TSA (Team Sexual Assault) Wants to grab man's "junk". He says no, they eject him and threaten to

Originally posted by YourPopRock
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

 

You are so misinformed...

You are very wrong. It is the opposite.

Originally posted by YourPopRock
#1 I was personally "patted down" by a female TSA (Team Sexual Assault) member in Denver who grabbed my peis as part of the "pat down"... so much for your males doing males and females doing females disillusion...

Prove it or shut it.

Originally posted by YourPopRock
#2 he isn't being "fined" $10,000.00... he is being sued for it in civil court. The reason? The TSA has no legal authority to impose a fine so they must sue (and the reason for the "up to $10,000.00"? Because it is small claims court! 2 miniutes to Judge Wapner!)

He is getting fined AND sued.

He IS being "fined" $10,000 for TSA's services rendered. He wasted TSA's time and money with his little fiasco. It costs money to deal with his uncooperative self. They DO have legal authority to impose a fine, just like the police have legal authority to fine you if you make them come to your house more than once on disturbance calls. Just like the emergency 9 1 1 service has authority to fine you if you call them when it isn't an emergency.

He is ALSO getting sued, most probably by the airport and airline itself for delaying flights.

Originally posted by YourPopRock
#3 it is "appropriate" for a doctor to touch my penis as part of a medical exam to make sure my penis isn't broken. It isn't "appropriate" for a TSA agent to touch my penis to make sure it is the only penis there. (Just like it isn't ok for a police officer to touch your penis during a pat down).

Yes, very uninformed you are.

It is perfectly ok for police officers to touch your penis during a pat down. Many police officers have died for not doing it, and criminals pulled out guns from their groin and killed them. They must search for guns and weapons being held in their underwear. TSA needs to check for the same reason.

It is perfectly "appropriate". To search for weapons hidden near or on top of your genitals, it is completely appropriate to pat or even grab the genitals to feel if it is a body part, or a artificial object.

Wherever you are getting your information from, it is very misinformed.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
Common sense should have answered those questions for you..

More damage could not be done by those things you listed. An aircraft is a potential guided missile that travels around 500 mph. It in itself is a weapon.

A supermarket, mall, office, skyscraper, parade, sports event, etc. IS NOT A WEAPON. An aircraft IS A WEAPON.

So why aren't they trying to stop these little flaws in the security screening process that could disable a pilot ? huh ? I'm sure there are a few more like YourPopRock suggested.

Originally posted by YourPopRock
I could also beat you to death with my laptop, strangle you with my belt, stab you in the eye with my pen, rip the aluminum can they serve my coca cola in on the plane and slash your throat, cover your head with a plastic bag and suffocate you.... and those are just off of the top of my head!

edit on 16-11-2010 by ppk55 because: corrected attribution

I am misinformed...

You still didn't address the fact that if an airplane is such a dangerous weapon (like a machine gun is) why we don't just ban them. You don't like terrorists? Take their weapons away!

But I would expect none less from someonne who has opionions that are stated as facts.

Originally posted by YourPopRock
Well by your definition, those weapons should be banned!

Banned?? I never said anything about banning anything.... thanks for exaggerating.

Originally posted by YourPopRock
Automatic firearms = banned

To obtain an automatic firearm you must go through security checks, and pass tests, and get a license for one. Much like passing security to get on an aircraft.

Originally posted by YourPopRock
Switchblades = banned

Switchblades are illegal/banned in most places already.

Originally posted by YourPopRock
Grenades for children = banned

??

Originally posted by YourPopRock
Nuclear missles for the elderly to have control of = banned

??

Originally posted by YourPopRock
Letting nuns walk the streets with samurai swords = banned

??

What on Earth are you exaggerating about?

Originally posted by YourPopRock
Airplanes are FAR more dangerous than any of those (well, maybe not the geriatrics at Old Country Buffet with their fingers on the nuclear button), and airplanes can cause MUCH more damage than any of them.

Yes, jets are potential guided missiles that anyone who wants to can get aboard.

Originally posted by YourPopRock
I know the solution...

BAN AIRPLANES!!!

Uh no.... nice try... well not really that was a very horrible try at whatever you were trying.

The solution is to make sure criminals don't bring weapons onto planes and take control of them. Security.....

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy

Originally posted by YourPopRock
Well by your definition, those weapons should be banned!

Banned?? I never said anything about banning anything.... thanks for exaggerating.

Originally posted by YourPopRock
Automatic firearms = banned

To obtain an automatic firearm you must go through security checks, and pass tests, and get a license for one. Much like passing security to get on an aircraft.

Originally posted by YourPopRock
Switchblades = banned

Switchblades are illegal/banned in most places already.

Originally posted by YourPopRock
Grenades for children = banned

??

Originally posted by YourPopRock
Nuclear missles for the elderly to have control of = banned

??

Originally posted by YourPopRock
Letting nuns walk the streets with samurai swords = banned

??

What on Earth are you exaggerating about?

Originally posted by YourPopRock
Airplanes are FAR more dangerous than any of those (well, maybe not the geriatrics at Old Country Buffet with their fingers on the nuclear button), and airplanes can cause MUCH more damage than any of them.

Yes, jets are potential guided missiles that anyone who wants to can get aboard.

Originally posted by YourPopRock
I know the solution...

BAN AIRPLANES!!!

Uh no.... nice try... well not really that was a very horrible try at whatever you were trying.

The solution is to make sure criminals don't bring weapons onto planes and take control of them. Security.....

Methinks thou doth protest too much!

Aren't you going to be late for your TSA job at the airport?

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy

Originally posted by ppk55
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

 

That still doesn't answer why they are not introducing this 'rigorous' type of check at supermarkets, malls, office skyscrapers, parades, major sports events etc? as posted above. Where more damage could be done.

Common sense should have answered those questions for you...

More damage could not be done by those things you listed. An aircraft is a potential guided missile that travels around 500 mph. It in itself is a weapon.

A supermarket, mall, office, skyscraper, parade, sports event, etc. IS NOT A WEAPON. An aircraft IS A WEAPON.

You realise there are potential weapons at all of those places? Hell, every person who drives a car is driving a weapon... maybe they should pat down people getting onto buses, you could do some serious damage with a bus...

Originally posted by ppk55
So why aren't they trying to stop these little flaws in the security screening process that could disable a pilot ? huh ? I'm sure there are a few more like YourPopRock suggested.

Show me proof they are not trying to stop those "little flaws".

I won't hold my breath.

reply to post by YourPopRock

Originally posted by YourPopRock
I am misinformed...

Glad you can admit it.

Originally posted by YourPopRock
You still didn't address the fact that if an airplane is such a dangerous weapon (like a machine gun is) why we don't just ban them. You don't like terrorists? Take their weapons away!

It would be illogical to ban them, people need to travel! You keep exaggerating over and over and over.

We can't ban aircraft, so we just use security to hopefully reduce the risks of some lunatic taking control of one.

Originally posted by YourPopRock
But I would expect none less from someonne who has opionions that are stated as facts.

Pure hypocrisy.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
Show me proof they are not trying to stop those "little flaws".
I won't hold my breath.

By reintroducing steel knives and glassware in business class.

You can breathe again.

Originally posted by SerialLurker
You realise there are potential weapons at all of those places?

No weapons as deadly as a 500mph guided missile from the sky (jet airliner).

Originally posted by SerialLurker
Hell, every person who drives a car is driving a weapon...

You are right. Trying to run someone over with a car will get you an "assault with a deadly weapon" charge. Try to run over an officer and they will have to shoot you.

You have to pass tests and get a license to drive a car. You also have to register your car. So if you try to kill someone with your car they can trace it back. If you don't register your car, you will be fined.

Yes cars are very deadly. That is why Police officers patrol around and try to prevent that. However, cars are restricted to roads and are not nearly as deadly as a 500mph guided missile (jet airliner).

Originally posted by SerialLurker
maybe they should pat down people getting onto buses, you could do some serious damage with a bus...

Buses are not even nearly as deadly as aircraft. They are way to slow, and are restricted to roads. Yes they are deadly, but they are limited.

Maybe they should put security on each bus....who knows, if lunatics start using buses as weapons, it just may happen. Here is a thought, stop the lunatics, not the searches.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
Try to run over an officer and they will half to shoot you.

My big fear would be that they would FULLY shoot me (not just half!)

Oh, and stop the lunatics and not the searches? So, ummm... you LIKE the searches?!?

Does seem more like George Washington or Adolf Hitler? I'm just trying to figure out which country this was done in. America right?

I wonder if the people running that machine are forced to go through it on a daily basis. Yea.... this doesnt look too much like freedom to me.

Originally posted by AndrewJay
Does seem more like George Washington or Adolf Hitler? I'm just trying to figure out which country this was done in. America right?

I wonder if the people running that machine are forced to go through it on a daily basis. Yea.... this doesnt look too much like freedom to me.

Amen Andrew! My point exactly.

So if you want to travel, you must #1 show your papers, #2 submit to searches (and give up constitutional rights) #3 obey every command of the "authority" of face stiff punishment...

Didn't this happen in Germany once? Hmmm... memory a little fuzzy on this one....

Originally posted by ppk55
By reintroducing steel knives and glassware in business class.

Where is your proof they are re-introducing those things? May I please see your documentation which states they are?

I have flown first class before...

Those steel knives; they are butter knives. They have no sharp edges. They are duller than your own teeth.

That glassware; no matter how you break it the edges are no sharper than your own teeth too. Also, you will notice when someone breaks the glass, you can't hide it.

Did you know they are introducing US Marshals on flights? I'd like to see a dull knife and a fragile piece of glass go up against a trained agent with a gun.

They are also making pilots keep their cockpit door locked no matter what is going on behind them. Id like to see a dull knife and fragile glass get through that door.

Also, if every single passenger has a dull knife and a fragile glass plate just like the terrorist lunatic, guess who is out numbered?

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy

Originally posted by SerialLurker
You realise there are potential weapons at all of those places?

No weapons as deadly as a 500mph guided missile from the sky (jet airliner).

Originally posted by SerialLurker
Hell, every person who drives a car is driving a weapon...

You are right. Trying to run someone over with a car will get you an "assault with a deadly weapon" charge. Try to run over an officer and they will half to shoot you.

You have to pass tests and get a license to drive a car. You also have to register your car. So if you try to kill someone with your car they can trace it back. If you don't register your car, you will be fined.

Yes cars are very deadly. That is why Police officers patrol around and try to prevent that. However, cars are restricted to roads and are not nearly as deadly as a 500mph guided missile (jet airliner).

Uhhh... if I was mad enough to try and run down a person/s with a car, I think my mindset would be such that I'm not too concerned about being traced back to it. Anyway, that's why many people who commit crimes STEAL a vehicle. You know, so it gets traced back to someone else.

By deadly, do you mean the capacity to kill or the amount of potential victims? Because if you spoke to anyone who knew someone who was killed in motor vehicle accident they would say it was pretty damned deadly.

Obviously more people would be in immediate danger if a plane were hijacked.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy

Originally posted by SerialLurker
maybe they should pat down people getting onto buses, you could do some serious damage with a bus...

Buses are not even nearly as deadly as aircraft. They are way to slow, and are restricted to roads. Yes they are deadly, but they are limited.

Maybe they should put security on each bus....who knows, if lunatics start using buses as weapons, it just may happen. Here is a thought, stop the lunatics, not the searches.

Imagine though, a gang of crazed bus hijackers stealing buses and cars in a city like New York City or London? You'd be afraid to get on a bus or even drive to work for quite some time. Flying is not a necessity for MOST people but almost everyone uses some sort of motor transport to get to work, school, etc. Imagine what would happen if a school bus full of kids were hijacked?

Originally posted by YourPopRock
My big fear would be that they would FULLY shoot me (not just half!)

Thank you for pointing out an error in my posts. I am replying so fast that I don't have time to proof read. Thanks for also showing how immature you are, and how you fail at logic so you resort to childish grammar and spelling mistakes.

Originally posted by YourPopRock
Oh, and stop the lunatics and not the searches? So, ummm... you LIKE the searches?!?

If you stop the lunatics, they won't need to search. DUH. No I don't like searches. Who would? They are completely necessary though.

Wow, think much? Obviously not.

If you stop the lunatics, they won't need to search. DUH. No I don't like searches. Who would? They are completely necessary though.

Or the boogeymen in caves will get us right?

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecyI am not even going to bother replying to this topic again. So don't even bother replying to me.

You've made 3 posts since this statement. Funny.

You can try to justify it any way you want to, claiming it's necessary and an airplane's a weapon and all that jazz. What about the air marshals on the planes? They're there to protect the plane, passengers, crew and others on the ground from potentially horrible acts occurring on board. Reasonable security measures are warranted, they always have been, including prior to 9/11. Groping random people who've given no provocation is not reasonable security.

Love your justification that it's okay because males pat down males and females pat down females. Good thing we don't have any gay people in this country, or we may have to be concerned that they were enjoying themselves and picking their random targets based off physical attraction to said target.

You believe an airplane is a weapon, but a building can't be? I guess you never considered a chemical or biological attack delivered through heating and air vents. Just like some insane terrorist behind the controls of an airplane turns that plane into a weapon, having some insane terrorist deliver chemical or biological agents through the ventilation system of a building turns that building into a weapon. Better get the TSA stationed at the entrances to every mall in America so they can pat down everyone who comes in. Let's not forget concerts and sporting events, also.

You can't be both free and safe. The two can not coexist. Freedom is the cost of safety and safety is the cost of freedom. This country was founded on the principle that we'd rather be free from oppression than safe from danger. Unfortunately, many in this country today disagree with that setniment, because they've always been free and don't know what it means to not be free. We're seeing our freedom erode, and it's a sad state of affairs that many are okay with it "if it makes me safe".

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy

Originally posted by YourPopRock
Oh, and stop the lunatics and not the searches? So, ummm... you LIKE the searches?!?

If you stop the lunatics, they won't need to search. DUH. No I don't like searches. Who would? They are completely necessary though.

Wow, think much? Obviously not.

edit on 16-11-2010 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)

That doesn't make sense... isn't the idea of the searches to stop the loons? Is there a limited number of lunatics who, once weeded out, will render the world safe? So if we figure out who the say, 1204 crazies are and detain them, we should be able to stop the searches?