She Dared to Verbally Challenge the Authority of the Mighty TSA, page 1

She Dared to Verbally Challenge the Authority of the Mighty TSA, page

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times

Topic started on 25-10-2012 @ 04:51 AM by chemistry

Get a load of this video, recently published on YouTube:

YouTube Link

Basically, a mother refused to go through the TSA body scanner, along with her daughter. After this, when going to be pat down, the mother complained that the TSA officials were inappropriately touching her daughter. She called them 'pedophiles' and 'child molesters' (great).

Now this case has reached court. I really hope that this inspires other people to stand up to these TSA freaks.

If you can find any more info or videos then please add to this thread.

Thank you!!!

edit on 25-10-2012 by chemistry because: spelling (as always!)

reply posted on 25-10-2012 @ 05:14 AM by Druscilla

reply to post by chemistry

The mother's off the rail behavior and escalation of matters is certainly not the most appropriate way to address, or respond to any issues of contention.

Responses like "I respectfully decline to consent to a search", and other such language, without escalating things into an over dramatized display of histrionics would certainly given this woman better traction, at least in court.

It's a touchy issue (pun unintentional), and the woman, or anyone for that matter should certainly have the right to refuse compliance.
At the same time however, non compliance should be understood as grounds for denial of services. If you don't follow the rules that everyone else is following, then, you can't play in this sandbox. You don't get to fly on this airplane.

There's certainly relevant argument on both sides of the issue.

In this case, I think the mother's over dramatic reality show acting display isn't going to help her argument much.

reply posted on 25-10-2012 @ 05:25 AM by HandyDandy

reply to post by chemistry

Karmitic justice will come soon. By being around those scanners all day long.

reply posted on 25-10-2012 @ 05:33 AM by Echo3Foxtrot

I'm not trying to play the bad guy here, but I'm wondering about this claim. I fly quite often to see my family that is spread out among the nation. I never step in to the body scanner because I just don't trust the thing for different reasons. Every time I get searched by the TSA guys, it always follows what most people do not realize is the proper way to search somebody. It is not a pat down, it is a search. These people have standard operating procedures that they must follow lest they lose their job. This SOP no doubt calls for an in depth search of the person. The search can seem very invasive and even come off as inappropriate, which is why the TSA personnel are supposed to voice the steps they are taking and warn the searchee when they have to search the area of the crotch or buttocks. I will not say that there are not creepers or dirt bags that are in the job, but you have to remember that many of these people are doing a job to support themselves or their family. Yes, they chose to do this job. Yes, they COULD quit or not do the job at all if they disagree with it. But if you have no job and need income, you are going to take the damn job and I doubt anyone has the ability to just up and quit and move to a new job.

My point is that the lady may have thought the TSA person searching her daughter was trying to inappropriately touch her, but that person may have very well just been following the SOP. Just throwing that out there to get people thinking.

reply posted on 25-10-2012 @ 05:34 AM by snowen20

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by chemistry

The mother's off the rail behavior and escalation of matters is certainly not the most appropriate way to address, or respond to any issues of contention.

Responses like "I respectfully decline to consent to a search", and other such language, without escalating things into an over dramatized display of histrionics would certainly given this woman better traction, at least in court.

It's a touchy issue (pun unintentional), and the woman, or anyone for that matter should certainly have the right to refuse compliance.
At the same time however, non compliance should be understood as grounds for denial of services. If you don't follow the rules that everyone else is following, then, you can't play in this sandbox. You don't get to fly on this airplane.

There's certainly relevant argument on both sides of the issue.

In this case, I think the mother's over dramatic reality show acting display isn't going to help her argument much.

Agreed.

I think she was fully expecting to have a confrontation of one sort or another before ever leaving for the airport, I also think she probably had it playing out in a more calm and assertive way.

like most people she arrived and started feeling threatened and the reaction to this was escalation of verbal force to counter that threat.
While everyone has the right to speak out against something that they feel violates them, not all people are good at doing it effectively and this is one of those cases.

With that being said however, I think the fact that it is highlighted by the media may in its own right be affective enough to alert others to the proposed idea that TSA workers violate your rights..(which I agree with wholeheartedly)

reply posted on 25-10-2012 @ 05:40 AM by snowen20

reply to post by Echo3Foxtrot

While what you say makes perfect sense, following SOP doesn't preclude a person from getting in trouble for doing something wrong. There have been many "wrong" SOP's in history. Just because a person is doing their SOP correctly doesn't mean they are in the right.

Therefore being a willful idiot doesn't mean automatic exclusion from consequence. (referring to Public servants)

reply posted on 25-10-2012 @ 05:53 AM by Echo3Foxtrot

reply to post by snowen20

A very solid point to an extent. There really hasn't been a solid line drawn for responsibility of the poor fool who is just trying to do his/her job but doesn't really know any better. Some people are just completely clueless. And the SOP here may or may not be wrong. Is it wrong to do a thorough check of every person getting on to a plane? Some may think it is wrong/ridiculous/oppressive/whatever while others will see it as a necessary precaution. And the searches are not going to be a light pat down of obvious areas. Trust me, they could be a whole lot more intrusive than they are. From my experiences they use a very basic search method that consists of "credit card swipes" in certain areas. Uncomfortable, yes. But I understand it. Hey, they could easily make a prison style strip search mandatory.

But on the other hand, there are probably some idiots that want to take their job above and beyond and get too invasive. Hey, those guys and gals need to go. I'm not all about some gung ho moron trying to make the search a little too friendly. That could be the case here or it could have been that the mother just didn't like how invasive the search can seem. Could be a case of ignorance on either side or both. Who knows, we weren't there to witness it. Let us sit back and see what the court trial reveals.

reply posted on 25-10-2012 @ 05:59 AM by BlindBastards

She’s a mother in an agitated state watching her child being invasively searched. Of course she isn’t going to be happy. I wouldn’t be impressed at all if that were to happen to my child in such a manner. There’s no need for it, particularly on a child. I’d personally rather go through a scanner than face a search like that though. They can’t be that bad for your health. Mobile phones are probably more hazardous to one’s health then spending a few seconds in a body scanner.

reply posted on 25-10-2012 @ 06:06 AM by snowen20

Originally posted by BlindBastards
She’s a mother in an agitated state watching her child being invasively searched. Of course she isn’t going to be happy. I wouldn’t be impressed at all if that were to happen to my child in such a manner. There’s no need for it, particularly on a child. I’d personally rather go through a scanner than face a search like that though. They can’t be that bad for your health. Mobile phones are probably more hazardous to one’s health then spending a few seconds in a body scanner.

TSA body scanners aren't as trendy and fun as mobile iphone apps. Is that what you're saying?

I'm joking..

That does bring up an interesting point. People will protest against having personal rights violated when it comes to the safety of their bodies and children, but will go out and buy the latest model cell phone for themselves or children. They will then have it switched on and in their pocket 12 hours a day in some cases "pinging" away at all the good stuff in the human body.

They should come up with an app that gropes you so people will be less inclined to use cellphones as well.

reply posted on 25-10-2012 @ 06:16 AM by Zaphod58

reply to post by snowen20

What rights are being violated? When you CHOOSE to fly you are agreeing to follow their requirements to board the plane. That means if they say you have to undergo a pat down you agree to it when you buy the ticket.

reply posted on 25-10-2012 @ 06:21 AM by snowen20

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by snowen20

What rights are being violated? When you CHOOSE to fly you are agreeing to follow their requirements to board the plane. That means if they say you have to undergo a pat down you agree to it when you buy the ticket.

Mmmm okay then..

reply posted on 25-10-2012 @ 06:25 AM by DarthMuerte

The "just doing their job" argument does not fly. They are violating their fellow citizens for a paycheck. Immoral is immoral no matter the reason.

reply posted on 25-10-2012 @ 06:31 AM by Zaphod58

reply to post by snowen20

Next time you or some one you know flies read the fine print. You agree to a lot of things when you buy that ticket. An airline is a business and you are entering a contract with them when you fly. You have limited rights as part of that contract. Until very recently they had the right to keep you on the plane sitting on the runway for hours (one flight sat for 14 hours, with a few snacks and a backed up toilet), And there was nothing you could do. People tried to sue, and it got thrown out because of the fine print in the ticket.

edit on 10/25/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 25-10-2012 @ 06:43 AM by CosmicEgg

This is the issue at hand: Personal responsibility. That is, the customer has the responsibility to choose the service provider which gives the service they like. If you don't like what the airlines are offering *regardless of the laws involved* then don't buy at ticket. If you have to do things at work that are contrary to your good judgment and are otherwise adverse to performing said tasks then *get a different job or make a business of your own*. No one requires you to work for them.

At the end of the day, we all need to take personal responsibility for our choices right down the line, no matter what the subject is at hand. Every aspect of our lives must be within our sovereign right to determine.

Really think about this before you reply. Personal responsibility is a huge thing and something that we really cannot fathom anymore. Ponder it. See how far-reaching it is. People now think in terms of compliance rather than responsibility, as though compliance were a more desirable function. It's not. Not in the least. Really give a good thought before you reply. Show that you can think for yourself.

reply posted on 25-10-2012 @ 06:47 AM by snowen20

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by snowen20

Next time you or some one you know flies read the fine print. You agree to a lot of things when you buy that ticket. An airline is a business and you are entering a contract with them when you fly. You have limited rights as part of that contract. Until very recently they had the right to keep you on the plane sitting on the runway for hours (one flight sat for 14 hours, with a few snacks and a backed up toilet), And there was nothing you could do. People tried to sue, and it got thrown out because of the fine print in the ticket.
edit on 10/25/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

You are so right...I never realized that when purchased a ticket I signed on to have my property stolen, people expressing blatant contempt for me as a person for no other reason than "they can", Keeping photos of people and joking about them, harassing people because again.."they can", inappropriately touching people beyond "normal" pat down procedures and the like..

I guess I need to read the fine print more, or perhaps I should start offering tribute to the TSA upon entering into their lair.

The point here is that the TSA has a large stack of complaints backed up against them and no amount of skirting the issue with "private property" talk and waiving of ones right will make this go away.

I'm not even going to begin to sit here and rehash every single complaint false or otherwise that was brought against the TSA for violating a persons rights, or perceived rights as you may all them. It is all here in ATS ad nauseam and you have seen your fair share. If you haven't found the testicular fortitude to stand against something blatantly wrong as abuse of power and its negative affects on people, then nothing I can say will do you any good.

Your mind is seared with a hot iron on the issue no doubt, and that's fine. But when you sign up for ATS you waive all the rights you have to someone agreeing with your position, whether you believe it right or not. I on the other hand do not waive my rights to theft of personal property and inappropriate handling of myself and or children.

reply posted on 25-10-2012 @ 06:48 AM by mamabeth

reply to post by chemistry

I would not only refuse to go through those scanners,the TSA
would not like my response to putting their hands up my skirt.
These reasons are why I don't fly the "friendly" skies anymore.

reply posted on 25-10-2012 @ 07:05 AM by cavalryscout

reply to post by chemistry

I would have Tasered her fat ass!

It's not like some dirty old man was trying to feel up her daughter they provided a dirty old woman.

Nobody wanted to search her, is that what this is all about?
The lady bought her ticket went to the airport and expected a little touchy feely and the TSA guys passed on the offer so she got pissed off and filed a law suit.

That's right I see things that others miss.

edit on 25-10-2012 by cavalryscout because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 25-10-2012 @ 07:14 AM by Zaphod58

reply to post by snowen20

I never said that the TSA was a good thing, so don't try to twist what I said. I have said for years that the TSA is a joke and the private security was ten times better. What I said is that when you fly you agree to follow their procedures to board the plane. There is a huge difference between that and your smart ass reply. But then I guess reading comprehension is a dying art now.

Have you ever worked at an airport doing security? I have. People have the mentality that we should screen everyone but them. I've seen kids toys with things in them, older people with swords in canes, and other things people try to take on the flights. Even after 9/11 people still tried to. If you don't like the rules don't fly it's that simple. If you choose to fly, you choose to be inconvenienced.

reply posted on 25-10-2012 @ 08:40 AM by Klassified

reply to post by Druscilla

Your point is valid for an individual case, but if every citizen would react the way she did, or worse, this Orwellian nonsense would soon come to a screeching halt.

reply posted on 25-10-2012 @ 10:12 AM by DerepentLEstranger

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by Druscilla

Your point is valid for an individual case, but if every citizen would react the way she did, or worse, this Orwellian nonsense would soon come to a screeching halt.

indeed, it's the enablers, ultimately that allowed this to fly [pun intended] in the 1st place.
and are the #1 reason tsa is now expanding into other venues [buses, graduations, on the road, etc]

mamabeth and those arguing for personal responsibility make a good point too,
unfortunately the nation is mostly of sheeple, which is why tsa is gaining more power and not less.

if people simply boycotted the airlines, and/or sought out other forms of transportation, it would disappear overnight as it already has at some airports.

"but my job requires..."

well f your job.

unless your job is more important than your dignity or self respect,

or more importantly, that of your family/loved ones.

and f your boss too, as he/she is either flying in their own plane, or has the card that allows him/her to skip being searched.

ever notice in those videos how if a kid [much smarter than most adults] starts resisting or crying;

the douchebags step up their efforts?

that's 'cause they're getting off on it.

none are so blind as those who refuse to see.