Wilmington was mentioned.
That was the case mentioned above in which the conductor probably overstepped his authority. The police refused to eject the passenger.
I found specific information that Amtrak has entered into multiple MOUs with the Wilmington PD.
Multiple MOUs? That would seem to be much worse that having none. Which MOU applies?
So, I am assume that you believe that the Wilmington police were wrong because they didn't blindly follow the conductor's whim and eject the passenger in the cast?
My opinion is that absolute authority should not be bestowed upon any bureaucrat. They are likely to be quite arbitrary in enforcement. If the conductor can not articulate a reason to remove a fare paying passenger, is he really doing his job?
Suppose, for a moment that the conductor in question believes that all children are brats and therefore deserve extra watchfulness. Further suppose our conductor believes that a child who keeps on eating those jam packets is making other passengers uncomfortable and therefore is
already pushing the limits.
Of course no slack would be given if that child wore to go into
"full on meltdown" on the train. Both the parent and the child may be ejected from the train without recourse. Perhaps the parent would be jailed of our conductor were to have his way.
These things do happen when bureaucrats are given ultimate authority. You read about in the paper all the time.
That is why Amtrak conductors should not have the same powers that private land owners have with regards to ejecting people from their property. As one wag said, "Amtrak is a government chartered corporation with a mission to serve the people of the United States as well as foreign visitors." When we entrust a conductor with stewardship of the public trust, they should be held to a higher standards, don't you think?
--
Bud