4 ms·

We ought not to call these incidents sexual assault. It sounds too much like hyperbole. I fully agree: these people should talk to someone who has actually b

We ought not to call these incidents sexual assault. It sounds too much like hyperbole. I fully agree: these people should talk to someone who has actually been sexually assaulted. That would probably knock some sense into them as to the difference between their experience and actual sexual assault. Being thoroughly frisked, in public, in broad light, where nothing bad could possibly happen, is being compared to being helpless and alone, with, usually, someone making violent threats that is doing far worse things than touching you? It's about as insensitive as you can get. This bit is completely inexplicable: I had indeed been sexually assaulted because she did not follow the SOP (standard operating procedure) for the new search. During our first conversation, the TSA acting manager of the shift told me that the TSA agent who sexually assaulted me was supposed to inform me about the new search procedure and tell me when and where she was going to touch me So let me get this straight: if the TSA agent had done the exact same thing, but would have commented on it a moment before doing it, it wouldn't have been sexual assault? Since when does sexual assault depend on the perpetrator announcing his actions?

mfukar 16y ago
Does a visit to the gynecologist count as sexual assault. Of course not, but why? Because, implicitly or explicitly, the patient has consented to being examined. Do you have a particular difficulty with grasping 'consent' in the context the author narrates? edit to clarify: Of course, as far as the law is concerned, there are other factors that constitute "sexual assault" as an offense, but those can't be accurately and definitively established without the proper procedure. And even if what's going on here doesn't hold in a court of law, I think it's safe to say we all understand that we're implicitly trusting the author's words on the subject, when establishing whether consent was in fact not provided.
- electromagnetic 16y ago
  > Does a visit to the gynecologist count as sexual assault. Of course not, but why? Because, implicitly or explicitly, the patient has consented to being examined. In accordance with a medically necessitated test. If a gynecologist is sticking a finger in a womans vagina, whether s/he has implicit or explicit consent is sexual assault if performed under misinformation. If a doctor gropes my testicles or sticks a finger up my ass without medical justification for doing so, it is sexual asault. Given that the 'pat down' is the least effective screening procedure in an airport, it has very little reason to be performed for the reasons given. The real reason the pat downs are performed is to find drugs concealed on the body. Why is a pat down used, when a dog can more easily be used with less harassment of passengers and more verifiability in courts. Bloodhound evidence is permissible in all courts (IIRC) generally without any question because of the safe guards. The bloodhound will detect if you have an illicit substance on you, even if it is in an unverifiable quantity by an officer. If you aren't actually carrying, you won't be arrested as you're not prosecutable. So why isn't this used? Mostly because a bloodhound isn't intimidating to people who know they won't be busted. Airline security is designed to add pressure, to make people feel nervous because people with a reason to be nervous simply walking past an officer will be panicking. This allows them to catch all the one-time mules who are doing it out of desperation, it may also work on amateur (AKA idiot) terrorists. However, as we can see the 9/11 terrorists all managed to board a plane without panicking or looking suspicious, because they are all believed to have received paramilitary or military training. These trainings inevitably involve keeping calm under duress. Normally military training involves mock interrogations to train the soldier to withstand questioning and thus keep them calm about the risk of being questioned.
  - ericb 16y ago
    We're hackers here. Are we convinced someone dedicated could not hide something as deadly as a box cutter in a body cavity? So without the cavity search, this is just security theater.
    - mfukar 16y ago
      Here's another possibility for consideration: trained individuals can use physical force equally, if not more, effectively for submission or harm. Do they really need a box cutter or a bomb in order to crash a plane wherever they please?
      - electromagnetic 16y ago
        No, they really don't. However, I think terrorists use weapons to try to command fear. People are afraid of knives, guns and especially bombs. Two people are almost guaranteed to take down one man with a knife, because at worst one of the two will be stabbed if you rush the guy. At best the knife is handled and the two people tackle the guy. Furthermore a box cutter isn't very dangerous. I use one daily at work, the blades are very weak (especially the x-acto style) and cannot be used fully extended or any sideways pressure would snap it (IE grab for the blade and twist your hand, or just try side swiping the blade and it would likely brake to no more than a 1/2" of protruding blade). Rigid blade box cutters (IE Stanley Knife) rarely protrude beyond 1" to 1.5". This still likely sounds very scary to 90% of people, you're still being cut by a knife. However, you're being cut by a knife that's as thin as a scalpel - IE any first aid kit can easily fix a soft-tissue injury if you got stabbed in the torso. For these blades to slash properly, you'd likely get less than a 1/4-1/2" of actual penetration. It would hurt in the aftermath but wouldn't likely cause enough harm to stop you as an initial attack. The best way to handle a person with a box cutter would likely to be a full-on body-check. If he's in the aisle, he either confronts or runs as there's not enough room for him to dodge you. If he runs, you carry on with the plan and tackle him to the ground. If he confronts you, make sure you jump for the impact. If he stabs you, you'll both still be going to the ground. When there's a bomb on the plane, you've got nothing to lose by not trying. If someone's got a gun, again, it's simply tackle them. However, a dead-rush won't likely help unless you have kevlar handy so would require a bit more finesse. However, as a group effort taking down a gunman is the best thing to do.
agentultra 16y ago
This is a pretty sick response and all too common. If you did not consent to be being touched in a certain way by another human being, no matter the circumstance, they have no right to do so. That is an assault on your person. She was not informed that this person was going to do the things they did to her. She was molested in public by a figure in a position of (supposed) authority. I cannot imagine what she must felt. However, I cannot deny that she was a victim! I think it's disgusting that you would dismiss this as "not a real crime" for reasons I cannot even begin to understand. Your logic is incredibly weak. There was a crime here and just because it wasn't violent doesn't make it any less criminal. After reading about several of these cases, I know for a fact that I will not fly in the United States ever. Neither will my wife or anyone in my family. And if I can help it, neither will anyone I know. "Enhanced pat-down," is a shockingly sick euphemism for "molestation policy." Let's call it what it is and demand that this be stopped before the idea catches on in other, still free, countries.
- Confusion 16y ago
  that you would dismiss this as "not a real crime" I do not dismiss it as 'not a real crime'. I dismiss it as sexual assault and I wish to strongly argue for not polluting the meaning of that crime with instances of someone touching you inappropriately. "Enhanced pat-down," is a shockingly sick euphemism for "molestation policy." I expect any police officer frisking me to touch my balls. He is putting himself in danger if he doesn't search thoroughly. That isn't considered molestation and if that isn't, then neither is this. You are using dramatic words to make strong accusations to try and make a point that should be made in an entirely different way. These kinds of overly dramatic arguments are easy to dismiss and unfortunately, the real arguments that argue for the same solution will silently be dismissed along with them. The problem is not that people are being touched in inappropriate ways. The problem is not that people are being touched in inappropriate ways without them being told about it upfront. The problem is that the legislation to allow this touching was passed in the first place, that the regulations depending on that regulation were put in place and that people actually seems to think this does anything to remove any threat. That is the problem.
  - 16y ago

mfukar 16y ago

Does a visit to the gynecologist count as sexual assault. Of course not, but why? Because, implicitly or explicitly, the patient has consented to being examined. Do you have a particular difficulty with grasping 'consent' in the context the author narrates? edit to clarify: Of course, as far as the law is concerned, there are other factors that constitute "sexual assault" as an offense, but those can't be accurately and definitively established without the proper procedure. And even if what's going on here doesn't hold in a court of law, I think it's safe to say we all understand that we're implicitly trusting the author's words on the subject, when establishing whether consent was in fact not provided.

electromagnetic 16y ago
> Does a visit to the gynecologist count as sexual assault. Of course not, but why? Because, implicitly or explicitly, the patient has consented to being examined. In accordance with a medically necessitated test. If a gynecologist is sticking a finger in a womans vagina, whether s/he has implicit or explicit consent is sexual assault if performed under misinformation. If a doctor gropes my testicles or sticks a finger up my ass without medical justification for doing so, it is sexual asault. Given that the 'pat down' is the least effective screening procedure in an airport, it has very little reason to be performed for the reasons given. The real reason the pat downs are performed is to find drugs concealed on the body. Why is a pat down used, when a dog can more easily be used with less harassment of passengers and more verifiability in courts. Bloodhound evidence is permissible in all courts (IIRC) generally without any question because of the safe guards. The bloodhound will detect if you have an illicit substance on you, even if it is in an unverifiable quantity by an officer. If you aren't actually carrying, you won't be arrested as you're not prosecutable. So why isn't this used? Mostly because a bloodhound isn't intimidating to people who know they won't be busted. Airline security is designed to add pressure, to make people feel nervous because people with a reason to be nervous simply walking past an officer will be panicking. This allows them to catch all the one-time mules who are doing it out of desperation, it may also work on amateur (AKA idiot) terrorists. However, as we can see the 9/11 terrorists all managed to board a plane without panicking or looking suspicious, because they are all believed to have received paramilitary or military training. These trainings inevitably involve keeping calm under duress. Normally military training involves mock interrogations to train the soldier to withstand questioning and thus keep them calm about the risk of being questioned.
- ericb 16y ago
  We're hackers here. Are we convinced someone dedicated could not hide something as deadly as a box cutter in a body cavity? So without the cavity search, this is just security theater.
  - mfukar 16y ago
    Here's another possibility for consideration: trained individuals can use physical force equally, if not more, effectively for submission or harm. Do they really need a box cutter or a bomb in order to crash a plane wherever they please?
    - electromagnetic 16y ago
      No, they really don't. However, I think terrorists use weapons to try to command fear. People are afraid of knives, guns and especially bombs. Two people are almost guaranteed to take down one man with a knife, because at worst one of the two will be stabbed if you rush the guy. At best the knife is handled and the two people tackle the guy. Furthermore a box cutter isn't very dangerous. I use one daily at work, the blades are very weak (especially the x-acto style) and cannot be used fully extended or any sideways pressure would snap it (IE grab for the blade and twist your hand, or just try side swiping the blade and it would likely brake to no more than a 1/2" of protruding blade). Rigid blade box cutters (IE Stanley Knife) rarely protrude beyond 1" to 1.5". This still likely sounds very scary to 90% of people, you're still being cut by a knife. However, you're being cut by a knife that's as thin as a scalpel - IE any first aid kit can easily fix a soft-tissue injury if you got stabbed in the torso. For these blades to slash properly, you'd likely get less than a 1/4-1/2" of actual penetration. It would hurt in the aftermath but wouldn't likely cause enough harm to stop you as an initial attack. The best way to handle a person with a box cutter would likely to be a full-on body-check. If he's in the aisle, he either confronts or runs as there's not enough room for him to dodge you. If he runs, you carry on with the plan and tackle him to the ground. If he confronts you, make sure you jump for the impact. If he stabs you, you'll both still be going to the ground. When there's a bomb on the plane, you've got nothing to lose by not trying. If someone's got a gun, again, it's simply tackle them. However, a dead-rush won't likely help unless you have kevlar handy so would require a bit more finesse. However, as a group effort taking down a gunman is the best thing to do.

agentultra 16y ago

This is a pretty sick response and all too common. If you did not consent to be being touched in a certain way by another human being, no matter the circumstance, they have no right to do so. That is an assault on your person. She was not informed that this person was going to do the things they did to her. She was molested in public by a figure in a position of (supposed) authority. I cannot imagine what she must felt. However, I cannot deny that she was a victim! I think it's disgusting that you would dismiss this as "not a real crime" for reasons I cannot even begin to understand. Your logic is incredibly weak. There was a crime here and just because it wasn't violent doesn't make it any less criminal. After reading about several of these cases, I know for a fact that I will not fly in the United States ever. Neither will my wife or anyone in my family. And if I can help it, neither will anyone I know. "Enhanced pat-down," is a shockingly sick euphemism for "molestation policy." Let's call it what it is and demand that this be stopped before the idea catches on in other, still free, countries.

Confusion 16y ago
that you would dismiss this as "not a real crime" I do not dismiss it as 'not a real crime'. I dismiss it as sexual assault and I wish to strongly argue for not polluting the meaning of that crime with instances of someone touching you inappropriately. "Enhanced pat-down," is a shockingly sick euphemism for "molestation policy." I expect any police officer frisking me to touch my balls. He is putting himself in danger if he doesn't search thoroughly. That isn't considered molestation and if that isn't, then neither is this. You are using dramatic words to make strong accusations to try and make a point that should be made in an entirely different way. These kinds of overly dramatic arguments are easy to dismiss and unfortunately, the real arguments that argue for the same solution will silently be dismissed along with them. The problem is not that people are being touched in inappropriate ways. The problem is not that people are being touched in inappropriate ways without them being told about it upfront. The problem is that the legislation to allow this touching was passed in the first place, that the regulations depending on that regulation were put in place and that people actually seems to think this does anything to remove any threat. That is the problem.
- 16y ago