Woman arrested for refusing pat-down

apple0154 said:
Yes, when the actual operation is taking place only the area being operated on is exposed. If you think the doctor or other operating room personnel stay outside until the patient is modestly attired you're the one who is ignorant.

And, yes, I did work in a hospital as an engineer and I have entered operating rooms in an emergency to change the nitrous oxide bottle on portable units if the Anaesthesiologist felt there may be a shortage, usually due to an operation taking more time than planned. In one instance I entered an operating room during a leg amputation and although the person was covered I assure you the garment was not all neatly tucked in, if you get my drift.

I've also checked a possible leaking oxygen wall unit while the patient, appearing comatose, was being examined by a doctor. Again, modesty was not a priority.

Besides, the purpose of covering is to avoid contamination. It is not due to modesty concerns.

As for her refusing to be scanned that was her choice. It was also her choice not to fly. It is not her choice to dictate security procedures.

As for Obama getting a pass reality is what it is. Times are what they are. No one is obliged to fly, therefore, no one is obliged to submit to a pat down.

There is nothing sexual going on so I suggest folks get their mind out of the gutter and grow up.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Click to expand...
1: I have been through enough surgeries, and been with my wife through her
various surgeries to know full well what goes on. You are either greatly exaggerating your experiences, or a full out liar. In all cases, we were treated first by a nurse, or two at the most. They were the ones who prepped us for the operating room. In all but one case we were allowed to change out of our clothing into the operating gowns in private. I was only given a general once out of 8 surgeries, and was awake the other 7. In all cases the only areas exposed to casual observation either in the prep room or OR were the areas being worked on. Even that time I was laying prone rather than supine I was covered with sterile sheets except where they needed to cut.

Not that it matters. You're equating medical necessity to personal searches - not the same thing at all - except to brain dead fucks like yourself who are willing to excuse any and all government intrusions as long as they are supported by your liberal masters.

2: if you think there are people who can NOT fly and still work in their careers, you are truly beyond normal ignorance. If you think it is appropriate to have to submit to these kinds of close personal searches just so one can see family over the holidays, then you are the asshole totalitarian fuck I believe you to be. The government is in the wrong. If you cannot see that, go shove your head back up the donkey's ass and leave the rest of us the hell alone.
 
Mojo said:
TSA has been sued numerous times.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-sues-dhs-over-unlawful-tsa-searches-and-detention

http://blogs.westword.com/latestwor...r_refuse_body_scanning_and_pat-down_video.php

http://stockycat.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-tsa-lawsuit-this-isnt-helping.html

http://www.buffalonews.com/city/article293897.ece

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-20/us/tsa.lawsuit_1_tsa-answer-question?_s=PM:US
Click to expand...
Good. Let the number of lawsuits increase by about three orders of magnitude. And, while we're at it, add criminal charges for sexual harassment whenever one of us gets their junk touched. The current policies and actions of TSA are flat out beyond intolerable. It needs to stop.

Although it's disturbing that of your 5 cites, two are about the same case - which is actually about unlawful detainment because TSA agents over reacted to the passenger carrying a (relatively) large amount of cash, one is an obscure reference to "another" suit while claiming law suits won't do any good and defending the TSA practices (asshole) and one is a wrongful dismissal suit. That leave a whole SINLGE lawsuit of your five sites that is an actual individual law suit which addresses the current highly invasive policies.
 
Last edited:
contraband? that's what this is about. de-sensitising the american people in to believing that they can only have what the government tells them they can, under threat of arrest.
 
Good Luck said:
1: I have been through enough surgeries, and been with my wife through her
various surgeries to know full well what goes on. You are either greatly exaggerating your experiences, or a full out liar. In all cases, we were treated first by a nurse, or two at the most. They were the ones who prepped us for the operating room. In all but one case we were allowed to change out of our clothing into the operating gowns in private. I was only given a general once out of 8 surgeries, and was awake the other 7. In all cases the only areas exposed to casual observation either in the prep room or OR were the areas being worked on. Even that time I was laying prone rather than supine I was covered with sterile sheets except where they needed to cut.

Not that it matters. You're equating medical necessity to personal searches - not the same thing at all - except to brain dead fucks like yourself who are willing to excuse any and all government intrusions as long as they are supported by your liberal masters.

2: if you think there are people who can NOT fly and still work in their careers, you are truly beyond normal ignorance. If you think it is appropriate to have to submit to these kinds of close personal searches just so one can see family over the holidays, then you are the asshole totalitarian fuck I believe you to be. The government is in the wrong. If you cannot see that, go shove your head back up the donkey's ass and leave the rest of us the hell alone.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the underwear bomber removed your right to privacy. If you want to board a plane your ass is there's, literally! :)

The point of mentioning medical procedures is a person whose life is at risk and requires medical attention doesn't give a damn who sees what. They want to live! The same applies to air travel.

Stop being so dumb and realize the majority of people rather have their body parts felt than end up falling from the sky at 30,000 feet.

All this nonsense about some dude having a copy of someone's naked picture. How can anyone tell whose picture it is anyway what with photo shop and the ability to make any picture represent anyone? And as far as groping, give it a rest. Talk about delusions of grandeur. Some guy thinks he's hung like a horse or some gal believing another woman is going to drool over her breasts.

Ever consider how many groins and breasts they "grope" every day? Only a megalomaniac would believe the security personnel would get a thrill out of searching them.

As for traveling due to a career nobody's job is going to be a factor in risking the lives of others. Change careers or drop your pants! :rofl:
 
apple0154 said:
Sorry, but the underwear bomber removed your right to privacy. If you want to board a plane your ass is there's, literally! :)

The point of mentioning medical procedures is a person whose life is at risk and requires medical attention doesn't give a damn who sees what. They want to live! The same applies to air travel.

Stop being so dumb and realize the majority of people rather have their body parts felt than end up falling from the sky at 30,000 feet.

All this nonsense about some dude having a copy of someone's naked picture. How can anyone tell whose picture it is anyway what with photo shop and the ability to make any picture represent anyone? And as far as groping, give it a rest. Talk about delusions of grandeur. Some guy thinks he's hung like a horse or some gal believing another woman is going to drool over her breasts.

Ever consider how many groins and breasts they "grope" every day? Only a megalomaniac would believe the security personnel would get a thrill out of searching them.

As for traveling due to a career nobody's job is going to be a factor in risking the lives of others. Change careers or drop your pants! :rofl:
Click to expand...

congratulations. you've just destroyed the concept of the constitution, to protect the rights of the minority from the demands of the minority.
 
apple0154 said:
Mandatory molestation?

The woman in question had something similar to a pacemaker installed. Guess how many people saw her breasts. Certainly more than one doctor. Most probably the entire operating room staff including assisting nurses and the anesthesiologist and even a maintenance engineer or two if their services were required in the general area of the operating rooms. We can even throw in a cleaning person if there was a spill to attend to.

To paraphrase Dorthy, "Doctors and nurses and janitors. Oh, my!!"

I'm sure those airport security personnel have had their thrill of "molesting".
Click to expand...
Mandatory molestation is descriptive and accurate verbage.
 
Good Luck said:
Good. Let the number of lawsuits increase by about three orders of magnitude. And, while we're at it, add criminal charges for sexual harassment whenever one of us gets their junk touched. The current policies and actions of TSA are flat out beyond intolerable. It needs to stop.

Although it's disturbing that of your 5 cites, two are about the same case - which is actually about unlawful detainment because TSA agents over reacted to the passenger carrying a (relatively) large amount of cash, one is an obscure reference to "another" suit while claiming law suits won't do any good and defending the TSA practices (asshole) and one is a wrongful dismissal suit. That leave a whole SINLGE lawsuit of your five sites that is an actual individual law suit which addresses the current highly invasive policies.
Click to expand...

Here are some more:

http://www2.dailyprogress.com/news/...itute-sues-over-airport-screenings-ar-657490/

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1156171-definitive-tsa-lawsuits-thread.html

http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/why-i-filed-suit-against-the-tsa/

http://transportationnation.org/2010/11/30/first-lawsuits-filed-against-tsa-patdowns/

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/dec/14/carlsbad-woman-joins-civil-suit-against-tsa-search/
 
AssHatZombie said:
But if you're flying the molestation is mandatory, ergo, mandatory molestation is accurate.
Click to expand...

Molest:
1.to bother, interfere with, or annoy.
2. to make indecent sexual advances to.
3. to assault sexually.

One could say we were always molested when traveling by air. Wasn't it annoying to have our bags examined? Wait in line? Wasn't it bothersome to have to arrive at the airport early rather than just walk on like on a bus?
 
apple0154 said:
Molest:
1.to bother, interfere with, or annoy.
2. to make indecent sexual advances to.
3. to assault sexually.

One could say we were always molested when traveling by air. Wasn't it annoying to have our bags examined? Wait in line? Wasn't it bothersome to have to arrive at the airport early rather than just walk on like on a bus?
Click to expand...

Examining luggage and standing in line aren't even close to unwanted genital touching. Now you're just being stupid.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Examining luggage and standing in line aren't even close to unwanted genital touching. Now you're just being stupid.
Click to expand...

They are not deliberately touching genitals. I suppose one solution would be for passengers to strip and security could "take a look" without touching.
 
Where are all the patriot act defenders? Where are the ones who told us that if we weren't terrorists then it shouldn't matter that the government was listening to our phone calls? If you have nothing to hide then you should not mind the scan or the pat down right? These changes are only to make us safer. Safety is far more important than liberty. I think Franklin said that.
 
apple0154 said:
Why do you keep forgetting the "to promote the general welfare" line in the Preamble?
Click to expand...
You keep bringing that up - in total ignorance of reality (as usual). If you want to discuss constitutional issues, LEARN the fucking Constitution.

Promoting the general welfare at the cost of our other liberties is rather counter productive to promoting our welfare, since liberty is a huge part of the general welfare of our society. The very reason our constitution exists is because the founders recognized the need to protect basic liberties from government encroachment.

YOU may like the idea of perfect safety at the cost of freedom. But then you are, for whatever reason, one of the most mindless, stupid, brain dead, idiotic, without-a-thought-of-your-own democratic party appologists in all existence. MOST of us do NOT want to trade our liberty for your asininely moronic idea of safety.

If you want your perfect safety so fucking much, go commit a major crime and get yourself put in solitary confinement for the rest of your miserable ignorant whining baby life. They can feed you through a slot in the door, exercise you twice a day isolated from anyone else, and you'll be perfectly safe. And then you can take your totalitarian government control ideas, shove them in your useless fucking ASS and leave the rest of us the fuck alone.
 
apple0154 said:
No one is obliged to fly so it's not mandatory.
Click to expand...
As was previously pointed out, some people cannot do their jobs without flying. If you are unaware of this basic reality, your are.... - well we already have discovered how completely asininely stupid you can become trying to defend the indefensible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top