Random Searches

[dilloduck]

You finally got it! Congrats to you.

BTW, while SCOTUS IMO has attempted to make law, it hasn't been in this area, with the possible exception of the Miranda Warning laws.

no no no--Congrats to YOU for finally understanding. Give the ACLU and SCOTUS some time and a case. They'll get to this area too. The battle of civil liberties vs our security hasn't even gotten to half throttle yet.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Random searches in name only...this allows a experienced law enforcement officer to profile without being attacked by the ACLU...a experienced law enforcement officer can pick a random person prior to hitting the profiled suspect...from my personal experience this type of random searches works out quite well...a 75% return on investment sorta speak...so no harm no foul!

Bingo. No worries mates.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Bingo. No worries mates.

Better than this:

Officer counting...checking every seventh person

one...Blonde haired white guy - pass
two...Black african type guy - pass
three...Dark Arab type guy with suitcase - pass
four...Dark Arab type guy with heavy coat - pass
five...Dark Arab type guy with dark threatening look - pass
six...Dark Arab type guy with another suitcase - pass
seven...Gray haired white grandma - SEARCH!!!

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

From what I understand, the NYC subway searches are voluntary. If they ask to search you, you can refuse. If that's true, then they are absolutely worthless. Any guy with a backpack full of explosives is going to turn around and find another subway station. It's a classic case of symbolism over substance.

 

[Annie]

From what I understand, the NYC subway searches are voluntary. If they ask to search you, you can refuse. If that's true, then they are absolutely worthless. Any guy with a backpack full of explosives is going to turn around and find another subway station. It's a classic case of symbolism over substance.

Ah, but just like airlines, then one is turned away. My guess, with ATF ready to interdict.

 

[Johnney]

It is a waste of taxpayer money to search people who pose no conceivable threat to security. They should be targeting the people/groups who are responsible for terrorism and leave innocent people alone. I am in favor of profiling. Aren't you?

so what exactly will the next suicde bomber look like? and what does an innocent person look like?
i think they should do 100% searches. but i say that hear, in backwoods Iowa. im sure it is a pain in the ass. and im sure it may make people late for whatever. but is that the price you want to put on your life?

 

[theHawk]

Random searches are absolutely rediculous. A while back I saw on some news show they found out that airport security was actually targeting people with government employee ID cards and old ladies because they were less likely to put up a stink about a random search. Its fucking idiotic.

 

[Gunny]

Now they are starting random searches on the NYC and DC subways. This is prompted by something that happened in London. Last I heard London was not even part of this country.

I guess the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure does not extend to "idiotic search".

We know who the terrorists are. Why search randomly? Search people who might be terrorists. Searching a teenyboppers guitar case or some old ladies gym bag will not make anybody safer. The US government are the terrorists now, because they are terrorizing innocent citizens with their foul searches.

This is an issue all Americans should be able to agree upon. It cuts across left/right boundaries. Everyone is being violated.

Well, great idea except for one "minor" little problem ...... If we don't search the little red-headed, freckle-faced girl too, then we are guilty of profiling. This would give the left, and the ACLU in particular the hives, and we wouldn't want THAT.