East Brady Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 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? 475920[/snapback] According to the Daily Oklahoman suicide boy tried to enter at least three times a couple of weeks ago and it now appears that he exploded while placing the device on his body rather than carry it in his back pack.......go figure...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 Judge rules in favor of Civics teacher... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 hehehe.... three cheers for lawsuits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 According to the Daily Oklahoman suicide boy tried to enter at least three times a couple of weeks ago and it now appears that he exploded while placing the device on his body rather than carry it in his back pack.......go figure...... 480259[/snapback] Don't bother me with your silly scare tactics while my precious civil rights are being taken away by some fat guy who wants to look in my backpack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 Don't bother me with your silly scare tactics while my precious civil rights are being taken away by some fat guy who wants to look in my backpack. 488790[/snapback] Key words there are "scare tactics." According to this, the guy never attempted to enter the stadium: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46640 Some 84,000 people were inside watching the game at the time of the explosion. Officials say it did not appear Hinrichs attempted to enter the venue. I especially like the teacher's comment: If I did that to my students, do you know what would happen to me?" What would parents say if their kids were patted down before entering every classroom? He's right, there would be public outcry. I don't understand why this isn't being viewed the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 According to this, the guy never attempted to enter the stadium: So that means there was no risk? If this guy didn't try to enter the stadium, that means that the next guy won't either? Well alrighty then! What would parents say if their kids were patted down before entering every classroom? He's right, there would be public outcry. I don't understand why this isn't being viewed the same. 488880[/snapback] You don't understand the difference between a group of 20 people and a group of 80,000? Don't worry, sooner or later when it happens, the difference will become very apparent. BTW....are you aware that many high schools have metal detectors that the students must pass through before entering the school? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 BTW....are you aware that many high schools have metal detectors that the students must pass through before entering the school? 488885[/snapback] Yeah I know, its really sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 So that means there was no risk? If this guy didn't try to enter the stadium, that means that the next guy won't either? Well alrighty then!You don't understand the difference between a group of 20 people and a group of 80,000? Don't worry, sooner or later when it happens, the difference will become very apparent. First, no bomb is going to kill/harm 80,000 people in a stadium. The bomb itself isn't the main problem, it's the ensuing chaos that will cause more problems -- and you'll get the same chaos in a school albeit with only 5,000 students and staff. Second, you must be going to some small schools to only have 20 people in a classroom. And who says it has to be a high school? I was in lecture halls for college that had over 500 students. Benjamin Franklin put it best when he said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Of course, I should remember that this is the same message board where people have frequently argued against "innocent until proven guilty." CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 The heart of this lawsuit is whether it's legal for the NFL to require people to undergo pat-downs before entering a stadium. I'm not sure whether the effectiveness of pat-downs should enter into this. In general, you don't want a court deciding what a business can or can't do based on the court's determination of what is or isn't effective. The argument that the terrorist who would have blown up people at an NFL game will just blow them up someplace else instead is weak. It's not the NFL's job to protect our busses or schools or subways. It's its job to protect stadiums. In general, I feel the owner of a piece of property should have very strong rights to decide what goes on. If I want to form a private club where everyone is required to wear pink dresses and orange turbans, I should be able to. If people don't like it, they don't have to come to my club. What makes this issue different is the NFL's monopoly on professional football. Allowing the owner of a private club to set random or arbitrary rules is fine because there are other competing clubs for people to choose from. This is not the case with football. Nor is it the case if I want to hear a particular song, watch a particular movie, or use a certain piece of software. Any time you have a monopoly on something, you can no longer use the "If you don't like the rules, don't go" argument. Let's face it: if there was a close substitute for Bills football, why would we continue to watch the agony that is this team? Because the NFL enjoys near-monopoly status with respect to professional football, it should not be allowed to impose rules or restrictions which would be considered rights violations if done by a public agency. (For the same reason, a company that holds a monopoly--that is a copyright--on a certain movie or song or piece of software shouldn't be allowed to impose technology that interferes with copying or sharing allowed under fair use provisions.) So the only question that remains is this: do people have the right to not be patted down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts