TSA gropes young boy's testicles while he is strip searched in front of everyone

reply to post by Death_Kron


It IS sexual abuse if the victim feels abused.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

It IS sexual abuse if the victim feels abused.

No it isn't, it really isn't....

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


So then anyone getting searched by a cop can say it's sexual assault, and anything found on that person will not be able to be used as evidence against them, because the cop committed a crime. I'm no expert in law, but I do believe when a cop illegally obtains evidence, it can not be used. See how stupid that would be?

Just because a few people may be so sensitive to call being searched the same as being sexually assaulted doesn't mean that's a good enough reason to relax on security.

www.scientificamerican.com...

This is a psychological point of view of the scans...tell that to the boy!!! Either way what ever they do or invent to stop terrorism, they will find a way. That is just reality, it's crapy, but it's reality.

reply to post by XLR8R



Curious about the caliber of TSA employees? Read this one. Where does it all stop?
lagrangenews.com...

Originally posted by Cassandra5Finish
reply to post by nenothtu

 

You post is quite funny. Half of it is you basically telling me I am too stupid to understand your answer. The other half is you whining that you have answered me. You know what is still missing? The answer. Since I am so stupid, how about you direct me to the post where you provided this answer. Quote it, underline it, tell me which page and which post. If you want to call me stupid, that is fine. Personal attacks on the web are kind of lost on me. It would just carry much more weight if you could just once show me where this magical answer is you claim to have provided yet does not exist anywhere.

Your answer is in the very first post I directed at you, here. Your "question" is also recorded in that post, for posterity. It's not my problem if you want to change the question on the run, or the length and format of what you will consider an answer.

Your response to that post is here, where you whine about how long the answer is. In fact, my post is not inordinately long nor is it particularly easy to get lost in. It is remarkably brief, to the point, and on-target, given the way you keep attempting to change the question, and enforce your own notions on what an answer should be. The answer is what it is. Facts are funny things - they won't change themselves to suit you particular agenda. If they do, they are no longer factual.

I don't think you are "stupid", I think you are argumentative for the sake of argument. An inspection of your posting history confirms that. An inspection of what other ATS members are running into regarding your posts is also enlightening. You appear to be feigning ignorance of whatever subject comes to hand, then reject any answer you are given out of hand, without any consideration, because that doesn't comply with you agenda.

I am going to take a wild guess and say that you resort to personal attacks and whining because that is about all you have. Seems just giving an answer would have been easier. Please do not waste another post claiming you answered me without showing me where exactly to find this answer.

"Wild guess" is right. I respond in kind. There are no "personal attacks" in any of my posts, but if you insist on feeling persecuted, you are of course free to do so. They say that the wicked flee when no man pursueth.

Your answer is in the post linked above. The rest of my posts to you have been nothing more than explanatory and illustrative material, which you also seem to not be able to accept. It's only recently that I've come to realize the reason you seem no to be able to accept the answers is because you don't want to accept them. That also is not my problem.

What you can or can not, will or will not, accept as an answer in no way changes the answer.

Originally posted by Death_Kron

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

It IS sexual abuse if the victim feels abused.

No it isn't, it really isn't....

I run a business. If someone claims sexual harassment, there is a lawsuit potential. Even if it was a meaningless act on my part...if they interpret it to be sexual harassment (a form of sexual assault) there is recourse.

Allow me to elucidate with something more official than your persistance of insistence:

Definition of Sexual Abuse

According to Iowa law, sexual abuse is defined as a sex act committed by one person by force on another person, or against that other person's will.

A sex act occurs when one person’s genitals touch another persons mouth or genitals, or when a substitute for a person’s genitals, such as fingers or an object, touches another person’s genitals.

A sex act is against a person’s will if consent is obtained by threats of violence, if they are asleep, unconscious, or incapacitated due to drugs or alcohol or any other reason, or if the person has a disability that limits their ability to flee.

Further....

Sexual Assault: Sexual contact and touching in a nonconsensual manner that is offensive to that person. Sexual contact is any touching of the sexual or intimate parts of the body.

Child Sexual Abuse: The sexual exploitation or victimization of a child by an adult, adolescent, or older child. The difference in age and sexual knowledge between a child and an older person makes consent impossible. This includes a range of behaviors including vaginal, anal, or oral penetration, fondling, exhibitionism, prostitution, and photographing a child for pornography. The sexual activity does not have to involve force. Children are often bribed or threatened into sexual acts.

Sexual Harassment: Any unwanted sexual advances, requests for favors and other verbal or physical contact of a sexual nature that makes an individual uncomfortable or intimidated. This can include sexual assault and rape.

University of Iowa Nursing School

It IS sexual assault. It really is.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


If I was you I would not hire anyone. With the way you got your brain thinking you would be walking around your own buisness with your eyes pointed towards the ground or up in the air. You must be scared to look anyone you employe in the eye. After all they could say that you are undressing them with your eyes.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I'd suggest that you read your own quoted sources and please tell me how they fit into the equation of a pat down search, sorry but fail.com

Edit to make it clearer, from your source:

This includes a range of behaviors including vaginal, anal, or oral penetration, fondling, exhibitionism, prostitution, and photographing a child for pornography. The sexual activity does not have to involve force. Children are often bribed or threatened into sexual acts. Sexual Harassment: Any unwanted sexual advances, requests for favors and other verbal or physical contact of a sexual nature that makes an individual uncomfortable or intimidated. This can include sexual assault and rape.

None of that happens in a pat down ergo no sexual assault....

Originally posted by Becoming
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

If I was you I would not hire anyone. With the way you got your brain thinking you would be walking around your own buisness with your eyes pointed towards the ground or up in the air. You must be scared to look anyone you employe in the eye. After all they could say that you are undressing them with your eyes.

They could, but there has to be some level of proof to actually pull it off. And my very long history of impeccable behavior is a big gorilla in my corner.

But what you say is true. It is why, as the boss, i don't look at anyone too long and have strict rules about dress code. I don't need someone making the work place uncomfortable.

If you have never sat through a Civil Treatment course, you should. YOu would be surprised what kinds of things a manager or supervisor is directly accountable for, personally.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
But what you say is true. It is why, as the boss, i don't look at anyone too long and have strict rules about dress code. I don't need someone making the work place uncomfortable.

Great! So now normal social interaction is now a form of sexual abuse?

I like to look at people in the eye when I'm talking to them but now I can't because I could possibly be at risk of being charged with "sexually abusing" them? Get real!!!!

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I run a business. If someone claims sexual harassment, there is a lawsuit potential. Even if it was a meaningless act on my part...if they interpret it to be sexual harassment (a form of sexual assault) there is recourse.

A little bit like if someone throws a peanut at your head? It's assault right?

Originally posted by DZAG Wright

If that was indeed your technique you are a easy target for suckering. People who have brains try draw as least attention as possible. I know a guy that when he makes his drug runs, he dress in his three piece suit and glasses and rent as plain a car as possible. Reason being some officers, as you describe, are too busy stereotyping to see the real threat.

Perhaps so, perhaps not. All I can give is anecdotal evidence, citing the fact that in several years, none got by me to harm anything or any one under my charge. Of course, drug dealers or couriers in 3 piece suits weren't what I was after. I couldn't care less how someone else chooses to destroy their own lives, so drugs aren't a major problem with me, nor are they something I concentrated on. I can only presume that those looking for drug dealers employ their own metrics.

What I was after were folks intent on visiting violence on others. Even your drug dealers in that mode send out signals, 3 piece suit or no. It's difficult, although not impossible, to become violent without drawing attention.

Originally posted by Death_Kron
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

I'd suggest that you read your own quoted sources and please tell me how they fit into the equation of a pat down search, sorry but fail.com

Edit to make it clearer, from your source:

This includes a range of behaviors including vaginal, anal, or oral penetration, fondling, exhibitionism, prostitution, and photographing a child for pornography. The sexual activity does not have to involve force. Children are often bribed or threatened into sexual acts. Sexual Harassment: Any unwanted sexual advances, requests for favors and other verbal or physical contact of a sexual nature that makes an individual uncomfortable or intimidated. This can include sexual assault and rape.

None of that happens in a pat down ergo no sexual assault....

edit on 23/11/10 by Death_Kron because: (no reason given)

I have maintained civility with you. But now you are outright lying and using obfuscation to support your point. You quoted the definition of "Child Sexual Abuse" and then claimed that what happened here is not sexual assault. Why? Why not quote the sexual assault definition instead? Why the dishonesty???

To clarify your outright dishonest behavior:

Sexual Assault: Sexual contact and touching in a nonconsensual manner that is offensive to that person. Sexual contact is any touching of the sexual or intimate parts of the body.

There you have it. Any sexual contact that is nonconsensual and offensive. Of couse, you consent when you don't turn around and walk out before getting screened, right? Nope...because if you do this, you are arrested. That makes your consent coerced. There is something in my linked material for that, as well (which you seemed to ignore):

According to Iowa law, sexual abuse is defined as a sex act committed by one person by force on another person, or against that other person's will.

...snip...

A sex act is against a person’s will if consent is obtained by threats of violence, if they are asleep, unconscious, or incapacitated due to drugs or alcohol or any other reason, or if the person has a disability that limits their ability to flee.

When you tell me that leaving the screening area will result in my arrest, you are threatening violence. Up to actually killing me if i do not comply (try to evade arrest, see what happens).

Everyone here can see it. You are wrong, with the exceptoin of one single hanger on throwing you a star every now and then, but not actually chiming in to support your stance. You are wrong. You have been owned. You are now resorting to dishonesty to cover this up.

i dont care how much # i would get in..
i would give them the biggest piece of my mind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
damn robot zombies doing the dirty work

Originally posted by Death_Kron

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
But what you say is true. It is why, as the boss, i don't look at anyone too long and have strict rules about dress code. I don't need someone making the work place uncomfortable.

Great! So now normal social interaction is now a form of sexual abuse?

I like to look at people in the eye when I'm talking to them but now I can't because I could possibly be at risk of being charged with "sexually abusing" them? Get real!!!!

Your statement shows me that you ahve zero training on workplace behavior, or you are ignoring it for some phoney spectacle here.

Did i say eye contact? nope. Way to inject your own words. Keep up the dishonesty. It makes you look good.

Originally posted by Death_Kron

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I run a business. If someone claims sexual harassment, there is a lawsuit potential. Even if it was a meaningless act on my part...if they interpret it to be sexual harassment (a form of sexual assault) there is recourse.

A little bit like if someone throws a peanut at your head? It's assault right?

And now you are going to stalk me in this thread and quote everything i say, using pedantic feats to twist meaning in to words that is just not there.

Sure, throw a peanut at me. A police officer may or may not address it, if i chose to pursue it. It is assault, yes. Just like blowing bubbles at a cop is assault.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Haha, what?

I have been "owned" how old are you ?

Please show me the proof that sexual contact occured in the video the OP linked?

You do realise you can be patted down in the genital regions in a non-sexual manner? or is that a principle you find a little hard to understand ?

I could pat you down in your groin region, doesn't mean I'm doing so in a sexual manner does it?

For someone with all this "training" you seem to lack a basic understanding of legal protocols.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
And now you are going to stalk me in this thread and quote everything i say, using pedantic feats to twist meaning in to words that is just not there.

Sure, throw a peanut at me. A police officer may or may not address it, if i chose to pursue it. It is assault, yes. Just like blowing bubbles at a cop is assault.

, oh my lord....

Of course throwing a peanut at someones head is assault, just like blowing bubbles at a police officer, my friend you do not understand the true meaning of "assault" and lets hope you don't because if you find a peanut being thrown at your head offensive then God help what you'll do if someone does actually assault you.

Claim culture and do-gooder springs to mind,