Here’s one woman who I bet would be staunchly on board with profiling:
A federal jury in Green Bay is expected to begin deciding today whether a 62-year-old retired tech school teacher is guilty of assault for grabbing a female airport screener’s breasts at the Outagamie County Regional Airport in September 2004.
Phyllis Dintenfass of Appleton faces one federal count of assault of a federal employee for allegedly shoving a Transportation Security Administration supervisor before grabbing the female agent’s breasts to protest what Dintenfass felt was an invasive search. Her trial began Monday.
Federal prosecutors contend Phyllis Dintenfass’ actions were criminal. She claims self-defense. If convicted, Dintenfass faces a year in federal prison and up to a $100,000 fine.
In testimony before U.S. District Court Judge William Griesbach, TSA screening supervisor Anita Gostisha said she saw Dintenfass activate the metal detectors at Outagamie’s security checkpoint and heard Dintenfass assert that it was the bobby pins and barrettes in her hair that triggered the alarm. After taking Dintenfass to the secondary screening area, Gostisha said she used a handheld metal detector to wand Dintenfass’ head and body, examining areas that caused the device to alert.
Gostisha, a screening supervisor for three years, said she was following protocol when she hung up the wand and then performed a “limited pat-down search,” which included touching Dintenfass on the sides and back.
Gostisha said she was searching the front of Dintenfass’ body — using the back of her hands to search the area underneath Dintenfass’ breasts — when Dintenfass lashed out.
“She said ‘How would you like it if I did that to you?’ and slammed me against the wall,” Gostisha testified. “She came at me and grabbed my breasts and squeezed them with firm pressure … squeezed them a couple of times.”
I don’t mean to make light of the incident. However, it does make you think “who should we be searching”? 62 y/o retired teachers?
Related: Jay Tea opines a different approach on how to fight terrorism here in the US (make sure to note what category that post is filed under 
.
Lunchtime update: Michelle Malkin links up to her latest must-read column and reminds us that we shouldn’t cower behind the banner of political correctness because it’s an ineffective way of fighting terror.
| Email This Post | Print This |
“However, it does make you think “who should we be searching”? 62 y/o retired teachers?”
About the dumbest thing you can do is announce in advance how one can avoid being searched.
Comment by actus @ 7/27/2005 - 11:08 am
You ok with grannies being searched, actus? Just who is the enemy here? Militant Islamists or a grandmother on her way to visit her family?
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 7/27/2005 - 1:44 pm
If you must, Algerian “islamists” used grandmothers and others to drop off bombs in targets outside the Casbah, in part because they were treated better than young men.
Like I said the dumbest thing you can do is declare openly what to do to avoid being searched.
Comment by actus @ 7/27/2005 - 1:57 pm
I’m sorry, Actus, but if you think some grandma is going to do a terrorists dirty work, think again. Even if they were under threat of harm, the people threatening them would not get away with it.
The solution is simple. Profile. That doesn’t mean others shouldn’t be searched, but an emphasis needs to be put on the type of people we are suspicious of, not grandma.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 7/27/2005 - 3:25 pm
“The solution is simple. Profile.”
I think the solution should optimize the chances of catching a perp (intelligence) not give away how the searches are done, and can be avoided (randomness) and be legal (constitution).
All that being said, if a machine to detect guns on someone goes off, we should fidn out if they’re carryign a gun. Granny or not. Note that this woman wasn’t randomly picked: she set off an alarm. The whole point of these alarms is to remove our biases and replace them with the objective metal detection.
Comment by actus @ 7/27/2005 - 3:51 pm
Obviously she was looking for a booby trap…
Comment by MagicalPat @ 7/27/2005 - 5:13 pm
“I don’t mean to make light of the incident. However, it does make you think “who should we be searching”? 62 y/o retired teachers?”
Hey, we ALL have to contribute to the war effort. If this is all that is asked of this lady, she should gladly comply. Other citizens are protecting her pushy butt with their lives.
Besides, you don’t think that the enemy won’t use such “innocent” looking people to carry their bombs? Ever hear of the bombs that are made to look like a woman is pregnant? Or maybe some hijacker acquires a knife because some stupid old lady decided to bring it with her to cut an apple on the plane, or she just had to bring her knitting needles, which are snatched from her and jammed into some stewardess’ head. Its real tiring having to fight a war with having everyone bitch and moan when they are asked to do such a little thing.
Comment by mark @ 7/27/2005 - 11:36 pm
Hi Mark,
I don’t mean to sound like I want *just* Muslims profiled - heck, I welcomed being searched at the airport after 9-11 - but what I’ve read is happening at the airports is that some screeners are reluctant to search Muslims because of fines being levied on them by the feds for ‘oversearching’ (is that even a word) too many Muslims and not as many whites, etc. I’ve a friend who worked as a screener in an airport in Atlanta who got so disgusted with their policy on being ’sensitive’ to Muslims that he ended up leaving. I think when you have airport screeners who are *afraid* or being told *not* to screen Muslims as much as you screen everyone else or the airline gets fined, there is a definite problem.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 7/28/2005 - 10:44 am
It happened to me. When waved into the special section for the search, I offered to do a strip search right there in public. Needless to say, I wasn’t taken up on it and I went through without further ado.
Comment by vee s @ 7/28/2005 - 2:41 pm
Actus: Where on earth did you get the idea that I don’t think a granny (or anyone else) should be searched if they set off the metal detector?
MagicalPat: Haha!
Vee: I’ll have to try that tactic sometime
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 7/28/2005 - 2:45 pm
“Actus: Where on earth did you get the idea that I dont think a granny (or anyone else) should be searched if they set off the metal detector?”
Because you said this:
“However, it does make you think who should we be searching”? 62 y/o retired teachers?”
In response to the pat-down search of a woman who set off a metal detector.
Comment by actus @ 7/28/2005 - 3:22 pm
My question as it related to ‘patting down 62 y/o retired school teachers’ was poorly worded, then. A better question would have been ‘just who do we search, grannies or those who fit the profile’? My point in posting this piece wasn’t to argue in favor of the teacher doing what she did to the screener. The screener was doing her job, from what it looks like.
I used the story (which I actually found somewhat humorous) as a springboard to talk about random searches versus profiling. If someone repeatedly sets off the metal detector, I don’t have a problem with them being searched, grandma or not. I admit I should have worded the argument better, considering this woman did set off the metal detector.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 7/28/2005 - 3:36 pm