6 Year Old Girl Groped By TSA

[JP171]

not that the TSA is a law enforcement agency.

[Oldgringo]

I may not agree with the pat downs but I also did not see how anyone could say that the girl was "groped". Pat downs are wrong, but saying this girl was groped is no different than the Brady Bunch calling an AR an automatic assault rifle. It simply isn't true.

Let's make sure we aren't using the same scare tactics that we accuse others of using.

Plus the thread itself comes very close to violating forum rules against law enforcement agency bashing.

with both of the above posts.

The last time that I was on an airplane was the weekend immediately preceeding 9/11; therefore, I have no experience with current security measures or the TSA. I do; however, vividly recall the cowardly murder of civilians and mass destruction brought to this nation on 11 Septemer 2001 by unscreened passengers on commercial aircraft.

We all have choices: one of which is to fly or drive or stay home.

[JP171]

I fly quite often, never been singled out, have been patted down in several airports around the world, didn't care for any of it. but again like I said the TSA (transportaion SAFETY administration is NOT a law enforecment agancy) I can't see the vid so I never commented on that just the other things I have seen by some of the security guards they employ and that they have no training to actually do the job and the arbitrary and capricious nature of the things they do.

[VMI77]

I may not agree with the pat downs but I also did not see how anyone could say that the girl was "groped". Pat downs are wrong, but saying this girl was groped is no different than the Brady Bunch calling an AR an automatic assault rifle. It simply isn't true.

Let's make sure we aren't using the same scare tactics that we accuse others of using.

I just copied the title from the Youtube video. There were several versions, all of which used "groped." I considered whether or not I should change it, but then I thought if one of us ordinary citizens did to a stranger's six year old daughter exactly what was done in the video, and even for the same reason, how would it be described when the charges are filed? Children are taught not to let strangers touch them in this way. Furthermore, when you look up how "grope" is defined, the sexual connotation goes with the 3rd or 4th definition. Here's from the "Free Dictionary":

1. (intr; usually foll by for) to feel or search about uncertainly (for something) with the hands
2. (intr; usually foll by for or after) to search uncertainly or with difficulty (for a solution, answer, etc.)
3. (tr) to find or make (one's way) by groping
4. (tr) Slang to feel or fondle the body of (someone) for sexual gratification

I'd say the girl was being searched uncertainly with the hands. I'm willing to concede that use of the term is debatable, but not that use of the term constitutes a "scare tactic." I don't fly because I don't like flying and I'm not willing to put up with the phony security theater; and because I'm just not sure how I'd react if my wife has a problem with a pat down. The father apparently was disturbed enough by this incident to video it. I'm not sure if I would have been able to keep my wits about me in those circumstances. If I had a young child this kind of stuff would most definitely scare me away from flying because I'd be afraid I might end up in jail.

[jmra]

I may not agree with the pat downs but I also did not see how anyone could say that the girl was "groped". Pat downs are wrong, but saying this girl was groped is no different than the Brady Bunch calling an AR an automatic assault rifle. It simply isn't true.

Let's make sure we aren't using the same scare tactics that we accuse others of using.

Ok then, you do exactly what was done in the video to a stranger's six year old daughter and see how it is described when the charges are filed.

Exactly the type of response I would expect from the Brady Bunch kids. You are trying to take an activity out of context to make a point that fits your view.

There would be no reason or expectation in my job description for me to conduct such a search thus it would be improper for me to do so.

My wife's doctor conducts certain exams that would not be appropriate in any other setting. Using your logic I should be sreaming that the doctor has violated my wife. I don't do so because his actions are part of the function of the duties defined by his job.

[sjfcontrol]

The last time that I was on an airplane was the weekend immediately preceeding 9/11; therefore, I have no experience with current security measures or the TSA. I do; however, vividly recall the cowardly murder of civilians and mass destruction brought to this nation on 11 Septemer 2001 by unscreened passengers on commercial aircraft.

We all have choices: one of which is to fly or drive or stay home.

Just to be clear, the passengers on 9/11 WERE screened, and passed by the airport security in place at the time. They had box-cutter style knives, which were not prohibited at that time.

Security professionals agree that trying to stop terrorism at the airport gate is futile. As proven over and over, there simply is no way to "screen" masses of people quickly and catch every possible threat. The time/place to stop terrorism is before they make it anywhere near the airport. Even the TSA admits that the new body scanners would not necessarily have caught the underwear-bomber. It doesn't detect "pancake" explosives, explosives formed into a thin layer and applied to the body.

And saying that you have a choice to fly or drive or stay home, is like saying you have a choice to never leave your house. Technically true, but if you have a life, or a need to work to support that life (and any family you may have), those choices can become quite limiting.

[Keith B]

Saw the parents on the news this morning. Word is the TSA states the agent followed the procedures that they are directed to follow and performed the search as such. However, they stated TSA says they need to review their policies and work toward a 'not one size fits all' process for screening.

I think they realize this was not appropriate, but I will bet the agent was just following protocol, even if they didn't think it was the way it should be done.

[VMI77]

I may not agree with the pat downs but I also did not see how anyone could say that the girl was "groped". Pat downs are wrong, but saying this girl was groped is no different than the Brady Bunch calling an AR an automatic assault rifle. It simply isn't true.

Let's make sure we aren't using the same scare tactics that we accuse others of using.

Ok then, you do exactly what was done in the video to a stranger's six year old daughter and see how it is described when the charges are filed.

Exactly the type of response I would expect from the Brady Bunch kids. You are trying to take an activity out of context to make a point that fits your view.

There would be no reason or expectation in my job description for me to conduct such a search thus it would be improper for me to do so.

My wife's doctor conducts certain exams that would not be appropriate in any other setting. Using your logic I should be sreaming that the doctor has violated my wife. I don't do so because his actions are part of the function of the duties defined by his job.

Well, you caught my response before I reconsidered and edited it. Still, I don't think your analogy works. I could even say it sounds like something one might hear from the Brady Bunch, since they typically seek to justify government action by flawed analogies.

For one thing, a doctor can't coerce you into undergoing an exam. We can argue about the degree of coercion, but a search like this is a "coerced" search by any reasonable definition. For another, a child is incapable of granting consent. Furthermore, doctors don't administer exams at random. If a doctor stopped your wife at the entrance to a hospital and told her she had to consent to an exam I doubt she'd cooperate. And finally, a doctor's exam is conducted to benefit the person being examined, whereas a search like this confers no benefit to the person being searched, and may in fact cause harm. In this case, the little girl cried afterwords believing she had done something wrong. And such searches may also undermine a child's ability to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate contact. And searches like this may also cause harm to adults in a variety of ways from trivial to life altering.

A stupid policy does not constitute a "reason" for a search. The Israelis live in far more danger than we do --you think they frisk little six year old Israeli girls like this?

You seem to be saying that if the government does something as a matter of policy, or just defines for itself a function or set of duties, an act is transformed from unacceptable to acceptable. This goes too far for me. How far is too far for you?

[VMI77]

Saw the parents on the news this morning. Word is the TSA states the agent followed the procedures that they are directed to follow and performed the search as such. However, they stated TSA says they need to review their policies and work toward a 'not one size fits all' process for screening.

I think they realize this was not appropriate, but I will bet the agent was just following protocol, even if they didn't think it was the way it should be done.

Is that the same as just following orders? While I sympathize with the sentiment you're expressing here I also think it is often an easy excuse for not doing the right thing. I'm not going to judge the actions of this particular agent because I don't know anything about her situation or circumstances, but over the years I have simply refused to follow orders I considered wrong, including when I was in the military, and I would not follow an order to frisk a child like this.

[jmra]

VMI77 wrote:
Well, you caught my response before I reconsidered and edited it. Still, I don't think your analogy works. For one thing, a doctor can't coerce you into undergoing an exam. We can argue about the degree of coercion, but a search like this is a "coerced" search by any reasonable definition.
Let me try it this way then. My employer required me to take a physical exam before hiring me. This exam involved things I will not go into here. Was I coerced? Did I have to consent? Only if I wanted the job.
For another, a child is incapable of granting consent.
Parent gave consent
Furthermore, doctors don't administer exams at random. If a doctor stopped your wife at the entrance to a hospital and told her she had to consent to an exam I doubt she'd cooperate.
I do not believe you can assume that this was a random search. I bet mom refused the scanner. It was also not done on the street.
A stupid policy does not constitute a "reason" for a search. The Israelis live in far more danger than we do --you think they frisk little six year old Israeli girls like this?
Yes I do believe the Israelis do exactly that. In fact they have been doing it for many years. I saw it with my own eyes in the 80's.

You seem to be saying that if the government does something as a matter of policy, or just defines for itself a function or set of duties, an act is transformed from unacceptable to acceptable.
No, I am saying that what may not be appropriate in one set of circumstances may be appropriate in another set of circumstances.
This goes too far for me. How far is too far for you? reconsidered and edited it. Still, I don't think your analogy works.
Nor do I believe that you can draw the parallel of an airport security guard conducting a search with a perfect stranger stopping a kid on the street and conducting the same act.

[JP171]

believe what you will the last time I was in Tel-Aviv I didn't go thru anything like what I see the TSA doing, but I like others have to go thru security checkpoints sometimes and dislike it. it does nothging other than make some knee jerk facist feel good. there are times I do not have to go thru them, and it doesn't change a thing. and I again say that the people that do the security screenings are poorly trained, not LEO's just the same old renta cops as before and have the same attitude as before by atleast an order of magnatude if not several orders of magnatude.

and something else, when did taking a flight become a privilege granted by the federal government? there is no basis for a passanger flying on a commercial aricraft to be told its a privilege, there are no laws that prohibit poeple with few exceptions from traveling any place in this country as they see fit! I should NOT have to give up my rights to fly on an aircraft that is owned by a private company, the fed has no right to force intrusive screening nor pat downs conducted by untrained renta cops.

[VMI77]

VMI77 wrote:
Well, you caught my response before I reconsidered and edited it. Still, I don't think your analogy works. For one thing, a doctor can't coerce you into undergoing an exam. We can argue about the degree of coercion, but a search like this is a "coerced" search by any reasonable definition.
Let me try it this way then. My employer required me to take a physical exam before hiring me. This exam involved things I will not go into here. Was I coerced? Did I have to consent? Only if I wanted the job.
Apples and oranges. You haven't joined the Brady Bunch have you? I said the search was "coerced." Your employer can't legally coerce you to undergo a physical. If you refuse the physical you won't be charged with a crime, detained, arrested, or tried. The TSA says they can arrest and fine you for refusing a search (http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in ... 1-000-fine)
For another, a child is incapable of granting consent.
Parent gave consent
Under coercion --see above. Coerced consent isn't true consent. Also, the parent was disturbed enough to video it and complain about it on national television.
Furthermore, doctors don't administer exams at random. If a doctor stopped your wife at the entrance to a hospital and told her she had to consent to an exam I doubt she'd cooperate.
I do not believe you can assume that this was a random search. I bet mom refused the scanner. It was also not done on the street.
Again, a coerced search. A Hobson's choice. An exam administered at random on entering a hospital also wouldn't be on the "street." The search is random even if the mother refused the scanner, because the scanner search itself is random: it is not based on probable cause. Finally, the search essentially is "on the street," since it was conducted in full public view. When the TSA starts doing this at shopping malls will you still be making excuses for it?
A stupid policy does not constitute a "reason" for a search. The Israelis live in far more danger than we do --you think they frisk little six year old Israeli girls like this?
Yes I do believe the Israelis do exactly that. In fact they have been doing it for many years. I saw it with my own eyes in the 80's.
Well, I'll have to defer to what you've seen with your own eyes. However, your response is a bit disingenuous, because the Israelis use profiling, so if they did frisk a six year old girl they'd have a reason for it and it wouldn't be random. The Israelis focus on people there is some logical basis to believe are a potential threat. I could be wrong, but for example, I highly doubt they screen their own IDF members the way we screen our military personnel --which in some cases I've read about is a travesty.
You seem to be saying that if the government does something as a matter of policy, or just defines for itself a function or set of duties, an act is transformed from unacceptable to acceptable.
No, I am saying that what may not be appropriate in one set of circumstances may be appropriate in another set of circumstances.
Ok, so you believe frisking six year old girls like this is appropriate, I simply don't.
This goes too far for me. How far is too far for you? reconsidered and edited it. Still, I don't think your analogy works.
Nor do I believe that you can draw the parallel of an airport security guard conducting a search with a perfect stranger stopping a kid on the street and conducting the same act.
I already showed how the definition of "grope" can be applied to such a search without any sexual connotation. Yes, to the extent that someone connects "grope" with touching for sexual purposes, the acts are different. However, not so different in the case of a child as in the case of an adult, since the child has much less of a basis for distinguishing the difference between what touching is and is not appropriate. If a child is conditioned to believe that they can be touched like this by one kind of stranger or adult, another stranger or adult may be able to exploit such conditioning for an evil purpose. Based on this response I assume you're ok with a mall security guard conducting the same kind of search, or a security guard at any public place. After all, a parent may strap a bomb on their six year old in order to kill a bunch of people at the mall, or in a movie theater. I think the notion that Americans are strapping bombs and weapons on their children in order to take down airplanes is absurd. There's certainly no evidence for it. You also may believe this security theater can prevent a terrorist attack: I don't. I see no need to delve into it again here, but just a little thought leads to any number of ways terrorists can carry out attacks that this pretend security will not even detect, much less stop.

[Rebel]

In 2006, my son was 4 at the time. We were flying from Phoenix to L.A., when he was " randomly" selected to be screened. They pulled him aside and searched through his toy backpack then did a complete pat down on him as they did on the young girl in the video. My Wife and I were shocked at what was going on, but unfortunately I was more sheep back then. When it happens it completely throws you for a loop, you don't know what to do. Your afraid to say anything because the next thing you know your whole family is being pulled aside and searched or even arrested, and your just on a family trip, so you comply. For that I have always been angry at myself for not saying anything.

The thing that always added more salt to the wound was that right behind us were 4 20ish Arabic men, speaking in Arabic, that walked right through. Now I know it's completely politically incorrect to think/say that, but if anyone should have been searched, I would have thought they should have more than a 4 year old American boy.

Ever since then I have Very little respect for the TSA or even think they are doing a job of any value, and videos like this only confirm my beliefs.

[VMI77]

Now I know it's completely politically incorrect to think/say that...

Which is one of the giant impediments to dealing with many of the problems facing this country.

[VMI77]

My Wife and I were shocked at what was going on, but unfortunately I was more sheep back then. When it happens it completely throws you for a loop, you don't know what to do. Your afraid to say anything because the next thing you know your whole family is being pulled aside and searched or even arrested, and your just on a family trip, so you comply.

This is good example of how these searches are coerced, and why the contention that they are done with consent is disingenuous.