Page 86 of 88 FirstFirst ... 36768485868788 LastLast
Results 851 to 860 of 879

Thread: TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

  1. #851
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    You have to give probable cause, and even then, if the search is refused by the detainee, a warrant must be issued before the car can be searched.


    j-mac
    But the probable cause is as simple as refusing the request of showing your DL and proof and proof of insurance. Probable cause is not a difficult obsticle to overcome.

    So, on our highways, officers block a road, stop all cars, request proof of being legal and can search you if you refuse. Am I wrong about this?

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #852
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    But the probable cause is as simple as refusing the request of showing your DL and proof and proof of insurance. Probable cause is not a difficult obsticle to overcome.

    So, on our highways, officers block a road, stop all cars, request proof of being legal and can search you if you refuse. Am I wrong about this?

    Are you referring to 'DUI checkpoints'?


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  3. #853
    Guru
    Diogenes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    10-11-13 @ 06:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,980

    Re: TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Additionally, as stated earlier, a single individual performing a disruptive action on a highway has not shown itself to have the same potential for severe disruption of the National Transist System or the severe effect on the economy that disruptions of airline travel can have. This again reduces the "reasonableness" of any searches because the threat for damage to the country is not as high.
    The difference you cite is one of degree, not of kind. Where in the Constitution (as you read it) does it specify how much potential damage is required for you to surrender the freedoms guaranteed to you by the Constitution?
    "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
    - Abraham Lincoln

  4. #854
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Are you referring to 'DUI checkpoints'?


    j-mac
    That is one purpose, yes. They also are set up to check auto insurance. I was involved in one once in Mississippi. No one in the car had been drinking, but tried to refuse. They were searched.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #855
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    That is one purpose, yes. They also are set up to check auto insurance. I was involved in one once in Mississippi. No one in the car had been drinking, but tried to refuse. They were searched.

    Well, I have never heard of an insurance checkpoint, however I do know that in some cases stops during a DUI checkpoint have been tossed over this very question. I was in traffic court in Maryland one time when this happened. Now admittedly we are talking about a guy that was barely a .08 and had a clean record, but none the less, the judge cited that in his opinion it bordered awfully close to rights violations, and entrapment so he tossed it.

    j-mac

    PS
    One of the most ubiquitous forms of suspicionless checkpoints is the sobriety checkpoint. Many folks are under the false impression that sobriety checkpoints are legal throughout the country based upon Michigan Dept. of State Police V. Sitz. While the Supreme Court did in fact carve out a 4th Amendment exception for sobriety checkpoints in this case, legal analysis doesn't stop there. Before a sobriety checkpoint can be considered 'legal', it must not only pass constitutional muster at the federal level, it must do so at the state level as well while abiding by all applicable statutory requirements. What this means is that 11 states currently prohibit sobriety checkpoints within their boundaries. In the remaining 39 States, one or more of the following conditions exist:

    Roadblocks are explicitly authorized by statutory law
    Courts have upheld them despite the lack of specific statutory authorization
    Courts have failed to strike down or review checkpoints conducted unilaterally by local police
    What's especially ironic about this scenario is that even though it was a Michigan case that gave rise to the 4th amendment loophole to begin with, Michigan is still one of the 11 State's that explicitly prohibit sobriety checkpoints within its boundaries. After SCOTUS ruled in favor of Michigan's State police regarding their roadblock program, the case was remanded back to the Michigan Supreme Court for further review. The Michigan Supreme Court felt so strongly about the issue, they ruled that regardless of the federal Supreme Court's ruling, the State Constitution still made such roadblock programs illegal within Michigan's boundaries.

    http://www.checkpointusa.org/Checkpo...heckpoints.htm
    Last edited by j-mac; 12-01-10 at 11:53 AM. Reason: Information
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  6. #856
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,968

    Re: TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    So everyone is subjected to this pat down? I don't think so.
    No, everyone is subjected to a machine search, with what machine is determined by what's available in the airport. Based on other issues at that time that give probable cause for further searches, they may be done. For example, with regards to pat downs, if someone is unable to be searched with the machine...for example due to medical issues or due to refusing it...then an alternative method must be presented. Another example is if a Behavioral Detection Officer believes someone to be exhibiting suspicious behavior which can cause them to be flagged for additional screening. However, every passenger recieves the same basic baseline screen potential. It is only with EXTRA actions on their part that they would recieve additional forms of screening.

    Ok, so you'd be fine with it if it were say at a toll stop and posted before hand?
    Perhaps you should just read my previous posts, but for the sake of hoping this time maybe you'll pay attention I'll do this again. I would think in general there wouldn't be anything legally wrong with it in theory. However I believe it would be a far more questionable situation depending on the type and extent of search being conducted, due to there being a LARGE difference with regards to national security involved since incidents on the highways have not shown themselves to have anywhere near the severe impact on our National Transit System and our economy as Plane Travel does.

    Un huh...think of the Airport line as an Interstate, and apply the same logic. Here I'll show you what I mean...

    "So it would be entirely unreasonable for you to simply be pulled over and given an extensive search simply for being in an airport in the current system.
    But you're not pulled over and given an extensive search simply for being in an airport. ALL individuals are given the same search when trying to access the secure portion of an airport, with additional or alternative searches being done or offered based on circumstances at that time that merit or require it.

    That is different then randomly pulling someone over and going "I'm giving you a search".

    I see, so the people turning down the x-ray machine and subjected to a search are being disruptive?
    No. I mean that if someone blows up their car on the highway, causes a wreck on the highway, or does some other sort of disruptive action on a highway the national impact is relatively low. Wrecks happen frequently, FAR more cars travel on a daily basis in a single Metro area than fly over the entire US, and historically incidents happening on a Highway haven't had an impact on the economy or the transit system. On the flip side, plane traffic is fewer which makes disruptive situations have a bigger impact on the entire system. When a large scale disruption happens with a plane it affects the entire transit systems as flights are grounded in that area or nation wide. History has shown us that, unlike auto-incidents, incidents on planes can negatively affect the amount of individuals using that method of travel in the aftermath that affects the economy.

    The affects on the national transit system and the economy of a dangerous disruption on a highway is less than that of an airplane. Thus, they are not exact analogs in what is "reasonable".

    You still have failed to provide any domestic instances where an American was a threat to Air travel to prompt this.
    Why would I need to provide that? What basis does that have to do with my reasoning in the least? Are you suggesting that we should have no airport security except for non-citizens?

    Oh I grasp it just fine....Do you?
    Since its my own logic...yes, yes I do.

    And I disagree. That is allowed isn't it?
    Well, yes...its allowed. And its retarded. I mean, you're fully ALLOWED to utterly and entirely misrepresent my statements, misstate what my "logic" says, and try to argue against a strawman you've built up on your own. Its just rather dumb to do so.

  7. #857
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

    Well, j, that is one judge. However:

    At a sobriety checkpoint, drivers are necessarily stopped without reasonable suspicion, and may be tested summarily and without probable cause. Thus the Constitution would appear to prohibit people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least without probable cause that they have committed a crime; however, the warrant requirement only attaches should the search be unreasonable and the Supreme Court, as shown below, decided that such stops are not unreasonable under certain circumstances.

    Random checkpoint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    And how about stopping a teanage who looks kind of odd? Can we check them? This too happens.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #858
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,968

    Re: TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

    Quote Originally Posted by Diogenes View Post
    The difference you cite is one of degree, not of kind. Where in the Constitution (as you read it) does it specify how much potential damage is required for you to surrender the freedoms guaranteed to you by the Constitution?
    The constitution deems you protected agaisnt "unreasonable" searches.

    Being searched when voluntarily entering into sensitive federal property is "reasonable" in my mind to allow for a search of a person. The reasonableness of the level of said search then corresponds with the potential for harm that can come from your access to said federal property.

    For example, I don't think its "unreasonable" to search people going into a federal court house. I think anything more than a metal detector and maybe a quick x-ray machine of what you're bringing in would likely be "unreasonable" as there's little true nationally severe damage one can do in a local federal court room. If it was a major case of a high ranking terrorist with there being chatter that there may be action taken there, I'd find it "reasonable" to conduct a more intensive search, for instance say having a bomb sniffing dog present at the metal detector. This is because with the media attention and the high profile of such a case mixed with the known potential threat, the potential for damage is far higher and thus the level of search that is reasonable could be escalated.

  9. #859
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    No, everyone is subjected to a machine search, with what machine is determined by what's available in the airport. Based on other issues at that time that give probable cause for further searches, they may be done. For example, with regards to pat downs, if someone is unable to be searched with the machine...for example due to medical issues or due to refusing it...then an alternative method must be presented. Another example is if a Behavioral Detection Officer believes someone to be exhibiting suspicious behavior which can cause them to be flagged for additional screening. However, every passenger recieves the same basic baseline screen potential. It is only with EXTRA actions on their part that they would recieve additional forms of screening..
    Uh huh....So they say.....In public anyway...But we do have cases of this..



    Oh my....

    Perhaps you should just read my previous posts, but for the sake of hoping this time maybe you'll pay attention I'll do this again. I would think in general there wouldn't be anything legally wrong with it in theory. However I believe it would be a far more questionable situation depending on the type and extent of search being conducted, due to there being a LARGE difference with regards to national security involved since incidents on the highways have not shown themselves to have anywhere near the severe impact on our National Transit System and our economy as Plane Travel does.
    Astonishing. All I can say is that you are just the type that a tyranny counts on to effect its take over.

    But you're not pulled over and given an extensive search simply for being in an airport. ALL individuals are given the same search when trying to access the secure portion of an airport, with additional or alternative searches being done or offered based on circumstances at that time that merit or require it.
    Wonderful.

    That is different then randomly pulling someone over and going "I'm giving you a search".
    This is being done as well.

    But some at TSA question if the new rules are making anyone safer.
    “I myself would be just as confident flying before these new procedures took place as I would be flying right now.”
    The irony is that the person most likely subjected to an enhanced pat-down is not someone acting suspiciously.
    It’s America’s seniors that are most often the targets of a pat-down, says this local TSA officer.
    “These are your mother, your father, your grandparents. They’re the ones who have to put up with this every time they fly.”
    And it breaks the heart of some local TSA officers.

    Local TSA Agent Speaks Out On Pat-Downs « CBS Pittsburgh – News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of Pittsburgh
    Completely random searches happen in about 1% of all passengers.

    No. I mean that if someone blows up their car on the highway, causes a wreck on the highway, or does some other sort of disruptive action on a highway the national impact is relatively low. Wrecks happen frequently, FAR more cars travel on a daily basis in a single Metro area than fly over the entire US, and historically incidents happening on a Highway haven't had an impact on the economy or the transit system. On the flip side, plane traffic is fewer which makes disruptive situations have a bigger impact on the entire system. When a large scale disruption happens with a plane it affects the entire transit systems as flights are grounded in that area or nation wide. History has shown us that, unlike auto-incidents, incidents on planes can negatively affect the amount of individuals using that method of travel in the aftermath that affects the economy.

    The affects on the national transit system and the economy of a dangerous disruption on a highway is less than that of an airplane. Thus, they are not exact analogs in what is "reasonable".
    Ever been in NYC during morning or evening rush? Every bridge is packed.

    Why would I need to provide that? What basis does that have to do with my reasoning in the least? Are you suggesting that we should have no airport security except for non-citizens?
    The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has issued a travel notice to Muslim airline passengers, warning them that new regulations from the Transportation Security Administration violate certain religious rules.

    According to CAIR, the TSA’s new “enhanced pat down” policy should be limited to searching only around Muslim women’s head and neck if they are wearing a hijab and that Muslims objecting to the enhanced full-body scans have the right to request the pat-down procedure be done in a private place.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/cair...n’s-head-neck/
    And Big Sis is open to these suggestions. She said so.

    Since its my own logic...yes, yes I do.
    Ok. Just checking.

    Well, yes...its allowed. And its retarded. I mean, you're fully ALLOWED to utterly and entirely misrepresent my statements, misstate what my "logic" says, and try to argue against a strawman you've built up on your own. Its just rather dumb to do so.
    What strawman have I built up? What have I misrepresented, or misstated? That's pure BS. You seem way too thin skinned.

    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  10. #860
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: TSA ejects Oceanside man from airport for refusing security check

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Well, j, that is one judge. However:

    At a sobriety checkpoint, drivers are necessarily stopped without reasonable suspicion, and may be tested summarily and without probable cause. Thus the Constitution would appear to prohibit people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least without probable cause that they have committed a crime; however, the warrant requirement only attaches should the search be unreasonable and the Supreme Court, as shown below, decided that such stops are not unreasonable under certain circumstances.

    Random checkpoint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    And how about stopping a teanage who looks kind of odd? Can we check them? This too happens.

    Hell Joe, 26% of people don't even know that we separated from England to form our nation, why would one suspect them to know their rights? or have the courage to exercise them? I believe all these things could be challenged in a court.

    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •