It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

tsa patdowns, what is the big deal.................really?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rhadamanthus
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Where has all this been going on? I must of missed it all. I have never pat down at an airport or anywhere for that matter. The police have never asked to search my car and I have never been frisked either.


Lucky you. I think once a month in my 20s, a cop was asking to poke through my car (I could have refused...but I never did...they can be intimidating to a 20 year old). Speeding, etc...general traffic stops and they seen my long hair and general "rebel looking" appearance along with a tricked out custom van. meh...in retrospect, I can't say I didn't fit a profile of a typical drug dealer or some such.

just because you haven't experienced it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The question is, what is and isn't legal...well, when you give them permission, they can do what they want.




posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by PayMeh
 


i pretty much agree with everything you said.
but would like to ad, this procedure matches law enforcement, and next will be used possibly in more areas,
like entering stadiums and other public places.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by rubbertramp
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


yes, and this is my point.
the t..s.a. now can pat you down in the same manner as any law enforcement officer.




You mis-read what I wrote. Try again.

There is no reasonable suspicion. There is no warrant, and no probable cause. Therefore it is unconstituional.

Cops can't even do that.

As for invasive searches. . . those can only be done after arrest, which needs probable cause.


edit on 11/23/2010 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
You ever considered that this anti-pat down fever is a carefully constructed plot to have the airlines and agency cave...redusing the security so terrorists can pave the way for more attacks?

just a conspiracy thought...create a false outrage that will open the door...then use the publics rightous indignation against them.

just a random thought...no sources to site, just..what would terror joe do kinda moment.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


yet i've been searched cause a cop said, 'i smell marijuana' when i had not been smoking.
this is what i mean by 'there is no probable cause, or it can be easily bypassed.

the part about the x-ray is only half the truth, i've passed through bp checkpoints where dogs are used, and have also
had law enforcement use dogs to sniff my vehicle.
what is the difference....really?



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


yet i've been searched cause a cop said, 'i smell marijuana' when i had not been smoking.
this is what i mean by 'there is no probable cause, or it can be easily bypassed.

the part about the x-ray is only half the truth, i've passed through bp checkpoints where dogs are used, and have also
had law enforcement use dogs to sniff my vehicle.
what is the difference....really?



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Pat downs have been around for ages...this "enhanced" stuff is new..I have no clue what the difference is from regular pat down verses "enhanced". I guess thats the "junk touch" bit...well, close enough anyhow.

Thing is though, you can refuse. currently the fine thing is stupid..it should be a quick turnaround...say no to scan, say no to pat down, about face and get out. I don't agree with the potential suit..that is the best argument about all of this to begin with and the only valid aspect of the outrage.



I kind of agree. You should be able to say no, no, and no, and get a move on.

But I disagree in the fact that these things should not even be put in place by the government.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by rubbertramp
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


yes, and this is my point.
the t..s.a. now can pat you down in the same manner as any law enforcement officer.




You mis-read what I wrote. Try again.

There is no reasonable suspicion. There is no warrant, and no probable cause. Therefore it is unconstituional.

Cops can't even do that.

As for invasive searches. . . those can only be done after arrest, which needs probable cause.


edit on 11/23/2010 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)


ok, then as an x-officer, are you saying you've never patted down right to someones junk?
i'm not talking a bend over and spread um prison search.
we are talking pat downs.
which may be done before arrest.




You do not have to consent to a search of yourself or your belongings, but police may "pat down" your clothing if they suspect a weapon. You should not physically resist, but you have the right to refuse consent for any further search. If you do consent, it can affect you later in court.


source-aclu link

they mention weapons, but the same can be done for suspected drugs etc.....



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by SaturnFX
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Pat downs have been around for ages...this "enhanced" stuff is new..I have no clue what the difference is from regular pat down verses "enhanced". I guess thats the "junk touch" bit...well, close enough anyhow.

Thing is though, you can refuse. currently the fine thing is stupid..it should be a quick turnaround...say no to scan, say no to pat down, about face and get out. I don't agree with the potential suit..that is the best argument about all of this to begin with and the only valid aspect of the outrage.



I kind of agree. You should be able to say no, no, and no, and get a move on.

But I disagree in the fact that these things should not even be put in place by the government.





this "enhanced" stuff is new


new as far as being used in airports, yet i disagree concerning law enforcement.
it is not new.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by rubbertramp
 


Nope. We were taught how to do proper pat downs. Collar area, torso, belt area, pockets, pant legs, hem of pants.

Real quick and easy.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by rubbertramp
 


Yeah . . . cops do not generally cup your balls inside your pants or finger a woman before writing a ticket.

If a person is arrested, though. That is a different story.

You are comparing apples and oranges.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Let's be clear here; The TSA does not have the authority to arrest you in the name of the TSA or any other Federal organization. So the question posed in the OP; "now that the t.s.a. basically has the same authority to search me as any other law enforcement agency, what is the big deal?" is anvalidated by the fact that the TSA does not have the same authroity.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by rubbertramp
 


Nope. We were taught how to do proper pat downs. Collar area, torso, belt area, pockets, pant legs, hem of pants.

Real quick and easy.


wow, i wish more cops acted like you.
i've even had them make me unzip and show them i wasn't hiding anything in my shorts.
so, what is the difference between your pat down and the t.s.a., basically that you claim not to have ever checked someones privates?
in ways i find this suspicious, any crack dealer is gunna' shove it in his underwear.
you've never looked there prior to arresting someone?



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 




Yeah . . . cops do not generally cup your balls inside your pants or finger a woman before writing a ticket.


the important part being,


cops do not generally


i agree, but it is common practice in my opinion.

except for the fingering a woman part, i can't speak from experience concerning that.
and can you link me somewhere that claims this is now common practice for the tsa?



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by rubbertramp
 


And at what point do you see this being a good thing? You're OK with being patted down before you can go watch a Dallas/Redskins game? C'mon.

It's not in line with police procedures because for one - if you are pulled over they have to have a reason. For second, to be patted down and detained from said traffic stop they have to have probable cause. I have no problem agreeing to this because I understand the inherent risk an officer takes while searching your car at 3am on a gravel country road where it's just you and him.

The TSA has neither the probable cause, nor the level of risk that officers take. Furthermore, the police pat downs are not even in the same ballpark as these searches.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


i do get your point, but no where in the op did i mention arrest.
it was about 'pat downs' being similar to those used by law enforcement.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by rubbertramp
 


Actually...if a cop starts getting too personal, often the charges they hammer you on are dismissed due to your rights being violated. aka, they cant make you strip, part your butt cheeks on the spot, etc.

This is a drug dealers know how...tuck your stuff in your butt..if they find it, chances are, they were doing something they weren't supposed to do to find it to begin with and it gets you off (not before spending nearly a year behind bars though waiting for the trial)

not going to go into detail on how I know this...it wasn't me, but I know someone whom got off because the cop made the guy drop pants in public.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by rubbertramp
 


Link

--"The woman who checked me reached her hands inside my underwear and felt her way around," said ABC News producer Carolyn Durand. "It was basically worse than going to the gynecologist."--



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Exactly.

Then you have a lawsuit on your hands as well.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by rubbertramp
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


i do get your point, but no where in the op did i mention arrest.
it was about 'pat downs' being similar to those used by law enforcement.



But they are not, and that is where you are trying to compare apples and oranges



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join