Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 3/4/2002 1:38:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2002 1:43:20 PM EDT by EricTheHun]
[size=4]Comedian arrested in scuffle with security at San Francisco airport[/size=4] Published 8:15 a.m. PST Monday, March 4, 2002 SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A stand-up comedian was arrested after he allegedly got into a loud argument and a scuffle with a National Guardsman at San Francisco International Airport. Kevin Meaney, 45, allegedly grabbed the soldier's [b]loaded M-16 rifle[/b] with both hands and got into a shoving match with him Sunday after airport authorities repeatedly asked the comedian to stop videotaping checkpoint security procedures, authorities said. The National Guard said Meaney also became verbally abusive when security staff asked to pat-search his wife. "The majority of the problem was based on his conduct - he was very loud and caused a disturbance at the checkpoint, yelling at the supervisors who were trying to calm him down and at the soldiers," said National Guard 1st Lt. Robert Paoletti. The altercation occurred at an American Airlines security checkpoint where Meaney was videotaping the operations. It has been against federal law to videotape such activities since the Sept. 11 attacks. When security officers asked to pat search Meaney's wife, she told them she had nothing to hide and exposed her bra. She was not arrested. Meaney was being held Sunday at San Mateo County Jail. He lives in the Los Angeles suburb of Toluca Lake. A woman who answered the phone at his residence Monday said he was unavailable for comment. Meaney appeared in the movie "Big" with Tom Hanks, and starred in the CBS sitcom "Uncle Buck." Meaney [b]was[/b] scheduled to appear this weekend in Toronto with Jerry Seinfeld. [img]http://www.kevinmeaney.com/images/meaney.jpg[/img] See article at:[url]http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/1758032p-1837382c.html[/url] [i][b]That's just not right![/b][/i] Eric The(Who'sLaughingNow?)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 1:42:01 PM EDT
But as a member of the Hollywood Leftist Elite, I'll bet he escapes unharmed. Dumbass.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 1:53:55 PM EDT
merely trying to grab my rifle would be grounds for his face hitting the floor.. if not worse. How does the NG explain someone being able to do as Meaney did?
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 1:54:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 1:58:06 PM EDT
Hey, [b]ilikelegs[/b], that was excellent! I figured that someone would make a joke about him being in [b]'Big'[/b] with Tom Hanks! But yours was much, much better! Eric The(LOL)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 2:11:58 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 2:12:53 PM EDT
Wonder what his wife looks like?? But if the arguement happened AFTER they asked to search his wife, he had a right to be pissed. But he was STUPID for grabbing a weapon in the hands of someone. Tht would have earned a butt stroke from my weapon. [smoke]
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 2:13:44 PM EDT
asked the comedian to stop videotaping checkpoint security procedures...It has been against federal law to videotape such activities since the Sept. 11 attacks.
View Quote
OK, they can videotape us, but we can't videotape them? That doesn't sound like a society of equals.z
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 2:17:08 PM EDT
Why would anyone want to videotape a security checkpoint? Can anyone think of a valid, legitimate excuse? I think I'll go videotape AirForceOne as it sits on the runway? You know 'My Hard-earned Tax Dollars at Work' film I'm taping. 'Reckon I'll get approached by Secret Service? Eric The(TheGuy'sAFop!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 2:23:45 PM EDT
This moron gets away without a cold cock from the butt of the weapon, while an Eagle Scout's face is shot to shit? Something is wrong these days. This comedian should have hit the pavement HARD at the very least.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 2:32:49 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 3:05:03 PM EDT
Why would anyone want to videotape a security checkpoint?
View Quote
Why would anyone want to own an [i]assault weapon[/i]?
Can anyone think of a valid, legitimate excuse?
View Quote
Can anyone think of a valid, legitimate excuse for owning an [i]assault weapon[/i]? Soccer mom logic at its best. Just because video taping is against the law, it's still no excuse for someone in the National Guard to lose his temper and assault a customer of the airline.z
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 3:14:34 PM EDT
Post from zoom -
Why would anyone want to own an assault weapon?
View Quote
I can think of a couple of dozen reasons for everyone to own a so-called assault rifle. Can you give me [b]one[/b] valid reason that someone would desire to film a security checkpoint? Besides, which, it has been illegal since Sept 11. Besides even more which, grabbing a weapon held by an LEO, or a National Guardsman, is likely going to be treated as either an assault or interference with an official in the discharge of his duties. So what's Meaney's excuse? He thought he was on 'America's Funniest Security Checkpoint Videos'? Well, it looks like he soon will be the star of a impromptu fashion show at the maximum security lockdown of the Marin County Jail! This is San Francisco don't forget! Eric The(LawAbiding)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 3:18:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By zoom: Just because video taping is against the law, it's still no excuse for someone in the National Guard to lose his temper and assault a customer of the airline.z
View Quote
Did we read the same article? How was this guy assaulted by the NG?
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 3:22:52 PM EDT
Post from Citabria7GCBC -
this is why we are losing our freedoms now days. i predict that there will be a totally safe airline in the next 50 yrs. Its called Air. i guess we should rename the pit though.
View Quote
No. 'This' is not why we're losing our freedoms now days. I can guarantee you that if some clown acting like a fool got my flight cancelled because he was cutting didos, running the gate, or was simply tying up a security checkpoint while he entertained the National Guard personnel, I'd kick his ass. And if I wan't big enough to kick his ass, I would buy someone who was! This is serious shit folks. Very serious. And we don't any need comedians to give the joint atmosphere. Our servicemen are doing their part in Gardez this evening. In Kabul, and in the rest of Afghanistan. In Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Georgia. In the Persian Gulf and in the Indian Ocean. Can't we do our part here? Eric The(Serious)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 3:42:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 7:55:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2002 7:56:53 PM EDT by trickshot]
For those of you dissing this poor guy, listen up: It could just as easily have been you. Just about anything can get you arrested in an airport nowadays and we don't even have the right to know what those "anythings" even are! Now I know he grabbed the guy's rifle, but I don't think he was trying to take it away from the guardsman. He's a comedian and he has to fly [b]a lot[/b]. Having to put up with all the bullshit once is enough to drive me insane, I wonder what it does to people who have to deal with it on a regular basis, hmmm? There is no crime serious enough to justify a rape in jail, especially when one hasn't even been convicted of a crime. It's just not funny. I guess I have a real problem with National Guard troops being stationed in the airports. It's fascist, after all. And being bossed around by some guy with a 5th grade level education isn't my idea of a good time. I will resist and shame on all of you for not resisting this bullshit.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 8:13:09 PM EDT
I seriously doubt ANY of us would be dumb enough to try and video tape a security checkpoint. I'll bet there are signs all over the walls saying that it is illegal as a matter of fact. similar to those signs all around the outside of most military bases. Just not a real bright idea to let the bad guys have a "game film" of your team working to view before they come try something. As far as the dumbass comedian, I personally don't give a shit if he was trying to be funny, or if it was some kind of mis-guided protest of the Guard being in the airport. He was wrong and IS damn lucky he still has his teeth probably. Aviator [img]www.milpubs.com/aviator.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 8:16:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By trickshot: I guess I have a real problem with National Guard troops being stationed in the airports. It's fascist, after all. And being bossed around by some guy with a 5th grade level education isn't my idea of a good time. I will resist and shame on all of you for not resisting this bullshit.
View Quote
Nothing like a little stereotyping eh? there is a right way, and a wrong way to resist/protest things. Thats not the place or time to do it IMO. Aviator [img]www.milpubs.com/aviator.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 8:18:29 PM EDT
[b]Hmmm...someone grabs my firearm....I am being disarmed!....that someone will be SHOT! End of story![/b] He can say he was not trying to take the M16 all he wants (if he even stated that) but grabbing it with both hands sounds to me like the NG person would have been justified in shooting him. I know in my job if someone grabs my weapon like that they will be shot..no questions asked. just my 2 cents medcop
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 8:23:35 PM EDT
Nothing like a little stereotyping eh?
View Quote
Aviator, I think he was insulting the security guy and [b]not[/b] the National Guardsman. At least I hope that's what he meant.z
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 8:43:48 PM EDT
Even reaching for the weapon is grounds for the "butt-stoke to the head series". I don't care who he is....
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 8:46:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2002 8:46:59 PM EDT by Zak]
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Why would anyone want to videotape a security checkpoint? Can anyone think of a valid, legitimate excuse?
View Quote
I'm sure I can think of a couple off the top of my head. * Background footage for a news story. * Presenting the footage to those of like mind who don't fly regularly, and haven't been exposed to this wonderful "safety." * Historical archive footage. Something to show your grandkids in twenty-five years or so. "This was the beginning, kids--right after the trade center went down, and they got serious about taking our rights away." * Evidence for when one petitions the government for redress of greivances (gross violation of civil rights.) I'm sure there are more. (edited because I cannot spell.)
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 8:58:01 PM EDT
The guys a jack-ass. I hope they choose to make an example out him. Like spending the night with Rosie and Paula Poundstone. That would striaghten his ass right out.
Link Posted: 3/4/2002 10:15:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By M-60: Even reaching for the weapon is grounds for the "butt-stoke to the head series". I don't care who he is....
View Quote
He may still be in for a butt-stroke or two.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 6:33:39 AM EDT
I am shocked that on one thread we are discussing a headshot and everyone is upset and on this thread where we have multiple instances of violation of civil and constitutional rights and someone finally looses it---we blast the guy!?? I expected better of you guys...oh well...
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 6:41:23 AM EDT
Comedian vs. NG confrontation aside, we have a serious problem when it is "illegal" to monitor a public area in an airport (can we say 1st ammendment; cameras, reporters, interviews, whatever?) Incrementalism. Seems as if some here have fallen under its spell.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 6:43:51 AM EDT
Butt stroke should have been standard procedure. How was he able to get close enough to grasp the weapon without the butt stroke?
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 6:45:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Why would anyone want to videotape a security checkpoint? Can anyone think of a valid, legitimate excuse?
View Quote
To confirm or deny that some security guys are groping female passengers?
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 6:45:38 AM EDT
Help me, hound, how was this clown denied his constitutional rights? Do you have a constitutional right to grab a National Guardsman's weapon? A constitutional right to film at a security checkpoint? How about a constitutional right to walk up to the National Guardsman and shout at the top of your lungs: [size=4]Look out, everybody, I've got a bomb![/size=4] If you said no, does that mean your freedom of speech has been denied? Sorry, but comedians and constitutionalists at security checkpoints, we don't need! You can always argue the constitutional points with the new friends you'll be making in the holding cell at county jail! To board a plane, you need a ticket and valid i.d., your copy of the US Constitution, as well as your sense of humor, must be checked along with your baggage! You'll get both back when the plane safely lands! Eric The(Realistic)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 7:11:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: A constitutional right to film at a security checkpoint?
View Quote
YES! It's called "The freedom of the press."
How about a constitutional right to walk up to the National Guardsman and shout at the top of your lungs: [size=4]Look out, everybody, I've got a bomb![/size=4]
View Quote
NO! You may not shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, remember? Of course, if you actually had a bomb, you DO have the constitutional right (and indeed, the duty) to inform everyone. [:D]
Sorry, but comedians and constitutionalists at security checkpoints, we don't need!
View Quote
Our first flag was a picture of a snake and said, "Don't tread on me." Personally, I think we're being trod upon, and you know what? People have a right to say that aloud, especially to those doing the trodding!
To board a plane, you need a ticket and valid i.d., your copy of the US Constitution, as well as your sense of humor, must be checked along with your baggage!
View Quote
The constituion isn't supposed to be checked anywhere. From Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land" Kind of hard to check the "supreme law of the land" at the door, isn't it?
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 7:12:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/5/2002 7:13:10 AM EDT by Zak]
Oh, and Mr. Hun: I and another poster both provided situations in which one might want or need to tape security checkpoints. In your long winded post above, you failed to address either of these answers to YOUR question. (edited because I cannot spell)
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 7:23:49 AM EDT
Should we expect the reasoning behind the "no videotaping of airport security" rule to be extended to [b]all[/b] "security" operations? BTW, this is not a defense of Mr. "How dare you hassle a minor celebrity like me!" Meaney. Being upset is understandable, but that doesn't justify grabbing a soldier's weapon. Who does he think he is -- a [url=http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6228/states/ri/ri1.html]Kennedy[/url]?
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 8:00:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/5/2002 8:01:06 AM EDT by hound]
ok HUNny...I will BOR A1--infringement of freedom of speech and possibly press---and no policy or procedures for redress A2--shall not be infringed A3--not valid yet A4---warrantless searches Can you give me the German translation for "Vhere are your Papers?" A5---deprived of property---I want my two bucks for my nail clippers that the state confiscated A6---not valid yet A7---A9---not valid yet A10---A LOT of things not listed as powers have been taken by the Federales Is this enough or do I go on? I will-- grab a NG's weapon--why yes, if he was attempting to arrest the NG for enforcing illegal and unconstittutional laws---not in this case. filming---If you are not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide? shouting---if topless dancing is covered, why not shouting? The rest is just argumentative and specious--and I will not get My rights back when we land. Counselor----your turn
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 8:19:16 AM EDT
I think he was video taping jackbooted thugs oppressing once free citizens of the United States. Soon it will be illegal to video tape any law enforcement anywhere doing anything, so there is no record of them trampling our rights. In a free and open society, there should be nothing to hide at a checkpoint. (not that there should be checkpoints)
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 8:34:04 AM EDT
I have no problem with people filming "Security Checkpoints". I do have a problem with "security checkpoints" [:(!] They are wholy unnecessary and only serve to desensitize people to loosing their rights. We have many stories of abuses and outright theft, too numerous to be ignored and too many instances of their failures. You who fly are subjected to no cause searches, unreasonable demands to prove YOUR INNOCENCE.[0:)] And then if you are a meek passanger who will put up with all this they will graciously allow you to fly. [BD] Of course if you were going to the Olymipc games then if you needed to use the john in the last 30 minutes of the flight then you were prohibited from doing so. (how abut that pregnant lady) When was the last time you wetted your pants cause the john was made unavaliable, want there to be a next time? When did you stop carrying a bomb in your luggage? [;D] When did a pair of clippers become an offensive weapon?[>:/] Want "security" carry CCW and be ready, cause there aint no such critter. Want the government to guarantee your safety? Don't hold your breath! Why wait on them when you are more able to do it. "Its not my job man!" Doesn't cut it. You are responsable for your own safety and the governmnet is NOT responsible. Want reasonable measures from the government, there are none. They refuse to allow people the tools to defend themselves and then paints a bullseye on the plane for fighters to shoot it down if it gets hijacked. As to grabbing the weapon, that is just plain stupid. Of course having the national guard in airports is just plain stupid. Just my nickles worth(inflation)
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 8:59:29 AM EDT
Post from zak -
I and another poster both provided situations in which one might want or need to tape security checkpoints. In your long winded post above, you failed to address either of these answers to YOUR question.
View Quote
Sorry, I was on another thread smacking around an anti-Semite![:D] I'll get to your examples immediately!
* Background footage for a news story.
View Quote
Now that's strange, I've seen plenty of film from news stations showing what National Guardsmen at security checkpoints look like. And these guys obviously know that the news crew and the huge videocamera are there! Why don't they stitch the reporters or something? Do you reckon it's because the news crew asked for permission to film before they started rolling the tape? Yes, that would seem to be the likely answer! I would imagine that if the clown or any of you had asked permission to film, and gave an even half-assed reason for wanting to do so, the Airport officials, [u]whose[/u] property you are on, BTW, would give you their permission!
* Presenting the footage to those of like mind who don't fly regularly, and haven't been exposed to this wonderful "safety."
View Quote
Obtain some file footage from a news crew! Or simply ask permission, as above....
* Historical archive footage. Something to show your grandkids in twenty-five years or so. "This was the beginning, kids--right after the trade center went down, and they got serious about taking our rights away."
View Quote
Hmmm, a bit melodramatic I think, and you might not want to use [u]that[/u] reason for asking for permission to film, but do as you wish!
* Evidence for when one petitions the government for redress of greivances (gross violation of civil rights.)
View Quote
File film available from news crews....hmmmm, I'm beginning to see a pattern here, folks.
I'm sure there are more.
View Quote
Yes, and I'm certain that they all involve some horrible curtailment of our basic civil rights as airline passengers, as are carefully safeguarded by Amendment, uh, what was the number of that Amendment again? - continued -
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 9:00:54 AM EDT
Post from tinker -
To confirm or deny that some security guys are groping female passengers?
View Quote
I would think that the airlines are going to be doing that soon enough. If they fail to do so, then a jury will be entitled to believe that the airline's refusal was based upon the fact that [u]it[/u] believed such unlawful groping [u]was[/u] in fact occurring! Folks, some of us have to travel for a living. Since Sept 11, anyone who generally feared flying, now has even more reason to do so! The security situation has been improved in a few ways, but not nearly as much as it should have been by now. When you go onto private property, your rights are curtailed immediately! When you go into an area designated as a secure area by the airport authority, by the airlines, and by the federal government, then your rights are curtailed even more. When you actually climb aboard an airliner, the few remaining rights that you have left are diminished again! And, unless you're a prisoner being transported to some facility in a distant country, state, or province.... [b][u]All[/u] of this you have done knowingly, willingly, and, [u]hopefully[/u] intelligently.[/b] If you don't like it then you are either: (1) a cell member of some terrorist organization looking for another Sept 11 opportunity, (2) a pinhead who would likely have been a great pain in the ass during WWII complaining about wartime rationing, (3) some comedian looking for some new material for your routine, or (4) someone who is so far removed from reality that you actually think that something so innocuous and [b]necessary[/b] as prohibiting the filming by unauthorized persons of a airport security checkpoint is the harbinger of the cessation of all civil rights in this country! Didn't they find videotapes in Kabul of the Eiffel Tower in Paris, and photographs of other well-known monuments? Do you think that there are videos of Israeli checkpoints in the possession of Hamas and Hezbollah? [b]Folks, folks, folks this is how the bad guys do it![/b] So please, make me feel better by telling me that you're either terrorists or comedians![:D] Eric The(Comic)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 9:22:55 AM EDT
It is about time that the U.S. borrowed a page from the Mexican Federales and given law enforcement protections against busybody civilians with cameras.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 9:28:11 AM EDT
I knew that [u]you[/u] would approve, Imbroglio. I like to think of it more as what it takes to board an El Al airliner. In Tel Aviv. Now. I'm not too familiar with Mexican [i][b]federales[/b][/i], nor do I yearn for any first hand knowledge of their tactics! Eric The(LowKey)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 9:45:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Now that's strange, I've seen plenty of film from news stations showing what National Guardsmen at security checkpoints look like. And these guys obviously know that the news crew and the huge videocamera are there! Why don't they stitch the reporters or something? Do you reckon it's because the news crew asked for permission to film before they started rolling the tape?
View Quote
I'm sure they did. All you said was there was no legitimate reason to tape a security checkpoint, you didn't imply it was okay if one asked permission first--now your response is to agree with them (with conditions) as if that's been your position all along.
the Airport officials, whose property you are on, BTW
View Quote
How many commercial airports (not the little private affairs people fly cessnas out of, anything that will take at least a 727) do you know of that are privately owned? Last I checked, just about all of them were owned by the public (state or local.) It is not THEIR property, it is OUR property!
Yes, and I'm certain that they all involve some horrible curtailment of our basic civil rights as airline passengers, as are carefully safeguarded by Amendment, uh, what was the number of that Amendment again?
View Quote
The 4th--you know the one that protects against unreasonable searches and seizures? How about the 1st, the whole "free speech" thing? You've heard the story about the guy who was unlawfully held up by a guard because he mentioned the "tips" sign was rather unethical, right? Maybe the 2nd? Keeping and bearing of arms? You can't even bring nail clippers on an airplane anymore, much less something useful in defending your life and the lives of others (like a folding knife.) There's always the overlooked 9th, the one that says the enumeration of certain rights cannot be used to disparage others retained by the people? (This alone should answer your question above.)
When you go onto private property, your rights are curtailed immediately!
View Quote
Most airports are not private property. Also, while one's rights can be restricted by the owner of the property (by demanding you abide by his rules, or leave, for the most part) you always DO have that right to leave said property. In an airport, turning away from the security checkpoint these days (after, say, refusing to submit to a patdown search) usually gets you placed into custody!
When you actually climb aboard an airliner, the few remaining rights that you have left are diminished again! And, unless you're a prisoner being transported to some facility in a distant country, state, or province.... All of this you have done knowingly, willingly, and, hopefully intelligently.
View Quote
Knowlingly? Yes. Willingly? Not hardly--but there is no other way to get to the other side of the country in less than a few days. Sometimes you just HAVE to fly. Intelligently? I guess so. Last time I flew, I left my glock at home and drove to the airport unarmed (normally, I would carry TO the airport, and leave my weapon locked in the trunk.) Good thing, too, since a deputy demanded to search my vehicle before I could park, and a gentleman was arrested (in my state, no less) a week later for having a weapon in his car at an airport. Personally, I don't call this intelligence, but rather "knowing what would happen if I exercised my rights, and choosing to submit to the JBTs."
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 9:49:49 AM EDT
Now that's strange, I've seen plenty of film from news stations showing what National Guardsmen at security checkpoints look like. And these guys obviously know that the news crew and the huge videocamera are there! Why don't they stitch the reporters or something? Do you reckon it's because the news crew asked for permission to film before they started rolling the tape?
View Quote
Wait a minute... If videotaping the security checkpoints is a violation of [b]federal law[/b], then how can Sgt. Guardsman and company make everything OK if you just ask for permission? I can understand that if the airport is Simon's private property that then we all have to do what Simon says if we want to fly. But then making an exception to the policy would be between me and Simon. Federal law isn't supposed to work that way, is it?
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 10:04:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Goet: Comedian vs. NG confrontation aside, we have a serious problem when it is "illegal" to monitor a public area in an airport (can we say 1st ammendment; cameras, reporters, interviews, whatever?)
Like it or not, none of our constitutional rights are absolute and without exception. There is no right to film anything at an airport. It's not even an a freedom of the press issue. The first amendment protects you from printing, saying, or broadcasting [b]nearly[/b] anything but it is not a license to obtain the information in whatever manner you choose. I may not break into a courthouse to steal court documents and then claim protection under the first amendment because I felt the public had a right to know what was in the documents I stole. Do I have a right to broadcast live footage of hostage rescue attempts? A pure first amendment interpretation would insist that I do. Nevertheless, is it good public policy to permit this? What happens when the hostage's right to life and liberty is in conflict with your right to broadcast the news? Obviously somebody's rights are going to be compromised and we have to make a value judgement on which is most important. Airport security is the same way. Certainly a potential use of unrestricted filming of security procedures to develop methods of circumventing those procedures, jeaporadizing the safety of those who the procedures are in place to help protect. A person can get legitimate footage of the interior of an airport- we see it on the news all the time. Why is permitting any clown to come film security procedures at his leisure more important than the potential safety risk to the passengers? BTW, on the BOR: 1. Already addressed. 2. Not relevant to this thread 3. Not relevant 4. Protects you from [b]unreasonable[/b] searches. You don't have to submit to a search at the airport. You won't board the plane, of course, but it is your choice (oh yeah, you don't have a right to air travel). It is a consent search which has been upheld by SC as reasonable. 5-9, Not relevant 10. While I feel the federal government has extended their influence way too far, I have to admit that I think air travel is one of the areas best handled on a national level. Most flights are interstate rather than intrastate in nature anyway. Furthermore, it could be argued that air transportation is a natural extension of the post roads that congress was empowered to create and regulate in the Constitution. Bottom line is that in real life (not academic fantasy worlds) rights sometimes conflict and one must give way to the other. I don't agree that an individual has the right to film airport security procedures, but even if he did have that right I feel it should be subordinate to the greater rights of the airline passengers.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 10:20:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By jsprag: 4. Protects you from [b]unreasonable[/b] searches. You don't have to submit to a search at the airport. You won't board the plane, of course, but it is your choice (oh yeah, you don't have a right to air travel). It is a consent search which has been upheld by SC as reasonable.
View Quote
Does a federal thug getting his rocks off by putting his hands inside the shirt of a female passanger in the name of "security" constitute a reasonable search? How about attempting to sieze a congressional medal of honor from a retired general, because you don't know what it is, but you don't think he should have it? Depantsing a congressman? (actually I kind of liked that one--talk about learning the lesson of unintended consequences!) Subjecting everyone to these disgusting searches a second or even a third time, because some moron (who is now paid for by our tax dollars) isn't doing his job right? Oh, and if you want to see how consenual these searches are, try refusing (then try to leave) and see what happens.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 11:03:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By jsprag: A person can get legitimate footage of the interior of an airport- we see it on the news all the time. Why is permitting any clown to come film security procedures at his leisure more important than the potential safety risk to the passengers?
View Quote
So, lemme get this straight. If I want footage of the airports I have to get it from "govt.-approved"- pravda? Freedom of the press-kiss yourself goodbye. I still don't see how footage of security checkpoints is any different from some joe blow standing there taking notes. Question of public property rights. I'll still stand with those who want more freedom. If the terrorists still haven't figure out how a metal detector works and need exclusive footage of the mockery of security that is paraded in the news daily, then... well.... what can I say?
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 11:07:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Why would anyone want to videotape a security checkpoint? Can anyone think of a valid, legitimate excuse? I think I'll go videotape AirForceOne as it sits on the runway? You know 'My Hard-earned Tax Dollars at Work' film I'm taping. 'Reckon I'll get approached by Secret Service? Eric The(TheGuy'sAFop!)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Sure I can, namely, to use in a trial against them for unlawful search. ONce they present a warrant, these federal employees can do the search, until that time it is an illegal search. Video tape evidence is admissiable in that case.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 11:32:45 AM EDT
Post from zak -
All you said was there was no legitimate reason to tape a security checkpoint, you didn't imply it was okay if one asked permission first--now your response is to agree with them (with conditions) as if that's been your position all along.
View Quote
Nope. I first said:
Why would anyone want to videotape a security checkpoint? Can anyone think of a valid, legitimate excuse?
View Quote
Then I said:
Can you give me one valid reason that someone would desire to film a security checkpoint?
View Quote
And I simply don't believe that you, or anyone else, has given us a reason why you need to film a security checkpoint. My position hasn't changed one iota! Nor will it likely change!
How many commercial airports (not the little private affairs people fly cessnas out of, anything that will take at least a 727) do you know of that are privately owned? Last I checked, just about all of them were owned by the public (state or local.) It is not THEIR property, it is OUR property!
View Quote
Ordinarily, airports are owned by cities, counties, etc., and then [u]leased[/u] to private [b]'authorities'[/b], and, therefore, are private property. Just like a rented or leased house is [u]your[/u] property. But, if it's our property, as you say, why don't you run up there and drive out onto the runway? Don't forget to wave for the cameras! (And to duck!)
Knowlingly? Yes. Willingly? Not hardly--but there is no other way to get to the other side of the country in less than a few days. Sometimes you just HAVE to fly.
View Quote
Yes, life can sometimes be perplexing and confounding for us, but when the alternative may be Sept 11 Redux, with even more planes crashing into even more buildings, there is simply no other alternative. My wife flies even more often than I do, but I can assure you that if I saw someone filming at a gate that she was due to arrive at, or leave from, or if anyone tried to grab the weapon of the National Guardsman at the gate, or even tried any new comedy routines at that gate, I would be the one who would be taken away in handcuffs, 'cause the funny man/camera guy/whatever would be leaving in an ambulance or a bag! But I am glad that we have people watching out for the mean, nasty, brutish government! The [b]leviathan[/b] does bear watching! I just hope that some of us don't come off looking like the little boy who cried 'wolf'! And is ignored when the really mean, nasty, brutish things start happening! Eric The(NeedFilmOfASecurityCheckpointForPosterity­?ICertainlyHopeSo)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 11:43:29 AM EDT
As I recall, an airport is not a "public" place for purposes of a 1st Amendment analysis - I believe it falls into the category of semi-public places subject to reasonable restrictions, however this is not a 1st Amendment issue. Its an isue of public safety. A video camera does nothing more than record observations any person can make. It doesn't see through walls, it doesn't give you technical secrets of how to bypass security measures, it doesn't 'take-out' security personnel. What a video camera does can be accomplished by any observant person or persons sans video camera or recording devices. Therefore, if all this "airport security" can be thwarted by simply videotaping the procedures, or a careful observation of them, its not very "secure" now, is it? Additionally, I think the having those procedures subject to video observation serves an important constitutional function somewhat analogous to the recitation of the Miranda rights to a suspect in custody. When a LEO mirandizes a suspect, the recitation of those rights not only informs the suspect of his rights, but reminds and reinforces the importance of those rights to the arresting LEO. Similarly, if the security at an airport knows full well they are subject to scrutiny via a videotape, they will have a constant reminder of the basic Constitutional rights upon which they canot trample. Certainly, when you board an airplane, you subject yourself to a greater restriction of your rights, but those rights still exist. Certain practices are still prohibited to the gov't; racial profiling, restrictions on protected speech not interfering with a significant govt interest, illegal search & seizure, etc.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 12:02:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Zak: Does a federal thug getting his rocks off by putting his hands inside the shirt of a female passanger in the name of "security" constitute a reasonable search? How about attempting to sieze a congressional medal of honor from a retired general, because you don't know what it is, but you don't think he should have it? Depantsing a congressman? (actually I kind of liked that one--talk about learning the lesson of unintended consequences!)
View Quote
Don't try to take the extreme cases and pass them off as the norm. Of course they aren't reasonable searches. Any legitimate use of authority, when extended too far or abused, becomes illegitimate. Are you arguing that if an entity doesn't exercise its power appropriately then it must mean they don't have, and never have had, that power? If a prosecuter obtains a murder conviction by deceit, witholding evidence, and tampering with evidence it doesn't mean that the state no longer has the power to charge and convict alleged murderers. All it means is that the prosecuter should be punished and disbarred. Likewise, the fact that some searches are botched and mishandled doesn't negate the authority under which the searches are conducted. You have somehow reached the conclusion that if they are unable to do it perfectly every time then they must not have had the power to ever do it in the first place. Finally, to bring this back on topic, I'll note that the charges of fondling and harrasment somehow made it to the light of day without the need to videotape the security procedures. So what relevance do these incidents have to the topic at hand?
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 12:34:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Goet: So, lemme get this straight. If I want footage of the airports I have to get it from "govt.-approved"- pravda? Freedom of the press-kiss yourself goodbye.
View Quote
You're confusing freedom of the press with freedom of access. You can broadcast footage of airports with very few restrictions. You can also print your experiences and your opinions in the press if you want. The first amendment doesn't guarantee you access to information, only use of that information once you obtain it. Post offices, military bases, navy ships at sea, federal courthouses, national parks, etc... are all government (and thus public) property. This doesn't grant you the license to do anything you want in the name of a free press. You may not go into the mail sorting room of a post office for your documentary without proper permission. You may not enter a military base and nuclear weapons handling procedures without permission. You may not enter the Supreme Court and videotape the proceedings so you can show the folks back home. And you may not enter an airport and film the security practices. There is simply no right, constitutional or otherwise, to perform these acts. Remember, freedom of press/speach is not equivalent to freedom of access.
I still don't see how footage of security checkpoints is any different from some joe blow standing there taking notes.
View Quote
Ever watched a movie and thought "Hey, I never noticed that before"? Ever had somebody describe a place to you and then go see it yourself and get a far different picture than what you had in mind from their description? These reasons and more are why footage of security procedures are more valuable than mere notes. If a single picture is worth a thousand words then a ten minute video would be an entire encyclopedia collection. Imagine someone planning on robbing a bank, a team planning a hostage rescue mission, or a group wanting to circumvent airport security and hijack an airliner. What would be the most valuable tool to have on hand? Intelligence. Video footage can provide so much more than mere notes. It allows you to watch the scene over and over to glean new details each time (and take notes each time instead of just once), it allows you to expose others to the sights and sounds of the location without risking their exposure, and it may show patterns over time that aren't noticable with a few notetaking trips. You can compare tapes from different locations to see differences and similarities. If you had only taken notes you might see something at the second location and wonder how it was done at the first. Video allows you to answer that question immediately without making another visit. These are all valid reasons to be concerned about people running around airports filming security checkpoints.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 1:04:32 PM EDT
These are all valid reasons to be concerned about people running around airports filming security checkpoints. I guess this is where we differ...I don't think that there is any reason to have the dang things in the first place and you are willing to give up almost anything for your "safety" "Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, 'What should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" --Samuel Adams On Sept 11 a blow was struck at our heart,our way of life, and our society. Is this the only way to reply to that insult, to give up the ideas and values that made us, to harass women and children, to throw away the rewards of 200 years of struggle to live free from tyranny? Is this what we have become, a nation of cowards that is more concerned with safety, than with living as the Founding Fathers intended, striking back in the face of adversity and rising triumphant over any foe. So now we can go back to the malls and shop and know that the government is able to protect us from fingernail clippers and baseball bats. A group of men once pledged "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor" and we get airline security stations and approved travel documents and unpatriotic speech...do you honestly think that to those old white haired guys, we deserve what they died for?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top