doesn't think a joke is funny, but a traveler doesn't think getting arrested is funny.

A man got arrested for sarcasm while going through a security theater checkpoint. He's not laughing about the arrest, he is suing for $5 million.

Infowars has the story:
An Arizona man who was arrested at the behest of the TSA, following a wisecrack over a jar of peanut butter is suing the federal agency for $5 million.
Frank Hannibal, 50, was detained and dragged from LaGuardia Airport recently by police after a run-in with TSA agents over the jar of gourmet sandwich spread.
“The liquid oil that separated from the peanut butter had them baffled,” Hannibal told the New York Daily News.
Hannibal then commented to his wife and children that “They’re looking to confiscate my explosives,” as TSA agents inspected the 16-ounce jar of “Crazy Richards” chunky peanut butter.
TSA screener Edwin Sanchez, overheard Hannibal’s remark, did not see the funny side, and immediately called the cops, according to the court complaint.
Hannibal spent the next 24 hours in a cell, during which time he was fed a peanut butter sandwich by cops who later charged him with the felony of “falsely reporting an incident”.[...] Hannibal has brought a $5-million-dollar lawsuit against the TSA worker and the Port Authority officer who arrested him, all over a $7 confectionary which was returned to him upon his release from jail. 
“It’s a sorry state of affairs in this country when sarcasm is considered a felony,” his attorney, Alan D. Levine of Queens, noted, adding that TSA agents need to act with common sense in such situations.


  1. Power. That's what this about (yea no surprise here). Reminds me of being a kid. Teachers and parents do not like smart offs because they belittle the person in charge. But instead of rebuking the smart mouth or just getting sent to the office; now the powerful arrest you for your offense. Seems a bit much. I hope the judge see it this way

    1. No, the judge will cite the "Shouting Fire in a Theater" bullshit (booring!) and dismiss.
      And this doctrine will extrapolate from the "theater" (or ironically "security theater") to the street, phone, home, bed, toilet, etc..
      Hey, are ANY of the Bill of Rights still valid?

  2. Qualitatively, there's no difference between cops/DHS agents and welfare recipients. They share the same employer and the requirements for being a cop and being a welfare recipient are about the same.

    1. Incorrect. You don't have to be willing to engage in goon tactics YOURSELF if you are a plain vanilla welfare recipient.

  3. Don't anger the apes. They will act like primates when thier inteligence is rightly insulted.

  4. Seeing "TSA" and "common sense" in the same sentence made me laugh.

  5. anyone who shows up at the airport to fly has consented to whatever treatment they get. right and wrong have nothing to do with it,you consented.if you don't like the service, don't patronize the business. if enough customers leave, perhaps they will hire more personable servers or at least go out of business.

    1. From Judge Napolitano on why travel is a right and not a privilege:

      “Of all the inalienable rights we possess as individuals, none is as basic, fundamental, and natural as the right to movement and travel. As human beings, we enter this world bestowed with natural gifts: Two legs and feet, and the muscles needed to power them; or, in other words, body parts the essential purpose of which is to move from place to place. Furthermore, we are given a brain and the undying yearning to discover, to know the unknown, to see what lies hidden beyond the horizon. Thus, a fundamental right of movement is inherent in our very humanity. And after all, although we can become slaves in many different ways, none is more evident than by losing our ability to move about the world as we please. It is altogether fitting that a symbol of freedom is a broken chain.

      The freedom to travel is part of our national psyche. Our European ancestors settled in America because they had the right to move freely from their homelands. The very history and trajectory of our nation’s colonization are testament to man’s inherent right to movement and travel. We are a country made up of travelers, wanderers, and explorers. Examples span from NASA to Thomas Jefferson’s selection of Meriwether Lewis and William Clark to explore the mysterious and unknown lands of the West.

      More fundamentally, restrictions on the right to travel connote that the government is the individual’s master, and not his servant. As explored elsewhere, the right to own property includes when and which individuals may enter upon our property, and under what circumstances. If the government usurps this ultimate right from property owners, or grants itself a monopoly over certain modes of travel, then clearly the rights of individuals extend only so far as the government, and no one else, wills them. Thus, circumvention of the right to travel is particularly antithetical to the Natural Law, and the principle that the temporal is always subject to the immutable. Freedom subject to the government’s whim is no freedom at all.

      The importance of the freedom to travel, however, extends much further than the ability to go where one desires. As mentioned before, movement is essential to the existence and recognition of other inalienable rights. If you are prevented from leaving your home, your speech is automatically repressed. If you are not permitted to travel, you are kept from practicing your religion in a community of believers. As a result, you are restricted from selecting who you meet, who you marry, and whether you have children with whom you associate. You are held back from potential employment opportunities and prevented from receiving the education you desire. Stated imply, the right to move and be present is inextricably linked to a host of other fundamental rights that you possess as a free individual. Liberty, at its core, is encompassed in the right to leave the place of repression. As Professor Randy Barnett notes, if one wishes to discover which nations offer the best protection of natural rights, one only need observe the direction of the flow of refugees.”

      Those who pursue more efficient (time and money) modes of transportation must consent to dehumanizing acts? Great argument.

    2. Those who pursue more efficient (time and money) modes of transportation must consent to dehumanizing acts? Great argument

      anyone who shows up at the airport to fly has consented to whatever treatment they get. right and wrong have nothing to do with it,you consented.if you don't like the service, don't patronize the business. if enough customers leave, perhaps they will hire more personable servers or at least go out of business.

      I did not say that anyone "must consent" to anything. when you patronize a business you consent to the "rules" of the market that exist. The entire argument is a market issue not a rights issue. Also the idea that all persons have a "natural right" to travel anywhere on earth, anytime they wish is silly.

    3. Anonymous 2/13/13 @ 10:20 AM,

      Your arguments are extremely flawed. This is not something to do with the market. The market is unable to provide market-determined security measures because the government has removed them from the process by force. If it were a market issue, then different competitors would be able to provide different security measures based on customer satisfaction, efficiency, etc. Also, if the current security measures had been implemented by the market, the companies providing these security measures would be out of business because of all of the molestation lawsuits they would have.

    4. Kyle Reese: Listen, and understand! The invisable hand of the market is out there! It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever,(to paraphrase).the market includes all actions,human or nature. This also includes government actions or inactions. The security measures exist because there is a market for them.Love them or hate them it is only going to go away based on the market,ie. lack of patronage.

    5. With your definition of market, a communist society could be described as a market economy.

  6. Because peanut butter oil is combustible, it qualifies as one of the precursors for a binary explosive.

    I predict a ten-year sentence.