Police charge mother who stopped TSA from fondling her daughter

What do you suppose would have happened if the TSA stuck their hand in George Washington's crotch?

Originally posted by 2012srb
What do you suppose would have happened if the TSA stuck their hand in George Washington's crotch?

Probably the exact same thing that would happen if they stuck their hand down my husband's crotch. A punch to the face and an arrest for assault for my husband.

I'd like to see the reports of how many really pretty girls/women get pulled over for a more thorough search of their heaving bosoms. I bet that happens often as well.

There are reports of them squeezing and fondling women's breasts.

Sharon Kiss, 66, has a pacemaker, but also has to fly often for her work. "During a recent enhanced pat-down, a screener cupped my breasts and felt my genitals," she said in an e-mail to msnbc.com "To 'clear my waistband' she put her hands down my pants and groped for the waistband of my underwear. "I expressed humiliation and was told 'You have the choice not to fly.' " The remark infuriated Kiss, who lives in Mendocino, Calif. "Extrapolate this to we should not provide curb cuts and ramps for people confined to wheelchairs because they can choose to stay home ... This a violation of civil rights. And because I have a disability, I should not be subjected to what is government-sanctioned sexual assault in order to board a plane."

I have a source about a woman being forced to show the TSA her prosthetic breast.

Source

Marlene McCarthy of Rhode Island said she went through the body scanner and was told by a TSA agent to step aside. In "full view of everyone," McCarthy said in an e-mail, the agent "immediately put the back of her hand on my right side chest and I explained I wore a prosthesis.

So we are at war with six year old girls and women's boobies. While the baggage goes unchecked. Brilliant.

Originally posted by SFA437
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.

Yes, 4th Amendment rights can be waived by giving consent. However, just by driving, you do not give consent. If you refuse a breath test, law enforcement must seek a warrant to draw blood if you do not consent to said blood test. There is no implied consent by having a drivers license. Some states have mandatory suspensions if you refuse a breath or blood test, but you still must consent verbally or in writing to waive your 4th Amendment rights.

TSA searches should be held to the 4th Amendment standards, but until someone successfully fights it in court, TSA is going to push as far as we allow them.

Originally posted by 2012srb
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.

For TSA?!?

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by 2012srb
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.

For TSA?!?

Yes.

reply to post by 2012srb


OH Perfect!!!!!
What a pretty picture I'm getting!

I've always heard lawyers say you can't contract away constitutional rights because they are the supreme law of the land. Your rights can be narrowed by legislation but not completely revoked. Privileges are not protected and can be contracted.

reply to post by Vitchilo


If she didnt want her daughter's crotch grabbed then she should have let her walk through the x-ray plain and simple. There is a fine line between standing up for something you believe in and being ridiculous. Seriously folks, I am sure if TSA wanted to grab someone's crotch for pleasure they would've chosen someone more appropriate like a 17 yr old hottie in daisy dukes. I seriously doubt a pat down consists of grabbing a crotch unless they feel something. My husband was a cop for 22 yrs. He has patted down hundreds of people and not once did he ever do it for pleasure. Get real...this is ridiculous..

It's been said thousands of times, all it takes is for more people to refuse pat-downs and body scanners. The TSA will be force to rethink their rules "laws" and maybe even completely resign...but it wont happen until the masses realize their natural rights are being violated, hell I bet a third of Americans wouldn't even know what amendment is being violated in the first place...

we need to apply serious monetary pressure to these corporate a-holes! STOP FLYING ALLTOGETHER!

Originally posted by summer5
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.

See this is what gets me. Why in Tennesee we've heard of this NUMEROUS times, but other places don't do even the xray, WTF???? So some how it's been left up to the states if they want this or not, apparently, so Tennessee must be full of A$@)*)*)$ and pedophiles at the very least their elected officials and TSA are, WTH? If it's left to the states PEOPLE VOTE OUT THE A#&(%&#(& that decided their states had to conform to this crap!!!!!

It's simple.

If you don't want your little girl getting fondled....don't fly.

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.

Gosh. I sure hope she didn't hurt their feelings. What an insensitive b****!

Seriously, I wish more people would stand up to these gestapo wannabe's.

Originally posted by k21968
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

If she didnt want her daughter's crotch grabbed then she should have let her walk through the x-ray plain and simple. There is a fine line between standing up for something you believe in and being ridiculous. Seriously folks, I am sure if TSA wanted to grab someone's crotch for pleasure they would've chosen someone more appropriate like a 17 yr old hottie in daisy dukes. I seriously doubt a pat down consists of grabbing a crotch unless they feel something. My husband was a cop for 22 yrs. He has patted down hundreds of people and not once did he ever do it for pleasure. Get real...this is ridiculous..

See i am inclinded to agree with you,
i dont doubt there are some bad people out there who take advantge of there position, much like driving instructors and other proffesions where trust is a key part of there job, but surley the "groping" firstly comes from refusal to go through scanners or even then how else would you pat down people if not... patting them down, liek surley you need to check the entire body if you need to pat people down otherwise anyone with any intent would just hide things where the agents werent allowed to pat???

Furthermore... people like one mentioned with prosthetic limbs (or in this case breast) could quite easily use said things to hide things they shouldnt have on the plane?

Remeber all this came from a public outcry that airport security wasnt safe enough..... where is the line exactly?

would these measures be alright on middle eastern people when its not ok on white people, being from the uk i dont travel more than once a year (sometimes twice but never any more) by air, i feel i must be missing somthing here as we get patted down by bouncers before we enter clubs... males patted down by males and females patted down by females.... is it not the most efficiant way of checking for devices.

looking back now... we were talking about this in work yesterday, think how dangerous an aircraft is (as a tool for destruction) and think about the "war on terror" and tactics used by the opposition with children etc. in the middle east....in the 80's you could bring your tool kit on a plane if you were an engineer, i know many people who have, can you not see the actual dangers of not vetting what goes on a plane??? or do we go back to the eighties and have anyone bringing anything they want on the plane? where is line?

People dont want to go through a scanner, so there patted down.... the logical scenario... go through the scanner... when you fear you have somthing wrong with you you get an x-ray right?? they are also bad for you, but you get soo few in a year you dont really think about it.. how often do you travel?? so why have such an issue with going through a scanner?

reply to post by 2012srb


reply to post by traditionaldrummer


If you ALLOW someone to search you the 4th Amendment does NOT apply. Period. Full stop. Do not pass go. Never has, even back in the 1700's. The 4th applies to searches where the person does not wish to be searched.

Hate the TSA for ridiculous, nonsensical search procedures or for incompetence or for being a HUGE waste of funds but bringing the 4th Amendment into a voluntary search makes you sound uneducated.

I'm not saying you are by any means uneducated but using the 4th in this case is utterly incorrect.

reply to post by retiredTxn


Correct- however (and this is the biggie)

If the person arrested refuses to provide breath, blood or urine then the privilege is removed.

If the person attempting to board an aircraft refuses to submit to search the privilege to fly is removed.

Both driving a vehicle and flying are voluntary actions. In both cases the person has placed themselves voluntarily in a situation where implied consent applies.

Nobody had the woman and her child in the OP at gunpoint, forcing her to march through the checkpoint. SHE chose to do that and knew that the possibility of an invasive search existed and she exposed her child to that possibility. To then make a scene in retaliation for a situation that she herself created is juvenile and immature.

reply to post by Nobama


No Amendment is being violated as the searches are VOLUNTARY.

If you do not wish TSA to search you- take alternative transportation.

Granted common sense has become an uncommon virtue but if I do not want my hydraulics manipulated by a government drone I drive. Imagine that... I don't fly so my junk doesn't get juggled. Amazing concept huh?

As long as the sheep are slaves to a voluntary convenience TSA will exist and continue invasive searches.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

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.

Well said, and please let me hasten to add, Rosa Parks knew what she was getting into. Even then, she was legally challenging the violation of the civil rights of an entire race of people here in the US.

How are we now comparing a child being molested with her own protectors required to stand by silently assenting? This alone could cause many, many issues in a growing child, girl or boy.

But with women's needs to set boundaries, treating a little girl like this is not going to help her with future situations, I promise.

The jury's duty is clear, if it makes it that far. They will probably drag the whole thing on and on and force her to take a plea or face the entire federal government, a daunting prospect, to be sure.

If Casey Anthony got off, by God, this mother better as well.

Furthermore, don't children have specific privileges, and certain protections, as well, as one poster pointed out?

So how many grandmas in wheelchairs and little kids have blown stuff up so far?

None? Really? The way we are all over them, you'd think they were the top terrorists in the world now!

Just to clarify my position-

The TSA are the singular most incompetent, useless, worthless and nonsensical branch of the FedGod that has ever inhabited our fevered nightmares. They need to go and go NOW.

I am just pointing out that the 4th Amendment does not apply to voluntary searches related to partaking in voluntary activities.

reply to post by SFA437


You are right. Sadly though the argument it is voluntary is what they use and it is not entirely true.

If you have to fly for your work to earn a living, it is not voluntary. It may be construed as such but it is not voluntary. It forces a person to decide between quitting their jobs or submitting to the search. In that context it is not so cut and dried.

Another issue is people who live where I do. We either drive across Canada, Fly or never see our families or friends again for the rest of our lives. In this case it is not truly voluntary either.

Most people when asked lie and say it is OK out of fear. I know I've talked to many. When asked in public what are they supposed to say? Something that would get them on the No Fly List?

Still agreeing with you but pointing out what should be obvious, that it is not really voluntary in many, many cases. legally yes, but realistically no it is not.

I think it is now permanent and will soon be in all bus stations, train stations and any public transport; Meaning everyone else will be forced to submit to even work in this country. None of us should have any illusions about that. The Free country we had is no more.

Our only real solution right now is if a great leader comes along; one who sides with Freedom and the People. None are running in 2012, so no joy this time. If their is a real leader among them, they are keeping it well hidden.