Thread: Don't 'touch my junk'

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

I wonder what he'd say if he had to do a cavity search of Rosie O'Donnell though? George Michael? Helen Thomas?

Its easy to romanticize such a career Nut. How would he deal with it when the going got rough?

Slim is a champion. A winner. With that being said, he'd approach each of those situations as if they were a personal challenge

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

I wonder what he'd say if he had to do a cavity search of Rosie O'Donnell though? George Michael? Helen Thomas?

Its easy to romanticize such a career Nut. How would he deal with it when the going got rough?

Break time!!

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

I wonder what he'd say if he had to do a cavity search of Rosie O'Donnell though? George Michael? Helen Thomas?

Its easy to romanticize such a career Nut. How would he deal with it when the going got rough?

I am at the point in my life where I would not accept a postion other than in managment. Therefore, I could pick and choose which cavities I wish to inspect and leave the rest for someone else.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

I wonder what he'd say if he had to do a cavity search of Rosie O'Donnell though? George Michael? Helen Thomas?

Its easy to romanticize such a career Nut. How would he deal with it when the going got rough?

LMAO....I was thinking the same thing when I read what slim wrote...Helen
Thomas...ewwwwwww...

Originally Posted by UrbanBounca

The airlines own the planes. If you want to fly on them, you follow their rules. It's very simple.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Except this isn't the airlines rules. This is the federal governments rules. It is rediculous and certain to be challenged as a violation of the 4th amendment. This is clear cut government overstepping their power and taking away the rights given to us by the US Constitution.

SAN DIEGO — The Transportation Security Administration has opened an investigation targeting John Tyner, 31, the Oceanside man who was ejected from the San Diego International Airport on Saturday morning after refusing to undertake a full body scan and, subsequently, a pat-down body search.

Tyner recorded the half-hour long encounter on his cell phone and later posted it to his personal blog, along with an extensive account of the incident. That blog and a subsequent story on signonsandiego.com posted Saturday night and gone viral, attracting hundreds of thousands of readers, and thousands of comments.

Michael J. Aguilar, chief of the TSA office in San Diego, called a press conference at the airport Monday afternoon to announce the probe. The investigation could lead to prosecution and “civil penalties” of up to $11,000, he said.

TSA agents told Tyner on Saturday that he could be fined up to $10,000.

“That’s the old fine,” said Aguilar. “It has been increased.”

Penalties for what?

"The requirement for all the passengers is that once they enter the screening area and submit themselves to the screening process, to complete the screening," said Aguilar. "This passenger took exception."

Did Aguilar feel the TSA was set up?

"I don’t know that it was an actual set up," said Aguilar, "but we are concerned that this passenger did have his recording prior to entering the checkpoint so there is some concern that it was an intentional behavior on his part."

Tyner has denied any prior intention. In an interview he said he researched scanners ahead of the trip felt uncomfortable with them. When he saw there were scanners at Lindbergh Field he became uneasy and turned on his cell phone recorder as a precaution.

++++++ ++++++ ++++++

Saturday, Nov. 13, 2010 -- John Tyner won't be pheasant hunting in South Dakota with his father-in-law any time soon.

Tyner was simultaneously thrown out of San Diego International Airport on Saturday morning for refusing to submit to a security check and threatened with a lawsuit and a $10,000 fine if he left.

And he got the whole thing on his cell phone. Well, the audio at least.

(Listen to the audio)

The 31-year-old Oceanside software programmer was supposed to leave from Lindbergh Field on Saturday morning and until a TSA agent directed him toward one of the recently installed full-body scanners, Tyner seemed to be on his way.

Tyner balked.

He'd been reading about the scanners and didn't like them for a number of reasons, ranging from health concerns to "a huge invasion of privacy." He'd even checked the TSA website which indicated that San Diego did not have the machines, he said in a phone interview Saturday night.

"I was surprised to see them," said Tyner.

He also did something that may seem odd to some, manipulative to others but fortuitous to plenty of others for whom Tyner is becoming something of a folk hero: Tyner turned on his cell phone's video camera and placed it atop the luggage he sent through the x-ray machine.

He may not be the first traveler tossed from an airport for security reasons but he could well be the first to have the whole experience captured on his cell phone.

During the next half-hour, his cell phone recorded Tyner refusing to submit to a full body scan, opting for the traditional metal scanner and a basic "pat down" -- and then refusing to submit to a "groin check" by a TSA security guard.

He even told the guard, "You touch my junk and I'm going to have you arrested."

That threat triggered a code red of sorts as TSA agents, supervisors and eventually the local police gravitated to the spot where the reluctant traveler stood in his stocking feet, his cell phone sitting in the nearby bin (which he wasn't allowed to touch) picking up the audio.

According to TSA at the time the controversial body scanners were installed, travelers would have the option to request walking through the traditional metal detector but that option would be accompanied by a "pat down."

Why Tyner was targeted for a secondary pat down is unknown.

Asked if he thought he looked like a terrorist, Tyner said no. "I'm 6-foot-1, white with short brown hair," he said Saturday night.

Was he singled out for "punishment"?

Before Tyner was told he was getting a "groin check," a TSA agent is heard on the recording telling another agent "I had a problem with the passenger I was patting down. So I backed down. He was obnoxious."

Tyner is sure he was talking about someone else. On the whole, with a single final exception, he found the agents "professional if standoffish."

He did marvel that while his own situation was being deliberated, many passengers passed through the metal detector and on to their flights with no pat-down. "One guy even set off the alarm and they sent him through again without a pat-down," he said.

Once he threatened to have the TSA agent arrested though, events turned surreal.

A supervisor is heard re-explaining the groin check process to Tyner then adding "If you're not comfortable with that, we can escort you back out and you don't have to fly today."

Tyner responded "OK, I don't understand how a sexual assault can be made a condition of my flying."

"This is not considered a sexual assault," replied the supervisor, calmly.

"It would be if you were not the government," said Tyner.

"By buying your ticket you gave up a lot of rights," countered the TSA supervisor.

"I think the government took them away after 9/11," said Tyner.

"OK," came the reply.

More senior TSA administrators showed up, and one San Diego police officer. Tyner's personal information was taken down and then he was escorted out of the security area. After he put his shoes back.

His father-in-law, a 40-year retired deputy sheriff, can be heard pleading in the back ground for some common sense.

Tyner went over to the American Airlines counter where an agent, to his amazement, refunded the price of his non-refundable ticket.

Before he could leave, however, he was again surrounded by TSA employees who told him he couldn't leave the security area. One, who kept insisting he was trying to help Tyner, told him that if he left he would be subject to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine.

Tyner asked if the agents who had escorted him from the security area would also be sued and fined.

The same man who told Tyner he would be sued and fined if he left, also insisted that he did not tell him he couldn't leave.

So Tyner left.

Two hours later he wrote the whole experience up on his blog and posted the audio files to YouTube.

You could say it has gone viral.

By Saturday evening, 70,000 people had accessed the entry and 488 comments were posted to the blog item. Those comments are divided over Tyner's experience. "Only 5 percent say I'm an idiot," he said.

Far more applaud him for "standing up" to the security forces. Many more people share his disdain for how airport security is conducted.

"People generally are angry about what is going on," said Tyner, "but they don't know how to assert their rights....there is a general feeling that TSA is ineffective, out of control, over-reaching."

If Tyner has touched some undercurrent of resentment, he doesn't want to be the guy who leads the charge to overturn the machines. "I'm not so sure I'm the right person to start a movement," he said.

If he isn't, he can sound at times like he's auditioning for the job.

Tyner points out that every terrorist act on an airplane has been halted by passengers. "It's time to stop treating passengers like criminals and start treating them as assets," he said.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...sing-security/

This fine thing is ridiculous. I bet he has to fight it in court due to the Government having to always be right.

I can only think of all the smelly fat-ass doublewides out there where you'd probably need a sherpa just to *find* their "junk". And if all the feel-ups were same sex, there's just no way I'd want any part of that job.

Regardless, if the U.S. did a better job of border security and immigration control, this whole Orwellian nightmare would be totally unnecessary. Even if you don't mind having your "junk" searched, your tax dollars are paying for all these scanners and searchers.

El Al (the Israeli airline) does this the right way and they've never had an incident and plenty of terrorists would certainly want to hit them. Oh, but we can't do that because it's racial profiling. Too bad we all pay for political correctness.

This is what the body scans reveal and why many people are pissed.

Nice ass btw...

Is that gun supposed to be up her butt or just hidden in the crack?

I'd be too afraid it would go off in either case. I mean, even with a safety, I just would never want to chance it. Looks like I'd make a bad terrorist.

Originally Posted by Mike

Except this isn't the airlines rules. This is the federal governments rules. It is rediculous and certain to be challenged as a violation of the 4th amendment. This is clear cut government overstepping their power and taking away the rights given to us by the US Constitution.

Even so, the government isn't forcing you to fly. It's simple, if you want to fly, you follow their rules. If not, grab the next train.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Originally Posted by UrbanBounca

Even so, the government isn't forcing you to fly. It's simple, if you want to fly, you follow their rules. If not, grab the next train.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

That argument is crap and doesn't deal with the issue. You dont have to drive, own a gun, or ride a bus. And we wouldn't expect you to go through a strip-search for those either. And what happens when the government wants to enforce these rules for trains? For driving on the roads (you don't have to drive). Tim McVeigh killed hundreds of people by renting a Uhaul. Shouldn't we be concerned about that? Strip search or molestation to rent a Uhaul? Or how about this, let's implement this at sporting events? They are, after all, high profile, target rich environments that are relatively soft in security.

I have no problem with these inspections if probable cause exists. But to subject our US citizens, who have done nothing other than be victims of terrorists, to this garbage in the name of "security" is crap. Especially when there is no evidence that this makes anything any safer than what they were already doing. Because with the inspections they had in place before the strip searchs or molestation, I believe you had a better chance of dying driving a car or riding a bike.

In the meanwhile, what is being done about our borders?

Embed didn't work.

Here is a 3 year old being searched. What do you do when this is your daughter?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzEad...layer_embedded

I wonder what happens if you refuse this as a parent towards your kids or do they only target adults! Iwould definitely go to jail if they tried this on my kids because I doubt I would restrain myself from hitting the TSA agent! Even though they get a background check to get these jobs, who knows what perv or pedafile is patting down or watching behind that screen!! And no i don't trust these people just because it's their jobs!!!

Originally Posted by Mike

That argument is crap and doesn't deal with the issue. You dont have to drive, own a gun, or ride a bus. And we wouldn't expect you to go through a strip-search for those either. And what happens when the government wants to enforce these rules for trains? For driving on the roads (you don't have to drive). Tim McVeigh killed hundreds of people by renting a Uhaul. Shouldn't we be concerned about that? Strip search or molestation to rent a Uhaul? Or how about this, let's implement this at sporting events? They are, after all, high profile, target rich environments that are relatively soft in security.

I have no problem with these inspections if probable cause exists. But to subject our US citizens, who have done nothing other than be victims of terrorists, to this garbage in the name of "security" is crap. Especially when there is no evidence that this makes anything any safer than what they were already doing. Because with the inspections they had in place before the strip searchs or molestation, I believe you had a better chance of dying driving a car or riding a bike.

In the meanwhile, what is being done about our borders?

The airlines are an economic asset; thus screwing with them is likely to cut into their bottom line. Great. Just what we need. It also makes everyday life for Americans just that much more irksome and agravating - and this time with humiliation, too!

The government could also reduce highway fatalities by restricting 18 wheelers to a 15 MPH top speed. Course, that might have some unintended bad economic effects as well, for trucking companies, consumer prices, just maybe.

This is just another case of dipshit bureaucrats doing just what they do - being mindlessly risk-averse and allergic to actual cost-benefit analysis. Throw in a measure of arroganceand imperiousness, and, well, there ya go.