The TSA says the full-body scanners at airports are perfectly safe, but scientists are doubting the tests.
Read the story here.
"Scientists Cast Doubt on TSA Tests of Full-Body Scanners"
May 15, 2011
Indiana Supreme Court Makes Resisting Illegal Police Entry a Crime
The Indiana Supreme Court has decided that people have no right to resist police officers who attempt to enter their private homes illegally. This is a major blow to the Fourth Amendment.
Read about it here.
"Court: No Right to Resist Illegal Cop Entry into Home"
Read about it here.
"Court: No Right to Resist Illegal Cop Entry into Home"
May 10, 2011
Federal Government Forcing Chips in Cell Phones
Congress approved the Warning Alert and Response Network Act in 2006. This act legally requires that, beginning in 2012, all new cell phones sold in the United States must be equipped to receive alerts from the federal government. This involves incorporating a special microchip and software to be included in the phone.
The equipped phones will receive disaster warnings, Amber alerts, and messages from the President of the United States. Consumers are supposed to be allowed to opt out of the disaster warnings and Amber alerts, but they will not be allowed to opt out of messages issued by the President.
So, here is what is happening. The federal government is requiring cell phone makers to include extra equipment and software on your privately purchased cell phone. Private companies are being forced to add additional features to their products, and they will pass those costs on to you. You, as a consumer, will have no choice about having the extra equipment on your cell phone, which is your private property.
Here is the worse part. Since you cannot opt out of receiving messages from the President, you will be forced to receive messages from the President, whenever the President wishes to send a message to your phone. It does not matter if you want the messages or not, they will come to your phone if it has the chip.
The creepiest part is that the federal government is mandating cell phone features. The long-term potential for abuse is tremendous. Just imagine what sorts of things can happen when your government gains control over your private communication devices.
The equipped phones will receive disaster warnings, Amber alerts, and messages from the President of the United States. Consumers are supposed to be allowed to opt out of the disaster warnings and Amber alerts, but they will not be allowed to opt out of messages issued by the President.
So, here is what is happening. The federal government is requiring cell phone makers to include extra equipment and software on your privately purchased cell phone. Private companies are being forced to add additional features to their products, and they will pass those costs on to you. You, as a consumer, will have no choice about having the extra equipment on your cell phone, which is your private property.
Here is the worse part. Since you cannot opt out of receiving messages from the President, you will be forced to receive messages from the President, whenever the President wishes to send a message to your phone. It does not matter if you want the messages or not, they will come to your phone if it has the chip.
The creepiest part is that the federal government is mandating cell phone features. The long-term potential for abuse is tremendous. Just imagine what sorts of things can happen when your government gains control over your private communication devices.
TSA Pat-Down on Baby
 |
| TSA Performing Pat-Down on Baby |
You may sleep well tonight knowing the TSA is doing all it can to protect you from the terrifying surge of baby bombs. Some of us have read about the horrible practice of babies being used in exploding booby traps during the Vietnam War to injure American soldiers, so we cannot be too careful, right? What will happen if an al-Qaeda operative finds a book in a library and gets inspired to hide a bomb in a baby's diaper? Apparently, that is a tremendous threat, so the TSA is feeling up the babies now.
Take a long hard look at this photo. This is what it looks like when freedom begins to die.
April 30, 2011
Don't Mess with Texas' Junk - TSA Pat-Downs Could Be Criminalized
Texas State Representative David Simpson is sponsoring a bill in Texas (HB 1937) that would make it a felony for a security officer who grants access to public buildings and public transportation to touch a person's anus, sex organ, or breasts (under or over clothes) without probable cause. The bill also criminalizes any touching by a security guard that would be offensive to a reasonable person. This could effectively end the intrusive portions of TSA pat-downs in Texas.
Also, Rep. David Simpson is sponsoring HB 1938, which would outlaw full-body scanners in Texas. This legislation would impose fines of up to $1,000 per day on those who operate scanner that allow government workers to look at people's virtually naked bodies.
Finally, a politician is standing up for the basic human dignity of innocent people. Is it any wonder that Texas is the pioneer in this effort?
All of the sissies out there are going to start peeing down their legs and crying, "Oh, no! The terrorists are going to find out about this lapse in security and flood into the Texas airports. They are going to be hijacking planes out of Texas every week!"
If you have ever met a Texan, the last thing you would think to do is hijack a plane full of them. Texans are tough people and will not sit passively in their seats while someone tries to bring down their plane. If you ever visit Texas, you will learn that "Don't Mess with Texas" is not just a motto. It is a way of life.
 |
| Texas Flag |
Texas State Representative David Simpson is sponsoring a bill in Texas (HB 1937) that would make it a felony for a security officer who grants access to public buildings and public transportation to touch a person's anus, sex organ, or breasts (under or over clothes) without probable cause. The bill also criminalizes any touching by a security guard that would be offensive to a reasonable person. This could effectively end the intrusive portions of TSA pat-downs in Texas.
Also, Rep. David Simpson is sponsoring HB 1938, which would outlaw full-body scanners in Texas. This legislation would impose fines of up to $1,000 per day on those who operate scanner that allow government workers to look at people's virtually naked bodies.
Finally, a politician is standing up for the basic human dignity of innocent people. Is it any wonder that Texas is the pioneer in this effort?
All of the sissies out there are going to start peeing down their legs and crying, "Oh, no! The terrorists are going to find out about this lapse in security and flood into the Texas airports. They are going to be hijacking planes out of Texas every week!"
If you have ever met a Texan, the last thing you would think to do is hijack a plane full of them. Texans are tough people and will not sit passively in their seats while someone tries to bring down their plane. If you ever visit Texas, you will learn that "Don't Mess with Texas" is not just a motto. It is a way of life.
April 29, 2011
Gay TSA Screeners and Same-Gender Pat-Downs: A Touch of Confusion
TSA Pink Triangle Badge
The Transportation Security Administration proudly proclaims there is nothing sexual about their pat-downs, which happen to include significant contact with breasts, butts, inner thighs, and sometimes even genitals. The TSA claims to ensure the intrusive pat-downs are completely platonic by matching up the passengers with screeners of the same gender. This begs the question: What does the TSA do about the homosexual TSA screeners?
There are plenty of homosexual members of American society. They have jobs in every industry. Clearly homosexual people work for the government, and it just seems obvious that there must be some homosexual people working for the TSA. Are these homosexual TSA employees allowed to conduct pat-downs on airline passengers?
This is a legitimate question, because the TSA pat-downs do involve intimate contact. In fact, the contact during these pat-downs is so intimate that TSA screeners should be (and may be at some point in the future) tried for sexual assault. We have federal employees fondling people's genitals in airports all over the country right now. In almost any other situation, if one person fondles another person's genitals in an unwelcome fashion, the offender will get arrested.
The TSA seems to think it is important to gender-match passengers and the TSA screeners conducting the pat-downs; therefore, the TSA must see the obvious potential for a pat-down turning into a sexually charged encounter. Certainly, we can all see the potential problem with a heterosexual man patting down an attractive woman. Allowing a heterosexual man to rub his hands all over the breasts and crotch of a woman may very well take on an unwanted sexual element. The man may abuse the opportunity to get in a little extra touching for his own sexual gratification, and the woman will be left feeling understandably violated. This could also apply if a straight woman were to pat-down a male passenger.
Since the TSA seems to understand the pat-downs could become sexually charged, how is the TSA handling the issue of homosexual TSA screeners and homosexual airline passengers? If the pat-downs are too sexual for straight men to pat-down heterosexual women and vice versa, then the pat-downs must also be too sexual for other combinations where sexual tensions and attractions could exist. Here are a few examples.
- a heterosexual man pats down a gay man
- a gay man pats down a heterosexual man
- a gay man pats down a gay man
- a heterosexual woman pats down a lesbian
- a lesbian pats down a heterosexual woman
- a lesbian pats down a lesbian
In all of these scenarios, at least one person could be made to feel uncomfortable. In the scenarios where the TSA screener could potentially be sexually attracted to the passenger, there is a clear opportunity for sexual violations. What is the TSA doing to protect the employees and passengers from this?
It would not be fair to bar homosexuals from being TSA screeners; however, there are few scenarios where a homosexual TSA screener can conduct a pat-down on a passenger without creating some sort of potential for trouble. If a gay man pats down a heterosexual man, the heterosexual man may get violated. If a gay man pats down a gay passenger, the gay passenger may get violated. If a gay man pats-down a heterosexual woman, the woman may feel uncomfortable being touched by a man. It works the same way in reverse with lesbian TSA screeners.
Homosexuals cannot conduct pat-downs without upsetting just about every group of people. The only scenario that might work is to restrict gay men to conducting pat-downs on lesbian passengers. Perhaps the lesbian passengers could identify themselves as homosexuals and request gay male TSA screeners for their pat-downs. That way everything can remain platonic. Conversely, maybe the lesbian TSA screeners could be restricted to conducting pat-downs on only gay men who wish to declare their sexual orientation to the TSA. Maybe, to keep the confusion to a minimum, all of the homosexuals could wear inverted pink triangles on their shirts. That way, the screeners and the passengers could find an even greater sense of security in knowing the sexual orientation of everyone passing through the TSA checkpoints. Hopefully, by now, you are seeing how ridiculous this is.
If things are not ridiculous enough for you yet, ask yourself how the TSA should be handling transgender employees and transgender airline passengers. The issue gets even crazier when you consider that some TSA screeners and airline passengers may not be clearly classified as either male or female. Some people are going through gender changes that take years. Other people were born hermaphrodites and have no choice. Should people who are not obviously one gender or another be expected to choose a gender when approached by the TSA at an airport? This gender-bending stuff is going to get way too confusing, so let's just skip this and get back to the main issue: how the TSA addresses the concerns of homosexual screeners and passengers.
A fact of life is that some men are attracted to other men, and some women are attracted to other women. We cannot expect the homosexual men and women who work for the TSA to officially declare their sexuality and recuse themselves from same-gender pat-downs. We also cannot expect homosexual passengers to declare their sexuality to the TSA to avoid same-gender pat-downs.
By now, hopefully the absurdity of this article has exposed the true problem. The problem here is not gender or sexual orientation. The problem is the pat-downs. The pat-downs are far too intrusive, and they are violating common human dignity. The questions should not be about whether or not the TSA screeners might find the pat-downs sexually gratifying or whether or not the passengers might find the pat-downs to be sexual. The question should be this: Should government workers be permitted to stick their hands in the sexually sensitive areas of innocent people's bodies without probable cause?
People are straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, etc. People just have different lifestyles. Even though these groups all have their differences, they are human beings and deserve basic human dignities. When a law-abiding citizen goes to the airport, that person deserves the respect of not being treated like a criminal. At the very least, people should be able to travel freely in America without the overwhelming fear of being molested by a government employee.
April 28, 2011
Miss USA, Susie Castillo, Sexually Molested by TSA Screener
Susie Castillo - Miss USA 2003
The latest addition to an ever-growing list of people sexually molested by the Transportation Security Administration happens to be a celebrity. Susie Castillo, Miss USA 2003, recently went through a TSA pat-down in the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, and a TSA screener touched her breasts, butt, and thighs. She even touched Castillo's genital area four times. Susie Castillo is an incredibly attractive Latina woman, so the TSA screener probably got a little too excited by Castillo's exotic attractiveness and decided to get a nice feel of the beauty queen's vagina.
People are going to come to the TSA's defense and say a woman conducted the pat-down, so there could not have been anything sexual about the touching. Do these people honestly believe that none of the female TSA screeners are lesbian or bisexual? There are plenty of lesbian and bisexual women in other careers, why would there not be at least a small percentage working for the TSA? It is just a fact of life that some women are sexually attracted to other women. Even more women are sexually attracted to unusually gorgeous women.
Who is to say, this TSA agent did not abuse her power to grope Susie Castillo? Susie Castillo says her vagina was touched by this TSA agent, and the TSA seems to be encouraging this sort of touching. Susie Castillo's story is very believable. She plans to file a complaint with the TSA.
Castillo should not expect too much to come of her complaint, however. If she was molested by the TSA screener (and she probably was), Castillo needs to contact the local police, have the TSA screener arrested, and see that she is brought up on charges for sexual assault.
When you grab a woman's vagina against her wishes, that is sexual assault, right? The laws have not changed, have they? Just because a person is wearing a federal uniform, this does not mean they automatically get to go around grabbing vaginas all day. Hmm, well, actually that is the case right now, but that doesn't mean it is right. If a woman does not want someone touching her vagina, nobody should touch it. Is that such a difficult concept? Even if this sort of molestation is making people feel a little safer, we cannot live in a society where the federal government can just start rubbing people's crotches whenever there might be some sort of security threat.
Susie Castillo is understandably quite upset about this experience. Read more about it on her blog.
April 25, 2011
How to Record Video of Abusive Police Without Getting Caught (So Easily)
With the growing prevalence of camcorders and cell phone video recorders, more civilians are shooting amateur video of police, and more police are getting into trouble for brutality, breeches of policy, illegal activity, excessive violence, unjustified use of weapons, intimidation, etc. Of course, law enforcement officers are getting increasingly sensitive about having their bad behavior captured on video, and they sometimes abuse their power to stop people from shooting video of police activity. Sometimes, police may seize cameras, intimidate camera operators, and even use physical violence to stop the video recordings.
Here is the deal. Generally, if police activity is going on in a public place and you are not interfering with that activity, the First Amendment gives you the right to capture that activity on video. Police can ask you to turn off your camera, but you generally do not have to turn off the camera if you prefer to continue recording. Also, provided you are not hindering an investigation, a policeman may not seize your camera.
Now, just because you have rights under the First Amendment, do not assume all cops will respect your rights. In fact, the cops who are probably the most shocking subjects to record are also the cops who are most likely to have a problem with being recorded. These cops may be prepared to go to great lengths to keep you from creating a permanent record of their behavior.
Well, if you want to record police, here are several methods and tips that will increase your chances of success and help protect your rights from police abuse. Before reading further, please understand that there may be laws specific to your local area that may place limits on your rights. Being aware of those laws will help keep you out of trouble and help you properly exercise your right to record the police in public. (Note: Some localities have specific laws about recording audio. Know these local laws.)
Buddy Method
Far and away, the best method for recording police is the buddy method. Using the buddy method, you record police however you desire (but without hindering official police work). Your buddy keeps a very low profile and shoots video from a distance through a zoom lens. You may choose to record audio with a backup source, such as a small pocket digital recorder. You may need the additional audio recording if your camera is forcibly taken, damaged, or voluntarily turned off due to police intimidation. Your buddy should be able to capture good video, but his audio will be very limited if he happens to be many yards from you while your rights are being violated by the police. The separate audio will become useful to accompany the long-distance footage shot by your buddy.
Candid Camera
There are many inexpensive tiny video cameras on the market. Some are small enough to conceal in clothing. If you want to get really serious about protecting your rights to record the police and your local laws allow hidden cameras, consider investing in one. If you are recording video on a hidden backup, you can turn off your visible camcorder whenever you choose without having to miss a moment of the action.
Innocent Bystander
Just because you want to record something, this does not mean you have to personally hold the camera. In many situations, you can start your camcorder, aim it, and conceal it in a bag, box, car, bushes, etc. You can simply linger in the area while your camcorder is capturing the action. Your camera may be capturing shocking video, but you will appear to be a casual bystander. When the event is over, casually retrieve your camera and head for home.
Bait and Switch
If you happen to catch some exceptionally interesting video, it would be a good idea to change videotapes or memory cards. If a cop illegally confiscates your camcorder, he may damage whatever tape or storage medium he finds inside. If you pocket the real tape in advance, the cop will destroy the dummy tape and assume he no longer has to worry about the evidence of his violations.
Red Light Stopper
Most videographers are not used to being in front of the camera, and they usually forget about something that everyone else notices. On many cameras, when the video camera is recording, a red light shines on the front of the camera. This red light makes people nervous, because it is a constant reminder that every moment is being captured forever. If you have a red recording light indicator on the front of your camcorder, deactivate it through the system menu, disconnect it, or simply cover it with a sticker or tiny piece of adhesive tape that matches the color of you camera's body. Electrical tape or duct tape will be adequate for most black or silver cameras.
Run Silent
Many camcorders beep when recording starts and stops. You can avoid drawing attention to your camcorder by turning off the beep function. Many cameras allow users to lower the volume of the beeps or turn the beeps off altogether.
Shoot from the Hip
When shooting video of a controversial event, avoid holding the camcorder up to your face. If you have a camera by your face, the subjects will be more aware that you are recording. Instead, make use of your camcorder's view screen and record casually from waist level or chest level. The less attention you draw to your camera, the more effective you will be as a videographer.
Safety in Numbers
If something exciting is going down, enlist the other random bystanders to shoot video. A lot of people have video-enabled cell phones. You can encourage them to shoot video as well. If the cops see one person shooting video, they may feel comfortable intimidating that one person. If the cops see multiple cameras, they might be more likely to behave themselves.
Be Smarter Than Your Smart Phone
Most smart phones have built-in video cameras. When shooting video with your phone, do not hold the phone at eye level in front of your face. Anyone within a hundred yards will know you are shooting video. To remain inconspicuous, hold the phone at chest level. Get your shot by watching the screen. Do not draw attention to yourself by looking directly at the action While you are shooting video, do something casual with your phone, such as pretending to type an email, browsing the Internet, talking on speaker phone, etc. If you do not look like a problem, you probably will not be treated like a problem.
You Have the Right to Remain Seated
For some reason, people tend not to notice seated people as easily as standing people. If you have the option of shooting good video from a sitting position, do so. If you can shoot video from within your own car, even better. If you shoot video with the windows up, you will lose a little image quality and have almost no audio, but you may be able to shoot video without drawing attention.
Inside Job
If you shoot video from inside of a building, your chances of being confronted get much lower. If you happen to own or rent that building, you have all sorts of legal protections. Even though you will lose much of the audio of the event, shooting video from inside may provide you with excellent vantage points, a great deal of privacy, and tremendous legal protection.
Closing Thoughts
Of course, you need to keep in mind that cops may become angry when being recorded on videotape and illegally use vicious force against you and your property. Additionally, you are fully responsible for being aware of all of your local laws and following them, but generally, you are allowed to peacefully record police who are operating in public as long as you do not obstruct their efforts.
Stand up for your First Amendment rights and use your camcorder legally against cops who break the law by abusing their power. You can do this, but just be smart about it. You may care about your rights, but the worst cops do not. Be careful, plan ahead just a little, and you might help get an abusive cop off the streets and create a better environment for the good cops who follow the rules and respect the rights of law-abiding civilians.
Here is the deal. Generally, if police activity is going on in a public place and you are not interfering with that activity, the First Amendment gives you the right to capture that activity on video. Police can ask you to turn off your camera, but you generally do not have to turn off the camera if you prefer to continue recording. Also, provided you are not hindering an investigation, a policeman may not seize your camera.
Now, just because you have rights under the First Amendment, do not assume all cops will respect your rights. In fact, the cops who are probably the most shocking subjects to record are also the cops who are most likely to have a problem with being recorded. These cops may be prepared to go to great lengths to keep you from creating a permanent record of their behavior.
Well, if you want to record police, here are several methods and tips that will increase your chances of success and help protect your rights from police abuse. Before reading further, please understand that there may be laws specific to your local area that may place limits on your rights. Being aware of those laws will help keep you out of trouble and help you properly exercise your right to record the police in public. (Note: Some localities have specific laws about recording audio. Know these local laws.)
Buddy Method
Far and away, the best method for recording police is the buddy method. Using the buddy method, you record police however you desire (but without hindering official police work). Your buddy keeps a very low profile and shoots video from a distance through a zoom lens. You may choose to record audio with a backup source, such as a small pocket digital recorder. You may need the additional audio recording if your camera is forcibly taken, damaged, or voluntarily turned off due to police intimidation. Your buddy should be able to capture good video, but his audio will be very limited if he happens to be many yards from you while your rights are being violated by the police. The separate audio will become useful to accompany the long-distance footage shot by your buddy.
Candid Camera
There are many inexpensive tiny video cameras on the market. Some are small enough to conceal in clothing. If you want to get really serious about protecting your rights to record the police and your local laws allow hidden cameras, consider investing in one. If you are recording video on a hidden backup, you can turn off your visible camcorder whenever you choose without having to miss a moment of the action.
Innocent Bystander
Just because you want to record something, this does not mean you have to personally hold the camera. In many situations, you can start your camcorder, aim it, and conceal it in a bag, box, car, bushes, etc. You can simply linger in the area while your camcorder is capturing the action. Your camera may be capturing shocking video, but you will appear to be a casual bystander. When the event is over, casually retrieve your camera and head for home.
Bait and Switch
If you happen to catch some exceptionally interesting video, it would be a good idea to change videotapes or memory cards. If a cop illegally confiscates your camcorder, he may damage whatever tape or storage medium he finds inside. If you pocket the real tape in advance, the cop will destroy the dummy tape and assume he no longer has to worry about the evidence of his violations.
Red Light Stopper
Most videographers are not used to being in front of the camera, and they usually forget about something that everyone else notices. On many cameras, when the video camera is recording, a red light shines on the front of the camera. This red light makes people nervous, because it is a constant reminder that every moment is being captured forever. If you have a red recording light indicator on the front of your camcorder, deactivate it through the system menu, disconnect it, or simply cover it with a sticker or tiny piece of adhesive tape that matches the color of you camera's body. Electrical tape or duct tape will be adequate for most black or silver cameras.
Run Silent
Many camcorders beep when recording starts and stops. You can avoid drawing attention to your camcorder by turning off the beep function. Many cameras allow users to lower the volume of the beeps or turn the beeps off altogether.
Shoot from the Hip
When shooting video of a controversial event, avoid holding the camcorder up to your face. If you have a camera by your face, the subjects will be more aware that you are recording. Instead, make use of your camcorder's view screen and record casually from waist level or chest level. The less attention you draw to your camera, the more effective you will be as a videographer.
Safety in Numbers
If something exciting is going down, enlist the other random bystanders to shoot video. A lot of people have video-enabled cell phones. You can encourage them to shoot video as well. If the cops see one person shooting video, they may feel comfortable intimidating that one person. If the cops see multiple cameras, they might be more likely to behave themselves.
Be Smarter Than Your Smart Phone
Most smart phones have built-in video cameras. When shooting video with your phone, do not hold the phone at eye level in front of your face. Anyone within a hundred yards will know you are shooting video. To remain inconspicuous, hold the phone at chest level. Get your shot by watching the screen. Do not draw attention to yourself by looking directly at the action While you are shooting video, do something casual with your phone, such as pretending to type an email, browsing the Internet, talking on speaker phone, etc. If you do not look like a problem, you probably will not be treated like a problem.
You Have the Right to Remain Seated
For some reason, people tend not to notice seated people as easily as standing people. If you have the option of shooting good video from a sitting position, do so. If you can shoot video from within your own car, even better. If you shoot video with the windows up, you will lose a little image quality and have almost no audio, but you may be able to shoot video without drawing attention.
Inside Job
If you shoot video from inside of a building, your chances of being confronted get much lower. If you happen to own or rent that building, you have all sorts of legal protections. Even though you will lose much of the audio of the event, shooting video from inside may provide you with excellent vantage points, a great deal of privacy, and tremendous legal protection.
Closing Thoughts
Of course, you need to keep in mind that cops may become angry when being recorded on videotape and illegally use vicious force against you and your property. Additionally, you are fully responsible for being aware of all of your local laws and following them, but generally, you are allowed to peacefully record police who are operating in public as long as you do not obstruct their efforts.
Stand up for your First Amendment rights and use your camcorder legally against cops who break the law by abusing their power. You can do this, but just be smart about it. You may care about your rights, but the worst cops do not. Be careful, plan ahead just a little, and you might help get an abusive cop off the streets and create a better environment for the good cops who follow the rules and respect the rights of law-abiding civilians.
April 23, 2011
TSA Security Screener Arrested for Child Pornography
TSA Screener, Thomas Gordon Jr.
Image: AFGE
Thomas Gordon, Jr., a TSA screener at Philadelphia International Airport, was arrested on March 24, 2011 on charges of distributing child pornography. Gordon got caught uploading sexually explicit images of minors to Photobucket. He also had the bright idea to upload a photo of himself in his TSA uniform. When Gordon was arrested, a search of his computer equipment turned up more than six hundred pieces of child pornography.
This is one of the many reasons adults should not be allowed to touch children in intimate areas unless there is a specific medical need to do so. In Philadelphia, we had this pervert groping all sorts of people under the guise of security.
Who knows how many children were groped by Gordon? Clearly, Gordon finds children sexually attractive. Are we to believe his TSA-sanctioned pat-downs of children were professional and completely within acceptable limits? Does anyone believe that this pervert did not at least occasionally take advantage of his job to indulge his sexual interest in children? If a pervert already has his hands all over a small child, how difficult would it be for him to sneak in a little extra groping for his own pleasure?
Well, here it is, parents. The TSA screeners are feeling up your kids. Sometimes these screeners are unsavory people. Sometimes these screeners may be rubbing their hands all over your kids and experiencing a great amount of pleasure doing do.
Think about it this way. Men, if you were required to rub your hands all over Jessica Alba, Halle Berry, Heidi Klum, and Megan Fox, do you think you might find that experience at least somewhat exciting? Ladies, if you were required to rub your hands all over Tom Cruise, Ryan Reynolds, Jon Hamm, and Brad Pitt, do you think you might get a little aroused?
The sexual excitement you feel when you touch an attractive adult are the same feelings a child molester gets when touching a child. Keep this in mind the next time you go to the airport. If the TSA screener who is performing a pat-down on your child happens to be sexually attracted to children, that screener may be enjoying that encounter quite a bit and may take the opportunity to do something incredibly inappropriate with your child.
April 22, 2011
Man Beaten While Filming Police from His Own Property
Mitchell Crooks was standing outside of his Las Vegas home filming an arrest of burglary suspects across the street. Even though Crooks was doing nothing to interfere with the police activity, he was approached by, Las Vegas police officer, Derek Colling. In the ensuing confrontation, Crooks was beaten, had his camera kicked by police, mocked, arrested, and had his video camera confiscated.
Read the full story and see the video of the confrontation at Las Vegas Review Journal.
Many people will harp on the fact that Mitchell Crooks answered, "Nope," when Derek Colling asked if Crooks lived at the address. It is true Crooks would have been wise to answer the officer truthfully or not at all, but Colling had no business approaching Crooks in the first place. Crooks was not doing anything illegal, and the cop should have just ignored him. Colling just could not leave it alone. For some reason, he felt the need to bully an innocent bystander.
People might try to defend the officer by saying he was trying to stop Crooks from trespassing, but that is not the business of the cops unless a property owner or resident makes a trespassing complaint or there appears to be suspicious activity on the property. Simply aiming a video camera at the police is not suspicious.
When you watch the video, you will see that officer Derek Colling completely overacted to the situation and caused things to escalate completely out of control. If Derek Colling had just done his job and not stopped to bully Mitchell Crooks, none of this would have happened.
Derek Colling needs to undergo some serious psychological evaluation. When the psychologist realizes Derek Colling is too dangerous and unstable to carry a gun, the Las Vegas Police Department needs to fire that brutal bully, and then arrest him for aggravated assault.
Mitchell Crooks Mug Shot
Read the full story and see the video of the confrontation at Las Vegas Review Journal.
Many people will harp on the fact that Mitchell Crooks answered, "Nope," when Derek Colling asked if Crooks lived at the address. It is true Crooks would have been wise to answer the officer truthfully or not at all, but Colling had no business approaching Crooks in the first place. Crooks was not doing anything illegal, and the cop should have just ignored him. Colling just could not leave it alone. For some reason, he felt the need to bully an innocent bystander.
People might try to defend the officer by saying he was trying to stop Crooks from trespassing, but that is not the business of the cops unless a property owner or resident makes a trespassing complaint or there appears to be suspicious activity on the property. Simply aiming a video camera at the police is not suspicious.
When you watch the video, you will see that officer Derek Colling completely overacted to the situation and caused things to escalate completely out of control. If Derek Colling had just done his job and not stopped to bully Mitchell Crooks, none of this would have happened.
Las Vegas Police Officer, Derek Colling
Derek Colling needs to undergo some serious psychological evaluation. When the psychologist realizes Derek Colling is too dangerous and unstable to carry a gun, the Las Vegas Police Department needs to fire that brutal bully, and then arrest him for aggravated assault.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)