4 ms·

>>but there are many circumstances in life where we must suffer the same indignities which are not considered assault. A visit to the doctor for example. This

by credo 16y ago

>>but there are many circumstances in life where we must suffer the same indignities which are not considered assault. A visit to the doctor for example. This analogy makes very little sense. The doctor cannot stop me from visiting a different doctor (who may not insist on the same tests) and the doctor cannot compel me to cancel a trip across the Atlantic if I refuse to submit to the tests. The government can. The doctor has to convince the patient that the test is necessary. The TSA agent can ignore any evidence of the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of patdowns and doesn't need to obtain your consent.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
corin_ 16y ago
"The doctor cannot compel me to cancel a trip across the Atlantic if I refuse to submit to the tests" I'd suggest that failing to discover a fatal disease would be slightly worse than failing to travel somewhere. What you mean to say is that it's OK for a doctor to do it because in that case the recipient believes he is doing it for a good reason. If everyone going through an airport fully believed that these checks are an efficient way to ensure our safety in the air, far less people would have a problem.
- electromagnetic 16y ago
  I think the problem is that the 'pat down' is the most ineffective security measure used in the airport. The real reason for the pat down is actually to find drugs concealed on a persons body. Why on earth do they believe they'll find a razor blade on a persons body? They don't, because they're not looking for weapons because every real weapon known to man is detectable from a metal detector, and the majority of improvised weapons still use metal detectable parts. Considering I've walked through a metal detector with literally a fistful of change and it hasn't gone off, I question the usability of all airport screening. I frequently have like $10 in small change on me.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    because every real weapon known to man is detectable from a metal detector, and the majority of improvised weapons still use metal detectable parts. Lets not get hyperbolic. I found a real weapon with less metal than my jeans in about 2 minutes with google. http://www.flickr.com/photos/isotope/492829645/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/isotope/492829645/ (Presumably a terrorist could do it with no metal, but a prisoner has limitations on materials available.)
    - Tamerlin 16y ago
      The right type of wood can also make for quite an effective weapon, especially in the right hands.
      - electromagnetic 16y ago
        I'd say most people would be far less afraid of someone with a wooden weapon than someone with a steel knife, when a wooden weapon would be far more harmful. A wooden mallet with tapered ends could easily crack a skull or break joints and limbs if used properly and would be easily concealable compared to a high density knife blade. Considering that a war hammer is still likely the most dangerous weapon to an armored soldier today, there are worlds of weapons that are not routinely used or thought of that could be deadly in the right circumstances.
        Tamerlin 16y ago
        It doesn't even need tapered ends, as long as it's sturdy. Heck, a well-trained person's hands can be quite deadly to someone not wearing armor... and if you know what you're doing, armor won't stop you from ripping someone's arm apart and spiking them into the ground with their own weight + that of the armor -- and yours, if you're feeling particularly aggressive :)
- cabalamat 16y ago
  > I'd suggest that failing to discover a fatal disease would be slightly worse than failing to travel somewhere. That's not the point. The point is choice. If I don't like one doctor, I can go to another. If I live in the USA and don't like the TSA, I'm fucked.
  - corin_ 16y ago
    You can chose a different TSA agent. Going to another doctor won't change the fact that, to diagnose certain problems, he/she may need to touch your testicals.
    - gte910h 16y ago
      However many people, especially men, do not allow embarrassing and painful tests done to them unless they're scared. They literally choose increased chance of death over those invasive exams. I feel people should have the same right at the airline gate (aka flights w/o gropesearch/poronoscans vs flights with being offered)
- Tamerlin 16y ago
  * If everyone going through an airport fully believed that these checks are an efficient way to ensure our safety in the air, far less people would have a problem.* Given that the facts say otherwise, I suspect that this is going to end up being a pretty hard sell.
roel_v 16y ago
Maybe the following example is better (maybe I'm arguing more 'state of mind' than the point the OP's post was trying to make, I'm not 100% sure). Let's say a doctor performs an examination of the genitalia on a patient, without medical necessity. Let's say she does it without sexual intent, for example because she is still in training and wants to practice more on genital examinations (this may not make any medical sense, it's just the example) Let's also assume that we know for sure she had no sexual intent (eliminate mundane evidence matters). She convinces the patient the examination is necessary and he agrees to it. Only later he finds out the examination wasn't out of medical necessity. Is this sexual assault? I'd argue no, and I'm quite sure the law is on my side (although I don't know how to qualify it in common law terms, at first I thought the mens rea was missing but a cursory web search seems to indicate that this is related to the 'consent' part of the assault charge, and not so much the 'sexual intention'. The literature doesn't seem to agree though).
- devinj 16y ago
  Maybe the first question is whether it's assault. It's assault in Canada, at least, because the doctor was abusing his authority in order to touch you. This removes any possibility of consent.
  - roel_v 16y ago
    I'm not sure. Why do you think this would be assault? I'm not familiar with Canadian law, but article 265(1)(a) defines assault as without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly; I'm not sure that performing a physical examination under false pretenses is 'applying force'. There may be Canadian case law clarifying this, I don't know, but prima facie it doesn't seem to me that your position is correct. Note that other legal systems have problems with doing things under false pretenses. A woman claimed rape because her husband's brother slid into bed with her and initiated sex, in which she went along. The guy didn't disclose explicitly that he wasn't the woman's husband. When she found out she felt (justifiably) violated. Yet the guy was acquitted because there was no statute on getting sexual favors under false pretenses (there is now by the way, as a result of this case).
Tamerlin 16y ago
The doctor has to convince the patient that the test is necessary. The TSA agent can ignore any evidence of the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of patdowns and doesn't need to obtain your consent. And that's the critical difference here. What the doctor does is WITH your consent, and you have a choice in the matter -- plus it's actually truly for your own good. What the TSA does is NOT with your consent, you don't have a choice in the matter (subject of the TSA's next porn video, or sexual molestation), and it's NOT for your own good, since there's no conceivable way that it will actually improve airline safety, given that it won't have any affect on any serious terrorist attacks anyway.

by credo 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

corin_ 16y ago

"The doctor cannot compel me to cancel a trip across the Atlantic if I refuse to submit to the tests" I'd suggest that failing to discover a fatal disease would be slightly worse than failing to travel somewhere. What you mean to say is that it's OK for a doctor to do it because in that case the recipient believes he is doing it for a good reason. If everyone going through an airport fully believed that these checks are an efficient way to ensure our safety in the air, far less people would have a problem.

electromagnetic 16y ago
I think the problem is that the 'pat down' is the most ineffective security measure used in the airport. The real reason for the pat down is actually to find drugs concealed on a persons body. Why on earth do they believe they'll find a razor blade on a persons body? They don't, because they're not looking for weapons because every real weapon known to man is detectable from a metal detector, and the majority of improvised weapons still use metal detectable parts. Considering I've walked through a metal detector with literally a fistful of change and it hasn't gone off, I question the usability of all airport screening. I frequently have like $10 in small change on me.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  because every real weapon known to man is detectable from a metal detector, and the majority of improvised weapons still use metal detectable parts. Lets not get hyperbolic. I found a real weapon with less metal than my jeans in about 2 minutes with google. http://www.flickr.com/photos/isotope/492829645/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/isotope/492829645/ (Presumably a terrorist could do it with no metal, but a prisoner has limitations on materials available.)
  - Tamerlin 16y ago
    The right type of wood can also make for quite an effective weapon, especially in the right hands.
    - electromagnetic 16y ago
      I'd say most people would be far less afraid of someone with a wooden weapon than someone with a steel knife, when a wooden weapon would be far more harmful. A wooden mallet with tapered ends could easily crack a skull or break joints and limbs if used properly and would be easily concealable compared to a high density knife blade. Considering that a war hammer is still likely the most dangerous weapon to an armored soldier today, there are worlds of weapons that are not routinely used or thought of that could be deadly in the right circumstances.
      - Tamerlin 16y ago
        It doesn't even need tapered ends, as long as it's sturdy. Heck, a well-trained person's hands can be quite deadly to someone not wearing armor... and if you know what you're doing, armor won't stop you from ripping someone's arm apart and spiking them into the ground with their own weight + that of the armor -- and yours, if you're feeling particularly aggressive :)
cabalamat 16y ago
> I'd suggest that failing to discover a fatal disease would be slightly worse than failing to travel somewhere. That's not the point. The point is choice. If I don't like one doctor, I can go to another. If I live in the USA and don't like the TSA, I'm fucked.
- corin_ 16y ago
  You can chose a different TSA agent. Going to another doctor won't change the fact that, to diagnose certain problems, he/she may need to touch your testicals.
  - gte910h 16y ago
    However many people, especially men, do not allow embarrassing and painful tests done to them unless they're scared. They literally choose increased chance of death over those invasive exams. I feel people should have the same right at the airline gate (aka flights w/o gropesearch/poronoscans vs flights with being offered)
Tamerlin 16y ago
* If everyone going through an airport fully believed that these checks are an efficient way to ensure our safety in the air, far less people would have a problem.* Given that the facts say otherwise, I suspect that this is going to end up being a pretty hard sell.

roel_v 16y ago

Maybe the following example is better (maybe I'm arguing more 'state of mind' than the point the OP's post was trying to make, I'm not 100% sure). Let's say a doctor performs an examination of the genitalia on a patient, without medical necessity. Let's say she does it without sexual intent, for example because she is still in training and wants to practice more on genital examinations (this may not make any medical sense, it's just the example) Let's also assume that we know for sure she had no sexual intent (eliminate mundane evidence matters). She convinces the patient the examination is necessary and he agrees to it. Only later he finds out the examination wasn't out of medical necessity. Is this sexual assault? I'd argue no, and I'm quite sure the law is on my side (although I don't know how to qualify it in common law terms, at first I thought the mens rea was missing but a cursory web search seems to indicate that this is related to the 'consent' part of the assault charge, and not so much the 'sexual intention'. The literature doesn't seem to agree though).

devinj 16y ago
Maybe the first question is whether it's assault. It's assault in Canada, at least, because the doctor was abusing his authority in order to touch you. This removes any possibility of consent.
- roel_v 16y ago
  I'm not sure. Why do you think this would be assault? I'm not familiar with Canadian law, but article 265(1)(a) defines assault as without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly; I'm not sure that performing a physical examination under false pretenses is 'applying force'. There may be Canadian case law clarifying this, I don't know, but prima facie it doesn't seem to me that your position is correct. Note that other legal systems have problems with doing things under false pretenses. A woman claimed rape because her husband's brother slid into bed with her and initiated sex, in which she went along. The guy didn't disclose explicitly that he wasn't the woman's husband. When she found out she felt (justifiably) violated. Yet the guy was acquitted because there was no statute on getting sexual favors under false pretenses (there is now by the way, as a result of this case).

Tamerlin 16y ago

The doctor has to convince the patient that the test is necessary. The TSA agent can ignore any evidence of the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of patdowns and doesn't need to obtain your consent. And that's the critical difference here. What the doctor does is WITH your consent, and you have a choice in the matter -- plus it's actually truly for your own good. What the TSA does is NOT with your consent, you don't have a choice in the matter (subject of the TSA's next porn video, or sexual molestation), and it's NOT for your own good, since there's no conceivable way that it will actually improve airline safety, given that it won't have any affect on any serious terrorist attacks anyway.