Woman gropes TSA agent back, charged with sexual assault

[Aura]

I do agree that we're seeing lots of erosion of our rights.

 

I also believe that TSA search procedures are one of the worst examples.

 

As has been pointed out, under any other circumstances, their actions are illegal. It's another stepping stone on the road to tyranny.

 

If someone were to start a thread listing all other "stepping stones" with no repetitions and only a list of personal rights being ignored or violated, how many pages would this thread be? Honestly, I'm afraid to find out.

 

But what's even worse is that most likely, a thread justifying each of them would be much longer.

[Remudamom]

I do agree that we're seeing lots of erosion of our rights.

 

I also believe that TSA search procedures are one of the worst examples.

 

As has been pointed out, under any other circumstances, their actions are illegal. It's another stepping stone on the road to tyranny.

 

If someone were to start a thread listing all other "stepping stones" with no repetitions and only a list of personal rights being ignored or violated, how many pages would this thread be? Honestly, I'm afraid to find out.

 

But what's even worse is that most likely, a thread justifying each of them would be much longer.

 

And there's always plenty ready to justify them. Please, please take care of us, be our daddy! Gag.

[OH_Homeschooler]

Honestly, do you think this is the BEGINNING of the erosion of our basic rights if you believe that's what this is? Because if so, I seem to recall something called the Patriot Act being passed a long time before the new TSA legislation.

[Impish]

I have a different perspective.

 

Working in a LTC, changing briefs was a routine part of my shift.

There was more than one time where a male resident decided that since I was cleaning him up, he had the right to grab and grope me back.

 

Delightful. Doing my job, and get to be s*xually assaulted.

 

I'm sure there are those that would say since I was touching him, he had the right to touch me back. Many residents were combative, and didn't want to be changed, but we couldn't leave them in soaking wet briefs or soiled briefs 8, 12 hrs at a time. No matter how gently and patiently you tried, they were angry b/c their bodies had betrayed them to such an extent.

 

So, I say that she SHOULD be charged, absolutely. Its not the TSA agent's fault for this decision, and not many ppl can afford to quit their jobs in this economy. I'm betting the TSA agent's don't enjoy having to perform these pat downs any more than ppl enjoy having them done.

 

Just b/c you don't like the policy at an institution doesn't give you the right to s*xually assault the employee.

[Aura]

Honestly, do you think this is the BEGINNING of the erosion of our basic rights if you believe that's what this is? Because if so, I seem to recall something called the Patriot Act being passed a long time before the new TSA legislation.

 

Oh, no, this is certainly NOT the beginning. And IMO, it started way before the Patriot Act, too.

 

And Impish, to a degree, I think you're right. Two wrongs never make a right. I refuse to condone that kind of thinking, and therefore, I cannot hold up what this lady did as a good thing. I'd much rather point to individuals like Rosa Parks.

 

However, while the TSA agent was following orders, so were the workers at Auschwitz. The TSA agents should be taking a stand right along with the passengers...not against them.

 

Just b/c you work at an institution doesn't give you the right to s*xually assault the customers.

 

As for your comparison, well, does a person in his right mind have the right to sit in soiled pants all day long if he chooses? :confused: If he's in his right mind, then what right does anyone have to FORCE him to change? Demand that he change it himself, allow another to do it for him or to assist him, or demand that he leave the facility immediately, yes, but to force him? **sigh** But then, there's the threat of litigation against someone else if an individual were allowed to accept the consequences of his own actions.

 

I guess that debate would require a whole other thread, but I still don't think the comparison works for the TSA screenings.

 

In any case, I've stated my case and I think I shall rest now. :001_smile:

[asta]

I wouldn't disagree that, overall, we are seeing lots of erosion of rights.

 

Black men are being disenfranchised at alarming rates, due to felony disenfranchisement laws and the extremely unequal and unjust ways that laws, especially drug laws, are enforced and applied.

 

Government agents are infiltrating mosques and spying on people involved in peaceful, legal worship. We've got a serious contender for the GOP presidential nomination arguing that communities should be legally able to ban mosques if they want.

 

People accused of certain crimes are held without any of the rights and protections that are supposed to be afforded to them.

 

The rights of workers to unionize is being continually undermined and restricted.

 

Employers are being allowed more and more access to and control over the lives of their employees and potential employees.

 

And there are many, many more examples of how our rights as citizens are being eroded.

 

But, being patted down at the airport is just not one of those examples. If you can honestly look at our country and think that TSA pat-downs are a horribly egregious offense against individual liberty, then you are coming from a place of enormous privilege and should count yourself very, very lucky.

 

Not to throw fuel on flames, but I think it is only fair to provide context for that...

 

(Herman Cain's actual quote: )

 

"Our Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. Islam combines church and state," Cain said on "Fox News Sunday." "They are using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their mosque in that community and the people in the community do not like it, they disagree with it."

 

 

As anyone who has studied Islam knows, it *does not* separate church and state. So, technically, the point that Shari'a law could potentially be implemented is valid, however controversial.

 

 

a