TSA blowback; Angry ladies had enough

[rambone]

Two stories.


A mom yelled at TSA agents who were feeling up her daughter. She was arrested when she tried to record the incident.

Mom jailed for raging on TSA agents over daughter's pat down; didn't want girl's 'crotch grabbed'



A woman gave a TSA agent a taste of her own medicine; groped her back. She'll get a felony.

Woman Gropes TSA Agent's Breast at Security Checkpoint

 

[stormryder]

More people need to stand up against these violations of our rights and dignity.

 

[gunman41mag]

More people need to stand up against these violations of our rights and dignity.

But no one want to get charged with a felony

 

[Expat]

And part of our criminal justice system is that even if you get a good jury and they find you not guilty of all charges, the state has still bankrupted you getting there.

 

[lrahm]

Just a question to throw out. Not trying to be out of line because I agree 110%. Ex Defense Secretary Rumsfeld went through the same thing a couple of days ago and stated all they are going to find is a couple of titanium hips.

There has to be something differentor an alternative. If we don't do anything we go back to 9 -11. But searching in extreem cases like they are, is a little too much. Telling me some of my carry-ons are wrong, I can buy that. Any suggestions?

 

[jeremy]

There has to be something differentor an alternative. If we don't do anything we go back to 9 -11.

You make that sound like it is a bad thing...

 

[mrjarrell]

You make that sound like it is a bad thing...

^^This. Security did not fail on 9/11, regardless of what the statists in DC contend. It did exactly what it was supposed to and did it well. No-one got on with a gun, no-one got on with a bomb. Box cutters and pocket knives were legal to carry onboard a plane. As usual, when something bad went wrong, and a criminal came up with a new way of doing things, the state over reacted and now we're saddled with TSA and Homeland Security.

 

[gunowner930]

"Andrea Fornella Abbott, 41, was arrested at Nasvhille Airport after she went wild at Transportation Security Administration for trying to give her daughter a pat down search."

"Last month, the head of the TSA ordered agents to avoid giving children pat down searches."

John Pistole is a lying POS.

 

[thebishopp]

The plain truth is, if the whole point of the TSA searching people and running people through all these checks is to keep us safe from "terrorists" (whatever that is these days) the fact is that, YES they should be able to pat down kids or anyone that wants to get on the plane.

PERIOD.

It is utterly ridiculous to believe that a "terrorist" would NOT use a child or an old person or whoever they could to smuggle an explosive or other weapon onto the plane.


Now I didn't say the TSA was effective or even useful. In fact I would think the planes would be much safer when back in the "old days" you could carry pocket knives onto planes. If I was a "terrorist" I would be much more worried about trying to hijack a plane with a box cutter if I knew there was a good chance I would run into armed resistance (bladed weapons in this case).

Much like that scene from Crocodile Dundee... "That's NOT a knife... now THIS, this is a knife!".

Or they pull out their pocket knife to "take over the plane" and half a dozen people whip out their kershaws, gerbers, benchmades, Columbia Knife and Rivers (etc. etc. etc.).


Now on a side TSA note. I would be a bit more concerned about their attempts to research that "shock device" that is supposed to disable anyone on the plane with an electrical shock. You would wear it as a collar or wrist band of some sort. If you got "out of line" or in the case of a "terrorist attack" the airplane personnel could push a button and everyone would be "disabled" ... providing of course that the terrorist has one on, or has not disabled the one they put on him, or doesn't get his hands on the "button" himself. If so then of course it just might make his "job" a lot easier.

While tragic, I for one would find it incredibly amusing.

 

[gunowner930]

The plain truth is, if the whole point of the TSA searching people and running people through all these checks is to keep us safe from "terrorists" (whatever that is these days) the fact is that, YES they should be able to pat down kids or anyone that wants to get on the plane.

PERIOD.

Do not confuse FACTS with OPINIONS. By your definition, everybody is a potential terrorist. So in your opinion, where does the BS stop? planes, trains, random checkpoints on roads, high school proms?

These searches are illegal. Any LEO will tell you that they have to have consent or probable cause to search people. Random searches and whatever idiotic "potential terrorist indicators" that TSA retards have decided don't cut it for probable cause.

 

[thebishopp]

These searches are illegal. Any LEO will tell you that they have to have consent or probable cause to search people. Random searches and whatever idiotic "potential terrorist indicators" that TSA retards have decided don't cut it for probable cause.

I would be in total agreement that the search would be "illegal" if they were doing it to people NOT trying to enter a private facility. Note on PC... for "stop and frisks" police only require reasonable "suspicion". This is less than Probable cause... I'm not saying TSA has that, just clarifying what is required for a stop and frisk by a police officer.

When you enter a federal building/courthouse/etc. and they have a check point you must proceed through, you do so or you do not get into the building. You have a choice not to enter.

Have you tried to enter a federal building that has an metal detector and xray check point and refused to either go through the detector or put your bag through the xray? These are both considered "searches" (though not as "intrusive" as a "pat down").

Now, I'm going to say, if your argument that these "searches" at federal buildings (because they are funded with "public monies") are illegal as well then I would concede that.

If someone does not want to submit to the xray at the airport checkpoint they can leave or choose a pat down option. Now if they chased after her and then tried to search her or her child after they refused and were in the process of leaving then, YES, I would say that was "illegal". Once the subject is no longer trying to enter the "secured area" then they are no longer subject to a "search" (either by machine or "pat down").

It is "fact" that people have used children or other "inconspicuous" means to attack. Vietnam was a good example of this when little kids were given hand grenades and told to go "Play baseball with the Americans".


Now, that bit about kids being used as weapons aside, if the Airport is owned by the feds or another "public" agency I would also agree that the searches were "illegal". However if the airports are owned by a private company then they have every right to require a search prior to entering their "secure areas", just like you could require a search of anyone entering your house or business. If they don't like it then they don't have to enter. Anyone refusing to submit to a search prior to entering your business or house and attempts to force their way in can be forcibly ejected or even arrested on a variety of charges. If they stand outside on your property and start screaming at you they can be arrested as well. How is this any different?

Again, if they lady refused to be xrayed or submit to a pat down, turned away and attempted to leave and the TSA pursued her and stopped her then I would agree with you. If she in fact did start screaming and yelling (causing a disturbance) then I can see why she was arrested (and backed by video and audio recordings because the TSA has been caught lying about that before).


Now I don't like how crazy it's gotten because personally I don't believe they are actually catching anyone who is a real threat. Because of this I fly as little as possible and will normally drive if I need to travel a long distance.

When I do not have that option then I must submit to the requirements.

You want change? Have people stop flying in such numbers so that it threatens to bankrupt them and maybe they will start changing their policies.

 

[chipdog4]

A stranger touches your kids and you can have them charged with rape,
but the TSA pedophiles can touch your kids all in the name of safety.

 

[gunowner930]

I would be in total agreement that the search would be "illegal" if they were doing it to people NOT trying to enter a private facility. Note on PC... for "stop and frisks" police only require reasonable "suspicion". This is less than Probable cause... I'm not saying TSA has that, just clarifying what is required for a stop and frisk by a police officer.

When you enter a federal building/courthouse/etc. and they have a check point you must proceed through, you do so or you do not get into the building. You have a choice not to enter.


Have you tried to enter a federal building that has an metal detector and xray check point and refused to either go through the detector or put your bag through the xray? These are both considered "searches" (though not as "intrusive" as a "pat down").

They're not intrusive at all so nobody really complains. With the TSA get two choices: get molested or get the radiation

Now, I'm going to say, if your argument that these "searches" at federal buildings (because they are funded with "public monies") are illegal as well then I would concede that.

You could make that argument. Many airports in the US have recieved their fair share of public money. Are airports public or private? If they're public you could make your argument that the "searches" may be illegal. If airports are private you could argue where the Federal Government gets the authority to put its goons in a private facility to grope passengers.

If someone does not want to submit to the xray at the airport checkpoint they can leave or choose a pat down option. Now if they chased after her and then tried to search her or her child after they refused and were in the process of leaving then, YES, I would say that was "illegal". Once the subject is no longer trying to enter the "secured area" then they are no longer subject to a "search" (either by machine or "pat down").

google TSA detains.

It is "fact" that people have used children or other "inconspicuous" means to attack. Vietnam was a good example of this when little kids were given hand grenades and told to go "Play baseball with the Americans".

Yes you are correct, children have been used in this manner before, and this tactic will be employed in the future. But in my opinion it does not justify random searches.

Now, that bit about kids being used as weapons aside, if the Airport is owned by the feds or another "public" agency I would also agree that the searches were "illegal". However if the airports are owned by a private company then they have every right to require a search prior to entering their "secure areas", just like you could require a search of anyone entering your house or business. If they don't like it then they don't have to enter. Anyone refusing to submit to a search prior to entering your business or house and attempts to force their way in can be forcibly ejected or even arrested on a variety of charges. If they stand outside on your property and start screaming at you they can be arrested as well. How is this any different?

If airports are private property where does the Federal Government have the authority to put its "security" measures in place with its people running it?

Again, if they lady refused to be xrayed or submit to a pat down, turned away and attempted to leave and the TSA pursued her and stopped her then I would agree with you. If she in fact did start screaming and yelling (causing a disturbance) then I can see why she was arrested (and backed by video and audio recordings because the TSA has been caught lying about that before).

The TSA and John Pistole are habitual liars. They lie about not patting down children, they lie about their misdeeds until videos go viral, and then they lie in their apologies.


Now I don't like how crazy it's gotten because personally I don't believe they are actually catching anyone who is a real threat. Because of this I fly as little as possible and will normally drive if I need to travel a long distance.

So we agree that this is a charade that is not designed to catch terrorists, but to either give the public an illusion of security or I might add to condition Americans to more of a police state in the future?

When I do not have that option then I must submit to the requirements.

You want change? Have people stop flying in such numbers so that it threatens to bankrupt them and maybe they will start changing their policies.

It would be very difficult to get a large number of people to do that. Some people have to fly for their jobs.

Responses in red. So I think we agree that the invasive searches are a charade, just a little disagreement on legality.

 

[Dentoro]

Don't fly, put the F-N airlines out of business. The searches are wrong, without a doubt. They rob innocent people of a small part of their dignity and self worth every time they go through it.

 

[rambone]

Its all about slave training. They make it so that checkpoints are a normal part of life.... as American as apple pie. Pretty soon the slaves develop Stockholm Syndrome and begin defending their masters, believing that totalitarian security is necessary and effective. The War on Terror is constantly hyped to achieve the same end. And soon checkpoints will be commonplace on the streets. The bootlickers will keep defending tyranny, as if society would collapse without fascist checkpoints everywhere. The security grid will be as dug-in as public education. Critics of the Police State will be called unAmerican and anti-Law Enforcement. Its already well on its way there.

We need to stop this machine before it devours us all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJKbDz4EZio

 

[88GT]

If we don't do anything we go back to 9 -11.

From your typing fingers to God's ears.

The plain truth is, if the whole point of the TSA searching people and running people through all these checks is to keep us safe from "terrorists" (whatever that is these days) the fact is that, YES they should be able to pat down kids or anyone that wants to get on the plane.

What an illogical position. We can't possibly stop all acts of violence. And regardless of the layers of regulation and security that have been implemented since 9/11, there are still constant attempts to use the airlines as vehicles of that violence. So the law-abiding are left ever more defense-less and the criminals are still disregarding the laws.

Airport security is an Advil for a broken arm. It neither addresses the root cause or mechanisms, nor provides real solutions to them. It only treats a symptom of the issue, not the issue. And as such will NEVER be a successful means of combatting terrorism.

It is utterly ridiculous to believe that a "terrorist" would NOT use a child or an old person or whoever they could to smuggle an explosive or other weapon onto the plane.

It is equally utterly ridiculous to believe that anything the TSA is doing is stopping terrorism violence.

Now I didn't say the TSA was effective or even useful.

True.. But you're still arguing for it. What does that say?

The only effective means of stopping the terrorists is to kill them all (with a dubious chance of success) or make their efforts costlier than the reward. Somehow I doubt TSA is doing either of those things.

 

[eric001]

I'm sure it would cost significantly less money and be vastly more effective in convincing REAL terrorists (not 6 year old girls with Tennessee accents) not to try messing with our airlines if there were 1-4 well-armed and well-trained air marshals on every flight instead of horribly expensive machines and poorly trained/supervised TSA personnel at every airport in the US. Look at Israel's airport security methods. Look at Germany's...look at a whole list of countries... Ours is the most invasive, most expensive (by far) and still basically useless security out there.

 

[Lead Head]

A nation wide "No Fly Day" would do the trick. The airlines are on the verge of bankruptcy every day and this would send a message.

Break the industry and the regulations don't mean squat.

Yeah, yeah. Play nice. Go along to get along.

Well **** that !

 

[Bond 281]

Why are so many people complaining and talking of boycotting airports? It's the Feds that are forcing them to submit to the TSA. I highly, highly doubt that airports would require pat downs and body scans if they weren't forced to. The ire is misplaced. The TSA is entirely a creation of the federal government.

 

[spearheadersarge]

Never gonna happen. The sheeple are more worried about their own safety than giving up their freedoms. Now, I'm not trying to be crass or insensitive, but the number of people killed on the planes was a very miniscule percentage of total passengers flying in that year. The majority of the deaths were victems in the Twin Towers. As one poster stated the goals of the TSA are not to end terrorism or to kill terrorists, so what is their goal? A safe flying public? Didn't we already have that for the most part prior to 9/11? What is the justification for the swing to the absurd overreaction and militarization of airport security? Federal dollars and expansion of government? Billions of dollars budgeted for DHS and for what, so we can frisk Grandma's and feel up little kids? With the 10 year anniversary coming this fall I say we have a national referendum on the TSA and DHS both and see if we are getting our moneys' worth versus the ceding of our freedom. Just another view........