"You touch my junk and I'll have you arrested"

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

By Robert J. Hawkins
Originally published November 14, 2010 at 12:07 a.m., updated November 14, 2010 at 2:06 p.m.


Correction:


The following e-mail is from John Tyner:


I thought this characterization:

"I'm 6-foot-1, white with short brown hair," he said Saturday night. "I don't look like a terrorist."

of our conversation was really unfair. You asked me if I looked like a terrorist and then what I looked like, in a joking manner. I'm not sure that I ever uttered the words, "I don't look like a terrorist". And the context of our conversation was never such that I meant to imply that I shouldn't have been singled out because I'm white.

I would appreciate a correction to the story.

In reviewing my notes, Tyner is correct. I asked him if he looked like a terrorist and he said he did not. He then gave me the description of himself, at my request.


At no time did he raise the issues of appearance or profiling, and it was not my intention to suggest that he did.


The text of the story has been changed to reflect this. I apologize for misrepresenting John Tyner's end of the conversation.


-- Bob Hawkins




SAN DIEGO — 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 civil suit and $10,000 fine if he left.


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

It is the invariable habit of bureaucracies, at all times and everywhere, to assume…that every citizen is a criminal. Their one apparent purpose, pursued with a relentless and furious diligence, is to convert the assumption into a fact. They hunt endlessly for proofs, and, when proofs are lacking, for mere suspicions. The moment they become aware of a definite citizen, John Doe, seeking what is his right under the law, they begin searching feverishly for an excuse for withholding it from him.

H.L. Mencken
 
I have to admit to a certain equivocation regarding this incident. I am ALWAYS opposed to bureaucracy, but it is incontrovertible that there is no RIGHT to fly. We fly by private contract, and the airlines---and therefore, in this case, the government---can attach any conditions they deem fit.

(The only 'right to fly' one has is if it's done by flapping arms!)

KS
 
I have to admit to a certain equivocation regarding this incident. I am ALWAYS opposed to bureaucracy, but it is incontrovertible that there is no RIGHT to fly. We fly by private contract, and the airlines---and therefore, in this case, the government---can attach any conditions they deem fit.

(The only 'right to fly' one has is if it's done by flapping arms!)

KS
That argument would hold more weight if the so-called 'security procedures' installed by the TSA ACTUALLY WORKED rather than being no more than just silly kabuki theater.
 
now i cannot agree with people getting groped to get on a plane, i dont see what the big deal with the full body scan is. i understand that nowadays people are increasingly worrying about their rights but if we would have had this security before 9/11, it may have never even happened. i have mixed feelings about all of this, all of the elderly people and children being searched is crazy. welcome to communist america people. maybe we need someone to save us from ourselves?
 
now i cannot agree with people getting groped to get on a plane, i dont see what the big deal with the full body scan is. i understand that nowadays people are increasingly worrying about their rights but if we would have had this security before 9/11, it may have never even happened. i have mixed feelings about all of this, all of the elderly people and children being searched is crazy. welcome to communist america people. maybe we need someone to save us from ourselves?
Many people care more about their modesty than you do. Should their rights be trampled because you don't think it's such a big deal?

Do you know how many times TSA has failed to stop a terror attack? Are you familiar with the 'underwear bomber?' What happens when terrorists start shoving explosives up their butts? Will we have to be subjected to anal exams to get on a plane?
 
I think it's part of the procedure/risk for flying. it's too bad that a few VERY bad apples had to ruin it for the rest of us, but that's the world for you.
 
He first refused a full body scan, then turned his cell phone on for the confrontation he knew was on the way.

He knew what he was doing, and was looking for it.
You want to fly, take the scan. EZ
They can scan my butthole if it makes the plane safer.
 
If they scanned my butthole, I would be sure to fart violently while they were back there.
 
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.

Benjamin Franklin

This is one of the reasons I don't fly commercially anymore. The TSA "security" checks are just getting a wee bit too ridiculous.

I remember flying commercially pre 9/11, when I had to show the high school drop out TSA idiots that my cell phone was an actual cell phone. That my laptop was an actual laptop, by powering up electronic devices.

Now, they put the stuff through an X-Ray scanner. Whoopteedoo.

Hell, I had a TSA guy inspect my coat a couple of years ago in the "random security check" (little tidbit, if you fly one way, you WILL get pulled in for a "random check"), and AFTER the coat went through the xray scanner, he missed:

One Butane lighter (this was before you could carry them on board again).
Two armor piercing bullets. TWO LIVE BULLETS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How in hell do you miss such a thing???????

All three items were in the inner left hand breast pocket.

I know I felt sooo much safer that day... not.
 
I found one of you Pete.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ0anQcyck2Ih98CnHd3x2INArdQ4e3biqTYNuqJ9SdxLQ93dUY.png
 
Actually, the full Franklin quote is a little different...

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

That link makes some good points about the quote.

The omission of those key qualifiers–”essential” and “little”– makes all the difference in the world. Ben Franklin has been hijacked to endorse an untenable and deadly view that no sacrifice of any liberty for any amount of safety at any time should ever be made.​
 
Either way, where do we stop calling it "essential", then?

Good question.

I would say, personally, that these body scans cross the line.

There is a definite trade off that has to be understood and (more importantly) accepted as a reality. The Framers understood that in times of war or violent uprising, some liberties had to be necessarily traded off temporarily.

However, the permanent trading off of liberty in the name of some abstract notion of "economic" or "social" security (which is what the welfare state, regulation of the private sector, attempts at single-payer health care, etc. all aim to do) would fall into what Franklin was talking about.
 
Nobody's saying this:

It's morally wrong to subject people to violations of their privacy for the sake of political correctness. Isn't that what this is about? Random screenings and patdowns of grandma don't really stop terror, after all. But our fear of being sued by the Flying Imams has paralyzed us into doing stupid, ineffective things in an effort to fool the sheeple of this country into believing they are safer. The reality is that these scans don't do squat. The Israelis have a better system and nobody's junk is being cupped or boobs being scanned.
 
multicultural political correctness can be lethal in this instance.
 
Airport security staff forces a woman to expose her breasts

Amarillo : TX : USA | Nov 17, 2010
By prabirghose


3 0



Views: 210




1 of 4

66777465-security-officer.jpg

A security officer searches a passenger at Sanaa International Airport


The airport staff at Amarillo airport forced the top of a 23-year old woman down exposing her breasts to public view. She had been singled out for 'extended search procedures' for whatever reasons. As she stood exposed to public gaze, the staff joked about her features and she has sued the Transportation Security Administration TSA for the embarrassment and the mental torture that she had to undergo. The incident pertains to the May 2008 period.
Strict checks at airports is the need of the hour because of the imminent terrorist threats on any flight but, when the checks violate the privacy of a woman, it has to be condemned. This case reeks of unhealthy intentions on the part of the security staff.
Controversies have already arisen over the full body scanners installed at airports - it is for those in-charge of airport securty to evolve suitable methods that do not invade the privacy of individuals and are clean and acceptable to one and all.
 
As the U.S. government retaliates against an American for refusing to allow airport security to grope his genitals, the nation’s Homeland Security secretary considers waving the intrusive “pat-downs” for Muslim women who consider them offensive.

The demand came last week from the politically-connected Muslim rights organization that serves as the U.S. front for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Calling the searches “invasive” and “humiliating,” the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) advises Muslim women wearing religious head covers known as hijabs to reject full-body checks before boarding planes.

Those who are selected for the secondary screenings should remind Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers that they are only supposed to pat down the head and neck and that they should not subject Muslim women to a full-body or partial body pat-down, according to CAIR’s advisory. It further says that, instead of a body search, Muslim women can request to check their own hijab and have officers perform a chemical swipe of their hands.

While Americans are forced to deal with the degrading searches, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is actually considering exempting Muslims as per CAIR’s demands. Madame Secretary confirmed this week that there will be “adjustments” and “more to come” on the issue of Muslim women in hijabs undergoing airport security pat-downs.

In the meantime her agency is targeting a San Diego man who received worldwide media coverage for refusing to let a TSA agent conduct a thorough body search that he felt amounted to a “sexual assault.” Referring to his genitals, the man told the TSA officer; “you touch my junk and I'm going to have you arrested.”

The head of TSA in San Diego called a press conference this week to announce that the agency has launched an investigation into the 31-year-old software programmer who was not allowed to board the plane. The feds plan to prosecute and fine him thousands of dollars for making them look bad. Actually, the official charge is leaving the airport’s security area without permission, which is prohibited to prevent terrorism.

Speaking of, TSA’s lapses over the years have certainly left the country vulnerable to another terrorist attack. The agency in charge of securing the nation’s transportation system has approved background checks for illegal immigrants working in sensitive areas of a busy U.S. airport and has failed miserably to ensure the security of tens of thousands of cargo packages transported daily in the bellies of passenger planes.

Just last week a Massachusetts news station revealed that TSA cleared dozens of illegal immigrants to train as pilots in the U.S., despite “strict security controls” implemented after 9/11. Some of the illegal immigrants provided the station with official TSA documents approving pilot lessons through the agency’s alien flight student program. After the story broke, Homeland Security officials promised to “review the process” for clearing foreign nationals to become licensed pilots.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/nov/napolitano-may-exempt-muslims-airport-pat-downs


So if any one wants to blow up a airplane in the near future just remember your hijab.
 
Like I said before, if one doesn't like the procedures, find another means of transportation. To exempt all Muslims from this is the most assinine idea I've heard of regarding plane security. Racism at it's finest.
 
Like I said before, if one doesn't like the procedures, find another means of transportation. To exempt all Muslims from this is the most assinine idea I've heard of regarding plane security. Racism at it's finest.
Or, the government could use better procedures that don't violate people's privacy while at the same time being completely ineffective and reactionary. Why is it that the people of this country ALWAYS have to bend to the will of the government and its whims? Aren't we supposed to govern ourselves?
 
you forget Foss, the liberal nannies must make our decisions for us, because left to make our own decisions would be disastrous.
 
Yeah I'm always forgetting that. But thankfully I have the liberal squishes here to remind me.
 
This is a statement that will need elaboration, but I'm not going to have the ability right now- but I'd sooner let EVERYONE legally carry their hand guns on the plane than this ridiculous, ineffective, invasion.

I do not like how we, as a society, keep looking towards Washington to provide us our personal security. We are becoming dependent upon them. No one is going to hijack a plane if everyone on board were responsible for their own safety.

We're actually safer and more independent when we have less "protection" from D.C.

In addition, PRIVATE SECURITY OFFICERS, not more government.
We have scores of guys coming out of the service with security clearances.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top