TSA pays out just $2k to Texas woman whose breasts were exposed during patdown

Originally posted by WatchRider
reply to post by VictorVonDoom

 

Can't the citizens speak for themselves?
As far as I know the lawyers only came along when people got lazy and all the bs statutes came along thus requiring an 'interpreter' such as a lawyer.

My point there was that in Shakespear's play the "lawyers" were the good guys. The bad guys wanted to eliminate the lawyers first before they usurped the existing government. So when someone says, "Like Shakespear said, 'The first thing we must do is kill all the lawyers ...'" what they are actually saying is "Before we overthrow the government, we must eliminate anyone who would point out that what we are doing is illegal."

But then, most people are unaware of the context of that line from Shakespear's play, so everyone interprets it as "Lawyers are scum and should be treated as such." So I guess it's OK. Both the speaker and the listener get the same idea, and that's what communication is all about. Like I said, just a pet peeve of mine. A variation of Grammar Nazism. Not important at all.

Originally posted by Morningglory
reply to post by boncho

 

I get what you're saying but I don't think she's completely to blame.

The moral crusade aspect goes right out the window as soon as money grubbing lawyers come on the scene. Their main concern is acquiring payment for services. If moral issues are resolved it's often a byproduct of the suit not the intent. Unfortunately our legal system is about money not morality.

I would say her lawyers were probably pretty disappointed with the award. I wonder how many similar clients they will represent in the future. The purpose of high awards isn't solely about compensating/enriching the injured/lawyers, moral or not, awards serve to deter/punish offenders.

There are other ways to take a stand than using lawyers. There are protests, there are sit ins.

In a recent case there has been a large spell of "slut walk" protests. This case I think would have been more deserving of a protest than what started the "slut walks".

Women protesting > walking around the airport with parkas going through security, or how about walking around with airbrushed breasts on a t-shirt.

The shirt could say "Want to see my boobs? Here they are!"

"Oh, you think the shirt is obscene? Too bad! That's what the TSA wants to see..."



Point being, when you accept money from a lawyer, you're accepting hush money. That's it. (nothing wrong with it if that's what you want....)


So spare me the morals of it all...

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
My point was that there are some things people just shouldn't do for money. If you kill people for money, you are an assasin. If you have sex for money, you are a prostitute. If you lie for money, you're still a liar. If you steal for money, you are a thief. If someone has the excuse that they have to put their hands down the pants of a crying six year old because they need the money, I just have no sympathy for them. You couldn't pay me enough. Add to that the fact that what they are doing is patently unconstitutional, that makes them traitors to the American republic as well.

I figure that screening is the price you pay to fly these days. I also figure that abuse at the hands of the TSA is an aberration, and by all means jump on it. But because I smuggle 68 radioactive titanium steel pellets wherever I go, I have to get the full pat-down when I fly. I also figure that if you don't want to be screened, you have the option not to fly. As is, I get nothing but professionalism and courtesy. Were I to get jerked around, I'd scream about it.

Kudos to you for squawking about the Patriot Act, and you might want to start writing letters, instead. Each letter, email and phone call has a 'weight' as to how many constituents' opinions it represents...letters are the highest attention getter.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
I figure that screening is the price you pay to fly these days. I also figure that abuse at the hands of the TSA is an aberration, and by all means jump on it. But because I smuggle 68 radioactive titanium steel pellets wherever I go, I have to get the full pat-down when I fly. I also figure that if you don't want to be screened, you have the option not to fly. As is, I get nothing but professionalism and courtesy. Were I to get jerked around, I'd scream about it.

That's why I figure it's just a cultural difference of opinion that we are having. I figure the price I pay for flying is the amount of money I spent on the ticket, and having to sit next to the single mom with the twin two-year-olds and crying baby. What the TSA is doing is an aberation, according to the law of the land. No matter how kind, polite, and professional they are being about it, it's still un-American. Or should be, anyway. We (Americans) should be screaming about this loudly and often. Even if we had none of the horror stories that have come out since this began, it would only be a matter of time. Anyone who has been paying attention these days knows that we can't count on the government to police itself. TSA agents who blatantly violate federal law, and even TSA policies, will not be held to account. Even if they are, it will be in the form of using taxpayer money to pay off victims. As bad as things are now, things will get worse if we can't stop this here and now.

I remember reading somewhere that when the Federal Income Tax was being debated in the Senate in the early 1900's, there was a senator who spoke out against it. He feared that one day, the maximum tax rate might go as high as 3%. Back then, he was considered an alarmist. Today, a maximum tax rate of 3% would be wishful thinking.

I guarantee, if these illegal searches are allowed to continue, in less than 60 years we will have police officers roaming the streets groping teenage girls at random. Of course, we probably have that now, but in 60 years it will be considered perfectly legal, normal, and expected.

Johnny, I was in Nova Scotia back in the early '80's. I must say, beautiful country, wonderful people, you guys got the whole package up there (except for the cold ) Still, I must confess that, like too many Americans, I am woefully ignorant of your system of government. But here in the US, we are ruled not by the President, or Congress, or the Supreme Court, but by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. No government official, not even the President, has the legal authority to violate the 4th Amendment. If you want to search somebody, you get probable cause, you make your case to a judge, and you get a warrant. That's the way it's supposed to work here. If our leaders can't do their job within the confines of the Constitution, then they should step aside and make room for someone who can.

Sorry about the rant. Some topics just get me a little worked up.

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
If you want to search somebody, you get probable cause, you make your case to a judge, and you get a warrant. That's the way it's supposed to work here.

So do you submit to a bottle check at a football game or a concert? I figure it's the same deal...if you decline the search, then you are politely given the opportunity to pass on the event.

I know things are getting ridiculous down there...I was in NOLA at Thanksgiving (yours, not ours) and my wife had her purse perfunctorily searched before we boarded a Mississippi riverboat for a jazz dinner cruise. Coast Guard regulations. Good thing we left the suitcase nuke back at the hotel. Personally, that's getting a lot closer to the line than with the airport inspections. Mind you, I also had a 'waiter's friend' confiscated from my carry-on at the St. John's Newfoundland airport...but they felt real bad about it, eh?

We live in strange times, but if the government hears no complaints...they grab just a little more liberty as democracy can be inconvenient to 'stable' government.