|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 1, 2011 23:17:35 GMT -5
I HIGHLY doubt the gov't is ever going to pay someone to dig through peoples garbage. Seriously, fall back into reality. I would've never thought the government would do MANY things it has admitted to and been proven of doing. |
|
|
|
Post by Gussy on Jan 3, 2011 1:43:34 GMT -5
They fail to mention what caused the police to arrest them.
Ex. There was a story here once where a boy brought a knife to school for show and tell. The media made the cops and school look bad saying that the boy brought his deceased grandfathers army knife to school to remember his grandfather but then got arrested, what the news failed to mention was that the boy was threatening his teacher and classmates..
so when i read all of these, theres always a second part to this story...
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 3, 2011 2:37:03 GMT -5
They fail to mention what caused the police to arrest them. Ex. There was a story here once where a boy brought a knife to school for show and tell. The media made the cops and school look bad saying that the boy brought his deceased grandfathers army knife to school to remember his grandfather but then got arrested, what the news failed to mention was that the boy was threatening his teacher and classmates.. so when i read all of these, theres always a second part to this story... Obviously you didn't read the actual story, as they linked to the stories. |
|
|
|
Post by wweuniverse47871 on Jan 3, 2011 5:35:40 GMT -5
Kinda  ed up.... |
|
|
|
Post by becausethenight on Jan 5, 2011 16:07:29 GMT -5
The one where the lady refused to go through the scanner, then refused a patdown (by a female employee in front of two police officers) is being ridiculous. Did she seriously think that anything inappropriate was going to happen? Guess what happens every time I go to a Bucks game. They ask me to open my jacket and lightly pat me down. The "enhanced" patdown at the airports is exactly the same. My fiance just had one of those so-called "enhanced patdowns" and it was absolutely harmless. And the accompanying video just shows two people that said she should have allowed them to pat her down and are glad that she wasn't allowed on board. TBH I would be too. Now I obviously wasn't there, and can't speak to absolute specifics about what happened (i.e. the rest of this paragraph would be what I will call "unfounded but reasonable assumption"), but I seriously doubt that she was being extremely civil during the time and was violently thrown to the floor for no reason. Do we know whether or not the TSA told her she could choose to cancel her ticket, or whether she has or has not been issued a refund? I'm sure her behavior (whether it was suspicious nervousness or demonstrative resistance) caused the police officers to take a proactive approach to protecting everyone else in the airport. I don't believe we live in a world where most of our cops are like that. Cite whatever extreme examples you can, but I believe that 99.99% of police officers are men and women who operate with a high level of morality and integrity and don't leave the house saying "You know what? I'm going to go out and abuse a bunch of people today whether their actions warrant it or not." I just don't believe airport cops are going to go out of their way to physically restrain a citizen unless it's the last resort. But again, most of that is my rational, reasonable assumption so I am also willing to admit that I could be completely wrong.
And for the record, I would have done a deep tissue "enhanced patdown" on Emily Protine from that video. Growl.
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 5, 2011 16:24:04 GMT -5
They are doing pat downs at basketball games? That is outrageous.
I go to wrestling events at the Bradley Center, luckily I haven't gone since they apparently started doing the molestations.
You call being legally molested harmless?
No one is going to rub their hands all over my body.
|
|
|
|
Post by becausethenight on Jan 5, 2011 16:35:24 GMT -5
They are doing pat downs at basketball games? That is outrageous. I go to wrestling events at the Bradley Center, luckily I haven't gone since they apparently started doing the molestations. You call being legally molested harmless? No one is going to rub their hands all over my body. Yep, I just went to Bucks/Mavericks wearing a winter overcoat and they asked me to unbutton it so they could gently (and I can't stress that word enough) pat me on the sides. I had zero problem with it, and if I would have refused, I absolutely respect their right to send me packing. I wouldn't even deserve a refund either. And come on now... legally molested? That's kind of an exaggeration, isn't it? It's not like they're tweaking her nipples or motorboating her*. Or cupping her breasts or squeezing them. Or actually touching her breasts underneath a couple of layers of clothing. They barely touch them (well not mine anyway, but what can I say? I'm a small A cup and my girlfriend is a small B cup). *  |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 5, 2011 16:39:07 GMT -5
No, the "pat downs" at sporting events are not ANYTHING LIKE the ones that are being done at the airport.
This person has no idea what he is talking about. None whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 5, 2011 16:39:20 GMT -5
They do touch private parts. I don't care if it is through 40 layers of clothes, they still do it and that is molestation.
"Thomas Mollman says he was subject to a groping by a TSA officer, equivalent to sexual molestation."I was wearing shorts at the time" and was touched "between the underwear, right on the skin, all the way around the back, all the way around my front, 360 degrees, touched inappropriately," he said."
They are actually putting their hands INSIDE the person's pants and feeling around.
If someone did that to me, I'd deck them and then sue for the inappropriate touching.
|
|
|
|
Post by becausethenight on Jan 5, 2011 16:59:54 GMT -5
I just want to clarify to be sure that I am arguing the right point here... she did refuse to go through only the metal detector, correct? Because the new TSA guidelines are only requiring the full body scanning when the metal detector keeps going off and they can't figure out why, correct?
Because to the best of my knowledge (based on two flights in the past 6 months) the "enhanced pat down" that involves reaching under the clothing etc is only being used in that case. Not in this case, where the lady just didn't want to go through the metal detector. Do we know that in this case the airport employee was going to do an under-the-clothing body check? Because for the metal detector only, the full body scan and the under-the-clothing patdown shouldn't even apply, to the best of my knowledge. Aren't like 15 airports or fewer using the full body scanner/legal molestation process right now?
Now in the case of my fiance, she set off the metal detector because of a metal plate in her foot that she didn't have documentation for (does that even help in any case?). So she went a few steps forward, they searched her bags completely, wanded her, and lightly patted her down. 5 minutes start to finish, slightly inconvenient but not a big deal. Better safe than sorry.
So which of these two cases was it? Everything I read about it makes me think this is a case closer to what happened with my fiance, except for the fact that the passenger in question was being uncooperative. But again, that's just my determination based on the evidence that I've seen about this particular case.
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 5, 2011 17:09:18 GMT -5
She COULDN'T go through because of her pacemaker.
Hundreds of airports are using the scanners/pat downs.
Yeah, let's give up our constitutional rights because it MAY make us safer. Not a guarantee, but some day, it may just stop someone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 5, 2011 17:12:42 GMT -5
It's not a metal detector.
|
|
|
|
Post by becausethenight on Jan 5, 2011 17:19:49 GMT -5
If it wasn't a metal detector, what was her objection that involved her pacemaker? I'm asking this straight up, not in a snarky way...
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 5, 2011 17:25:31 GMT -5
If it wasn't a metal detector, what was her objection that involved her pacemaker? I'm asking this straight up, not in a snarky way... If you have a pacemaker, it is a bad idea to use microwaves. I'd gather that it is just as bad to be put in the imaging machine and be subjected to all that radiation. |
|
|
|
Post by becausethenight on Jan 5, 2011 17:28:52 GMT -5
If it wasn't a metal detector, what was her objection that involved her pacemaker? I'm asking this straight up, not in a snarky way... If you have a pacemaker, it is a bad idea to use microwaves. I'd gather that it is just as bad to be put in the imaging machine and be subjected to all that radiation. Fair enough... I guess that doesn't really change my opinion on the matter though. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 5, 2011 17:33:04 GMT -5
If you have a pacemaker, it is a bad idea to use microwaves. I'd gather that it is just as bad to be put in the imaging machine and be subjected to all that radiation. Fair enough... I guess that doesn't really change my opinion on the matter though. How can you sit there and think it isn't a big deal that our constitutional rights are being trampled on? |
|
|
|
Post by becausethenight on Jan 5, 2011 17:44:45 GMT -5
Honestly, I can't speak for every case that someone feels that they were touched inappropriately during a security check, but in this case I think the lady turned nothing into something. I think she could have co-operated with what was likely to be (IMO) a relatively uneventful, light patdown, and gone on with her day. Like I said, I saw the exact same thing happen with my fiance, I was 15 feet away while they did it.
I can't speak to the specifics of the other one or two people that have made public claims they were inappropriately touched during the "enhanced patdown" because every single case is completely different. I think the handful of folks that made those claims have every right to be mad if what they say is true, but I also don't think those handful of occurrences are consistent with the TSA's policy for a typical patdown in these cases.
I think calling it "legal molestation" and "unconstitutional" is a little exaggerated. Just my opinion. And you are 100% free to think I'm an idiot for that and that's fine, but I think her particular case is just completely blown out of proportion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 5, 2011 17:46:12 GMT -5
No, it is unconstitutional by definition.
And if I touched your fiance in the way they did, I could definitely be charged with sexual molestation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. PerpetuaLynch Motion on Jan 5, 2011 17:51:59 GMT -5
I still see nothing that suggests the "government" or "authorities" did anything wrong. She couldn't do the body scan for health reasons. Fine. She has to do the pat down. She continually refuses, she is subject to the same consequences anyone else is. Period. So, why is the government in the wrong? Learn your constitutional rights. Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized Even if we disregard the fact that the entire procedure is completely against the supreme law of the land, there is still no reason to slam this woman to the ground and arrest her. I'd like to point out that it's not an unreasonable search though... |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 5, 2011 18:02:16 GMT -5
Learn your constitutional rights. Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized Even if we disregard the fact that the entire procedure is completely against the supreme law of the land, there is still no reason to slam this woman to the ground and arrest her. I'd like to point out that it's not an unreasonable search though... Yes it is. They have no reason to believe that some 93 year old grandmother is going to blow up the plane, yet they pat her down. There is no reason to believe that ANY of us will do it. More people are killed each year by lightening than terrorism. It is very unreasonable to believe someone will blow up the airplane. |
|
