Video SPOKANE WASHINGTON TSA DOING INTRUSIVE PAT-DOWNS AFTER BACKSCANNER

Just watched the video, didn't see any enhanced pat downs being conducted...

 

1:08 the guy gets his thighs rubbed down. At about 1:17 his buttocks.

Whether or not it fits TSA's official definition of an "enhanced" patdown, it's most certainly inappropriate and inexcusable physical contact.

 

No, it's not the enhanced pat down. And sorry, i don't believe it's inappropriate.

 

You don't believe that rubbing the buttocks of a complete stranger is inappropriate?

 

Depends upon context. Doing that to a stranger on the street, yes. In the context shown here, no.

 

So you admit that TSA is taking actions against air travelers that, if done in any other context, would be at least inappropriate if not flat-out sexual assault.

For the record, what exactly about the context makes it appropriate?

 

lmao lmao lmao

Nice try. There are so many jobs that same question can be asked of. And nice job twisting what I said. O should I call it lying??

Please. If you want to debate/argue TSA procedure/policy, you can do better. And even be honest in your argument. Just a thought. Now sorry, I have to go, if you respond again, will have to get back later. But I will be back

 

I'm going to break your argument down into its individual core elements to try to figure out where you and I stand on this.

Yes, but those jobs aren't the focus of this forum. Travel security is.

Now where did I twist what you said? Let's take a look.

And then

This establishes that you, SATTSO, feel that the touching displayed at 1:08 and 1:17 in the video at the top of this thread is, in fact, appropriate. I'll call this Element 1. If you object, please tell me which element garnered your objection.

So, then I asked you if you thought that rubbing the buttocks of strangers was appropriate. Given that a TSO touched the buttocks of a stranger at 1:17 in the video, and Element 1 of the dispute is that you feel that the touching portrayed in the same video is appropriate, I would conclude that this means that you feel that touching the buttocks of a stranger is appropriate. If A=B and B=C then A=C. We'll call this Element 2 - the confirmation that yes, a TSO touched the buttocks of a stranger and yes, SATTSO believes it is appropriate.

I then asked you to confirm this:

You responded with a conditional yes: that it was (not in)appropriate in the context in which it was presented in the video.

We'll call this Element 3 of the dispute - that buttock-touching on strangers is appropriate given that it occurs in the context shown in the video.

I asked you again to confirm:

Granted, the touching in question may not qualify as flat-out sexual assault but I accounted for that with the conditional modifier "if not." The only other variable in this statement would be "any other context." The only contexts in which I can envision such contact NOT qualifying as inappropriate or sexual assault would be:

A. Consensual sexual activity between adults of sound mind

and

B. Frisking/pat-down performed by a sworn Law Enforcement Officer operating with probable cause and/or a warrant.

I'll call this Element 4 - my notion that such contact is only appropriate in the above contexts: A and B.

Element 5 is that you wish to introduce additional contexts to the above list under which the buttock-touching is appropriate. I will leave it to you to specify exactly what those contexts are, so that you may maintain control over how your words are presented (as I'm trying to permit for you to do here by giving you precise, enumerated points on which to agree or disagree).

We've now arrived at my last post - assuming you wish to add to the list of propriety-affecting contexts, there are two questions to be answered:

1. (obviously) What is the context under which you feel that rubbing the buttocks of a stranger is appropriate? Please be explicit, please do not simply say "the context in the video." That leaves too much room for misinterpretation.
2. What are the elements of the context that you believe renders the buttock-rubbing appropriate? What is the reason it's appropriate under that context but not others?

No problem, we all have things to do and the forum isn't going anywhere.

 

the title of the piece did not mention 'enhanced', it did mention intrusive and as usual, an alleged clerk attempts to spin the conversation another way.

The frisk was definitely intrusive.

 

Did you even watch the video? Did you wear your glasses? It clearly has the word "enhanced" on there. Great try at spin yourself, but it failed.

 

Context matters.

Remove the patting down of the buttock, and imagine patting down someones arm, or upper back. If a stranger came out of no where and did that to me on a street corner, for example, there would be a problem. At a checkpoint, I know that a pat down is a possibility, so no problem, if that person is a screener, AND I am in the process of being screened. In other words, it is in part expected as potentially happening. And if you think that not even arms or upper back should be patted down if the need exist, lets end our conversation right here.

You asked a loaded question, and you know you did, and in doing that and then trying to cover it up is where you were dishonest. You simply said, "You don't believe rubbing down the buttocks of a complete stranger is inappropriate?", and when I read that, do you know what imagine came into my head? Someone doing that to a stranger they have never met on a sidewalk somewhere. You DIDN'T put it in context - and you darn well know it....

Don't even try to tell my that crap that the purpose of this site is about security - I have been on FT long enough to know the conversations often takes on a much broader tone than that - and it WILL happen here, too. To suggest only airport security is discussed here, thus, that is the only thing thing you question could have been about is also dishonest of you.

You asked a loaded question that if I had simply answered "yes" or "no", and not the "context" which I said, and which you didn't really like, would have set me up for your attack. If I said "yes", then you would say how is it allowed at at TSA checkpoint? If I said "no" then you would ask how could I think it should be allowed to randomly touch people on the buttock on the street waiting for the bus, or some such thing.

Sorry, my answer is context, because that is a vital point of consideration for that question.

When your ready to be honest, lets talk. I'll wait. And if you can't, I'll understand.

 

So you are saying that the context in which it is appropriate is that of a security screening, correct?

What aspect(s) of security screening makes it appropriate?

 

no I did not watch it, I never said I had. I commented on the TITLE of the thread and clip. The word enhanced did not appear in the thread title or clip title.

Had you had better reading comprehension skills and perhaps your own glasses, you may have noticed that.

But that would interfere with your ignorant, arrogant attitude, wouldn't it sweetie?

 

Are you slow? Have you hit your head recently?

I said it wasn't the enhanced pat down. The caption in the video says it's an enhanced pat down. I didnt mention the title. If you didn't watch the video, no wonder you would make such a stupid comment.

Please show menwhere I said title anywhere. Thanks love.

 

Petal, I said darling, I said love - you really need to take a pill.

My comments (if you had actually READ them) talked about the TITLE (that is the thing at the top of the page and the top of the youtube clip) that mentioned INTRUSIVE. I agree that all TSA frisks are INTRUSIVE.

Whether they are what you choose to call 'enhanced' or just plain 'normal' exists somewhere in your own reality. One I care not a jot for.

Just that good old ignorance and arrogance oozing it's way out again for all to see. That's why everybody loves the TSA.

Pookiepoo....

 

lmao

Let's start over.

What was wrong with me writing it was not the enhanced pat down? How is this "spin"?

 

commencing a debate about whether the frisk was enhanced or not is a patently obvious attempt to deflect from the discussion of intrusion.

To deflect from the original discussion to avoid the harsh and unpleasant reality of grubby intrusive frisks is spin.

 

Are you really saying I can't comment on what is in the video? That if I do it's somehow "spin"? Even if the printed words in the video say it's the enhanced pat down?

Add: you said you have not watched the video, I hope that is not true. If so, your just being silly.

You do understand that the VIDEO makes the claim its the enhanced pat down. I didn't bring up the topic first, the video did. And your saying I can't comment about it for some reason....

Please please please explain to me why I can't comment on what the video claims?

 

Enhanced pat down or not, what, exactly, is reasonable about a law enforcement style search, of any kind, on a populace protected from unreasonable search and seizure?

I've started but rubbing TSO's on escalators leading into airports, after all it's a heightened security environment. I've started cooing, "pretty hair" to female A.S.S. just as was "proper procedure" at MSY. Soon I'm going to start sticking my fingers into their waistbands. After all, I need to know that the people around me, in a crowded airport environment aren't a threat. So far, they really don't like it. Why is it different?