Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Colorado man claims he was 'sexually assaulted' by TSA

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
The Northerner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 03:12 PM
Original message
Colorado man claims he was 'sexually assaulted' by TSA
DENVER -- Geoff Biddulph of Berthoud, Colo. is a frequent flyer. He travels at least 30 times a year for business and has been "pat down" by airport security all across the world.

But he says he has never experienced anything like the pat down he got at Denver International Airport on April 5th.

"I felt like I was sexually assaulted," he said.

Biddulph says he was line at the security checkpoint waiting to go through the metal detector when a Transportation Security Administration agent tried to force him to go through the body scanner.

"A TSA agent literally started pushing me towards this other line," he told us.

Read more: http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-colorado-man-claims-he-wa...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. This guy needs some perspective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. he simply needs to understand a stranger groping his dick makes you feel safer
i hear ya.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. +100000
I was going to reply, but you did it so well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. +1 brazillion. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Northerner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. I couldn't agree more
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. Very well stated!
I too was going to respond, but I think you handled it perfectly ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. No, you didn't hear me.
Edited on Sat Apr-16-11 06:41 PM by Buzz Clik
Talk to someone who has really been sexually assaulted, and this bit of whining will disappear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. ah. well, i dont do degrees. but i can imagine that a person who had been sexually molested would
be effected 100x's fold

none of it is ok.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #16
26. I never suggested it's okay. But it most certainly is NOT sexual assault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
franzia99 Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #26
37. How do you figure? It's an unconsented to sexual contact; fitting the sex assault definition in
many if not all states. There are different degrees of sexual assault; and I can't think of a single state where touching someone's genitals without their permission isn't sexual assault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeunderdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #26
62. Yeah, fondling of privates never hurt anyone.
Are you for real?

What's next, unwanted breast fondling A-OK?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #26
75. You don't get to decide that. If you have no problems being
groped by strangers, that's your business. I otoh, do not want you making that decision for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. And I...
don't you making public safety decisions for the rest of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #76
78. Don't know what you mean by that comment.
But I do get to decide if I have been assaulted, not you and not some 'agent' who is not even a law enforcement officer. Not that that would get them off the hook either.

Interesting that when the TSA had the opportunity to actually carry out their claims that they could force people to do as they say, they did not. Under the threat of a lawsuit, they backed away. Guess they were not as sure as you are of how those claims would fare in a courtroom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. I see...
YOU get to decide if you were assaulted?

I'm sure that would surprise the American legal system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #79
81. Yes, every victim gets to decide whether or not they were
assaulted, sexually or otherwise. Then, they report the crime. If there is enough evidence to support the claim, the case will move forward. If, as has happened so often in the past, a prosecutor decides not to go forward with prosecutions, the victim can use the civil courts.

Who doesn't get to decide are strangers who know nothing about the case, such as people on internet forums who weren't there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. "Who doesn't get to decide are strangers who know nothing about the case, such as people on...
Edited on Sun Apr-17-11 05:24 PM by SDuderstadt
internet forums who weren't there"

Which would, ironically, include you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #82
84. True, but I'm not the one saying that this person has no
case. That would by you. I am willing to let the court decide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #84
85. That's my opinion....
same as yours.

Get it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. Can you explain, since you are so convinced that
these tactics are legal, why every time someone challenges them, the TSA backs down? Apparently they are not as convinced as you are.

Seems to me just watching their reactions, that they will take advantage of the American people until they push back, as the pilots have eg. That their 'rules' are not based on the law at all and that once challenged, they back away rather than have them tested in court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #86
87. "why every time someone challenges them, the TSA backs down"
Maybe you should document that instead of merely asserting it. In the meantime, do you understand the legislative basis for the promulgation of the TSA rules?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #76
92. And I for one
am uncomfortable with how you always cling to the side of authority, no matter how ridiculous is looks.

Too many people like that in a democracy can lead to bad things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #92
95. I like facts, dude....
wherever they lead.

You want to keep your posts focused on them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #95
97. Are you any kin to the guy who wrote "Nuclear Reactor Analysis" by chance? nt
Edited on Sun Apr-17-11 10:31 PM by sudopod
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #97
99. If you just want to fight...
go fight with yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #99
100. I was serious, lol.
Edited on Sun Apr-17-11 10:32 PM by sudopod
I own (and have been owned by) this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Reactor-Analysis-James-Du...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #100
102. You're assuming....
that's my real last name.

It's actually my mom's maiden name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #100
113. Why are you asking me personal questions? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #14
91. Ok, coach. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
franzia99 Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
35. lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snooper2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-11 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
123. Well, if I wasn't circumcised it would be a good place to hide some weed
:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Yes...why can't everyone just stand up, salute & be a "good German"?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. He must have been one of those "arrogant people who
question passenger screening procedures."
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #4
30. LOL!!!
You are trying to put this on the same plane as the Nazis and the holocaust?

DU ... home of the hysterical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timtom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #30
74. You're pretty unbelievable in your cavalier regard
Edited on Sun Apr-17-11 03:38 PM by timtom
for the very obvious erosion of our constitutional freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures.

How could that sort of thing possibly be compared to "May I see your papers, please?"

It's worse.

At least at this stage.

Take a look around at, oh...the governor of Michigan arrogating to himself the absolute disregard for city autonomy, for example.

<edited to add:> Hmmm. No sooner said than, voila!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. he was sexually assulted
the cops rubbed my balls and dick many times because i "looked like a druggie". they would stop us while we were riding our bikes across town, search us, rub our private parts and make fun of us saying we had small dicks. sometimes we would get stopped multiple times in a week. They started doing this when i was 11, after nearly 4 years of this kind of treatment i actually started to smoke weed. i have been scared of cops and see them as an enemy ever since they touched me like that "for my own good". i feel no safer and the cops rubbing my private parts as a pre teen fucked me up more than any of the drugs i ever did later on in life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. By definition only -- and a very generous definition at that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sen. Walter Sobchak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. So if Larry Craig came over and against your will did the same...
what would you call it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. If Larry Craig were wearing a TSA uniform performing his job, he'd be another TSA lackey.
If Larry Craig the Congressman shoved his hand down my pants in an other empty airport bathroom, it would be sexual assault.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. So a uniform gives someone the right to sexually assault you?
I don't think that attitude is conducive to a free society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #32
41. You seem to be missing a really vital point: it wasn't sexual assault.
Jeebus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sen. Walter Sobchak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. "performing one job" does not include what occured in this story
The through and repeated fondling of ones genitals is not part of the "enhanced patdown"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #33
42. Okay. I agree. I completely and totally agree that this clown should be fired.
Sexual assault? No. It was not sexual assault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
franzia99 Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #15
40. Uh, touching someone's genitals without consent fits the legal definition of sexual assault
Whether you think that's generous or not isn't really relevant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. It's sure as hell is relevant to this conversation.
:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tpsbmam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #15
46. Wow
You get to be judge and jury as to what constitutes sexual assault and what doesn't. Just plain wow.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #46
47. so when you were a kid and teen and the cops kept stoppin you
and felt your balls and dick to look for drugs that you didnt even use you didnt feel violated? you dont feel violated when grown adults put their hands in your pants against your will?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tpsbmam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #47
90. Getting back you way late....either I responded to the wrong post or you did....
I was sticking up for you and criticizing the poster who was dismissing what you went through. I think what you went through most certainly felt to you like sexual assault, and would have felt the same to me. I was criticizing the person who felt that he/she could minimize what you went through.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-11 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #90
118. i posted in the wrong place, sorry and thanks for sticking up for me
sorry for the mix up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
_ed_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #15
64. Is it some kind of contest?
Isn't this like saying you haven't really been raped unless you've been gang raped?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Scribe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #15
112. Lol, I've never seen anyone argue a point like that!
"Well, yeah, if we're going by, like, the definition in question, but..."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
24. Yeah, well, the Merkin Public is only outraged now because it is affecting THEM.
When the 4th amendment was junked for people who looked like hippies, or who were driving around the country with grateful dead stickers on their cars, or for cancer grannies smoking a joint to ease the nausea of chemo, most Merkins didn't give a shit. Still don't.

What they don't realize is that this crap has been going on for decades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #24
48. the shit they did to hippies like me
is nothing compared to what the cops do to black people or latinos. i give a shit and have for quite some time, but most people dont. it is sad when kids out riding bmx bikes have to be molested because they may have flowers in their pocket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #48
73. Agreed. The biggest component of the drug war is a racial one.
No doubt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #7
36. that's my penis
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. I think YOU need some perspective...
Edited on Sat Apr-16-11 03:41 PM by hlthe2b
1. This is a frequent flyer, a businessman who travels worldwide extensively. I'm guessing that gives him some comparative "perspective."
2. He is serious enough to have filed a complaint with BOTH TSA and the Denver Police and has requested a copy of the video surveillance.
3. Denver Police is investigating. They have NOT dismissed this complaint out of hand, which means they take his account quite seriously.
4. When is it ever appropriate to grab someone's crotch without cause? When?


Perspective, indeed. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #8
17. Meh. Bullshit.
He was harassed and maybe embarrassed and sick of the shit. I'm sick of it, too. I spend an hour getting ready to travel, and they spend 60 seconds undoing all my efforts. It's invasive and maybe unnecessary, but IT IS NOT SEXUAL ASSAULT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. You contradicted yourself upstream...
Edited on Sat Apr-16-11 07:22 PM by hlthe2b
:shrug:

I HAVE worked with those who have been sexually assaulted. I can assure you that "purpose" of the grope doesn't make a whole lot of difference when they relive one of the worst incidents of their lives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #18
28. Yeah, well, so have I. And I disagree with completely.
Edited on Sat Apr-16-11 08:22 PM by Buzz Clik
If you had the experience you claim to have, you would recognize instantly that sexual such (as with rape) is not a sexual act but an act of violence against the victim. To call this sexual assault is spitting in the face of every true victim of sexual assault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. You disagree that you contradict yourself?... Check it.. Post #15
Edited on Sat Apr-16-11 08:25 PM by hlthe2b
and, heavens if you aren't more sensitive to the issue of sexual assault and re-victimization than that...???? Well, I'll leave it there. Sad...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. I disagree with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. You are free to do so..
Edited on Sat Apr-16-11 08:37 PM by hlthe2b
and I am free to say you deviate from professional standards of care for victims of sexual assault for whom re-victimization (including from inappropriate TSA contact) is a very real potential. In denying this as an issue, I would find it difficult to refer anyone-- who had experienced such trauma-- to you for the care you claim to deliver. I would, quite frankly, have to question your compassion for these victims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #34
44. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #31
52. The unlawful sexual contact does not have to be violent.
So to claim it has to be makes no sense whatsoever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #52
59. unwanted contact with my sexaul areas is violence in and of itself
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #28
50. Oh for crying out loud.
Have you not read the definition of unlawful sexual contact: sexual contact can be for the purpose of sexual gratification?
Violence against the victim is nowhere to be found in that definition, so WTF are you talking about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #28
58. as when cops felt my privates because i "looked like a druggie"
years before i even tried pot, the agent in this case did this as an act of violence, they want the public to "submit". they let their power go to their head. it is like the ancient laws permitting the king to fuck any scottish bride on her wedding night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #58
61. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
blueamy66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #18
39. Hey...get used to it.
I was told in another thread that I don't know what domestic abuse is.

So, who made the DU posters the Know It Alls of the world?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #39
63. Unintentional irony n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #8
19. "Denver Police is investigating. "
:rofl:

A few gallons of white wash will take care of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Look, I have my issues with DPD...
Edited on Sat Apr-16-11 07:32 PM by hlthe2b
but I also know that when they want to whitewash something, they will find a way NOT to investigate-- there are lots of ways to "discount out of hand" when they are so predisposed. They are not doing so.

DPD is like any large city police department, with its ups and downs and good and bad cops. But, I can't be so cynical, having lived in a neighborhood where we faced a serial rapist/murderer. DPD did their job, did it well and caught the guy. They did it professionally and kept the various affected neighborhoods informed. When I unknowingly came upon the SWAT team closing in on him after a rape on the other side of Cheeseman Park right before dark one evening, they sent an officer to make sure I (and my dog) got home safely and they likewise cruised the neighborhoods throughout the night.

So, no, I can't say they have no bad apples (as recent incidents confirm), but they don't deserve that level of contempt, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. I guess for people who haven't been victims of *their* contempt, they don't deserve any
level of contempt.

You have YOUR vision, and I have MINE.

The whole police department needs to be cleaned out and sanitized and start over fresh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tpsbmam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
45. Maybe he DOES have perspective
He's a frequent traveler and I'm sure has been through many pat-downs and security checks of varying degrees. This one was clearly different for him. IMO it's wrong to simply dismiss his complaint based on your conjecture. How do you know this wasn't different? You have nothing to go on save for your bias.

I appreciate you standing up for people who've been sexually assaulted. You are, however, dismissing someone here who may well have been assaulted. I can very easily imagine a pat-down conducted by a pervert hired by the TSA that goes way over the line and would, indeed, be sexual assault. What, that couldn't happen?

Bull.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
10. i listened to the video clip and there is a tsa person something along the line of 'tsa has 'served'
over 250 million passengers.


served? -- that was the exact word -- 'served'? really -- served?

i get service at a restaurant -- i do not get 'service' from the tsa.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. It's meant along the lines of
"You got served!" - TSA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shagbark Hickory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
23. Well duh. Didn't he notice the other people in line ahead of him getting assaulted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #23
38. Watch the report, he's a frequent flier, this was different for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
49. I really wonder why this hasn't been challenged as a violation of 4th amendment rights yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #49
51. Because security checkpoints don't require...
probable cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #51
53. But the search has to be reasonable.
I don't see why grabbing someone's genitals as this guy alleges was done to him is reasonable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #53
55. Keywords: "as this guy alleges"
Personally, I'll wait to see if his allegations bear out before just blindly jumping on the TSA.

At the same time, the "reasonableness" requirement also takes into account the legitimate means needed to protect against a real threat. I have been subjected to the enhanced patdown several times and not once was I "groped" or "sexually assaulted". That doesn't mean that Biddulph and/or others weren't. However, given the huge number of flights/travelers with roughly 3% subjected to these measures raises a logical question. Why aren't these complaints far more widespread?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #55
65. Yes of course these are allegations.
Edited on Sun Apr-17-11 01:51 PM by LisaL
So I fail to see why a jury or a judge shouldn't decide whether this guy was sexually assaulted. Here we have an alleged victim saying he was sexually assaulted and it appears the alleged victim is willing to testify. Why exactly shouldn't this go to court?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. Because I don't believe that any DA will prosecute...
based upon the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. So, nothing that TSA agent does can lead to prosecution, using your
logic?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. Jesus...
I already said no. Quit putting words in my mouth and learn to read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #68
93. You just claimed no DA will prosecute...
Edited on Sun Apr-17-11 10:16 PM by LisaL
Why? There is an alleged victim apparently willing to testify. So why exactly no DA will prosecute this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #93
96. It's a prediction and...
I have already explained it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #51
54. I still think this would be illegal search and seizure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #54
56. Well...
you can think whatever you want. Someone going through a security checkpoint has a far more limited expectation of privacy. Privacy does not trump public safety.

Take it up with the Supreme Court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. If it happens to me, maybe I will.
See that's the great thing about this country - you can challenge laws you don't like in front of SCOTUS. I personally believe these pat downs are extremely violating and a direct 4th amendment. The fact is that they don't have probable cause to search someone's private areas. It's just mortifying that they're even attempting doing this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. As I said before...
they don't need probable cause. The issue is more the reasonableness of the search. It had to be balanced against republic''s expectation of safety. In this case, it's pretty high.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #51
89. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #49
69. Because the 4th amendment doesn't give you the right to fly on an airplane
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. It's about searching someone's bags illegally, not about flying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. It isn't "illegal"...
reading the Constitution is not a substitute for case law, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #71
94. Can you imagine asking Thomas Jefferson if it's ok to grab his crotch?
Edited on Sun Apr-17-11 10:16 PM by sudopod
I wonder what he would say. XD


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #94
98. Nobody's crotch is...
"grabbed".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #98
101. Patted firmly with a cupped hand? nt
Edited on Sun Apr-17-11 10:32 PM by sudopod
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #101
103. Have you been through the actual...
enhanced patdown?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #103
104. Does it matter? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #104
105. Yes n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #105
106. Why? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #106
107. On what basis do you know...
that anyone was "grabbed" or "groped"? People don't exaggerate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #107
108. Not everyone lies. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #108
109. Exaggeration is not necessarily "lying"...
I never, ever called anyone a liar.

Serious question: how can someone "grab" or "grope" with the back of their hand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #109
110. I don't know. I guess you had to be there? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #109
111. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-11 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #109
115. LOL, it appears that you're upset. ;) nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #70
72. Nobody is forced to have their bags searched by TSA
You can simply choose not to fly. The 4th amendment covers forced searches and seizures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #72
77. You don't know much about your own rights. No wonder
you are so willing to give them up, so easily.

American citizens have the right to travel freely without harassment by the government. Look it up, I'm tired of providing proof for people who are so willing to, not only give up their own rights, but all of our rights.

These TSA agents are not even law enforcement agents.

Do the police have the right to pull you over without probably cause and search your belongings while you are travelling legally on a highway?

Do they have the right to come into your home, without probably cause, and search that home?

These were the things George Bush said were now necessary because of 'terra'. And I recall Democrats being outraged at the time.

These tactics have yet to be challenged even in regular courts, although there are many cases pending.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Innomen Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #72
80. Dangerous argument, Slippery slope.
Edited on Sun Apr-17-11 05:24 PM by Innomen
In my opinion the whole justification "well you don't have to patronize X service" for right infringement needs to be questioned.

Sure I don't have a constitutional right to fly, but there are protections that are supposed to transcend the rights of a private business.

For example, this same type argument was used extensively in defense of segregation and other forms of discrimination. As a private business owner they could say "if you don't like my policy on blacks, don't utilize my service" and logically speaking that argument had a lot of merit. It was their property, and officially no one was strictly forced to utilize their services, but in reality they often were.

In many ways I am forced to fly. It may be part of my job, or it could be an emergency. You've signed yourself up potentially for making people choose between their constitutional protections and their careers and homes. That's a touch more significant than "well if you don't like Pepsi, drink coke."

Obviously the argument doesn't hold because discrimination was wrong. I think we as a society need to address the issue of defending one's rights without effectively being punished for doing so. If for example you were put on the no fly list, and they refused to tell you why, do you feel you have a right to challenge that? If so, on what grounds? After all, you could always "chose not to fly." They aren't obligated to serve you, right?

Well, I think they are. If a service is offered to the public, in exchange for that potential profit the business surrenders some rights and accepts some responsibilities, among them I believe should be respecting a patron's constitutional freedoms.

Similarly, I feel that the "choose not to fly" argument as a get out of court free card for the TSA has no merit. Granted, that is currently the law of the land, but it shouldn't be. We allow it to stay at our own peril. The TSA's actions are in a way a microcosm of the entire country. They are an industry selling elephant repellent.

Just because I could take a boat does not mean the TSA owns me once I enter the building, and that's pretty much what shop somewhere else type argument easily allows.

It's the same as EULA and TOS contracts. By allowing one company to profitably trample the rights of it's customer you set the stage for all of them being forced to do so or else go out of business, and pretty soon surrendering your rights becomes a matter of course no matter what you do or where you go.

Just sharing.

Edit: This is especially important in a capitalist society with a service economy where virtually everything I need to live has to come from a private business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #80
88. Yes, you do have a right to fly.
Edited on Sun Apr-17-11 07:04 PM by sabrina 1
49 U.S.C. 40103 : US Code - Section 40103: Sovereignty and use of airspace

(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under
section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of
commercial airports or commercial air transportation for handicapped individuals.


So if the government decides to violate that right they need to have a very good reason. Refusal by a citizen to submit to violations of the 4th Amendment doesn't seem like a very good reason.

It looks like all this needs to be settled in the courts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Innomen Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-11 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #88
124. Agreed.
+1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-11 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #80
114. Exactly this.
It's like that editorial I was reading the other day where the guy was giving the Giants fan shit because he chose to go to the Dodger game wearing his Giants shirt. Sure, he could have not gone to opening day, but if he wanted to, he shouldn't have been subjected to *THAT*. That's what I am trying to get at. You're exactly right - it's a public service, you're paying to use it, but they don't own you once you enter the building.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-11 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #69
83. we HAVE to go into the court house. the court houses have naked scans. is THAT against 4th
amendment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-11 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #83
116. I've had jury duty several times and never been subjected to one.
And yeah I still think it does. They should not be scanning us like this, period.

I actually have jury duty next week, so I'll be sure to report if my court house has one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-11 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #116
117. i know there are courthouses in florida that have them. they have held onto the pictures and
supposedly got in trouble. we have no choice but to go into court. so at tht point it is a demand to use naked scanner.

it certainly is not all over the country, though other court houses are talking about getting them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-11 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #83
119. when i went to trial in craig county virginia
there was not even a metal detector, there were armed police though, by the way, i was found innocent due to illegal search and seizure!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-11 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #119
121. ok. and a lot of courts across the nation does not have naked scanner. there are a few
the point of the poster is, since flying is not a right it is ok that they do strip searches (naked scanners) and groping. having to go to a court takes away an option of doing or not. the courts in florida that have the naked scanner, then are making people that have to go, do something that is against the right.

and more and more courts are talking about getting them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-11 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #121
122. ah, i see
they oblige people to be seen on the naked scans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Modern_Matthew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-11 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
120. There's no room for opinion on this. It's wrong to be touched without consent and...
everyone has a right to travel freely throughout the country without submitting to such draconian bullshit. End of debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Innomen Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-11 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #120
125. Agreed, however.
The real debate is one that relates to many other areas of public life. I have freedom of speech but not the right to be on tv, I have freedom to travel but not the right to a plane ticket.

We're amassing a collection of effectively worthless rights and allowing business to create an extra layer of law that no one voted on. We're allowing an environment where only the rich and obedient have rights because they are the only ones abiding by the terms of service and paying the entry fees.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 25th 2014, 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC