Is stop and frisk a necessary police tool or an abomination?

2012-08-26 08:31:30

#26

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6650|'Murka

You'll note that those attacks occurred before certain measures were put in place.

Shoe bomber - after that, we had to take our shoes off and run them through x-ray
Underwear bomber - limits on liquids and increased deployment of scanners

But I'm sure those measures had nothing to do with more of those types of attacks not happening. Those terrorists are morons and just keep using the same tactics over and over, even when they know what our countermeasures are.

Or not.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2012-08-26 11:37:21

#27

HITNRUNXX: Member; +220|6949|Oklahoma City

-Sh1fty- wrote:
I've yet to see a single news article talking about a terrorist plot the TSA has foiled.

There was a recent story making a big deal about them stopping a kidnapping... That is the only plot I have seen them foil offhand.

Now on the upside, them just being there has probably foiled a lot... Afterall if you knew they were going to be checking your stuff, and your stuff was bombs, you probably wouldn't go to begin with. If you didn't know they were doing this in advance and saw them check the guy in front of you, you might suddenly become ill and decide to go home instead of getting checked yourself.

So it just depends on how much security you want and how much you are willing to put yourself through to get it. An ugly balance to try to find.

2012-08-26 12:18:28

#28

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

FEOS wrote:
You'll note that those attacks occurred before certain measures were put in place.

Shoe bomber - after that, we had to take our shoes off and run them through x-ray
Underwear bomber - limits on liquids and increased deployment of scanners

But I'm sure those measures had nothing to do with more of those types of attacks not happening. Those terrorists are morons and just keep using the same tactics over and over, even when they know what our countermeasures are.

Or not.

Or stuff of that nature is exceedingly rare and the TSA was simply a terrible 'do something' response that has now wasted billions of tax dollars.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-08-26 16:54:43

#29

HITNRUNXX: Member; +220|6949|Oklahoma City

Jay wrote:
Or stuff of that nature is exceedingly rare and the TSA was simply a terrible 'do something' response that has now wasted billions of tax dollars.

I think it is a combination deterrent and knee-jerk reaction, myself... It is another of those things where I don't think it is the right answer, but I don't have any better suggestions, really... Regardless, I think it should be more of a private industry thing and less of a government thing.

2012-08-26 16:58:02

#30

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5825

HITNRUNXX wrote:
I think it should be more of a private industry thing and less of a government thing.

Because a for profit institution won't put profit ahead of security.

2012-08-26 17:06:45

#31

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5825

Don't give me that "they have an incentive to keep things safe" bullshit either. There are enough contract security horror stories out there to prove that wrong. Just last week it came out that a private security firm let a bomb sit in a gaurds desk for a few months.

2012-08-26 17:09:57

#32

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

Macbeth wrote:
Don't give me that "they have an incentive to keep things safe" bullshit either. There are enough contract security horror stories out there to prove that wrong. Just last week it came out that a private security firm let a bomb sit in a gaurds desk for a few months.

You clearly haven't flown any time recently. The TSA is full of incompetents just like any other slightly-above-minimum-wage security job will be. They pull from the same employee pool as the DMV.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-08-26 17:27:19

#33

HITNRUNXX: Member; +220|6949|Oklahoma City

Cool, we can put tax-paid security guards on every bus, and set up security checkpoints on every on-ramp while we are at it. We have lots of spare tax money laying around.

Or airlines can be responsible for their passengers, and know they will have their asses sued if they miss something and people are hurt and killed. Their pocketbooks are more incentive than a TSA agent's.

2012-08-26 18:04:35

#34

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6871|949

HITNRUNXX wrote:
Cool, we can put tax-paid security guards on every bus, and set up security checkpoints on every on-ramp while we are at it. We have lots of spare tax money laying around.

Or airlines can be responsible for their passengers, and know they will have their asses sued if they miss something and people are hurt and killed. Their pocketbooks are more incentive than a TSA agent's.

3 airplanes went down as a result of lax security. Why didn't the airlines have security set in place to stop that from happening?

2012-08-26 18:09:56

#35

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

Because no one in a million years expected people to go running man.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-08-26 19:28:33

#36

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5417|Sydney

The airlines aren't responsible for airport security. I've never flown ever where the airline puts on security check points - that's the airport's job.

Otherwise you're going to have a separate checkpoint, terminal, etc. for each and every airline. Some airports have 30+ airlines on any given day. That's a lot of extra staff to essentially do the same job, and the airport itself would quadruple in size.

2012-08-26 19:31:35

#37

HITNRUNXX: Member; +220|6949|Oklahoma City

Me going on a vacation with my family just doesn't feel like it should be a government sponsored event.

2012-08-26 20:08:40

#38

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6871|949

Jaekus wrote:
The airlines aren't responsible for airport security. I've never flown ever where the airline puts on security check points - that's the airport's job.

Otherwise you're going to have a separate checkpoint, terminal, etc. for each and every airline. Some airports have 30+ airlines on any given day. That's a lot of extra staff to essentially do the same job, and the airport itself would quadruple in size.

Really? Any time I fly internationally, on the way back there is extra security put in place by the airline before you board the plane. But that's at non-US airports. Maybe it's just a United Airlines deal, because I've only noticed it with them.

2012-08-26 20:09:05

#39

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6871|949

HITNRUNXX wrote:
Me going on a vacation with my family just doesn't feel like it should be a government sponsored event.

it is already even if you took the TSA out of it. Ever heard of the FAA?

2012-08-26 20:13:36

#40

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6736

HITNRUNXX wrote:
Me going on a vacation with my family just doesn't feel like it should be a government sponsored event.

how did you arrive at this conclusion? you earned money, booked a flight, arranged the schedule, and now all you have to do is go - "government sponsored"? are you wearing the Olympic uniforms?

are you required to say the Pledge of Allegience every morning, and play The Stars and Stripes on a loudspeaker everywhere you go?

you tea party hacks are wearing thin, and for the first time since Reagan was president, i'm contemplating voting democrat in the vain hope that you all (y'all) will open a vein after the election and our once proud country will be rid of the religious right that has taken my fiscally conservative party and drove it over a cliff.

2012-08-26 22:09:14

#41

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6955

fuck the new right

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2012-08-26 23:54:31

#42

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5417|Sydney

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Jaekus wrote:
The airlines aren't responsible for airport security. I've never flown ever where the airline puts on security check points - that's the airport's job.

Otherwise you're going to have a separate checkpoint, terminal, etc. for each and every airline. Some airports have 30+ airlines on any given day. That's a lot of extra staff to essentially do the same job, and the airport itself would quadruple in size.
Really? Any time I fly internationally, on the way back there is extra security put in place by the airline before you board the plane. But that's at non-US airports. Maybe it's just a United Airlines deal, because I've only noticed it with them.

Dunno. When I went to the US and the many times I've flown in Australia you always check in, then proceed through the communal security check point. From there you then go to your gate, which are often next to gates by other airlines.

I've never had to go through a second security check point upon boarding the plane, that sounds a bit over the top to me.

2012-08-27 00:04:30

#43

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6914|Canberra, AUS

I can't remember if that happened here to me - I think it has - but it's happened almost every time in Bangkok etc etc. It's not that unusual to have multiple security checkpoints tbh.

I personally don't really mind, happy to go through the minor hassle to have some extra security, fleeting and insubstantial though that may be.

On a similar related story, though, I found this local story pretty interesting. I get that these fledgling migrant communities can often be problematic, but the way to get around that is closer integration, not less?

Last edited by Spark (2012-08-27 00:04:48)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2012-08-27 00:48:10

#44

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5417|Sydney

It definitely happens. One of my mates has the name Ahmad. His dad chose it after seeing the credits in a cowboy movie and thought it sounded cool. A few years after 9/11 he was stopped at every security point on every flight he caught and they said it was just so they could ask him a few questions. He got pissed off after the the fifth time straight and said it was because of his name, which they denied but it's a lie. (his great grand parents were born in Australia, anglo-saxon background through and through).

2012-08-27 05:51:58

#45

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

Cybargs wrote:
fuck the new right

Wut?

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-08-27 05:57:11

#46

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6955

Jay wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
fuck the new right
Wut?

or religious right. well i guess they're just called "right wing" now.

2012-08-27 05:59:35

#47

HITNRUNXX: Member; +220|6949|Oklahoma City

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
HITNRUNXX wrote:
Me going on a vacation with my family just doesn't feel like it should be a government sponsored event.
it is already even if you took the TSA out of it. Ever heard of the FAA?

That is a very good point...

And I just think commercial air travel, (private business and personal business) is an odd thing for the government to be as involved in. The line between private industry and tax dollar spending seems really blurry. The line between City, State, and Federal tax spending seems even more blurry.

Airports are a very tricky one. Often funded by a trust that combines income sources, it seems like they often don't even know who is responsible.

2012-08-27 06:24:23

#48

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

Why have air traffic control?

The free market should apply in the air too.

Fuck Israel

2012-08-27 07:30:30

#49

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
Why have air traffic control?

The free market should apply in the air too.

It could do the job. All of the players involved have a vested interest in keeping the skies relatively clear and free of accidental collisions. However, in this case I would expect all the airlines to pool their resources and create a semi-independent body that performs the air traffic control and scheduling work that the FAA does anyway. In the end it would probably be more efficient and the equipment would be higher quality since it wouldn't be forced to go through government requisitioning channels. Oh, and the taxpayers wouldn't have to pay for them. That's a bonus too.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-08-27 08:02:15

#50

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6871|949

who regulates the independent fliers? Who makes sure all airplanes are up to code? Why do we still have stories of jetliners and whole companies skirting repair and maintenance regulations if airlines have a vested interest in keeping the skies clear and safe?

BF2S Forums Is stop and frisk a necessary police tool or an abomination?

-Sh1fty- wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Jay wrote:

HITNRUNXX wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

HITNRUNXX wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

HITNRUNXX wrote:

HITNRUNXX wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Jay wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

HITNRUNXX wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Board footer