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 80
    More: Spiffy, misdemeanors, TSA, false arrest, civil rights, amendments, court cases, Henrico County, x-ray machines  
•       •       •

29212 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-26 11:17:49 PM
20 votes:

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.
2013-01-26 09:10:32 PM
15 votes:
Contempt of cop is not a crime and much more importantly contempt of fake cop is not a crime
2013-01-26 11:16:49 PM
13 votes:

ZAZ: He didn't win the case. He survived a motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity.


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.
2013-01-26 11:51:54 PM
9 votes:
FTFA: According to the suit, while under interrogation, the authorities wanted to know "about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were."

Really? Writing an Ammendment to the US Constitution is now grounds for suspicion that you belong to a terrorist organization?

That's really....odd.
2013-01-26 10:52:46 PM
9 votes:

ZAZ: He didn't win the case. He survived a motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity.


Well, he didn't win damages but he did win the right to continue his suit and therefore has won a moral victory over the TSA, whose lawyers must surely be gnashing their teeth, writhing in agony and contemplating suicide over their failure to prove that the Bill of Rights is not valid when say it isn't.
2013-01-27 12:04:14 AM
6 votes:

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


Why do you hate America?
2013-01-26 11:52:53 PM
5 votes:

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.
2013-01-26 11:50:14 PM
5 votes:

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.


You've got that wrong.

Meanwhile most people are find with the TSA because they are irrationally scared of Muslims.

The islamophobia we have is akin to walking around on a clear sunny day absolutely petrified with fear that lightning is about to strike you... and it's the reason the government gets away with making things like the TSA and DHS.
2013-01-27 05:23:47 AM
4 votes:

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 01:59:41 AM
4 votes:

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 01:44:02 AM
4 votes:

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.
2013-01-27 12:25:20 AM
4 votes:

metlboy: 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.

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.

While this whole thing seems like a waste of time, and I hate to defend the TSA, from the article it didn't sound like they made him strip. It sounded like he just took his clothes off of his own volition. In an airport (or anywhere but a bath house), that's probably going to create a scene.


Like the US we in Australia have had some pretty stupid rules about air safety in many airports since September 11 2001. I say 'many' airports because there are still regional airports where passengers can board a commercial flight with no screening of themselves or their luggage whatsoever. But it seems that our rules, as nonsensical as they can appear, are nowhere near as intrusive as in the US.

The TSA would be very used to passengers being pissed at them; even if passengers say or do nothing particularly unusual, their body language would scream "why the hell am I putting up with this lunacy?". Some Americans, if I've understood you guys correctly, would not be able to hold your tongues and would express their annoyance and dissatisfaction. TSA officials would surely experience this on a daily if not hourly basis. Perhaps Tonguedepressor and his 8.5 years TSA experience can confirm or disconfirm this statement.

The guy pointing out the 4th amendment having declined to go through the body scanner but exposing his body to a similar degree as the scanner would reveal is only going one step further. Nothing that deserves a 90-minute handcuffing or questioning about terrorist activity. Yeah it's a bit unusual but it's a simple and legal protest in an environment that most passengers feel a desire to make their own protest, even if most don't follow through on this.
2013-01-27 12:17:51 AM
4 votes:
I worked for TSA for 8.5 years and talked about it a lot here on Fark. When I filed a sexual discrimination letter against my Sup. they promptly fired me for disclosing SSI here on Fark and so I lawyered up and am suing them currently.
2013-01-27 12:05:25 AM
4 votes:

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.
2013-01-27 12:01:57 AM
4 votes:

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


fark you?
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-26 09:52:51 PM
4 votes:
He didn't win the case. He survived a motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity.
2013-01-27 09:56:20 AM
3 votes:

Animatronik: Do you admire this kid such that you'd be cheering for him when he causes you to miss your flight?


Each time I go to the airport, I'm aware I may not depart on time for any number of reasons, many of them TSA-related.

Affirming the Fourth Amendment is among the pleasanter possibilities.
2013-01-27 01:11:19 AM
3 votes:

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.
2013-01-27 12:35:37 AM
3 votes:

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. For fark sakes, it was TSA decision to detain and arrest. TSA could have said "oh how funny" and then proceeded to let him go.


forward-now.com
2013-01-26 11:34:34 PM
3 votes:

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.
2013-01-26 09:26:02 PM
3 votes:
Good. I'll be flying in April and I plan on doing this.
2013-01-27 10:40:42 AM
2 votes:

HeartBurnKid: ThrobblefootSpectre: BMulligan: Airports aren't private property.

Which is why you aren't searched before entering an airport. Only before boarding the airline's plane.

You're searched before entering the terminal. Which is part of the airport, which, as we've already established, is not private property.


Also, you are not being searched by, or at the behest of, the airline, but by the federal government on their own volition. This is a classic Fourth Amendment violation, and if the world hadn't gone nucking futs over one security failure and decided that paranoia is the proper way to live, we'd recognize it.

The terrorists have accomplished their objective. We are well and truly terrorized.
2013-01-27 04:20:18 AM
2 votes:

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 01:57:38 AM
2 votes:
And the home...of the....braaaaave!

/ashamed of a country whose response to terror was pants-shiatting capitualtion
2013-01-27 01:56:18 AM
2 votes:

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 01:46:37 AM
2 votes:

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 01:14:15 AM
2 votes:

Philbb: ThrobblefootSpectre: Oh, and the fourth amendment doesn't let you dictate the conditions under which you go in/on other people's private property.

This bears repeating.
(insert some clever use of a bear image being duplicated several times.)

You do not have a right to board a privately owned aircraft. Privately owned aircraft do not have the right to use publicly owned airways. Commercial airlines are required to comply with certain regulations and rules before they are allowed to travel over populated areas. Some of those regulations involve preparing and filing flight plans and submitting to instructions from air traffic controllers.

Much like the automobile regulations, you do not have the right to use self propelled machines on public property (roads). If you fail or make a mistake while trying to control one of these machines or adversely effect the person who is trying to control one, especially if this causes damage to another person, you should not be allowed to do anything like this again. I know that the laws aren't that strict, but this is the basis for all the nonsense that is drunk driving check points and the TSA. You can still travel as far and as long as you want to without using these machines. If you run into a situation, using any other methods, I will be one of the first to support and trumpet your cause.


This is gibberish.
2013-01-27 12:30:00 AM
2 votes:
Was the only article of clothing he took off his shirt? If so, how is that "stripping" and why is it arrest-worthy?

It's amazing, the people here trying to defend the TSA.
2013-01-27 12:25:04 AM
2 votes:
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. For fark sakes, it was TSA decision to detain and arrest. TSA could have said "oh how funny" and then proceeded to let him go.
2013-01-27 12:07:01 AM
2 votes:

blottoman: He looks like a young superman...

[league.jmkprime.org image 802x600]

/4 the ladies


I bet he has better acting skills.
2013-01-27 12:05:34 AM
2 votes:
Say what you will about the TSA.
2013-01-27 12:04:25 AM
2 votes:

ThrobblefootSpectre: Oh, and the fourth amendment doesn't let you dictate the conditions under which you go in/on other people's private property.


True

...but I'm pretty sure it's clear on the government imposing the same conditions on said personal property when it violates an individuals own right to privacy and security.

The TSA is a government agency, not Southwest Air's.
2013-01-27 12:02:46 AM
2 votes:

bluefox3681: Yeah, writing it on your body is a little odd. And taking your clothes off and making a scene when they didn't ask you to get naked is also a bit odd.

From what I gather from the story, he wanted to make a scene. And since they weren't going full anal probe on him, he made the scene by taking off his clothes. Manufactured outrage. I would probably take him in back to and make sure that we are dealing with a balanced individual. After they verified he wasn't a threat but rather an aw, they should have let him go.


What part of the first amendment and 4th amendment are unclear?
Toss in false arrest and it looks like the TSA over reacted like the brown shirts that they are.
I love that the appellate court sent it back for trial or settlement.
Expect the government to settle soon.
2013-01-27 12:02:04 AM
2 votes:

ThrobblefootSpectre: Article just says he has sued. Not won anything. With a quote from a judge about how he created a public disturbance. Doesn't sound promising for him.

Oh, and the fourth amendment doesn't let you dictate the conditions under which you go in/on other people's private property.


If the Federal Government acts as gatekeepers to that property, it absolutely does. If it didn't, this case would already have been dismissed.

/If American Airlines or whatever had banned him from a flight for this, he probably wouldn't have a case
2013-01-26 11:53:04 PM
2 votes:

AbbeySomeone: He's not a man subby, he's a young, toned, impressionable youth with a drive and some admirable shoulders.
I would make his liberties less than civilized if you know what I mean.
Mentoring and such.
/fap


For your reference...

www.wired.com

/Useless without pictures...
//Hot
///Hot linked that is....
2013-01-26 11:52:25 PM
2 votes:
I always opt out of the scanner. It is somewhat comical what a big deal some TSA agents make of it.
2013-01-26 10:12:50 PM
2 votes:
He's not a man subby, he's a young, toned, impressionable youth with a drive and some admirable shoulders.
I would make his liberties less than civilized if you know what I mean.
Mentoring and such.
/fap
2013-01-28 07:25:32 PM
1 votes:

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.


Hmm, who is this guy?

i.imgur.com

Oh. That explains a lot.
2013-01-28 04:02:01 PM
1 votes:

Aussie_As: I am a bit astonished at the farkers calling this guy a douche or attention whore for making a legal and peaceful protest. It would appear that by THEIR definition Rosa Parkes and the entire civil rights movement were very douchy and the American Revolution was just attention whoring in the eyes of these clowns.

/or maybe they just REALLY like the patdowns and body scans


I bet they think those blacks who sat at the lunch counter in protest should have done it at a picnic table at the local park instead of at the place where the actual discrimination was occuring.
2013-01-27 06:06:41 PM
1 votes:
I am a bit astonished at the farkers calling this guy a douche or attention whore for making a legal and peaceful protest. It would appear that by THEIR definition Rosa Parkes and the entire civil rights movement were very douchy and the American Revolution was just attention whoring in the eyes of these clowns.

/or maybe they just REALLY like the patdowns and body scans
2013-01-27 05:02:41 PM
1 votes:

danno_to_infinity: nice but he'll never fly again.


He will when he buys his own plane.
2013-01-27 04:43:52 PM
1 votes:

ExcaliburPrime111: radiovox: bluefox3681: No Catchy Nickname: FTFA: According to the suit, while under interrogation, the authorities wanted to know "about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were."

Really? Writing an Ammendment to the US Constitution is now grounds for suspicion that you belong to a terrorist organization?

That's really....odd.

Yeah, writing it on your body is a little odd. And taking your clothes off and making a scene when they didn't ask you to get naked is also a bit odd.

From what I gather from the story, he wanted to make a scene. And since they weren't going full anal probe on him, he made the scene by taking off his clothes. Manufactured outrage. I would probably take him in back to and make sure that we are dealing with a balanced individual. After they verified he wasn't a threat but rather an aw, they should have let him go.

The article isn't clear on exactly when and where he exposed his chest. If he took off his shirt in the open terminal then yeah, he's being a bit of an attention whore but if he was required to remove his shirt during the pat down after being detained, then this is a clear overreaction by the TSA.

The kid removed his shirt on his own volition and without prompting by the TSA. The "intensive pat down" search does not require removing your shirt. Moreover, if a really invasive search is needed (i.e. strip search for suspected drug mules,) then such searches are (obviously) conducted in private, away from the public security-screening area.


Still not an arrestable offense. More people need to do this, we as a country need to get our balls back and stop cowering in terror over an event that happened more than 11 years ago.
2013-01-27 01:34:58 PM
1 votes:
Call me when TSA actually catches a terrorist.

10 years with a ZERO success rate. What other federal agency would survive with that kind of record?
2013-01-27 12:37:29 PM
1 votes:
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.

Hey, Wilkinson.

You want to know how I know you're a bought and paid for autocratic cocksucker?
2013-01-27 09:55:25 AM
1 votes:

tonguedepressor: Secondly, I think if there were methods and means to do the job better those methods would be implemented. Its simply the nature of the beast right now. If you have a mouse problem and you have to lay mouse traps all over your house you do it because there's no better way.


Except we don't have a mouse problem.
2013-01-27 09:04:34 AM
1 votes:

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.


[on soapbox]
I quit flying when they got those body scanners. I'll fly again when they stop using them. Fourth Amendment does mean something. Unfortunately too many people are willing to give up their privacy rights for just about anything anymore. For the people removing these rights, it's the smart way to do it.. a little at a time and through fear. The next generation will never miss the liberties that have been lost, because they never had them in the first place.
[off soapbox]

/puts on Hazmat suit
2013-01-27 07:40:11 AM
1 votes:
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
2013-01-27 06:00:00 AM
1 votes:

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 05:25:45 AM
1 votes:

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 03:37:39 AM
1 votes:
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 02:48:04 AM
1 votes:

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 02:24:19 AM
1 votes:

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 02:21:47 AM
1 votes:
He needs to put a how-to blog up. Spell it out and he'll get a lot more followers.
2013-01-27 01:46:05 AM
1 votes:

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 01:44:35 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-01-27 01:38:45 AM
1 votes:

jtown: His behavior did nothing to further the cause of freedom.


But if it inspires just one hot college chick to emulate him, it was worth it.
2013-01-27 01:38:24 AM
1 votes:
jtown

Normal, rational people do not behave like that in an airport.
1.bp.blogspot.com

cdn4.blogs.babble.com
2013-01-27 01:09:22 AM
1 votes:
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.

I have to disagree. It was poor judgement, theater, and grandstanding on the part of the "law enforcement" agencies that was actually the cause of them taking their attention off searching for possible terrorists.
2013-01-27 01:08:35 AM
1 votes:
They got trolled hard.
2013-01-27 01:01:40 AM
1 votes:

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


Did you ever stop a terrorist attack?
2013-01-27 01:00:28 AM
1 votes:

UsikFark: Oznog: "According to the suit, while under interrogation, the authorities wanted to know 'about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were.'"

"I want to sail around the world in a schooner. Nike told me they would sponsor me if I agreed to do this stunt, and if I agreed to sail shirtless with the Nike logo tattooed over my rippling shoulders. Have you ever been in a Turkish prison? I want to be washed by another man..."


I am a vile man, I confess it! My crimes and sins are beyond counting. I have lied and cheated, gambled and whored. I'm not particularly good at violence, but I'm good at convincing others to do violence for me. You want specifics, I suppose. When I was seven, I saw a servant girl bathing in the river. I stole her robe and she was forced to return to the castle naked and in tears. I close my eyes, but I can still see her tits bouncing...

When I was ten, I stuffed my uncle's boots with goat shiat. When confronted with my crime, I blamed a squire. Poor boy was flogged, and I escaped justice. When I was twelve I milked my eel into a pot of turtle stew. I flogged the one-eyed snake, I skinned my sausage. I made the bald man cry into the turtle stew, which I do believe my sister ate. At least I hope she did. I once brought a jackass and a honeycomb into a brothel...
2013-01-27 12:59:10 AM
1 votes:

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.


My first, second, third and fourth thoughts.

If it's that easy to "distract" the TSA, then we're totally screwed.
2013-01-27 12:48:47 AM
1 votes:

marcre3363: I've flown a ton. I hate the TSA.

But if I was in their situation, where a kid strips down with anything scribbled across their body, my first thought would be: What is he distracting me from?

He's not the threat. He's the pawn to distract everyone while the real threat(s) get through security.

/CSB


TSA people do not watch TV cop shows and so have no idea how this kind of thing works.
2013-01-27 12:36:16 AM
1 votes:

ThrobblefootSpectre: BMulligan: Airports aren't private property.

Which is why you aren't searched before entering an airport. Only before boarding the airline's plane.


You are searched while you are in the airport. That's public property. You are searched by employees of the federal government, pursuant to federal statutes and regulations promulgated by a federal administrative agency. It's all state action, no matter how you look at it, and to the extent that there are any gray areas in play here they have been well-litigated. You are simply and inarguably wrong.
2013-01-27 12:35:58 AM
1 votes:
not a SPIFFY tag subby, next time try a HERO tag.
2013-01-27 12:28:42 AM
1 votes:
Bravo young man. Bravo.
2013-01-27 12:11:26 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-01-27 12:11:19 AM
1 votes:

LessO2: tonguedepressor: Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.

Do you like movies about gladiators?


Yes. Yes I do. Perhaps I should've indicated that I used to work for TSA a little more clearer.
2013-01-27 12:07:49 AM
1 votes:
If I'm understanding Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson's opinion correctly, doesn't logic imply that it is imperative for the government to make absolutely certain that the people manning the security checkpoints are the absolute best? That is to say, not the people that are currently employed by the TSA?
2013-01-27 12:07:32 AM
1 votes:
It's about time Fark got some eye candy for the ladies.
2013-01-27 12:04:02 AM
1 votes:

ExcaliburPrime111: Hopefully this will lead to the TSA having some common sense.


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Keep dreaming.
2013-01-27 12:03:27 AM
1 votes:
Yeah, this isn't a "win," strictly speaking. The DoJ is probably going to push for the full 15-judge panel for rehearing, and petition the SC if that's denied. It's a really good step for him, but it's far from over. Very interesting case, though. One of the attorneys on this is actually one of my professors, so I'm interested in seeing how this progresses.
2013-01-27 12:03:05 AM
1 votes:

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


Do you get grossed out when you have to feel the balls of other men?
2013-01-27 12:00:13 AM
1 votes:

No Catchy Nickname: Really? Writing an Ammendment to the US Constitution is now grounds for suspicion that you belong to a terrorist organization?

That's really....odd.


There have been Federal law enforcement manuals exposed recently that point to possession of a copy of the Constitution as an indicator.
2013-01-26 11:58:16 PM
1 votes:
He only did it just to show off his hot bod.
2013-01-26 11:57:53 PM
1 votes:

No Catchy Nickname: FTFA: According to the suit, while under interrogation, the authorities wanted to know "about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were."

Really? Writing an Ammendment to the US Constitution is now grounds for suspicion that you belong to a terrorist organization?

That's really....odd.


Yeah, writing it on your body is a little odd. And taking your clothes off and making a scene when they didn't ask you to get naked is also a bit odd.

From what I gather from the story, he wanted to make a scene. And since they weren't going full anal probe on him, he made the scene by taking off his clothes. Manufactured outrage. I would probably take him in back to and make sure that we are dealing with a balanced individual. After they verified he wasn't a threat but rather an aw, they should have let him go.
2013-01-26 11:57:42 PM
1 votes:
Ask a guy who's worked for TSA 8.5 years anything.
2013-01-26 11:56:55 PM
1 votes:

Kraftwerk Orange: 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.


THIS

Instead, they broke the law and falsely arrested him. The TSA/government will settle out of court, unless the kids sticks to wanting 250k, hell they might even pay that is they can get him to sign an NDA.

YAY, TSA wasting more of our tax payer dollars.
2013-01-26 11:51:16 PM
1 votes:
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?"
2013-01-26 09:33:37 PM
1 votes:
i1079.photobucket.com
Ideas for a new tattoo...
 
Displayed 80 of 80 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report