If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   Man who was arrested at TSA checkpoint for having text of 4th amendment printed on his torso wins court case for false arrest and violation of his civil rights to the tune of $250,000   (wired.com) divider line 234
    More: Spiffy, misdemeanors, TSA, false arrest, civil rights, amendments, court cases, Henrico County, x-ray machines  
•       •       •

29210 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jan 2013 at 11:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



234 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-27 01:46:05 AM

Charles_Nelson_Reilly: Me thinks thou art a troll.


why?

because I don't piss my pants and forfeit my 4th amendment rights whenever someone tells me I'm supposed to be scared of the boogey man?

If I was trolling I imagine it would be more along the lines of:

"I think the TSA and the Judge both acted correctly here. This young man could have been responsible for permitting the next great terror act against our nation. He's lucky he's not (justifiably) locked up in Guantanamo for life without trial... as any terrorist like him deserves. We need to just trust our authorities, that's why we have them. Not bother them with distractions and attention whoring.

And he is a terrorist! He was doing this to shock and frighten people for a political goal, that's terrorism."
 
2013-01-27 01:46:37 AM

Bumblefark: OgreMagi: Bumblefark: moothemagiccow: FTFJudge: Tobey's antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect.

What's the line, again? "Shouldn't you be out catching bad guys?"

The dissenting opinion has to be one of the stupider things I've read in quite some time. Essentially, the logic of the argument is that one has a right to protest except to the extent that it "diverts" public safety officers.

So, it is precisely because you are doing nothing illegal that you are doing something illegal, because the officers choosing to illegally detain you have been "distracted" from catching people doing illegal things.

That's some fine jurisprudence, Lou.

He had also said something about it not being the right time or place for a protest. My belief is the best time and place for a protest against injustice is exactly when and where the injustice is occurring.

Yep...this idea that you're perfectly within your rights to protest so long as you do it quietly and where nobody will notice...it's disgusting, but it's also disturbingly popular these days. And not just in the courts.

Scroll through, and note the accusations of "attention whoring." Apparently, the idea that drawing attention to one self might be logically entailed in the act of "protesting" seems to be lost on a great many people.


I have had a permitted action I participated in - as nice and polite as you can get - referred to as "minimum-intensity terrorism" because it disrupted traffic. This wasn't a cop or reactionary talking head, mind, it was one of my co-workers who considers himself "pretty liberal".
 
2013-01-27 01:56:18 AM

ExcaliburPrime111: He was briefly detained, screened, and did not miss his flight.


In your world being detained for 90 is brief?

I bet you think "sticking it only part-way in" isn't rape.
 
2013-01-27 01:56:29 AM
Comments on the original article:

Have you ever seen what happens when someone lets a toad loose in a yard full of turkeys? Sure the toad gets hurt, but dozens of turkeys die! Its like a Manchester Soccer Game!


What a strange analogy...
 
2013-01-27 01:57:38 AM
And the home...of the....braaaaave!

/ashamed of a country whose response to terror was pants-shiatting capitualtion
 
2013-01-27 01:59:41 AM

Philbb: . Privately owned aircraft do not have the right to use publicly owned airways. .


Actually they do. Laws governing aircraft and use of air space are a much different and often supersede national laws.

There are 10 Freedoms of the Air. The 1st Freedom is the right of flying into a countries air space.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air


They can be given to an entire nation or a single carrier (often the official national airline).
For example, British registered aircraft have the right to over fly the US and US aircraft have the right to over fly British airspace.

Even though we are technically at war with Cuba, US commercial jets can still over fly Cuban airspace. In fact, several US airlines have 3rd Freedom rights with Cuba and can carry passengers between Havana and Miami/Dallas/etc. (and can even conduct commercial business with the Cuban government which is banned for all other US companies).
 
2013-01-27 02:05:58 AM
There really is no good guy in TFA.

Y'all projecting your TSA hate and trying to make a hero out of an AW.

/not a fan of TSA theatre either
 
2013-01-27 02:09:39 AM

ExcaliburPrime111: I suspect that people are defending this kid for a very valid, though ultimately incorrect reason.

I have to fly a few times a year, and I do feel a loss of dignity as I stand in line, waiting for the opportunity to take off my shoes, take out my laptop, and dump my belongings into several of the plastic trays. I feel annoyed that I must submit to these indignities, to smile and be polite to the screening officers when I show my ID and go through the metal detector, raising my hands above my head as if I am some sort of criminal, and then hastily reassembling my luggage and wearing my shoes. All while smiling, lest I look too angry, lest I get approached by a TSA officer (who may or may not have finished high school) might ask if anything is wrong, lest I vent into his/her face saying that this is inhuman and I feel criminalized for wanting to fly from Point A to Point B, and then have to miss my flight because I opened my mouth.

I get it. We all get it.

All that said, I can't think of a better way to screen people and to reduce the possibility of terrorist attack or transport of harmful substances. The kid in this case created a scene in a security screening area by taking off most of his clothes in a public area that is not a beach. He was briefly detained, screened, and did not miss his flight. I see no case for him, and more importantly, his "winning" will not change any of the feelings that I or any of us might have that I described in the previous paragraph.


It's because you're not very smart. There are many easier, less intrusively, cheaper, and quicker ways to do effectively what the TSA does poorly, slowly, and intrusively.
 
2013-01-27 02:13:07 AM

Flying Code Monkey: There really is no good guy in TFA.

Y'all projecting your TSA hate and trying to make a hero out of an AW.

/not a fan of TSA theatre either


Nope, just a garden variety idiot.
 
2013-01-27 02:21:47 AM
He needs to put a how-to blog up. Spell it out and he'll get a lot more followers.
 
2013-01-27 02:22:32 AM

BMulligan: This is gibberish.


I have no idea what you mean. When the fourth amendment was championed and put in place, there was no idea that people would have access to heavy, fast moving, vehicles that could cause destruction, injury, or even death.

This is why, if you want travel with the aid of modern day mechanical equipment, you need to rethink your travel plans.

If you want to walk, you can. If you want to travel by horse back you can. If you want to travel with any vehicle you have to have a license for. You must decide how important pushing the fourth in this case is.
 
2013-01-27 02:22:59 AM
www.und.nodak.edu

like a toad in a yard of turkeys.
/ read the comments.
 
2013-01-27 02:24:19 AM

tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.


How does it feel to be part of the problem?
 
2013-01-27 02:48:04 AM

jtown: Kraftwerk Orange: ExcaliburPrime111: The kid created a scene in a security-screening area and was detained. Did he need to be handcuffed for 90 minutes? No. Should they have just searched him and got him on his way? Yes. In any case, he made the flight.

I doubt he'll win the case, and even if he does, the damages will likely be minimal. Hopefully this will lead to the TSA having some common sense. Hopefully passengers will also refrain from creating unnecessary distractions in security screening areas, and do something useful, like protest in front of their Congressman's office.

He didn't cause a scene. The TSA agents did. They should have searched him, and finding him harmless, let him continue on his way.

He certainly did cause a scene.

Alternative "grope-search" screening doesn't involve a strip search unless they feel something under the clothing that is unusual and may pose a security risk. There was no indication that he was directed to undress and doing so served no purpose except to cause a scene.

Normal, rational people do not behave like that in an airport. It seems perfectly reasonable to secure and detain someone who behaves like that at an airport until it can be determined that he's just an attention whore and not a threat to safety.

His behavior did nothing to further the cause of freedom.


Except for the TSA agents who do a search so they can feel up an innocent woman's breasts. It's sick how they how free rein to see a naked passenger in the name of safety, and your attitude only encourages those perverts.
 
2013-01-27 02:49:01 AM

cowgirl toffee: What the hell is "Amendment HI"?


President Obama has just signed legislation outlawing Hawaii. The bombing begins in 5 minutes.
 
2013-01-27 02:50:56 AM

Weaver95: gate rape


I like that. I'm stealing it.
 
2013-01-27 03:18:17 AM
1) 4th amendment protects us from *unreasonable* search and seizure. The "unreasonable" part is always up for debate. I don't think screening people for bombs is unreasonable.

2) You people still act like you have the inalienable right to fly on an airplane. Guess what? You don't. If the TSA bothers you so much, then drive. Or swim. Or walk. I don't give a shiat. But seriously, stop your biatching.
 
2013-01-27 03:19:15 AM

Philbb: BMulligan: This is gibberish.

I have no idea what you mean. When the fourth amendment was championed and put in place, there was no idea that people would have access to heavy, fast moving, vehicles that could cause destruction, injury, or even death.

This is why, if you want travel with the aid of modern day mechanical equipment, you need to rethink your travel plans.

If you want to walk, you can. If you want to travel by horse back you can. If you want to travel with any vehicle you have to have a license for. You must decide how important pushing the fourth in this case is.


Wow your follow up was even dumber. I didn't think it was possible.
 
2013-01-27 03:23:24 AM

TerminalEchoes: 1) 4th amendment protects us from *unreasonable* search and seizure. The "unreasonable" part is always up for debate. I don't think screening people for bombs is unreasonable.

2) You people still act like you have the inalienable right to fly on an airplane. Guess what? You don't. If the TSA bothers you so much, then drive. Or swim. Or walk. I don't give a shiat. But seriously, stop your biatching.


1) It's not the purpose that's unreasonable. If you failed to grasp that, I'm surprised you were able to read the article. It's the method by which they do it, which is ineffective, possibly dangerous, and completely invasive.

2) The TSA is rapidly expanding to try and affect all forms of transportation. Ask amtrak about it. How about highways in TN? Ferries have been game for awhile. Wanna go to a Vikings game? Better watch out for the TSA.
 
2013-01-27 03:26:12 AM

redmid17: 2) The TSA is rapidly expanding to try and affect all forms of transportation. Ask amtrak about it. How about highways in TN? Ferries have been game for awhile. Wanna go to a Vikings game? Better watch out for the TSA.


What about highways in TN? And how did you know I lived in TN? Are you in the TSA? >.>

And fill me in about the TSA at Viking games. I hadn't heard of that one.
 
2013-01-27 03:26:53 AM

TerminalEchoes: 2) You people still act like you have the inalienable right to fly on an airplane. Guess what? You don't


People have the right to buy tickets for their chosen mode of transport. If the carrier agrees to carry them, that's the end of it.
 
2013-01-27 03:27:18 AM
Hmm... maybe I'll try that using a metallic marker. Maybe that'll show up during the millimeter wave scans.
 
2013-01-27 03:31:03 AM

themindiswatching: Weaver95: according to the TSA (and our authoritarian lovers of security theater), lawsuits like this shouldn't have gotten even this far.  if we don't gate rape EVERY passenger who gets on a plane, then the ENTIRE WORLD will come crashing down around us.  if we ask questions, we're terrorists.  if we protest - we are mocked, derided and our names are added to watch lists.

Meanwhile there are some people (mostly Freepers) who would be fine with the TSA if it only gate raped Muslims.


Don't forget communists (anyone who isn't a freeper/WNDer) and gays.
 
2013-01-27 03:33:30 AM

TerminalEchoes: redmid17: 2) The TSA is rapidly expanding to try and affect all forms of transportation. Ask amtrak about it. How about highways in TN? Ferries have been game for awhile. Wanna go to a Vikings game? Better watch out for the TSA.

What about highways in TN? And how did you know I lived in TN? Are you in the TSA? >.>

And fill me in about the TSA at Viking games. I hadn't heard of that one.


No, I'm literate and not a farking idiot. I neither knew you lived in TN nor do I care. I can neither confirm nor deny your idiocy.

http://bit.ly/WpakR0

http://bit.ly/Wpao36
 
2013-01-27 03:37:39 AM
www.global-air.com

Underwear sporting the 4th Amendment, with metallic ink is designed to show up on the computer screen of your friendly TSA full-body scan evaluator. (new window)
 
2013-01-27 04:13:14 AM

TerminalEchoes: 1) 4th amendment protects us from *unreasonable* search and seizure. The "unreasonable" part is always up for debate. I don't think screening people for bombs is unreasonable.

2) You people still act like you have the inalienable right to fly on an airplane. Guess what? You don't. If the TSA bothers you so much, then drive. Or swim. Or walk. I don't give a shiat. But seriously, stop your biatching.


The Supreme Court ruled that to be reasonable there needs to be probable cause. Wanting to travel is not probable cause except in the minds of the paranoid.

The Supreme Court also ruled long ago that you do have the right to travel (and this was an airline case). Also, you were to be treated as a "welcome guest", not with suspicion. It's too farking late for me to locate that case so if you gave a damn, google away. I'm going to bed.
 
2013-01-27 04:18:29 AM

OgreMagi: TerminalEchoes: 1) 4th amendment protects us from *unreasonable* search and seizure. The "unreasonable" part is always up for debate. I don't think screening people for bombs is unreasonable.

2) You people still act like you have the inalienable right to fly on an airplane. Guess what? You don't. If the TSA bothers you so much, then drive. Or swim. Or walk. I don't give a shiat. But seriously, stop your biatching.

The Supreme Court ruled that to be reasonable there needs to be probable cause. Wanting to travel is not probable cause except in the minds of the paranoid.

The Supreme Court also ruled long ago that you do have the right to travel (and this was an airline case). Also, you were to be treated as a "welcome guest", not with suspicion. It's too farking late for me to locate that case so if you gave a damn, google away. I'm going to bed.


Saenz v Roe
 
2013-01-27 04:20:18 AM

Philbb: If you want to travel by horse back you can.


Perhaps you don't realize that horseback riding is often severely restricted, especially in cities, to designated equestrian trails.

Also, you seem to be extremely ignorant of the Constitution. Let me introduce you to the 9th Amendment:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


The right to travel was considered so basic that they didn't think it was necessary to actually spell it out. After all, only a complete moron would think you didn't have the right to travel.
 
2013-01-27 04:25:21 AM
A true Tea Party Patriot.
 
2013-01-27 04:36:16 AM

david_gaithersburg: A true Tea Party Patriot.


he wrote the 4th on his chest, not the 2nd

/ or 13th
 
2013-01-27 04:40:24 AM

winterbraid: david_gaithersburg: A true Tea Party Patriot.

he wrote the 4th on his chest, not the 2nd

/ or 13th


derp
 
2013-01-27 04:44:18 AM

Amusement: The descending judge offered up a failed view by striking out at the young man for using up TSA resources at a time of need.


But he's the highest form of patriot...
 
2013-01-27 04:48:14 AM

ExcaliburPrime111: I suspect that people are defending this kid for a very valid, though ultimately incorrect reason.

I have to fly a few times a year, and I do feel a loss of dignity as I stand in line, waiting for the opportunity to take off my shoes, take out my laptop, and dump my belongings into several of the plastic trays. I feel annoyed that I must submit to these indignities, to smile and be polite to the screening officers when I show my ID and go through the metal detector, raising my hands above my head as if I am some sort of criminal, and then hastily reassembling my luggage and wearing my shoes. All while smiling, lest I look too angry, lest I get approached by a TSA officer (who may or may not have finished high school) might ask if anything is wrong, lest I vent into his/her face saying that this is inhuman and I feel criminalized for wanting to fly from Point A to Point B, and then have to miss my flight because I opened my mouth.

I get it. We all get it.

All that said, I can't think of a better way to screen people and to reduce the possibility of terrorist attack or transport of harmful substances. The kid in this case created a scene in a security screening area by taking off most of his clothes in a public area that is not a beach. He was briefly detained, screened, and did not miss his flight. I see no case for him, and more importantly, his "winning" will not change any of the feelings that I or any of us might have that I described in the previous paragraph.


Try harder.
 
2013-01-27 05:23:47 AM

TerminalEchoes: 1) 4th amendment protects us from *unreasonable* search and seizure. The "unreasonable" part is always up for debate. I don't think screening people for bombs is unreasonable.

2) You people still act like you have the inalienable right to fly on an airplane. Guess what? You don't. If the TSA bothers you so much, then drive. Or swim. Or walk. I don't give a shiat. But seriously, stop your biatching.


Here's the problem with this argument:
There's a Right to Movement in the US Constitution and common law. It basically says you have the freedom and right to move within and between the states without being subject to search. First, we need to agree that this right exists or the rest of the argument won't make any sense.

The rest goes like this: You restrict method A of traveling between the states and subject people to searches. You argue "Well, it doesn't say I can't restrict traveling via method A, you can travel between the states using any other traveling method such as B, C, or D, etc". And then you also restrict and do searches on people traveling via methods B, C, or D, etc, using the same exact rationale. You've just infringed the collective right to travel, by individually restricting rights to travel.

So you can always argue "you don't have the right to do (slightly narrower version of what your right is) only (broader version of what the right is)", but if you collectively restrict all the ways to practice that right, then you HAVE infringed the right.
 
2013-01-27 05:25:45 AM

TerminalEchoes: 2) You people still act like you have the inalienable right to fly on an airplane. Guess what? You don't. If the TSA bothers you so much, then drive. Or swim. Or walk. I don't give a shiat. But seriously, stop your biatching.


I don't think anyone here is arguing that we have an inalienable right to fly on an airplane, just that we don't lose the rights we do have when we fly.
 
2013-01-27 05:45:30 AM
The Constitution doesn't say you can't infringe on someone's freedom of speech.
 
2013-01-27 05:46:45 AM
img.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-27 05:49:45 AM
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson does not have a firm grasp on the constitution. Either that or he's being paid by Al-Qaeda to keep Americans paranoid.
 
2013-01-27 05:50:55 AM

Noam Chimpsky: The Constitution doesn't say you can't infringe on someone's freedom of speech.


It also doesn't say that you're not a moron, but somehow both are true.
 
2013-01-27 05:59:21 AM
How much jail time would he be facing if he had written something blasphemous to the prophet of Islam on his chest?
 
2013-01-27 06:00:00 AM

TerminalEchoes: 1) 4th amendment protects us from *unreasonable* search and seizure. The "unreasonable" part is always up for debate. I don't think screening people for bombs is unreasonable.

2) You people still act like you have the inalienable right to fly on an airplane. Guess what? You don't. If the TSA bothers you so much, then drive. Or swim. Or walk. I don't give a shiat. But seriously, stop your biatching.


I'm not sure what your definition of "inalienable right" is, but at least as far as federal law is concerned, we have the right to fly:

49 USC § 40103: "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."
 
2013-01-27 06:01:57 AM

Noam Chimpsky: How much jail time would he be facing if he had written something blasphemous to the prophet of Islam on his chest?


none.
 
2013-01-27 06:04:17 AM

log_jammin: Noam Chimpsky: How much jail time would he be facing if he had written something blasphemous to the prophet of Islam on his chest?

none.


Are you saying the future would still belong to him?
 
2013-01-27 06:18:34 AM

WorldCitizen: FTFA:

In dissent, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote:

Had this protest been launched somewhere other than in the security-screening area, we would have a much different case. But Tobey's antics diverted defendants from their passenger-screening duties for a period, a diversion that nefarious actors could have exploited to dangerous effect. Defendants responded as any passenger would hope they would, summoning local law enforcement to remove Tobey-and the distraction he was creating - from the scene.


Perhaps if the TSA agents hadn't been small minded douches having to prove how "important" they were, they would have just had a chuckle, patted the guy on the back for being snarky, and sent him on his way to his flight. Then there would have been no diversion of the "defendants" from their passenger-screening duties. THEY caused their "distraction", not some harmless kid.


"Nefarious actors"?

Like Nicholson?
 
2013-01-27 06:19:41 AM

Noam Chimpsky: Are you saying the future would still belong to him?


I'm saying that the answer to your original query is "none".
 
2013-01-27 06:22:42 AM

redflag: Comments on the original article:

Have you ever seen what happens when someone lets a toad loose in a yard full of turkeys? Sure the toad gets hurt, but dozens of turkeys die! Its like a Manchester Soccer Game!

What a strange analogy...


OK, none of those--toads, turkeys or Manchester soccer riots--would immediately come to mind upon reading this story, no.
 
2013-01-27 06:23:48 AM

david_gaithersburg: winterbraid: david_gaithersburg: A true Tea Party Patriot.

he wrote the 4th on his chest, not the 2nd

/ or 13th

derp


herp?
 
2013-01-27 07:27:31 AM

marcre3363: TSA people do not watch TV cop shows and so have no idea how this kind of thing works.

But I'm assuming they do watch shows on FOX or the WB.


I think they're only allowed to watch Fox News and select programs on the USA Network
 
2013-01-27 07:38:43 AM
I want to see what happenes to this kid in the future. You KNOW the government will try to make his life a nightmare.
 
2013-01-27 07:40:11 AM
All these comments and no one noticed the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals invoked Benjamin Franklin. How long have they been doing this? Is Ben been constantly on top of what is going on in the world? Is anyone else wondering why a dead man still has powers within our courts? Although, it does make sense to be able to talk to a man that was a founding father about the US Constitution. It would also make sense to tell us sooner, so we can tell Glen Beck to shut up.

/too early, feeling extra snarky
 
Displayed 50 of 234 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report