TSA pays out just $2k to Texas woman whose breasts were exposed during patdown

At the end of the day, she flashed her chest and got a couple grand out of it. That's enough to make any stage dancer jealous.

reply to post by boncho


wow I sure hope thats a joke

reply to post by boncho
Making light of it really depends on the individual. According to you women in drunken stupors and strippers needing cash wouldn't mind at all. What are you suggesting? Embarrassed or not most women try to keep their breasts contained at the airport. Lets see breastfeeding in public is a no no but in line at the airport anything goes.

Someone getting embarrassed is not what bothers me. The agents jokes were inappropriate and unprofessional. She deserved more money and video agent xxx should have lost his job.

Unappreciated humor directed at the public is a sure way to get punched/fired or worse.

reply to post by Morningglory

Someone getting embarrassed is not what bothers me. The agents jokes were inappropriate and unprofessional. She deserved more money and video agent xxx should have lost his job.

Unappreciated humor directed at the public is a sure way to get punched/fired or worse.

Forget the money. That's exactly why I think the situation is funny.


If this is about her being offended, or disrespected by the agents, that should of been her main objective.


"Offer me a million dollars, I don't want it! I just don't want that person to continue working there so he can do the same thing to someone else."

See: Moral Crusade

Taking money turns that from a moral crusade into a monetary crusade.

Actually, this woman better be grateful she received anything and that she was not labeled as a sex offender herself for exposing her breasts to the unwilling public. The judge would have probably said she should have taken better precaution and that she engineered her wardrobe to malfunction intentionally as a way to expose herself. It baffles my mind that the TSA agent didn't blame the exposure of the breast on the woman herself and call security to tackle her.

Very lucky she got away AND got paid. It is the USA after all...

Originally posted by Jocko Flocko
Thats a very small amount of money for such a disgusting incident, nevermind major civil rights violation. I don't think such massive civil rights and constitutional violations will ever stop unless organized actions are taken against TSA agents themselves; targeting the people doing the governments bidding will drive the point home.

Desperate times call for desperate measures IMO.

While I wholeheartedly approve of holding the individuals to account, I also question why constituents don't bombard their representatives with complaints, as in "If you don't fix this, I will not vote for you" and "If you don't fix this, I will run against you".

Rail about TPTB all you want, but these guys still have to get reelected...if not, then they're back to selling cars, insurance, whatever. And that's a mighty step down. That's the power the electorate has.

Pop an ATS agent, and you're just gonna go to jail.

I think it's just a matter of time before people start taking "mug shot" photos of these TSA agents and posting them all over their home towns and neighborhoods with captions like "CHILD MOLESTOR", "PERVERT", etc.

reply to post by ldyserenity


2K seems a really paltry sum, in my opinion.

She should have gotten a much larger settlement than that if there was justice.

Originally posted by boncho


Taking money turns that from a moral crusade into a monetary crusade.

What a stupid line of reasoning. And how typical of the masses. Corporations, most politicians, and many of the worlds most wealthy dont have morals. Or certainly not morals the little people of the world recognize as such.

Its ridiculous to go on a "moral" crusade against them. Money IS their God, and their morals revolve entirely around it, and the only way to get them to notice their "sins" is to make it cost them, proportionately to their means of paying. Murder to them is not a sin if it costs them nothing, and it is a "moral" good to them if they actually gain financially from it. ANYTHING that costs them is a "sin" and the more it costs them, the bigger a "sin" it is.

So dont be insane and try to pretend that those in power care anything at all for the lower classes version of "morals." Even your foolish idea that you should not go on a monetary jihad against them, but rather should wage some moral crusade is the result of their programming you in ways that enable them, and hinder your own cause.

reply to post by boncho
I get what you're saying but I don't think she's completely to blame.

The moral crusade aspect goes right out the window as soon as money grubbing lawyers come on the scene. Their main concern is acquiring payment for services. If moral issues are resolved it's often a byproduct of the suit not the intent. Unfortunately our legal system is about money not morality.

I would say her lawyers were probably pretty disappointed with the award. I wonder how many similar clients they will represent in the future. The purpose of high awards isn't solely about compensating/enriching the injured/lawyers, moral or not, awards serve to deter/punish offenders.

reply to post by spacedonk


It isn't a great deal of money but she can appeal.
It is HUGE that they admitted wrong doing in the first place.

They must have had no choice but to pay out.

This means her lawyer talked to their lawyers and they bribed him somehow.
Said "We'll give you a win - if you keep this settlement under 3G, we'll also give you X Y and Z."

They promised him something SO he in bad faith, coached his client, "I'm doing my best but they're about to rule against you, you won't get anything so we should settle for this now. At least its something."

X Y and Z might be a partnership, future business, get in the country free card for a friend, a tax loophole. Truth is we may never know what manner of "under the table currency" was used to guarantee the anti-climatic result in this case.

First, kill all the lawyers.
This is another one of the reasons Shakespeare said that.

Originally posted by Morningglory
Unfortunately our legal system is about money not morality.

Not just our legal system. ALL of our systems at the highest level are about money. Our foreign policy, our economic polices, all of it.

The only time "morals" enter into the thinking of our leaders is when they need to sell us, the worlds majority, on some money grubbing scheme that we would never authorize or support if they told us their real reasons and motives. Like the Iraq war. Like any war, really, which are almost always squabbles between the upper "classes" over money, land, or resources.

THATS when they get on "morals." When they need to convince us that God wants us to fight and die for them, or when we need to "save" some people somewhere from an "evil dictator" (who in fact is morally no different from them, but who is just on the wrong side of an economic deal they want to force.)

The only time you ever hear about "money grubbing lawyers" is when those lawyers are representing the interests of the masses, or some individual, against the interests of the rich and powerful few. The fact of the matter is, the powerful and the wealthy own the best "money grubbing attorneys" they can buy and they use them to grub for money far, far more often than the opposite way around. Its just that the rich and powerful also own the media, so you hear what they want you to hear about that.

While the media will have a field day over some woman winning millions of dollars for "spilling how coffee on herself," and pump out the meme that it was just some schemer trying to get a free ride from a hardworking corporation, they wont tell the WHOLE story, which is that she didnt win millions, and the judgment was reduced just to cover her costs, and that LOTS of people had been burned before her, many very seriously, and had petitioned McDonalds to make it safer before she got burned. The jury knew all that. Its why they punished McDonalds by awarding the woman a huge settlement. But the judge was more corporate friendly, and undid that, which is why McDonalds didnt really change its ways.

But what the public rarely hears is how corporations or other wealthy interests can and do drag little people through the courts to take their land, inventions, etc. not only stealing from them, but ruining them financially too. They dont mention that Exxon dragged the battle over their liability for the spill through the courts for years, and years, and in the end, the people who small businesses, health and lives were ruined got hardly anything, and far from what they actually lost.

You need to look behind the media smoke screen, and look at what actually happens, who actually does what, and who really benefits. Its not the little people who sue because their breasts were shown to a herd of strangers at an airport and then they were mocked and humiliated. They arent the ones ruining things for everyone, and they certainly arent the greedy money grubbing ones.

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
I think it's just a matter of time before people start taking "mug shot" photos of these TSA agents and posting them all over their home towns and neighborhoods with captions like "CHILD MOLESTOR", "PERVERT", etc.

It's a job. Would you rather support somebody on welfare or unemployment? Would they rather work in a lower-paying dead-end job with no security or benefits? I doubt it. If they abuse their authority, they should be canned. If you don't like the system, talk to your legislators. Ranting on a web forum accomplishes exactly zilch.

Personally, I have to go through the manual screening and I have not gotten any grief, either in Canada or the States.

The T&A thought they were at a strip club, so when you think about it $2000 is a lot of money. I hope no one tells them it wasn't a strip club but an airport, otherwise they will want their 2 G's back.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
I think it's just a matter of time before people start taking "mug shot" photos of these TSA agents and posting them all over their home towns and neighborhoods with captions like "CHILD MOLESTOR", "PERVERT", etc.

It's a job. Would you rather support somebody on welfare or unemployment? Would they rather work in a lower-paying dead-end job with no security or benefits? I doubt it. If they abuse their authority, they should be canned. If you don't like the system, talk to your legislators. Ranting on a web forum accomplishes exactly zilch.

Personally, I have to go through the manual screening and I have not gotten any grief, either in Canada or the States.

If the only marketable job skill a person has is molesting women and children at an airport:

1. They shouldn't have dropped out of high school.
2. They should seek training for a more productive line of work.
3. The Catholic Church could always use more priests.

Personally, I would rather work at McDonald's than grope people at the airport, and I would rather starve in the street than work at McDonald's. And, as we saw in Texas, talking to legislators would accomplish absolutely zilch. But if their friends, neighbors, and people they met knew what they did for a living, it wouldn't be long before the general public treats them like any other registered sex offender.

I recognize that you and I may have different cultural perspectives on this issue. I don't know if Canada has any protections against illegal searches. The way I see it, our Constitution prohibits exactly this kind of thing, and for good reason. I believe the American Republic would be better off if we had a 9/11 style attack once a year, rather than sacrificing our rights to prevent them. Everyone dies eventually, buildings can be rebuilt, but once we give up our rights and freedoms, not only do WE lose them, but every generation that comes after us has lost those rights and freedoms as well.

BTW, newcovenant, you might want to brush up on your Shakespear a bit. That "kill the lawyers" quote was spoken by characters planning to overthrow the legitimate government. The idea being that once the lawyers were gone, there would be no one to speak for the legal rights of the citizens. Just a little pet peeve of mine. I find that to be the second most often out-of-context quote I hear. Number one being the "fire in a crowded theater" quote.

Not that I'm a fan of lawyers, of course.

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
If the only marketable job skill a person has is molesting women and children at an airport:
1. They shouldn't have dropped out of high school.
2. They should seek training for a more productive line of work.
3. The Catholic Church could always use more priests.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b8e8fd7c7450.jpg[/atsimg]

It's a job. Can the bad ones...same as anywhere else.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Hooking up electrodes to the genitals of a detainee at Gitmo is a job, too. But anyone who does it is a poor excuse for a human being, in my opinion.

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Hooking up electrodes to the genitals of a detainee at Gitmo is a job, too. But anyone who does it is a poor excuse for a human being, in my opinion.

...bit of a stretch. I do believe they call it a 'straw man'. So...had this discussion with your Reps? Be interesting to hear what the response was.

Originally posted by mustard seed
Greatest damn country on Earth! FEH! maybe when my grandad fought WWII not anymore.I have watched it crumble.I am old enough to remember freedom and it dried up around 1980 when Ronnie Raygun took office and has been on the down slide since. Say what you will about Carter but this country was relatively free right up till he was gone. Thank political hiney vacuuming to corporate Amerika for that.
How bloody freaking third world we are getting!
seed

R Reagan was a hero compared to the four subsequent screwball presidents we've had / got now...

reply to post by VictorVonDoom


Can't the citizens speak for themselves?
As far as I know the lawyers only came along when people got lazy and all the bs statutes came along thus requiring an 'interpreter' such as a lawyer.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Hooking up electrodes to the genitals of a detainee at Gitmo is a job, too. But anyone who does it is a poor excuse for a human being, in my opinion.

...bit of a stretch. I do believe they call it a 'straw man'. So...had this discussion with your Reps? Be interesting to hear what the response was.

Yeah, that was a straw man argument. I realized that some time after I posted it, and I apologize for that. My point was that there are some things people just shouldn't do for money. If you kill people for money, you are an assasin. If you have sex for money, you are a prostitute. If you lie for money, you're still a liar. If you steal for money, you are a thief. If someone has the excuse that they have to put their hands down the pants of a crying six year old because they need the money, I just have no sympathy for them. You couldn't pay me enough. Add to that the fact that what they are doing is patently unconstitutional, that makes them traitors to the American republic as well.

Of course, I haven't discussed any of this with my legislators. After the emails I sent to my senators about renewing the Patriot Act, I'm pretty sure they just see my name and hit the delete key. Besides, they are fully aware of what is happening, and they know how their constituents feel about it. But until they and their children are subjected to these grope-fests, I don't think they will give a rat's patootie about what happens to the rest of us peons.