Anyone boycotting the TSA scanners tomorrow?

[byteware]

One can respect a soldier's sacrifice and at the same time think the causes of the sacrifice, in this case the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, are not worthy of the sacrifice. There's nothing we are going to accomplish in Afghanistan that is worth the price of Americans coming home in body bags or missing limbs.

I completely agree. But they aren't sacrificing for Iraq, or Afghanistan.

You can not respect the CAUSE of their sacrifice, and still respect the sacrifice.

However, you cannot disrespect WHY they sacrificed their lives, and still respect the sacrifice.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I agree, but I think the idea that somehow we check our rights at the door when we enter private property needs to be addressed.

You do though. If you want to stand in a public park and rail about how horrible Angry Birds is and the cops toss you out, they have violated your right to free speech. If you want to come to my house and rail about how horrible Angry Birds is, I can toss you out on your ear and your rights have not been violated in any way, shape or form.

 

[Crude]

Nope, even if the TSA was a private organization and the airport was their property, that wouldn't be what they are doing.

They are detaining, fining, and jailing people. So, no... that is absolutely NOT what they are doing.

Ah, now you have a point and a good one at that. The problem now is that you opened a can of worms. Cause this is how police handle issues everyday. You are detained until they can verify you are innocent, you are fined for not cooperating and you are jailed for resisting even if you are innocent. The system is corrupt to the core then.

The private property argument doesn't really apply here. Airports are paid for by public money for the most part.

aka revenue...like walmart?

They are very much public property.

It's very important that when you call foul you know the circumstances.

 

[byteware]

You do though. If you want to stand in a public park and rail about how horrible Angry Birds is and the cops toss you out, they have violated your right to free speech. If you want to come to my house and rail about how horrible Angry Birds is, I can toss you out on your ear and your rights have not been violated in any way, shape or form.

The difference is with what rights are protecting me at the time.

I have the right to be in publicly accessible areas.

I don't have the right to be on your property.

I'm hoping you see the difference.

Ah, now you have a point and a good one at that. The problem now is that you opened a can of worms. Cause this is how police handle issues everyday. You are detained until they can verify you are innocent, you are fined for not cooperating and you are jailed for resisting even if you are innocent. The system is corrupt to the core then.

You misrepresent the truth Crude.

Police don't just come up to you on a daily basis and detain you until they prove you are innocent of a crime.

They WILL detain you if they have probable cause to suspect you are guilty of a crime.

So, no... this is NOT how police handle issues every day.

aka revenue...like walmart?

huh? I'm generally pretty open minded about the other persons views, but I can't even determine what view you are trying to express here.

It's very important that when you call foul you know the circumstances.

While that's true. It is unconstitutional for someone to search you without probable cause whether it is public or private land. So, whether or not you are on public or private land really doesn't matter one iota.

For instance, police cannot search you (without PC) on your employers property, because you still have your rights.

Employers cannot search you in Walmart (without PC) because you still have your rights.

Heck, Walmart cannot search your bags without your permission. They cannot detain you until the police arrive to search your bags. If they KNOW you have stolen something, then they can make a citizens arrest. If they are wrong, then you can sue them.

What Walmart CAN do... is prevent you from entering their store, or make you leave. That is the extent of what Walmart can do to you legally.

That doesn't meant that Walmart employees don't THINK that they can do more than that.

 

[A.Nonymous]

The difference is with what rights are protecting me at the time.

I have the right to be in publicly accessible areas.

I don't have the right to be on your property.

I'm hoping you see the difference.

You're missing my point or I'm not being clear about it one. If someone has you removed from public property for criticizing Angry Birds, they are wrong. You have a right to say whatever you wish and they can't punish you for it. If I kick you out of my house for criticizing Angry Birds, I'm punishing you for what you said. I have every right to punish you for what you say in my house. I don't have a right to punish you for what you say on public property.

 

[EarlyMon]

Police don't just come up to you on a daily basis and detain you until they prove you are innocent of a crime.

They WILL detain you if they have probable cause to suspect you are guilty of a crime.

Please help me understand what that just said. I believe that I can assert that:

Police detain those they have probable cause to suspect are guilty of a crime, and in cases everyday across American, many of these are discharged as innocent when further facts or more suitable suspects come to light.

So - for this subset of those so released - how is the first quoted sentence correct, semantics aside? From their point of view, didn't the police simply detain them until they were established as innocent?

(And I avoid the hyperbole of bad cops that hassle people - not part of this discussion at all.)

Also - the assertion is that TSA/police are detaining people. My memory of the incident leading to this boycott had no such detention - wasn't it John Tyner's expulsion that got us into this?

 

[byteware]

You're missing my point or I'm not being clear about it one. If someone has you removed from public property for criticizing Angry Birds, they are wrong. You have a right to say whatever you wish and they can't punish you for it. If I kick you out of my house for criticizing Angry Birds, I'm punishing you for what you said. I have every right to punish you for what you say in my house. I don't have a right to punish you for what you say on public property.

You're being VERY clear about your position... I'm just pointing out the flaws in it.

1) Legally, not allowing me on your property, or to remain on your property, is not a punishment. You may view it as such, but it is not legally a punishment. Legally, the cops telling me to leave the park because of my speech isn't punishment either, but it IS interfering with my right to speak.

2) There are no constraints on what you can use to determine you don't want me on your property. If I say something on public property, and you don't like it, you don't have to let me in your house.

3) In only one of those are my rights being trampled (unless you use violence to get me off of your property). The cops are trying to interfere with my right to speak, you are flexing your right to determine who can and cannot be on your property. I can continue speaking on my way out, and I can continue speaking on the sidewalk.

The scenario of me in your house doesn't violate my rights to free speech, unless of course, you attempt to silence me, but that requires a physical altercation that would be assault.

So - for this subset of those so released - how is the first quoted sentence correct, semantics aside? From their point of view, didn't the police simply detain them until they were established as innocent?

Aside from the TSA, detaining people or searching them without probable cause is unconstitutional across the United States on a daily basis.

If a police officer detains you without probable cause, then they have violated your rights. (Unless they are the TSA, and then you apparently don't have that right anymore). And no, declining to be searched is NOT probable cause to search you or detain you.

Also - the assertion is that TSA/police are detaining people. My memory of the incident leading to this boycott had no such detention - wasn't it John Tyner's expulsion that got us into this?

Yes, but the TSA's behavior isn't limited to what they did with Tyner. There are multiple accusations against the TSA for detaining people for inordinate amounts of time when they decline a pat down.

Edited: Grammar

 

[Crude]

This is nuts. I need to know....is a plane private property or not?

 

[byteware]

This is nuts. I need to know....is a plane private property or not?

A plane is private property. Controlled by the airlines, but regulated by the government.

But that's really irrelevant to the discussion at hand since none of the discussed behavior occurred in an airplane.

 

[A.Nonymous]

A plane is private property. Controlled by the airlines, but regulated by the government.

But that's really irrelevant to the discussion at hand since none of the discussed behavior occurred in an airplane.

Agreed. If different airlines had different security regs, this probably wouldn't be so much of an issue and the free market would sort it all out.

 

[Bob Maxey]

So, we're agreed. You cannot infringe on my rights. You can only exercise yours. You cannot stop me from speaking, or carrying a firearm. You can only determine that I will not do those things on YOUR property. That's fine. That's your right. That's why it's private property. At no point do I give up my rights simply because I entered your property though.

I think we are in agreement, just confusing posts. We are both saying the same thing, I think. So, let me be clear.

What I mean is this: When you do not leave my property after I tell you to leave, I might not have a right to physically take your property or restrain you. I am sure there are laws that vary from state to state and in Utah, I might be able to tie you up or handcuff you, I do not know for sure.

I can disarm you when obviously my close friends (and witnesses to the fact that you arrived all bloody, we did not hurt you) agree that your gun and bad attitude represents a danger. So I can take your gun away and hold it for the police. The law might say otherwise; neither you nor I know exactly because there are 57 states now and all have laws.

I think I can arrest you under the citizen's arrest provisions in the law. I am NOT sure what I need to do to perform a citizen's arrest, however.

Look, if you arrive at my place, cause trouble, I'll end it and I will do so in a legal way that prevents you from suing me and to prevent my incarceration. My money and freedom is, to me, more important than your rights, which might not exist in this example.

Bob Maxey

 

[Bob Maxey]

A plane is private property. Controlled by the airlines, but regulated by the government.

But that's really irrelevant to the discussion at hand since none of the discussed behavior occurred in an airplane.

It is my understanding that some provate planes like large jets also require the presence of a US Marshall onboard. Not sure if this is the case or not.

Bob Maxey

 

[byteware]

I think we are in agreement, just confusing posts. We are both saying the same thing, I think. So, let me be clear.

What I mean is this: When you do not leave my property after I tell you to leave, I might not have a right to physically take your property or restrain you. I am sure there are laws that vary from state to state and in Utah, I might be able to tie you up or handcuff you, I do not know for sure.

I can disarm you when obviously my close friends (and witnesses to the fact that you arrived all bloody, we did not hurt you) agree that your gun and bad attitude represents a danger. So I can take your gun away and hold it for the police. The law might say otherwise; neither you nor I know exactly because there are 57 states now and all have laws.

I think I can arrest you under the citizen's arrest provisions in the law. I am NOT sure what I need to do to perform a citizen's arrest, however.

Look, if you arrive at my place, cause trouble, I'll end it and I will do so in a legal way that prevents you from suing me and to prevent my incarceration. My money and freedom is, to me, more important than your rights, which might not exist in this example.

Bob Maxey

I'm not aware of any state that allows you to tie someone up (or handcuff them) simply for them not leaving. If they are acting aggressive, or dangerous, than that might be one thing, but simply for not leaving? No.

If I'm being dangerous with my firearm, it doesn't matter whether I'm on private property or not.. you have the right to disarm me to protect yourself.

It is my understanding that some provate planes like large jets also require the presence of a US Marshall onboard. Not sure if this is the case or not.

Bob Maxey

Umm, I'm not sure if the Feds REQUIRE that they have them, but I know that they provide them. Which flights have a marshall is classified information though.

 

[IOWA]

Hey guys, didn't you forget something?

 

[Crude]

Mind you, the airport is private. It is neither owned our subsidized by our government. But that's irrelevant because the tsa isn't keeping you out of the airport. The planes are private also. I'm sorry but I have not heard of the tsa detaining anyone...your choice is be searched or leave. IF they did hold someone then wouldn't that be probable cause? You spend $500 and turn around because you won't allow yourself to be searched? Even if this isn't probable cause and they have held someone then it clearly isn't procedure but a **** up of a tsa agent.

I'm sorry but if you think you have a right to be on private property without conditions you're nuts.
No where in the world do you have more rights then the property owner. As far as government regulations....what do think is keeping me from putting claymores on my property.

saying you have a right to fly is like saying you have a right to food stamps, healthcare or a place to live.

 

[Crude]

The difference is with what rights are protecting me at the time.

I have the right to be in publicly accessible areas.

yes

I don't have the right to be on your property.

yes

I'm hoping you see the difference.

Then we are saying the same thing as the airport is private.

You misrepresent the truth Crude.

I think you understand the rules but fail to see the circumstances.

Police don't just come up to you on a daily basis and detain you until they prove you are innocent of a crime.

neither does the TSA.

They WILL detain you if they have probable cause to suspect you are guilty of a crime.

so does the TSA

So, no... this is NOT how police handle issues every day.

huh? I'm generally pretty open minded about the other persons views, but I can't even determine what view you are trying to express here.


While that's true. It is unconstitutional for someone to search you without probable cause whether it is public or private land.

Are you sure? I mean I may not be able to search you, but an officer can so what do you think the TSA is?\

So, whether or not you are on public or private land really doesn't matter one iota.

This matters...it's all that we are arguing? If I'm right and the airport is private you have no right to be there. If you're right then your right to be there is guaranteed by the fact that it's public property and you need no other justification to on the property.

For instance, police cannot search you (without PC) on your employers property, because you still have your rights.

Right but they can have you removed. Your choice stay and submit to the authority of the owner or leave. If you refuse this is PC...now your are being removed and searched?

Employers cannot search you in Walmart (without PC) because you still have your rights.

Again, you're right BUT you are not guaranteed the right to be on the property.

Heck, Walmart cannot search your bags without your permission. They cannot detain you until the police arrive to search your bags. If they KNOW you have stolen something, then they can make a citizens arrest. If they are wrong, then you can sue them.

The only thing relevant here is the first sentance and again you're right but they can tell you to submit to a search or shop elsewhere.

What Walmart CAN do... is prevent you from entering their store, or make you leave. That is the extent of what Walmart can do to you legally.

That doesn't meant that Walmart employees don't THINK that they can do more than that.

They can also say you are not entering our store without a search. YOU make the decision to give up your right to shop. You and you only are able to give up your rights to enter a property. You can give up your 1st, your 2nd and yes even your 4th amendment rights to visit wal mart but no one is forcing you to shop at walmart.


You must not own property or something otherwise this would be a no brainer.

 

[Bob Maxey]

What Walmart CAN do... is prevent you from entering their store, or make you leave. That is the extent of what Walmart can do to you legally.

That doesn't meant that Walmart employees don't THINK that they can do more than that.

In California, Title 13, Chapter 5, of the California Penal Code Section 490.5 gives Wal-Mart the right to detain you if they suspect you of shoplifting.

As for what a store can and cannot do, it varies from state to state so saying that a Wal-Mart can or cannot do something requires proof. Seems they can do quite a bit or not, depending where you reside.

Bob is not a lowlife theif or lawyer, so consult your DA.

Bob

 

[EarlyMon]

Personally, I think the whole private property thing is over-focused in the wrong area.

The issue is flight safety - and an approved government law enforcement agency(*) has been given enforcement powers and operating procedures where that's concerned, updating their entry-point procedures - same as the cops in my front yard, isn't it?

They seem to me have a mandate.

Now - I could be a total bazootiehead on this one - but I think arguing venue is either a highly clever way with which to attack TSA - or it's missing the point that some parts (or all) of the mandate and/or the operating procedures are faulty, prima facie.

And if I'm wrong and the issue is their behavior on private property - then I'd predict that loophole would get closed even if it meant nationalizing the airports.

These are just my opinions.

~~~~
(*) Per their own "Who We Are" section of the tsa homepage in the .gov domain.

 

[EarlyMon]

You can not respect the CAUSE of their sacrifice, and still respect the sacrifice.

However, you cannot disrespect WHY they sacrificed their lives, and still respect the sacrifice.

My personal impressions are that few people get this distinction, and that it may not be uncommon for anyone protesting a war (the CAUSE) to be lumped in as not respecting the troops.

And I'm sure you'll agree that this discussion allowed heat to override language - the respect is due to those that died, those that served, and those that sacrificed at home so that they could serve.

In the wonderful world of yesterday, it was the body politic, largely all of us.

Today, not so much.

I was always intrigued by Heinlein's political essay, Starship Troopers, whose single point was that national service be a pre-requisite for voting. That idea once flourished in the ancient Mediterranean, but I digress.

PS - Would you then say that it's Congress, who had to avert their eyes when the grope procedure was shown them, who has most disrespected the sacrifices made to protect our 4th Amendment rights?

Individuals at the gate need have some sense of civil disobedience (not the modern definition, thanks) as well as an understanding of the law.

Wouldn't the burden be greater on that body of many lawyers rather than Joe visiting Mom?

 

[hakr100]

You can not respect the CAUSE of their sacrifice, and still respect the sacrifice.

.

Sure i can, and I do. I respect the bravery and sacrifice of American service personnel who served or are serving in the Middle East. But the cause - the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan - I have no respect for that.

I'm sure you are not in a position to tell me what I should think or feel about soldiering or war.

 

[EarlyMon]

Sure i can, and I do. I respect the bravery and sacrifice of American service personnel who served or are serving in the Middle East. But the cause - the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan - I have no respect for that.

I'm sure you are not in a position to tell me what I should think or feel about soldiering or war.

If I'm reading you right, then you read him wrong as I initially did.

Restated, he said, you can respect the sacrifice made without needing to respect the cause that led to it being made.

And in order to respect the sacrifice, you need respect why they made it.

That means you can disrespect these wars, aka the cause - but we must respect that the soldiers serving are respecting their ideals and higher command authority, aka the why.

That's all assuming you and I misread that the same way.

Took me a few turns, but his statement's grammatically correct, so speaking for myself - my misunderstanding initially was on me.

And if I'm getting byteware wrong, I'll await clarification.

PS - Yoda speak also works - Respect not the cause you can, and while respecting soldiers still.

PPS - Attributed to General Douglas MacArthur - “No one hates war more than a soldier.”

Attributed to President Dwight Eisenhower - "I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."

Attributed to a Dutchman overseas (Asia), when I was being attacked by others (including his little brother) simply for being an American - "I'd just like to say that I appreciate the sacrifices the Americans made for my father and mother - or I wouldn't be here today, and my country might not be free."

 

[byteware]

Mind you, the airport is private. It is neither owned our subsidized by our government. But that's irrelevant because the tsa isn't keeping you out of the airport. The planes are private also.

Even, if you lost your rights on private property (which you clearly don't).

The TSA doesn't own the airports. The TSA doesn't own the airplanes. They don't have those property rights. Period.

I'm sorry but I have not heard of the tsa detaining anyone

You do realize that unless you are allowed to leave immediately after declining the pat down... you are being detained? Right?

I did a google search for "detained by TSA" and got a page full of personal stories. I also got a few news stories, but I don't feel Examiner.com and The hurricane are reliable (especially since I don't know who publishes the hurricane).


Political activist detained by TSA for carrying cash - National Civil Liberties | Examiner.com

Not for refusing the search but for carrying cash.

...your choice is be searched or leave. IF they did hold someone then wouldn't that be probable cause?

Really? The refusal to be searched is probable cause? That would mean that if you were pulled over and the police wanted to search your vehicle... if you declined, that would be probable cause for them to search your vehicle.

I mean, seriously, think about this for a second... if this was true, the only thing a cop would do in order to search you anywhere, anyhow, and anytime, would be to ask you... and then have you refuse.

You spend $500 and turn around because you won't allow yourself to be searched? Even if this isn't probable cause and they have held someone then it clearly isn't procedure but a **** up of a tsa agent.

Actually, it's clearly procedure. In every story I've read, once you decline the pat down, the TSA agents call actual police officers over to "interview you" during which point you are NOT free to leave. That's procedure.

I'm sorry but if you think you have a right to be on private property without conditions you're nuts.
No where in the world do you have more rights then the property owner. As far as government regulations....what do think is keeping me from putting claymores on my property.

And should one of those claymores kill me, then you will got to jail. My right to life trumps your rights as a property owner.

As a property owner, you CANNOT violate my rights. Period. Try to silence me... and you go to jail. Try to take my handgun... and you go to jail.

You can ask me to leave... that is the one and only recourse if you don't like how I'm exercising my rights.

saying you have a right to fly is like saying you have a right to food stamps, healthcare or a place to live.

Would you care to tell me how your 4th amendment rights are conditional on you having a right to fly?

 

[byteware]

neither does the TSA.

Oh my bad... I didn't realize that the TSA had evidence that each and every person flying committed a crime...

Other than that... that is EXACTLY what they do.

Are you sure? I mean I may not be able to search you, but an officer can so what do you think the TSA is?

You think an officer has the right to search me simply because I'm at your house? No. They still need probable cause. Whether you want them to search me or not.

This matters...it's all that we are arguing? If I'm right and the airport is private you have no right to be there. If you're right then your right to be there is guaranteed by the fact that it's public property and you need no other justification to on the property.

How would this be different from setting up strip searches at Taco Bell? Both are private property and you have no right to be there.

Right but they can have you removed. Your choice stay and submit to the authority of the owner or leave. If you refuse this is PC...now your are being removed and searched?

So, all an officer has to do to have probable cause to search you, is ask, and have you refuse? That wouldn't make much sense now would it.

Refusing a search, isn't probable cause... otherwise, cops would ask every person if they were willing to submit to a search, and then when they refused... search them.

Again, you're right BUT you are not guaranteed the right to be on the property.

Try to take my handgun away... Try to silence me... and you will go to jail.

The only thing relevant here is the first sentance and again you're right but they can tell you to submit to a search or shop elsewhere.

Absolutely. But they can't force you or fine you.

They can also say you are not entering our store without a search. YOU make the decision to give up your right to shop.

I must have missed that amendment in the constitution where you have the right to shop... Can you point out which amendment that falls under?

You must not own property or something otherwise this would be a no brainer.

No brainer... that's awfully ironic.

 

[byteware]

In California, Title 13, Chapter 5, of the California Penal Code Section 490.5 gives Wal-Mart the right to detain you if they suspect you of shoplifting.

As for what a store can and cannot do, it varies from state to state so saying that a Wal-Mart can or cannot do something requires proof. Seems they can do quite a bit or not, depending where you reside.

Bob is not a lowlife theif or lawyer, so consult your DA.

Bob

I actually went and read it... and you are right... but it does require... probable cause. They cannot search you or detain you without probable cause... and no, refusing a search is not probable cause.

 

[byteware]

Sure i can, and I do. I respect the bravery and sacrifice of American service personnel who served or are serving in the Middle East. But the cause - the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan - I have no respect for that.

I'm sure you are not in a position to tell me what I should think or feel about soldiering or war.

Let me rephrase, because you seem to misunderstand.

You can disrespect the cause of their sacrifice, and still respect their sacrifice (i.e. war in afghanistan/iraq).

You cannont disrespect WHY they sacrificed their lives, and still respect their sacrifice.