Woman Faces Charges for Groping TSA Agent

Normally I'm not one for "vigilante justice," but this had me giggling for a good long time. I wasn't sure whether to post it here or in Antidotes, but grandma's facing a possible felony, so...

61-year-old Colorado woman arrested for sexually assaulting TSA agent at Phoenix airport


Seriously though, what really makes this article is the mugshot. Read it with this photo in mind:

Spoiler:

Quote :

Some may call it sweet revenge, but a 61-year-old woman is in hot water after she allegedly groped a TSA agent.

Officials said Yukari Mihamae was flying from Phoenix's Sky Harbor Airport to Colorado when she put her hands on a TSA agent Barbara O'Toole's breast and squeezed and twisted with both hands.

"Ohhhh, I show you ancient Japanese massage! You like, yes! Now for happy ending!"

(I, I'm sorry, I just... )

Quote :

She was immediately taken into custody, Fox31 Denver reported - and "pulled away from the arresting officer when placed under arrest."

This woman couldn't be more than, what, 5'5? She had to grope the first officer with both hands. She's not trying to resist arrest, she's sick of people touching her!

Quote :

While Mihamae admitted to groping the TSA agent, she did not give a reason why she did it, according to the report.

Seriously, is the reason not fucking obvious? Don't grope grandma and she won't grope you back. It's that fucking simple.

Quote :

She faces a felony charge of sexual abuse and was released from Maricopa County Jail on Friday.

Neighbors say the Longmont, Colorado resident is self-employed and travels about three days a week.

"For her to be arrested for anything is totally shocking to me," one neighbor told the TV station.

Proof that traveling and dealing with the TSA can make anyone snap.

If I had to put up with a full-body search (both coming and going) three days a week, I think I'd snap and grab something inappropriate as well.

So sexually assaulting someone is a-OK when the person doing the sexual assaulting is of the same gender as the victim and the victim is working in a job that requires him/her to be something of a "bad guy"?

'Cause that's kind of the vibe I'm getting ITT.

Malganis wrote:

So sexually assaulting someone is a-OK when the person doing the sexual assaulting is of the same gender as the victim and the victim is working in a job that requires him/her to be something of a "bad guy"?

'Cause that's kind of the vibe I'm getting ITT.

Oh
My
God

You are a retard. It's clear what they're implying is that it's A-OK to grope someone in self defense. Kind of like punching someone that swings at you.

I don't think anyone even mentioned the fact that they were the same gender or began to imply they would be okay of it because of THAT. What the hell have you done? Now Verry and Cyberwulf and others are going to show up and start asspaining around over their particular Issues (issues that have nothing to do with the topic) and this thread will be seven pages long and SO FAR OFF TRACK we'll need a GPS to find our way back.

You are not only a colossal waste of bandwidth and modem, but a colossal waste of the fat folds that comprise you.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Malganis wrote:

So sexually assaulting someone is a-OK when the person doing the sexual assaulting is of the same gender as the victim and the victim is working in a job that requires him/her to be something of a "bad guy"?

'Cause that's kind of the vibe I'm getting ITT.

I don't think anyone even mentioned the fact that they were the same gender or began to imply they would be okay of it because of THAT.

If you can't see that that's not implied by the couple of responses ahead of me, then I don't know what to say. Do I think that the OP's and RB's responses would have likely been different if the person assaulting this TSA woman was a dude? Yeah. Would they be different if the victim wasn't in a career that is widely (and with some good reason) disliked? Yes.

And no, groping someone back for "groping" you is not justifiable; it's grade-school level thinking and behavior. There's a reason children are taught to use words to try to solve differences with other people, instead of using their fists or their feet to convey displeasure or anger. There's a lot of ways this could have gone down without the woman assaulting the TSA person.

Quote :

What the hell have you done? Now Verry and Cyberwulf and others are going to show up and start asspaining around over their particular Issues (issues that have nothing to do with the topic) and this thread will be seven pages long and SO FAR OFF TRACK we'll need a GPS to find our way back.

You are not only a colossal waste of bandwidth and modem, but a colossal waste of the fat folds that comprise you.

Quit asspaining about my/Cyber's/Verandering's "asspaining", then. Oh wait, if you did that, then you would never post again.

Here, take some asspills for your asspains, ass. Now shoo. *flaps fat at Mikey*

Maybe it's just me, but I've never had problems with the TSA. Our airport doesn't have any of those fancy x-rays that let them look at you naked, and the only time they touched me was for a quick ten second random patdown.

Mally wrote:

And no, groping someone back for "groping" you is not justifiable; it's grade-school level thinking and behavior.

I didn't say that. I said that's what they were saying. And I was also saying you were a moron for not picking up on that.

Oh man, we need a folder for "Fucking Stupid News" as well as "Godawful News" because I swear we're never running low on either.

Howithurts wrote:

Maybe it's just me, but I've never had problems with the TSA. Our airport doesn't have any of those fancy x-rays that let them look at you naked, and the only time they touched me was for a quick ten second random patdown.

Same here. I've heard countless horror stories, but my every encounter with the TSA has been quick and painless. Even that one time I accidentally left my laptop in my bag like a moron, they didn't screw me over for it. The one solitary time I went through a patdown, the lady was polite, professional, and quick about it.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

You are not only a colossal waste of bandwidth and modem, but a colossal waste of the fat folds that comprise you.

That's rich coming from a guy who's so overweight he can be seen with the unaided eye from the top floor of the Sears Tower and has an IQ lower than Jefferson Davis' approval rating after Gettysburg.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Mally wrote:

And no, groping someone back for "groping" you is not justifiable; it's grade-school level thinking and behavior.

I didn't say that. I said that's what they were saying. And I was also saying you were a moron for not picking up on that.

I DID pick up on it. What I'm saying is why this is seen as being barely "justifiable" -- because of the gender of the perp and the career of the victim.

Also, Chris, just stop. Everyone here but you knows Mikey is a thin dude.

Malganis wrote:

So sexually assaulting someone is a-OK when the person doing the sexual assaulting is of the same gender as the victim and the victim is working in a job that requires him/her to be something of a "bad guy"?

'Cause that's kind of the vibe I'm getting ITT.

Uh...no. Where did I say this assault was ok? Nowhere did I excuse the woman's actions. I never said she didn't deserve to be charged. I put "vigilante justice" in quotes. But you are right about the victim being a "bad guy" TSA employee, who had presumably just groped her attacker, is indeed integral to the story and why I find it funny. Sexual assault perpetrated by a little elderly woman is a felony, but sexual assault perpetrated by someone with a badge is "national security."

Malganis wrote:

If you can't see that that's not implied by the couple of responses ahead of me, then I don't know what to say. Do I think that the OP's and RB's responses would have likely been different if the person assaulting this TSA woman was a dude? Yeah.

Thanks for making assumptions.

Quote :

Would they be different if the victim wasn't in a career that is widely (and with some good reason) disliked? Yes.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. The fact that the victim was a TSA agent is exactly why I find this funny. Felony vs. national security. Also, finding it funny is not the same thing as agreeing with the woman's actions.

Quote :

And no, groping someone back for "groping" you is not justifiable; it's grade-school level thinking and behavior.

Do I need to put [sarcasm] tags around everything that's not meant to be taken seriously? No shit it's not justifiable.

Quote :

There's a reason children are taught to use words to try to solve differences with other people, instead of using their fists or their feet to convey displeasure or anger. There's a lot of ways this could have gone down without the woman assaulting the TSA person.

Using words, as in mocking a 12 year old's shitty fanfiction? Yes, because the woman could easily have opted out of airport security procedure. Anyone who doesn't feel like going through (completely ineffective) TSA screening and getting groped or blasted with cancer-causing radiation can just say "no thanks!" and waltz on through. Your options are either subject yourself to it, or don't fly. Again, I'm not saying the woman's actions were in any way justified, but I posted this because I think it's darkly funny when a little old woman snaps and sexually assaults a TSA agent, whose job it is to sexually assault others. I don't know what else to tell you.

Owlish wrote:

Sexual assault perpetrated by a little elderly woman is a felony, but sexual assault perpetrated by someone with a badge is "national security."

This is why I have a problem with, oh, 99.9999% of everything the TSA does.

Ever since they ensured that cockpit doors must be reinforced, there is more or less exactly zero percent chance that a terrorist could gain access to the cockpit with tools they could carry on their person that wouldn't also A: be extremely visible on X-ray, B: violate existing rules on what can be carry-on, C: show up on a metal detector, and/or D: be picked up by bomb-sniffing machines and dogs at every airport.

The TSA is completely fucking ridiculous. The FAA isn't much better. And yet we're preconditioned to accept their bullshit simply because they wear a uniform.

When you see a TSA screener, you do not see a warrior on the front lines of the war on terror. What you see is an actor, putting on a play about security that they desperately hope you'll suspend your disbelief for long enough to board an aircraft. The whole process, from the body scans to groping and onward, is complete horseshit. You know that "no more than four ounces of liquid" rule? Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of chemistry can tell you it's nonsense. There is no way you could smuggle a binary explosive onto an airplane that would cause enough damage to the aircraft to jeopardize passenger safety without running an almost certain risk of setting yourself on fire in a hilariously obvious mixing process.

When you buy a commercial ticket, you're stepping right into an Orwellian experience that, if facts were to prevail, would be a cautionary amusement park ride.

ETA: Oh, and by the way, the MASSIVE lines you have to stand in well before you get to go through the screening? Excellent target for a suicide bomber.

Owlish wrote:

Nowhere did I excuse the woman's actions. I never said she didn't deserve to be charged. I put "vigilante justice" in quotes.

True, but you think it's funny, and...yeah.

Oh man. That woman is from right around here.

I'm going to guess it's really high hopes that she won't actually get slapped with a sexual assault charge, but I still hope all the same. She doesn't deserve that harsh of a punishment.

Owlish wrote:

Malganis wrote:

So sexually assaulting someone is a-OK when the person doing the sexual assaulting is of the same gender as the victim and the victim is working in a job that requires him/her to be something of a "bad guy"?

'Cause that's kind of the vibe I'm getting ITT.

Uh...no. Where did I say this assault was ok?

These quotes of yours are a bit telling.

Owlish wrote:

I wasn't sure whether to post it here or in Antidotes, but grandma's facing a possible felony, so...

Owlish wrote:

Seriously, is the reason not fucking obvious? Don't grope grandma and she won't grope you back. It's that fucking simple.

Quote :

Nowhere did I excuse the woman's actions. I never said she didn't deserve to be charged. I put "vigilante justice" in quotes. But you are right about the victim being a "bad guy" TSA employee, who had presumably just groped her attacker, is indeed integral to the story and why I find it funny.

So sexual assault is "darkly funny" to you, depending on the person's career and whether or not you find it distasteful. Got it.

Quote :

Sexual assault perpetrated by a little elderly woman is a felony, but sexual assault perpetrated by someone with a badge is "national security."

Sexual assault is sexual assault. You're tacitly excusing this case based on the age and gender of the perp (if the perp was a guy who had grabbed the woman's boobs -- or her crotch, maybe, that would be upping the ante a bit -- would you be laughing as hard?) and the fact that you think this TSA woman got what was coming to her, because hey, she "sexually assaults" people for a living, amirite?

Quote :

Malganis wrote:

If you can't see that that's not implied by the couple of responses ahead of me, then I don't know what to say. Do I think that the OP's and RB's responses would have likely been different if the person assaulting this TSA woman was a dude? Yeah.

Thanks for making assumptions.

Seems like my assumptions were correct. And I was replying to Mikey there, but whatever.

Quote :

Quote :

There's a reason children are taught to use words to try to solve differences with other people, instead of using their fists or their feet to convey displeasure or anger. There's a lot of ways this could have gone down without the woman assaulting the TSA person.

Using words, as in mocking a 12 year old's shitty fanfiction?

Oh, those poor twelve-year-olds and their fanfiction, which you, as a member of said board that mocks twelve-year-olds and their fanfictions, are only invoking when I call you out on your assumptions regarding gender, professions, and sexual assault.

Quote :

Again, I'm not saying the woman's actions were in any way justified, but I posted this because I think it's darkly funny when a little old woman snaps and sexually assaults a TSA agent, whose job it is to sexually assault others. I don't know what else to tell you.

That still boils down to, "Sexual assault is funny when it's done to someone whose job I dislike, by someone who is not typically seen as threatening or sexual by the majority of society". Might want to ask Cyberwulf about that whole "rape culture" thing she talks about.

Actually, in my case, Malganis is right. I think it's funny. I will continue to think it's funny as long as total strangers are allowed to go around invading other people's private space because they're wearing a hat and a badge, and someone occasionally gets fed up with the bullshit and strikes back.

The only difference between being groped by a TSA agent and being groped by a total stranger is you can slap the total stranger's hands away and tell them to sod off. You can't do that with TSA agents, for the obvious reasons.

Penguin wrote:

You know that "no more than four ounces of liquid" rule? Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of chemistry can tell you it's nonsense. There is no way you could smuggle a binary explosive onto an airplane that would cause enough damage to the aircraft to jeopardize passenger safety without running an almost certain risk of setting yourself on fire in a hilariously obvious mixing process.

This is true. The only things I can think of that would actually do some worthwhile damage are not easy to get a hold of, and yes, require some serious and conspicuous work. I'm not quite sure who made that rule, or what they were thinking they were preventing, but it's a pretty damn useless rule.

Penguin wrote:

ETA: Oh, and by the way, the MASSIVE lines you have to stand in well before you get to go through the screening? Excellent target for a suicide bomber.

Also very true. The airport itself would be a much better target.

Security theater. We don't actually have to make people safer. We just have to make them feel safer.

No Felony Charges in TSA Agent Groping Case

Penguin wrote:

Owlish wrote:

Sexual assault perpetrated by a little elderly woman is a felony, but sexual assault perpetrated by someone with a badge is "national security."

This is why I have a problem with, oh, 99.9999% of everything the TSA does.

Ever since they ensured that cockpit doors must be reinforced, there is more or less exactly zero percent chance that a terrorist could gain access to the cockpit with tools they could carry on their person that wouldn't also A: be extremely visible on X-ray, B: violate existing rules on what can be carry-on, C: show up on a metal detector, and/or D: be picked up by bomb-sniffing machines and dogs at every airport.

The TSA is completely fucking ridiculous. The FAA isn't much better. And yet we're preconditioned to accept their bullshit simply because they wear a uniform.

When you see a TSA screener, you do not see a warrior on the front lines of the war on terror. What you see is an actor, putting on a play about security that they desperately hope you'll suspend your disbelief for long enough to board an aircraft. The whole process, from the body scans to groping and onward, is complete horseshit. You know that "no more than four ounces of liquid" rule? Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of chemistry can tell you it's nonsense. There is no way you could smuggle a binary explosive onto an airplane that would cause enough damage to the aircraft to jeopardize passenger safety without running an almost certain risk of setting yourself on fire in a hilariously obvious mixing process.

When you buy a commercial ticket, you're stepping right into an Orwellian experience that, if facts were to prevail, would be a cautionary amusement park ride.

ETA: Oh, and by the way, the MASSIVE lines you have to stand in well before you get to go through the screening? Excellent target for a suicide bomber.

You pretty much made the point, but I just wanted to add that even experts within the TSA admit that "enhanced pat downs" are completely worthless for security. Basically they're just touching people inappropriately for the hell of it--and that is sexual assault.

Malganis wrote:

These quotes of yours are a bit telling.

Owlish wrote:

I wasn't sure whether to post it here or in Antidotes, but grandma's facing a possible felony, so...

[sarcasm]

Owlish wrote:

Seriously, is the reason not fucking obvious? Don't grope grandma and she won't grope you back. It's that fucking simple.

[/sarcasm]

Malganis wrote:

So sexual assault is "darkly funny" to you, depending on the person's career and whether or not you find it distasteful. Got it.

Apparently it is.

Malganis wrote:

Sexual assault is sexual assault. You're tacitly excusing this case based on the age and gender of the perp (if the perp was a guy who had grabbed the woman's boobs -- or her crotch, maybe, that would be upping the ante a bit -- would you be laughing as hard?) and the fact that you think this TSA woman got what was coming to her, because hey, she "sexually assaults" people for a living, amirite?

Ok, I will admit that my humor was off-base. My beef is with the TSA as an institution, and I was using this victimised employee as a poor synechdoche for the institution as a whole, when this one individual has no control or responsibility for the institution as a whole (and even if they did, it still wouldn't make it ok). I should not be laughing at one person sexually assaulting another, regardless of their career or circumstances. Maybe that's something I need to work on. My apologies.

Malganis wrote:

Quote :

Thanks for making assumptions.

Seems like my assumptions were correct. And I was replying to Mikey there, but whatever.

What difference does it make who you were replying to? Anyway, you referred to me (OP) in the sentence quoted, and you were talking about my statement. And no, your assumptions in this case were not correct. Had this been a male sexually assaulting a female TSA employee, I probably still would have gotten some twisted satisfaction from it, because--again--regardless of gender, it's the TSA. If that were the case, however, that still doesn't make it any better, because I'd still be amused at sexual assault, so your bringing up gender still misses the point.

Malganis wrote:

Oh, those poor twelve-year-olds and their fanfiction, which you, as a member of said board that mocks twelve-year-olds and their fanfictions, are only invoking when I call you out on your assumptions regarding gender, professions, and sexual assault.

I...what? Like I give a shit about 12 year olds getting mocked for shitty writing, clearly. My point was that words aren't necessarily more mature than physical displays, like right now, when you're trying to be patronizing by calling my (sarcastic) statement "childish."

Malganis wrote:

That still boils down to, "Sexual assault is funny when it's done to someone whose job I dislike, by someone who is not typically seen as threatening or sexual by the majority of society". Might want to ask Cyberwulf about that whole "rape culture" thing she talks about.

So now "rape culture" is Cyberwulf's domain alone? Why would I go ask her when you're the one calling me out in my thread? Are you incapable of explaining it to me yourself, or are you just lazy? You're seriously not helping your argument. lol Look, fine, I admitted that my sense of humor here was off point, and I apologized. But holy fuck, next time you call someone out, at least try to do it with a little bit of finesse or wit, one or the other--I'd be even more impressed if you managed both at once, but I won't get my hopes up. Are we done here?