Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Police charge mother who stopped TSA from fondling her daughter

page: 1
51
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+30 more 
posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Police charge mother in Nashville airport altercation

A 41-year-old Clarksville woman was arrested after Nashville airport authorities say she was belligerent and verbally abusive to security officers, refusing for her daughter to be patted down at a security checkpoint.

Andrea Fornella Abbott yelled and swore at Transportation Security Administration agents Saturday afternoon at Nashville International Airport, saying she did not want her daughter to be “touched inappropriately or have her “crotch grabbed,” a police report states.


That's what it costs in America to have dignity as a human being and standing up for your rights : you get arrested.

DISBAND THE TSA NOW. END THE BODY SCANNERS THAT GIVE CANCER.

If you are too afraid to fly with 90s type security, DON'T FLY YOU WUSS.




posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 

she knew what she was getting in too. If you refuse the body scanners then you get a pat down. Im not saying itsw right but when you buy that ticket your agreeing with the security measures of the airport.


+11 more 
posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bixxi3
reply to post by Vitchilo
 

she knew what she was getting in too. If you refuse the body scanners then you get a pat down. Im not saying itsw right but when you buy that ticket your agreeing with the security measures of the airport.
You can't say for sure she knew what she was getting into. If you don't fly often, or stay informed, you may not be expecting your daughter to have her crotch felt up. She was doing what a parent should do, speak out when someone is abusing your child. Yeah, she may have understood refusing that = patdown, but she probably didn't know patdown = violation

Should she have been arrested? No. If they wanted to not allow her to fly, fine.
edit on 13-7-2011 by xPico because: (no reason given)


+27 more 
posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
In any other situation where an adult or other individual older than the child were too place their hands upon the chest, groin or buttocks of the minor, it would a legally chargeable instance of sexual exploitation or molestion of the child. Prisons are full of those convicted for such offenses, yet under the guise of protective authority, TSA personnel get away with every day.

I don't believe that the majority of TSA peeps are getting a sexual thrill from the encounters, but I wonder how many get their jollies from the power trip their unquestionble authority gives them?

Last month my 3 year granddaughter flew to Fla. with her dad for a visit with the other grandmother. I was so anxious about whether she would be subjected to such treatment, that I offered to pay for a rental car so that they wouldn't have to even deal with the whole d-mned mess. When they arrived, they called, said everything had been cool with no problems, but the relief I felt was short-lived since they had the return trip as well.

The TSA has proven to be ineffectual in the position for which they were created. They terrorize citizens far more efficiently than any third world extremists.


+16 more 
posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   

“(She) told me in a very stearn voice with quite a bit of attitude that they were not going through that X-ray,” Sabrina Birge, an airport security officer, told police.

“No, it’s not an X-ray,” she told Abbott. “It is 10,000 times safer than your cell phone and uses the same type of radio waves as a sonogram.”


10,000 times safer than a cell phone?? Terahertz waves which "can" unzip DNA are "safer"? They must have had Disney make all the TSA training videos using Looney Tunes type propaganda for the naive adult-child minds that work for the TSA.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bixxi3
reply to post by Vitchilo
 

she knew what she was getting in too. If you refuse the body scanners then you get a pat down. Im not saying itsw right but when you buy that ticket your agreeing with the security measures of the airport.

For some reason I seem to recall that the airports didn't want this to happen, it was mandated by the federal goonclub


+14 more 
posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
This mother was in the right. I don't believe for one second a parent that protected her daughter from a scary situation deserved to be arrested. Maybe removed from the premises and not allowed to fly for refusing the pat down, but not arrested. Who trains these people? Do they get any training or are they allowed to make it up as they go along? They were supposed to stop invasive pat downs of little kids. This is two stories in two days. We tell our kids about bad touch, then we let the government do it? I don't think this is about security, it's about getting us used to authority

The story from the Tennessean sounds like it was going to be forced on the child, that the mom had no choice in the matter. "I'm going to grab your little girl's crotch and there is not a thing you can do about it." That's what this sounded like. Isn't that assault in a sane world? I'd probably go off the deep end too, being a survivor of sexual abuse. The mother should have educated herself before she went to the airport, then she would have known what refusing to be x-rayed would cause the TSA to do.

This is false security. The still do NOT inspect the luggage that goes in the belly of the plane! What good is feeling up a six year old if anyone can put an explosive in a suitcase? I am never flying again. I'll walk first. I think that's still unrestricted, at least right now.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


What happened to the official story that children were not to be subjected to this treatment? Oh did they lie again? Couldn't be. it is no longer about security or agreement of a plane ticket it is about the fact they are a bunch of lying, sexual assaulting, pediphiles. Who continually get caught and they bosses keep covering for what they are doing. Which can only be translated into that is what they are being told is expected. Every person should sue the individual person they have that right. That person will then roll over on the TSA that is the only way to get to the truth of what is actually going on.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Will be interesting to see what message
a jury will send concerning this matter.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
I liked this piece from the article:


TSA policy revised

The arrest comes on the heels of public outrage over a video showing a pat-down of a 6-year-old girl at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport. The April video prompted a new policy that took effect last month in which airport security screeners must try to avoid invasive pat-down searches of children.

TSA says it will instruct screeners how to make repeated attempts to screen young children without invasive pat-downs. The instructions should reduce the number of pat-downs on children, TSA says.


We can thank "public outrage" for this!


Glad to see this woman took a stand. Pity she was the one charged with disorderly conduct.


+3 more 
posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bixxi3
reply to post by Vitchilo
 

she knew what she was getting in too.


Here's what I know I'm "getting in to" when I'm dealing with government authorities.


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.


That's the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It was written to prevent government from having the power to perform invasive searches of its citizens - which is exactly what the TSA is up to. Your stance seems to indicate you have more outrage at someone objecting to such a search rather than the egregious violations of a government overstepping its authority. Sad.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
I travel a lot to the Land of the Free, especially with the fact that I have a majority of my family in the U.S. and it truly is an amazing country with some pretty amazing people. But centralized organizations like the DHS, CIA and TSA have smeared and gutted her once beautiful image. If these people ever had the nerve to put their hands on my little brothers and sisters, let alone my own childeren if I had any, I'd calmly wait for them to finish their shift, take a machete and make sure they lose what they work with. It's a pretty simple fix to the problem, especially if the police aren't going to have the citizens best interests at heart. People have to defend themselves, others who cannot be defended and every single person, American or non-American has RIGHTS as a human being that only YOU can defend as clearly shown by the 6 year olds mom being arrested, it's a f#%$ed up, topsy-tirvy world these times have turned into.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
So refuse the scanners, refuse the pat down and get sent home.

No reason to be held for contempt of cop. Or in the case of the TSA contempt of pseudo-cop.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


You do know that the 4th Amendment can be waived with consent don't you?

You can give consent for your home, vehicle and person to be searched and the 4th Amendment does not attach.

If you drive you have already given consent to have your breath and/or blood taken to determine levels of alcohol and/or narcotics in your body.

If you enter the airport you have already given consent to search your person and belongings. If you enter into a contract with the airline to fly on their aircraft then you have already given consent to be subjected to the measures adopted by the TSA.

Whether or not those measures are effective is the subject for another thread- I am simply addressing the false statement that the 4th Amendment applies to the TSA screening procedures.

The title should read "Woman Places Child in Situation Where She Will be Body Searched and Flips Out Over Her Own Stupidity"... but that wouldn't generate the righteous outrage of the uneducated.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bixxi3
reply to post by Vitchilo
 

she knew what she was getting in too. If you refuse the body scanners then you get a pat down. Im not saying itsw right but when you buy that ticket your agreeing with the security measures of the airport.


So it's safe to assume you're one of the sheep.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SFA437
I am simply addressing the false statement that the 4th Amendment applies to the TSA screening procedures.


And you are likely 100% correct. After finding it's way through a forest of legalities the government has found a way to legalize behavior expressly prohibited by the Constitution. To me whether it's technically legal has nothing to do with whether this behavior is appropriate.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


I knew a guy so rotten he got fired from his job as a prison guard.

Most places wouldn't hire a person like that.

Guess who he works for now?

Want really scary? He's a supervisor.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
that is just wrong. i hope the tsa is held responsible.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by SFA437
I am simply addressing the false statement that the 4th Amendment applies to the TSA screening procedures.


And you are likely 100% correct. After finding it's way through a forest of legalities the government has found a way to legalize behavior expressly prohibited by the Constitution. To me whether it's technically legal has nothing to do with whether this behavior is appropriate.


What's really outrageous is that the Founders gave us a wonderfully broad document in the Constitution and we've allowed Big Brother to take it away from us.

In response to those who poo-poo the Bill of Rights, what part of "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

The Founders did not want to be felt up either.
edit on 7/13/2011 by 2012srb because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
My two teen-age girls traveled by the airlines to visit their dad last month. I was worried about the check point. Luckily, neither coming or going was an issue. No scanners, no pat down, just the walk through the metal detector. What a relief. I don't think I would have been one happy parent had they wanted to pat the girls down. If they had the scanners, I wasn't to keen on that idea either. This time, neither was an issue - luckily.





new topics

top topics



 
51
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join