Don't forget to let the DA know what you think of their decision to prosecute Andrea
Oct 24, 2012, 11:11 am
#1
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 436
Don't forget to let the DA know what you think of their decision to prosecute Andrea
Oct 24, 2012, 12:07 pm
#3
Join Date: Feb 2011
Programs: AA, UA, Marriott Gold
Posts: 349
Oct 24, 2012, 1:28 pm
#4
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: CLT
Programs: Choice Hotels/FFOCUS
Posts: 7,256
Oct 24, 2012, 5:26 pm
#5
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: BOS/ORH
Programs: AS 75K
Posts: 18,323
Comments sent. How is this any different than a witness to an attempted sexual assault making a ruckus? Sure the TSA doesn't equate the grope to a sexual assault but what about to a prudent layperson?
Oct 25, 2012, 7:54 am
#7
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: DTW
Programs: DL 0.22 MM, AA 0.34 MM, PC Plat Amb, Hertz #1 GC 5*
Posts: 7,511
Im going to presume that any jury would be told this... the pax was told what was going to happen, and they agreed to the physical contact, knowing they can stop at any time and leave the airport, and that the TSA claims there was no contact that was not explained and agreed to.
I'm not picking sides here, yet I'm going to presume that is what would be told to the jury.
I'm not picking sides here, yet I'm going to presume that is what would be told to the jury.
Oct 25, 2012, 8:28 am
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,099
Im going to presume that any jury would be told this... the pax was told what was going to happen, and they agreed to the physical contact, knowing they can stop at any time and leave the airport, and that the TSA claims there was no contact that was not explained and agreed to.
I'm not picking sides here, yet I'm going to presume that is what would be told to the jury.
I'm not picking sides here, yet I'm going to presume that is what would be told to the jury.
Nowhere are the screening methods or descriptions of what will be done during screening provided to the public. To prove this point ask a TSA Screener if a Standard TSA pat down requires contact with a person genitals. They will not give a straight answer to that question.
How can anyone agree to something that they do not know?
Oct 25, 2012, 9:09 am
#9
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Im going to presume that any jury would be told this... the pax was told what was going to happen, and they agreed to the physical contact, knowing they can stop at any time and leave the airport, and that the TSA claims there was no contact that was not explained and agreed to.
I'm not picking sides here, yet I'm going to presume that is what would be told to the jury.
I'm not picking sides here, yet I'm going to presume that is what would be told to the jury.
Parents in the US can't legally consent to the sexual molestation of a minor child by an adult, TSA-uniformed or not.
It seems like the TSA belongs to a time and a place where prepubescent children were considered chattel to be given/sold/surrendered for sexual exploitation by adults.
Also, when the TSA is not giving adequate information about what may be part of the screening, the notion of a passenger or others giving informed consent runs into the issue of no such informed consent being given by the passenger and/other TSA subjects at an airport security checkpoint. Informed consent in the absence of being informed is rather a tell in itself.
Last edited by GUWonder; Oct 25, 2012 at 9:18 am
Oct 25, 2012, 11:06 am
#10
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
Hopefully the next parent (or other custodial adult of a child) who finds themselves in a situation like this will have a lawyer who considers such claims and counters them effectively in front of a judge and jury.
Parents in the US can't legally consent to the sexual molestation of a minor child by an adult, TSA-uniformed or not.
It seems like the TSA belongs to a time and a place where prepubescent children were considered chattel to be given/sold/surrendered for sexual exploitation by adults.
Also, when the TSA is not giving adequate information about what may be part of the screening, the notion of a passenger or others giving informed consent runs into the issue of no such informed consent being given by the passenger and/other TSA subjects at an airport security checkpoint. Informed consent in the absence of being informed is rather a tell in itself.
Parents in the US can't legally consent to the sexual molestation of a minor child by an adult, TSA-uniformed or not.
It seems like the TSA belongs to a time and a place where prepubescent children were considered chattel to be given/sold/surrendered for sexual exploitation by adults.
Also, when the TSA is not giving adequate information about what may be part of the screening, the notion of a passenger or others giving informed consent runs into the issue of no such informed consent being given by the passenger and/other TSA subjects at an airport security checkpoint. Informed consent in the absence of being informed is rather a tell in itself.
I wonder if the actual c/p footage was ever played - in its totality - for the jury during the trial? It wouldn't surprise me to learn that it was excluded for some trumped-up reason invented by the prosecutor. But if it was played for the jury... wow, what kind of idiots could watch that footage and construe Andrea's behavior as disorderly or disruptive?
Trial transcripts are boring as all heck, but I'd be interested to read this one. And to hear from the jurrors about how on god's green earth they could convict Andrea Abbott on disorderly conduct charges, especially if they saw the footage.
Oct 25, 2012, 12:49 pm
#11
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
Somehow I doubt that any of those issues were allowed to be brought up during the trial. My guess is that the prosecutor probably stuck to one single, narrow issue - was Andrea Abbott being disorderly? If so, convict, no matter how legitimate the provokation was. Foolish jurrors followed legal instructions, instead of their consiences.
I wonder if the actual c/p footage was ever played - in its totality - for the jury during the trial? It wouldn't surprise me to learn that it was excluded for some trumped-up reason invented by the prosecutor. But if it was played for the jury... wow, what kind of idiots could watch that footage and construe Andrea's behavior as disorderly or disruptive?
Trial transcripts are boring as all heck, but I'd be interested to read this one. And to hear from the jurrors about how on god's green earth they could convict Andrea Abbott on disorderly conduct charges, especially if they saw the footage.
I wonder if the actual c/p footage was ever played - in its totality - for the jury during the trial? It wouldn't surprise me to learn that it was excluded for some trumped-up reason invented by the prosecutor. But if it was played for the jury... wow, what kind of idiots could watch that footage and construe Andrea's behavior as disorderly or disruptive?
Trial transcripts are boring as all heck, but I'd be interested to read this one. And to hear from the jurrors about how on god's green earth they could convict Andrea Abbott on disorderly conduct charges, especially if they saw the footage.
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/19...-pat-down-case
Abbott gets 1 year probation. Jury goes back to sleep.
Oct 28, 2012, 9:57 am
#12
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3
Oct 28, 2012, 2:50 pm
#13
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: MEL, PER, PBO, occasionally ships, oil rigs and other places that no sane human being should ever find themselves
Programs: IHG RA, PC Plat, QF Plat/LTS
Posts: 804
Parents in the US can't legally consent to the sexual molestation of a minor child by an adult, TSA-uniformed or not.
It seems like the TSA belongs to a time and a place where prepubescent children were considered chattel to be given/sold/surrendered for sexual exploitation by adults.
It seems like the TSA belongs to a time and a place where prepubescent children were considered chattel to be given/sold/surrendered for sexual exploitation by adults.
The (American) National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect defines the act as "Contacts or interactions between a child and an adult when the child is being used for sexual stimulation of the perpetrator or another person when the perpetrator or another person is in a position of power or control over the victim."
I fail to see ANY evidence that the screener was intending to touch the person for either of those reasons.
Wrong? Probably. Totally ineffectual from a security standpoint? Absolutely! Child Molestation? Without being able to read the mind of the TSA agent, I highly doubt it.
Oct 28, 2012, 4:09 pm
#15
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,099
While I am not, in any way, condoning the touching of a minor's crotch by anyone other than a medical professional for official medical reasons (IE a gynaecologist) or a parent (in the case of a young child who has not been toilet trained), I seriously question that the term "sexual molestation" is an accurate term as used in this situation. In fact, I find it highly inaccurate, inflammatory and sensational.
The (American) National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect defines the act as "Contacts or interactions between a child and an adult when the child is being used for sexual stimulation of the perpetrator or another person when the perpetrator or another person is in a position of power or control over the victim."
I fail to see ANY evidence that the screener was intending to touch the person for either of those reasons.
Wrong? Probably. Totally ineffectual from a security standpoint? Absolutely! Child Molestation? Without being able to read the mind of the TSA agent, I highly doubt it.
The (American) National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect defines the act as "Contacts or interactions between a child and an adult when the child is being used for sexual stimulation of the perpetrator or another person when the perpetrator or another person is in a position of power or control over the victim."
I fail to see ANY evidence that the screener was intending to touch the person for either of those reasons.
Wrong? Probably. Totally ineffectual from a security standpoint? Absolutely! Child Molestation? Without being able to read the mind of the TSA agent, I highly doubt it.
when the perpetrator or another person is in a position of power or control over the victim."