erynthered Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 TAMPA - A civics teacher with season tickets for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers sued Thursday claiming the new policy of patting down fans as they enter Raymond James Stadium is unconstitutional. http://www.sptimes.com/2005/10/14/Tampabay...es_legali.shtml I knew someone would do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Private property, private event. If the teacher doesn't want to get patted down the teacher has the option not to go to the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Private property, private event. If the teacher doesn't want to get patted down the teacher has the option not to go to the game. 475842[/snapback] No kidding - and of all the subjects, he's a Civics teacher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 No kidding - and of all the subjects, he's a Civics teacher 475844[/snapback] Are you agreeing with me? Damn my logic must be wrong. Okay, how do I justify this as being a valid lawsuit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanM.D. Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Private property, private event. If the teacher doesn't want to get patted down the teacher has the option not to go to the game. 475842[/snapback] Absolutely true. She'd be the same one lining up the attorney after some maniac carried a gun into a stadium. "they failed to protect me...blah, blah,blah." People are IDIOTS. Go call the aclu or someone who gives a sh@t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrixtonBill Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Might be a quasi-public arena if public funds were used to build the stadium. At least his lawyer will be getting paid to make the argument -- its a stretch though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 14, 2005 Author Share Posted October 14, 2005 Might be a quasi-public arena if public funds were used to build the stadium. At least his lawyer will be getting paid to make the argument -- its a stretch though. 475848[/snapback] It is publicly funded stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Private property, private event. If the teacher doesn't want to get patted down the teacher has the option not to go to the game. 475842[/snapback] Not private hence reasons like smoking rule bans apply. And if they change the rules after you buy the tickets then you have a case - bait and switch - and their are no refunds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Not private hence reasons like smoking rule bans apply. And if they change the rules after you buy the tickets then you have a case - bait and switch - and their are no refunds. 475853[/snapback] People are searched at pubicly funded airports too. If you don't want to be subject to a search, then you don't fly. Don't want to be searched entering a stadium? Don't go. Unreasonable search and seizure is prohibited. I don't see where a pat-down at a stadium where people are in close proximity to hundreds (if not thousands) of people at any given point in time is unreasonable in this day and age. EDIT: Also, if a stadium is pubicly funded, it is no doubt rented by the team (ie, it's not provided free of charge). The Constitution prohibits unreasonable search and seizure by the government, but private interests can make it mandatory to enter their property/business/home, even if said property/business/home is rented, if they choose. IMO, this suit will be (and should be) dismissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Not private hence reasons like smoking rule bans apply. And if they change the rules after you buy the tickets then you have a case - bait and switch - and their are no refunds. 475853[/snapback] But the team is leasing the property and therefore can impose there rules to see their product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodnarb Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 That's the ACLU in action. They want to create a Victim State, and they're gaining traction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopsGuy Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 IMO, this suit will be (and should be) dismissed. 475857[/snapback] I disagree. There was a quote on the West Wing once that I think went "Threats to civil liberties only ever come a few dollars at a time." We should have lively debate whenever things like this come up. I'd like something like this to actually be decided by the courts so that the precedent is set. There is a pretty good argument for the searches outweighing the personal rights of the individual (the old "can't yell Fire in a crowded theater"). I'm not against the searches. Heck, I've been patted down at concerts for quite some time, as they search for recording equipment. No big deal. Just my $0.02. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 I disagree. There was a quote on the West Wing once that I think went "Threats to civil liberties only ever come a few dollars at a time." We should have lively debate whenever things like this come up. I'd like something like this to actually be decided by the courts so that the precedent is set. There is a pretty good argument for the searches outweighing the personal rights of the individual (the old "can't yell Fire in a crowded theater"). I'm not against the searches. Heck, I've been patted down at concerts for quite some time, as they search for recording equipment. No big deal. Just my $0.02. 475887[/snapback] I disagree with you. Letting the courts waste time with matters such as this are nothing more than Motherment. I don't think laws and courts should have to decide common sense matters... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 I disagree with you. Letting the courts waste time with matters such as this are nothing more than Motherment. I don't think laws and courts should have to decide common sense matters... 475891[/snapback] It was "common sense" that women shouldn't vote. It was "common sense" that Blacks were inferior to whites. This is a truly a crazy argument. One man's "common sense" is another man's "that the stupidest thing I've ever heard" HopsGuy is right on the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Private property, private event. If the teacher doesn't want to get patted down the teacher has the option not to go to the game. 475842[/snapback] So if I invite a girl to my house and grab her boobs as she sits on my couch.. its ok, because if she does not want me doing that she does not have to come to my house? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 I disagree. There was a quote on the West Wing once that I think went "Threats to civil liberties only ever come a few dollars at a time." 475887[/snapback] We all surrender certain liberties and rights when we buy a ticket, or enter someone else's property - but it's a choice we make to do it. Do you think cigarette smokers should start lighting up at games because they can at home and we wouldn't want anyone's civil liberties to be violated one smoke at a time? Of course not. Don't overthink this, it's not overly complicated. Nobody is forcing him to go. If he doesn't want to be patted-down, he shouldn't go. It's really not even anything new, stadium security have been searching people and their effects for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 So if I invite a girl to my house and grab her boobs as she sits on my couch.. its ok, because if she does not want me doing that she does not have to come to my house? 475899[/snapback] Did she pay to enter your house? Did she know you were grabbing her boob in advance and therefore not have the option to go and get grabbed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 So if I invite a girl to my house and grab her boobs as she sits on my couch.. its ok, because if she does not want me doing that she does not have to come to my house? 475899[/snapback] Provided she knows beforehand that she's subject to such a search and is given the opportunity to not enter your house, sure. It's your house and you're responsible for protecting it and its occupants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasoninMT Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Same exact thing happens every day at airports... You don't see any lawsuits there... and many airports are publicly funded as well, so I don't buy that arguement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Same exact thing happens every day at airports... You don't see any lawsuits there... and many airports are publicly funded as well, so I don't buy that arguement. 475909[/snapback] I don't agree pat downs should happen in airports either btw. Its a weak security measure and causes way more problems than it solves. Sorry but I'm sure there are better ways to do things. Anyways, why do football games need security like that? Were too many people getting shot or stabbed at games or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts