Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

ourlittlechatterboxes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–138 of 138 posts

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#131

Post by aneth »

agentultra wrote: post #124
Confusion wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

I'm not sure why it is difficult to understand that touching someone for search is not a sexual act simply because it involves touching sexual organs. One must generally intend to commit a crime to be guilty of one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#132

Post by burgerbrain »

aneth wrote: post #131
agentultra wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

I'm not sure why it is difficult to understand that touching someone for search is not a sexual act simply because it involves touching sexual organs. One must generally intend to commit a crime to be guilty of one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

These searches sure as fuck aren't being preformed accidentally.

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#133

Post by burgerbrain »

aneth wrote: post #32
noonespecial wrote: post #15

I've been watching these stories trickle by on HN for a few days now wondering if I should say what I'm about to say. I'm going to put up an opinion that I'm quite certain is going to be unpopular. At length, I think the potential karma burn is worth speaking out. If you choose to downvote me, please drop in a reasonable reply as well: We ought not to call these incidents sexual assault. It sounds too much like hyper…

I completely agree that while she may feel violated, this is not sexual assault, and to say it is detracts from any argument about the rationality behind this new policy. Sexual assault requires a sexual motive and a sexual act, neither of which occurred here. The intent and action were both to search. A doctor touching the same place in the same way would not be considered sexual assault because there is no sexual i…

>this is not sexual assault

And tomorrow I bet we're going to start hearing claims that "she was asking for it anyway".

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#134

Post by devinj »

roel_v wrote: post #130
devinj wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is. That is the assault law. Unless you're suggesting that grabbing someone's breasts is never sexual assault...

Force means something a bit looser than you probably think it does. A light tap can be considered assault, let alone grabbing and poking.

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#135

Post by mfukar »

electromagnetic wrote: post #126
mfukar wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm not even going to pretend I have the capacity of analyzing such a complicated situation, let alone reach a verdict on its outcome. You certainly seem confident enough about it. All I was trying to point out was that threats can hack their way into airplanes and airports from unforeseen directions, and TSA procedures aren't at all helpful.

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#136

Post by loewenskind »

cookiecaper wrote: post #115
loewenskind wrote: post #73

Earlier 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.

This isn't a pat down. They trace your genitals with their finger through your cloths. If a teacher did this to a child they would be on the national sex offenders registry for the rest of their lives.

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#137

Post by stretchwithme »

jsarch wrote: post #108
stretchwithme wrote: post #37

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution explicitly protects the people from unreasonable searches. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things t…

I looked this up the other day and came across the following on TSA.gov: "Even prior to the passage of ATSA and the Federalization of the screening work force, Federal courts upheld warrantless searches of carry-on luggage at airports. Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Su…

and searches of you on the street can be avoided by electing not to leave your home.

Re: I stood there, an American citizen, sexually assaulted by a government official

#138

Post by Tamerlin »

electromagnetic wrote: post #129
Tamerlin wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 :)

Post reply on HN