Woman gets $2k settlement from TSA

[RoyalShock]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1393311/TSA-pays-just-2k-woman-breasts-exposed-patdown.html#ixzz1OB7HuUix

Wow. So that's all one gets for a government agent violating your rights and exposing you to the public.

The specific agent should have been sued and charged with sexual assault.

[ShockTalk]

Re: Woman gets $2k settlement from TSA

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1393311/TSA-pays-just-2k-woman-breasts-exposed-patdown.html#ixzz1OB7HuUix

Wow. So that's all one gets for a government agent violating your rights and exposing you to the public.

The specific agent should have been sued and charged with sexual assault.

Interesting that almost all the news articles you find on this got their info from a British paper regarding a flight from Corpus Christi to Amarillo, TX.

I did find some additional info from the Amarillo Globe-News:

"We got it settled before we actually took any depositions of TSA agents," McLaughlin (her attorney) said Thursday. "We never claimed the TSA agent that pulled her blouse down meant to do it. I think the TSA agent was very embarrassed that it happened also."

[RoyalShock]

The source was the website Smoking Gun, who used an FoI request to obtain the information. That few US media found the story worthy of publication is disappointing, though not surprising.

The other agents laughing about it and yet another quipping (within public earshot) that he was sorry he missed it and would have to view the video later is another greater point to this. These are the types of people who have been given authority to do things to us that would otherwise be against the law. And in many cases the subjects are chosen randomly. Better trained law enforcement officers at least have to show probable cause.

Despite the comment quoted from the attorney, I have a hard time believing a "pat" down could result in accidental disrobing.

[ShockTalk]

Not taking sides, Royal. However, I find it hard that someone from the media, somewhere, with some sort of an agenda, didn't run with this and dig harder.

1) There probably was a video and if it turned up missing, would have been a big + for the woman as it would have looked like a cover-up (another thing someone with the press could have ran with).

2) If the video existed, it should have also helped the woman's case and would have made it harder for other TSA agents to lie about what they saw and heard.

3) For such a small settlement offer, why would the woman not want to go ahead with the TSA agents' depositions. Not much to lose. As you are not surprised about the media and agents, I find it hard to believe an attorney would settle so small. I don't believe for a moment that that size of settlement is "real" admission of guity as her attorney stated. Rather, "sorry for your trouble and we don't want to spend a lot fighting it".

4) I agree with what you call "the greater point". However, again, with a video, one could tell if she was upset by the remarks. Other passenger witnesses should have also been able to have been found. This didn't happen at O'Hare and people could have been found, probably ones that were on that flight.

5) I'm just totally surprised that Murley, after hiring an attorney, didn't go for the jugular, especially with "the greater point" issue.

It probably happened as reported.....oh, wait a minute. We're talking about the press here and a sue happy public. I'm just saying a lot of gaps were left open.

I do agree with you on "these types of people" for TSA agents.

[BOBB]

Umm...I'm sure the concept of fighting the Homeland Security department was less appealing than a settlement. This is airport security, of course there's video, but it couldn't be shown as evidence due to "national security " concerns no doubt.

[ShockTalk]

Umm...I'm sure the concept of fighting the Homeland Security department was less appealing than a settlement. This is airport security, of course there's video, but it couldn't be shown as evidence due to "national security " concerns no doubt.

Settlement? You call receiving less than $2,000 after attorney expenses a settlement? I have a hard time believing an attorney would even bother for the paltry amount he got. I guess we should all throw up our hands, bend over, and submit to any government agency if that's a settlement. And your second statement is spoken just like the Unknown Comic.

[BOBB]

Umm...I'm sure the concept of fighting the Homeland Security department was less appealing than a settlement. This is airport security, of course there's video, but it couldn't be shown as evidence due to "national security " concerns no doubt.

Settlement? You call receiving less than $2,000 after attorney expenses a settlement? I have a hard time believing an attorney would even bother for the paltry amount he got. I guess we should all throw up our hands, bend over, and submit to any government agency if that's a settlement. And your second statement is spoken just like the Unknown Comic.

Assumed my statement was so ludicrous it didn't need emoticons. $2,000 is a great deal compared to a life of no fly lists and tapped phones and tax audits and no gun lists and oddly slow internet connections and pressured employers. Sign me up.for $2k.