I hate to admit that I was expecting the Fresh Prince of Bel-Aire theme song after her description of this event.
I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official
121–130 of 138 posts
Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 impr…
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/ (Presumably a terrorist could do it with no metal, but a prisoner has limitations on materials available.)
The right type of wood can also make for quite an effective weapon, especially in the right hands.
Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
You quoted the first paragraph of the section on assault. The definition of "consent" as used in the first paragraph is given in the third paragraph. It also covers the case of false pretenses:
(3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of
(a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;
(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;
(c) fraud; or
(d) the exercise of authority.
I was referring to part d. Part d would also apply to TSA officials as far as I know, but if they were on Canadian soil they'd probably get some special exemption. Also, I don't believe they technically do the searches on Canadian soil. Airports are weird.
Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Right there you deny, and then affirm my point. You don't think there was a crime, just that she was touched inappropriately. I expect any police officer frisking me to touch my balls. He is putting himself in danger…
You don't think there was a crime, just that she was touched inappropriately. As far as I am aware, that is a crime. It's just not sexual assault and it's not appropriate to compare the two as equals.
Sexual assault may include rape, forced vaginal, anal or oral penetration, forced sexual intercourse, inappropriate touching, forced kissing, child sexual abuse, or the torture of the victim in a sexual manner.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault
It is certainly up to the courts of the juristiction to determine whether "inappropriate touching" consitutes a part of what is called, "sexual assault."
So you see, I am not in fact mixing terms.
Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I used it to counter the opposite extreme posited by the article, that even unpleasant or unwanted or unexpected touching qualifies as "assault" Unwanted touching absolutely qualifies as assault. Imagine a movie theater, sick of people videoing their movies, started doing "pat downs" like this. It would be very clearly sexual assault then. And if the person they were touching were a child it would be even more clear…
No, it would not be "sexual assault". It would again be unpleasant or unwanted touching. I'm not endorsing that, but I don't think technicalities about the term are appropriate. Sexual assault is a serious thing, pat downs are definitely unpleasant and bad, but they are not like serious assaults.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault
inappropriate touching is sexual assault in many jurisdictions.
I don't think many men seem to understand this.
The rules are clear regarding the TSA agent's responsibilities. The agent didn't meet those responsibilities. They proceeded to touch this woman in ways she didn't consent to. In many places in the world, and in my own opinion, that is sexual assault and is not worthy of being down-played or dismissed.
Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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?
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.
Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it would not be "sexual assault". It would again be unpleasant or unwanted touching. I'm not endorsing that, but I don't think technicalities about the term are appropriate. Sexual assault is a serious thing, pat downs are definitely unpleasant and bad, but they are not like serious assaults.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault inappropriate touching is sexual assault in many jurisdictions. I don't think many men seem to understand this. The rules are clear regarding the TSA agent's responsibilities. The agent didn't meet those responsibilities. They proceeded to touch this woman in ways she didn't consent to. In many places in the world, and in my own opinion, that is sexual assault and is not wo…
Right, _technically_ it is "sexual assault" by legal definitions. But that's not what you invoke when you say "I've been sexually assaulted". It's about the common usage and the denigration of the terminology that affects victims of serious cases negatively.
Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
I strongly agree. I think if you read the post it is definitely evident that although this was an unpleasant experience, the author is blowing things out of proportion. I know that may seem insensitive, but in the context of your post, I think it's important to be explicit about this point. The woman was given a rather invasive through-clothing security pat down. Of course this can be discomforting and invasive, espe…
According to the various definitions on http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+sexual+assault it seems to me that she was in fact sexually assaulted. Getting touched in private parts without consent is an assault of sexual nature. There are other sexual assault cases that are much more severe but you can't discount stealing $1,000 just because there are cases of people stealing $1,000,000. Theft is still theft and se…
As I commented elsewhere, I am aware that the technical definition includes this, but when this woman goes around claiming she was "sexually assaulted", does that generally infer references to a TSA pat-down or something more serious? It's definitely a misappropriation of the term at least in its common usage, though possibly not its legal usage.
Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
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/ (Presumably a terrorist could do it with no metal, but a prisoner has limitations on materials available.)
The right type of wood can also make for quite an effective weapon, especially in the right hands.
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.
Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You quoted the first paragraph of the section on assault. The definition of "consent" as used in the first paragraph is given in the third paragraph. It also covers the case of false pretenses: (3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of (a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant; (b) threats…
Yes, but my point wasn't so much that there wasn't consent (well I admit that I was going on a tangent in that direction in my last paragraph...) but that there is no 'force' being applied.