TSA -- enablers of pussy-grabbers everywhere

[Jolly_Penguin]

It's dad's fault that the child is molested because he has the audacity to bring her to the airport.

Yes, it is, if he forces said child to undergo a patting down that the child objects to and that the father considers inappropriate. The father has the option to not take the flight. Yes, I do blame him for this if it is what he says it is. He is admitting to forcing it on the child. Or are you envisioning the TSA holding them as prisoners and demanding they be patted down before they can leave the airport without getting on the plane?

I did not and do not blame the child for anything. The child is the victim, if what the writer is saying is true, and the father is party to victimizing the child.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's dad's fault that the child is molested because he has the audacity to bring her to the airport.

Yes, it is, if he forces said child to undergo a patting down that the child objects to and that the father considers inappropriate. The father has the option to not take the flight. Yes, I do blame him for this if it is what he says it is. He is admitting to forcing it on the child. Or are you envisioning the TSA holding them as prisoners and demanding they be patted down before they can leave the airport without getting on the plane?

I did not and do not blame the child for anything. The child is the victim, if what the writer is saying is true, and the father is party to victimizing the child.

Reality: They have done exactly that before. People who actually backed out of flying rather than accept a patdown and then it was forced on them anyway.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Reality: They have done exactly that before. People who actually backed out of flying rather than accept a patdown and then it was forced on them anyway.

That's not this case (as written by the writer), but nonetheless interesting. Have you seen case law where people have sued after this?

And if this is common, and the child is known to object to it, then it may excuse the father for their first visit, but not subsequent visits. He's taking her to a bad touch emporium apparently. *shrug*

Not so different at that point than learning her babysitter is fondling her against her will, and yet still leaving her with that babysitter over and over. He'd still be complicit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Reality: They have done exactly that before. People who actually backed out of flying rather than accept a patdown and then it was forced on them anyway.

That's not this case (as written by the writer), but nonetheless interesting. Have you seen case law where people have sued after this?

I haven't heard of a suit. The courts bend over backwards to protect the TSA, though, it's extremely hard to win against them. I've seen some laughable court judgments--things that all but amount to the plantiff is right, the TSA has no basis for it's position. Nevertheless, I'll do nothing about it.

And if this is common, and the child is known to object to it, then it may excuse the father for their first visit, but not subsequent visits. He's taking her to a bad touch emporium apparently. *shrug*

Not so different at that point than learning her babysitter is fondling her against her will, and yet still leaving her with that babysitter over and over. He'd still be complicit.

So you blame the parent rather than the TSA even though it's the TSA that's the one doing the evil?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Not so different at that point than learning her babysitter is fondling her against her will, and yet still leaving her with that babysitter over and over. He'd still be complicit.

So you blame the parent rather than the TSA even though it's the TSA that's the one doing the evil?

I would blame both at that point, just like the babysitter example with the complicit parent. If you knowingly put your child where you expect they will be molested (say with a pedophile priest).... you are at least complicit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not so different at that point than learning her babysitter is fondling her against her will, and yet still leaving her with that babysitter over and over. He'd still be complicit.

So you blame the parent rather than the TSA even though it's the TSA that's the one doing the evil?

I would blame both at that point, just like the babysitter example with the complicit parent. If you knowingly put your child where you expect they will be molested (say with a pedophile priest).... you are at least complicit.

Even when the court orders you to?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I would blame both at that point, just like the babysitter example with the complicit parent. If you knowingly put your child where you expect they will be molested (say with a pedophile priest).... you are at least complicit.

Even when the court orders you to?

The court orders the writer to fly on airplanes?

If so, then not legally complicit no. Morally, still yes. If the court orders me to hand my child to a molester, and I obey, I think I have some moral culpability there. Of course that would also make me a kidnapper at law I suppose