Fliers Claim TSA Have Deactivated Body Scanners

Reread New York v. Burger.

Wow. Anoter case that Mr. Freedomwarrior cited before he read it.

The guy is not worth anyone's time except that he might impress someone with his ficticious cites and claims of a JD if allowed to get away with it. In the end it is all just empty bloviating.

Wow, I am not the one calling myself a JD who goes around spouting caseses [SIC] that he apparently forgot to read.

You keep saying that, but it's pretty obvious that your contention is without merit. Not only did I read the case, I pointed out why you pulling dicta from them was irrelevant. I explained to you several times why I cited to Carroll, you are apparently too stupid to figure out why, even when it was explained to you.

2. Rested on an argument to authority - your supposed JD - and stated you should not have to bother responding to anyone who does not have one.

I never said that. Thus, it is pretty obvious that you are merely projecting. I told a specific poster to come back and talk to me after they got a JD, because it was obvious that they don't know the law. I never applied that statement to everyone. So now, you are a liar.

3. Put words in the mouths of various Supreme Court Justices they did not utter.

You are lying again. I cited numerous cases to you. You are just too stupid to figure out how to apply the cases. I guess I should have known better than to try to reason with someone who can't even put together a coherent post. The Supreme Court has express

4. Spewed off a number of cites to cases and statutes that do not say what you say they say, because apparently you never read them.

You are lying again. I cited each case to prove a specific point. I cited one very specific case to you several times that deals DIRECTLY with the subject of airport searches, and you have continually ignored it, because it has you dead to rights and you know it.

5. Put together an impossible to follow argument about why I am wrong in quoting verbatim from the text of the cases that you attempt to rely upon for your claim that TSA agents can go fingering little girls.

You keep making this outrageous charge, one that is utterly baseless. No TSA agent has "fingered a little girl." I think that fact that you would dream up such a thing tells us a whole lot about where you mind is, and what warped fantasies you dream about. As for my point being "impossible to follow", that only applies if you have the mindset of a 7 year old.

As I already explained to you, a poster earlier in the thread made the absurd contention that ALL searches, everywhere require both probable cause and a warrant. I cited Carroll specifically to point out that this contention was mistaken. That officers who search an automobile do not need to have a warrant. Thus, this negates the contention that ALL searches require a warrant. You grabbed onto some dicta in Carroll and are apparently under the assumption that ALL searches require probable cause. I pointed out to you numerous examples of searches that require less than probable cause. ONE of the exceptions is an administrative search, in which airport searches are classified. I cited a case to you numerous times that deals DIRECTLY with airport searches, and you have ignored it, because you know that you have been caught in a lie and exposed as ignorant. Now you are desperately projecting in an attempt to cover your tracks.

No, you are done here. If you want to argue your point, like a good attorney, argue your point like a good attorney. In brief, your legal scholarship stinks like a 20 day beached whale.

Again, re Terry v Ohio, it would behoove you to read your own case cites, because it does not exactly make your point. Here is Warren, writing for the Court:

I think the real problem here is that you are too stupid to follow my point. I cited Terry to rebut your earlier claim that all searches require probable cause, NOT as the standard by which airport searches are conducted. As you just found out, A Terry Frisk can be conducted with mere reasonable suspicion, which is in direct opposition to your contention that ALL searches require probable cause.

You failed miserably.

Aukai classified an airport search as an administrative search. You really need to learn the difference between dicta and the holding of the court. Until you do so, trying to talk to you has no purpose.

You've been caught in a lie, and you are trying to flip the script on the fly.

Your claim: "All searches require probable cause."

This contention was debunked by Terry, which showed one example of a search that can be conducted with less than probable cause. Aukai is another example.

Why don't we test who is right here. Go down to the airport and try to tell the TSA agents that you refuse to be searched and that you believe that they need probable cause to search you. See what happens. Then try to make your argument in a Court that your rights were violated. You will lose. If you believe that you won't, GO FOR IT. Prove me wrong.

We both know that you won't because even you don't believe what you are spewing here. You realize that you were caught, and you want to pretend otherwise.

There really isn't any point in trying to reason with you further, because you don't want to discuss your earlier contention (that all searches require probable cause) and just want to sling mud now.

I've already made clear that I don't like the TSA procedures, and I believe that they are ineffective when compared to the El Al model. However, I'm not going to let people sit around and make unchallenged absurd contentions regarding the standard for a search, because the bad information could get someone in a lot of trouble. Someone might take your erroneous advice, and try to act on it, and then find themselves sitting in a jail cell. Of course that doesn't affect you, but it has the potential to affect the life of a real person.

There are numerous exceptions to both the warrant and the probable cause requirement. I explained those for you here. Now at least, if someone decides to believe your insanity that all searches require probable cause, they will at least have seen that this information is incorrect, and they might be less likely to act on this faulty information in a manner that is going to get them in trouble.

And I wonder how long before parents wake up to the term “lock down”.

It is a prison term. And parents cannot get to their kids while the school is in this mode.

All for the safety..........
I Thes. 5:2-4. If you have not read it, do so. It gives me peace of mind when it comes to these things.