snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > NFBSK Gone Wild!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 25 April 2013, 09:55 PM
Hero_Mike's Avatar
Hero_Mike Hero_Mike is offline
 
 
Join Date: 06 April 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ & Hamilton, ON
Posts: 7,267
Default

Being a frequent traveler and even going to "border jail" once, I'm aware that every time a person comes into the US, their visit is logged and so are the circumstances of entry. For example, being set aside for "secondary questioning" (or as I called it above, "border jail"), or being searched, is recorded. The first time this woman was searched may have been for some nonsensical reason, or it could have been legitimate suspicion. However, being searched after the first time isn't random and it doesn't have to be - all it takes is for the customs agent to see on the record of entry that the person was selected for a search, and they choose to repeat it because of that first incident. Seeing that a person has been searched before may very well lead a customs agent to see all sorts of suspicious things they did not see before.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 26 April 2013, 12:37 AM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 14,408
Default

One of the sadder things about the situation, in fact, is that if it does turn out to be BS, it will make people feel justified in further denial -- "See what liars those feminazis are?"
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 26 April 2013, 12:17 PM
Alarm's Avatar
Alarm Alarm is offline
 
Join Date: 26 May 2011
Location: Nepean, ON
Posts: 5,810
Default

I've been in a similar situation myself.

Apparently there's someone with the same name out west (where I've never lived but visited for a few weeks when I was 9 years old) who commited a crime (or crimes) and for the next 3 years, my car was stopped and selected for furhter searches every time I tried to cross the border.

One border agent even asked me if I had a scar on my forehead, while i"m looking at her, with a brush cut and not hat on.

I understand they have a difficult job to perform, but I'm now of the opinion that they lend more weight to notes they find floating in their system than what's actually in front of their eyes.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 26 April 2013, 07:12 PM
Jay Temple's Avatar
Jay Temple Jay Temple is offline
 
Join Date: 25 September 2003
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 9,104
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
Adultery is a crime in some states and not in others, so it's not something one could be denied entry for in anticipation of committing it.
Is it? For some reason I thought the laws against adultery had been overturned well before the laws against sodomy.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 26 April 2013, 07:22 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,660
Tsk, Tsk

Adultery laws are still on the books in about half the states, albeit rarely enforced:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...umn26_ST_N.htm
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 26 April 2013, 07:26 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,368
Default

There was an adultery conviction in Virginia as recently as 2001, but Lawrence v. Texas was decided in 2003. It's very questionable after Lawrence whether adultery laws remain constitutional. Adultery is rarely prosecuted, so there are few opportunities to challenge the law, and there isn't exactly an adulterers' rights movement working to set up a challenge.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 26 April 2013, 10:35 PM
Not_Done_Living's Avatar
Not_Done_Living Not_Done_Living is offline
 
Join Date: 02 September 2006
Location: Markham, ON
Posts: 3,735
Default

Could this be a case where she instigated the encounter -- in an attempt to get a good story for her upcoming (and currently seeking funding) book?
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 27 April 2013, 01:14 AM
Kallah's Avatar
Kallah Kallah is offline
 
Join Date: 19 July 2004
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,599
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Not_Done_Living View Post
Could this be a case where she instigated the encounter -- in an attempt to get a good story for her upcoming (and currently seeking funding) book?
Some of her answers seem like they could have provoked the officer further, even if they were true:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
Righteous, the officer demanded what exactly I was doing in a bed with a married man. "That's actually none of your business." I had kicked the hornet's nest.
Why didn't she just answer his question without sugar coating it (as she insisted she was doing not two lines earlier)? If she had an innocent reason, such as saving money by getting one hotel room instead of two, why not offer it up then?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
I pointed out that we would be in Miami for a total of forty minutes to catch our next flight to Aruba; hardly enough time to run to our gate, let alone commit adultery.
Again, why the need to spew sarcasm at someone who literally has the power to kick you out the country you're visiting? Why not just stop talking after the first part of the sentence?
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 27 April 2013, 06:13 PM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 14,408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kallah View Post
Why didn't she just answer his question without sugar coating it (as she insisted she was doing not two lines earlier)? If she had an innocent reason, such as saving money by getting one hotel room instead of two, why not offer it up then?
Sorry, but I don't really blame her for that one. It really is none of his business, IMHO, unless he can give a more coherent reason why it might be (reasonable suspicion that one of them is underage, perhaps - or reasonable suspicion of prostitution, maybe). I am not particularly inclined to tell law enforcement things that are none of their business, and would get damned upset if they try to intimidate me into it. (And of course, this being TSA, they are in a position to cause you all sorts of problems without actually charging you with anything or allowing you legal counsel.) Maybe it's not the smartest or more expedient thing, but cooperating with the cops when they are abusing their authority only encourages more of it.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 27 April 2013, 10:50 PM
Blatherskite's Avatar
Blatherskite Blatherskite is offline
 
Join Date: 06 February 2006
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Not_Done_Living View Post
Could this be a case where she instigated the encounter -- in an attempt to get a good story for her upcoming (and currently seeking funding) book?
I can see a case for claiming she didn't answer appropriately to the questioning (although I would add that when you're scared you don't always think of the best thing to say) but how exactly would one go about instigating something like this?
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 27 April 2013, 11:01 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E. Q. Taft View Post
And of course, this being TSA, they are in a position to cause you all sorts of problems without actually charging you with anything or allowing you legal counsel.
It's the CBP, not the TSA.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 27 April 2013, 11:12 PM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 26,443
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kallah View Post
Why didn't she just answer his question without sugar coating it (as she insisted she was doing not two lines earlier)? If she had an innocent reason, such as saving money by getting one hotel room instead of two, why not offer it up then?
Your question here is telling - "an innocent reason, such as saving money by getting one hotel room instead of two". So if her reason was to have sex, it wouldn't have been "an innocent reason" and therefore she wouldn't have wanted to say it? Yes, exactly. You think she should be feeling as though she was doing something illegal, or at least suspect, by having sex with a married man. Therefore, if you were in the same situation, you might have hesitated on that question too.

Frankly it is none of his business. I hope I'd have said the same thing. How should she have replied? What possible response could the border guard have wanted?

I assumed that the sarcasm in the second line you quoted was added for the article, rather than something she'd said at the time. But even stated outright, it would hardly be sarcasm in itself - it's true. Did he think they'd have a quickie in the toilets just to defy US law (which isn't even law)?

Another "sarcastic" line later, about Saudi Arabia, I could imagine saying myself if I was being asked those sorts of questions after a long flight when I was tired as well. If I arrived in a country, thinking it was the USA - Land Of The Free, although perhaps you don't advertise yourselves like that any more - and the border guard started questioning me like that and claimed it was illegal to commit adultery and that I wouldn't be allowed in with my partner if this was my intention, I might well be genuinely confused and wonder out loud if there had been a mistake and I had accidentally ended up in Saudi Arabia rather than the USA. Why on earth would anybody expect to be asked questions like that when entering the USA (Land Of The Free)?
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 28 April 2013, 12:50 AM
Kallah's Avatar
Kallah Kallah is offline
 
Join Date: 19 July 2004
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,599
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E. Q. Taft View Post
Sorry, but I don't really blame her for that one. It really is none of his business, IMHO, unless he can give a more coherent reason why it might be (reasonable suspicion that one of them is underage, perhaps - or reasonable suspicion of prostitution, maybe).
There's a time and place to make a stand for your rights, and while everyone chooses that place and time of their own accord, "all alone, about to miss my connection, and over a small detail" does not seem like the ideal time and place to me. The article is clearly painting the issue as "I was harassed, it was terrible, I didn't do anything wrong, why me!" and not "I realized that the officer was crossing a line, and I stood up for my right to privacy, and didn't care what the repercussions were." If you make a stand - no matter what the issue is - you better be ready to stand behind it and take the fall out, not complain that you got stung after kicking the hornet's nest.

That said, I firmly believe that how this woman was treated was wildly out of proportion to the situation and her answers. The officer(s) acted out of line, and are the only ones to be held to blame for the situation, even if she could have answered questions in a less confrontational way.

ETA: Removed a personal anecdote, because it wasn't helping the discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 28 April 2013, 12:21 PM
Blatherskite's Avatar
Blatherskite Blatherskite is offline
 
Join Date: 06 February 2006
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kallah View Post
If you make a stand - no matter what the issue is - you better be ready to stand behind it and take the fall out, not complain that you got stung after kicking the hornet's nest.
OK, even if she was taking a stand for her rights in the way she answered some of her questions (but I think you're overstating how 'confrontational' her response was)... how would not writing an article detailing what happened help her 'stand' if she was making one?

Even if she deliberately kicked the hornet's nest, she is still justified in her indignance that the line of questioning happened in the first place. There is no way she could have instigated an investigation into her underwear and her relationship with a married man.

Assuming her article is entirely accurate, she was harrassed, it was terrible and she didn't do anything wrong, so why her? I didn't find the tone of the article to be self-pitying, but entirely reasonable even taking into account the possibility that she didn't always help herself with her answers.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 28 April 2013, 01:43 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blatherskite View Post
OK, even if she was taking a stand for her rights in the way she answered some of her questions (but I think you're overstating how 'confrontational' her response was)... how would not writing an article detailing what happened help her 'stand' if she was making one?
That would be a good argument if she hadn't written the article under a pseudonym. Something she's perfectly entitled to do of course. However it's a little harder for me to believe someone is standing up for themselves if they do it under an alias.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 28 April 2013, 02:56 PM
Blatherskite's Avatar
Blatherskite Blatherskite is offline
 
Join Date: 06 February 2006
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 4,066
Default

What argument? I was simply pointing out that even if she did initiate or exacerbate the problem in order to make a point (and I don't suspect that she did) then 'complaining' about it afterwards doesn't invalidate her accusation of sexism.

And I don't agree with you about aliases. A person can use an alias to stand up on behalf of other people who have experienced similar things. She's not making a formal complaint, she's describing what she thinks is a trend towards sexist attitudes.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 28 April 2013, 06:57 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blatherskite View Post

And I don't agree with you about aliases. A person can use an alias to stand up on behalf of other people who have experienced similar things. She's not making a formal complaint, she's describing what she thinks is a trend towards sexist attitudes.
This is Canada - there is no reason why she couldn't file a formal complaint (someone upthread suggested that she is actually doing that). But detailing sexist attitudes and doing it safely undercover isn't going to convince me that you're actually writing about things you experienced.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 28 April 2013, 08:13 PM
Blatherskite's Avatar
Blatherskite Blatherskite is offline
 
Join Date: 06 February 2006
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue View Post
This is Canada - there is no reason why she couldn't file a formal complaint (someone upthread suggested that she is actually doing that).
I'm glad if she is. And I didn't so much as imply that there is any reason why she can't. Are you responding to my comments or somebody else's?

Quote:
But detailing sexist attitudes and doing it safely undercover isn't going to convince me that you're actually writing about things you experienced.
Why not? Would you have been able to check the veracity of her claims if she did use her real name?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Restrictions on carrying meds snopes Medical 39 22 November 2011 04:26 AM
Can Having Three Condoms in D.C. Really Get You Arrested? snopes NFBSK 14 09 August 2010 09:44 AM
Lifestyles condoms kill gays snopes NFBSK 19 14 April 2009 03:30 PM
Air-dropped condoms snopes Military 18 14 May 2007 10:46 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.