Random searches on the New York Subway

The original point that was made and that you responded to was:

In other words, the statement was that we all break laws, as there are just too many to keep up with. The fact that you didn’t happen to have anything illegal on your person doesn’t invalidate that, as that doesn’t mean that you would stand up to all searches. For example, a search of your posting history would show this:

The point, once again, is that it’s really difficult to be completely law abiding, even for those who try to be. Intrusive searches would just make criminals out of all of us.

wring, you’re usually a lot more coherent than this, so I’m not really sure what’s up, but this is what I was responding to:
(bolding mine)

I was refuting the point that a simple search of one’s person would render EVERYONE a lawbreaker in one way or another. Obviously, SOME people would be found with illegal weapons or knives or whatever, but the statement that there are NO law-abiding citizens is absurd on its face.

Would a simple search of my person turn that up? And if you want to get technical, I was a minor at the time.

Asshole.

Additionally, I don’t believe copyright violations are a criminal matter.

I would agree w/ statement of “everyone posesses something illeagal”= idiotic. however, as a generally law abiding person, I’d not want to be searched and wouldn’t want to guarentee that
I had nothing illegal on me.
additionally, I believe many folk who consider themselves law Abiding have done things that can be prosecuted (use some one else’s prescription pain killer, drove under the influence, fail to pay use tax on internet purchases, etc)

Some are, some aren’t, but they’re all illegal. The point that was being made, and that you continually gloss over, even though you use the quote yourself several times, is that it is almost impossible to be a fully law abiding citizen, and that most of us who think of ourselves thusly, might not pass muster if someone was searching hard enough. You yourself have posted several threads questioning the legality of certain things (mainly copyright issues), so it’s not as if you know all of the rules, while the rest of us while away in idiocy.

You don’t know all of the laws. I don’t know all of the laws. Even Bricker doesn’t know all of the laws (although he probably blows us away in his knowledge). We all break some of them at some point. I’m guessing that even Bricker’s little wagers would be considered illegal, not that he’d be prosecuted for them normally.

The quote contained the term “intrusive search”, which I wasn’t aware was limited to searches of persons. I’m pretty sure an “intrusive search” of your house can be performed, along with an "intrusive search’ of your computer usage, your phone records, and many other things.

Was this a statement, a signature, or something completely different?

It’s a way of life.

Yes, but the thread is regarding searches of people entering New York Subways. That is what I was responding to, and figured the term “intrusive search” meant.

The OP is about searches of people, but as with most threads, it has spawned little subthreads that branch off in various directions. The quote you were responding to was about intrusive searches in general, and why even people who consider themselves law-abiding might have a problem with intrusive searches.

Here is the quote you responded to, one more time:

That doesn’t say anything about random searches of people entering New York subways. It’s about searches in general, and why we want to limit the powers of our government to perform them.

Obviously, the statement “The OP is about searches of people” should be “The OP is about searches of people on the New York subway system”.

Read the thread title. You obviously have. That was the context I was taking the quote in.

That context is not the impression I get from the quote, but I’m not going to speak for Steve MB, who made the original statement. If he comes along and says that he was referring to searches in general, and why many of us think they are bad in general, are you going to retract all of your statements?

If he says he was specifically referring to the random searches in question, I’ll do so.

I’ll assert that “intrusive searches” in the form of actively searching houses, cars, computers, tapping phone lines and all of that sort of thing are likely to turn up many people who have violated some law. Most? I don’t know.

I’ll also assert that “intrusive searches” in the form of randomly choosing people to search their person and immediate effects (i.e. the main thrust of what’s going on in NYC, and what the OP was ranting against) is what I was responding to, and are furthermore very possible to escape unscathed.

Those goddamn civil rights again! Won’t people ever shut up about them? Fucking civils wars. How useless they were. All unproductive and unattractive… :rolleyes:

President Bush had a great quote Friday, where he said something like, “We’re not going to let anybody frighten us from our great love of freedom.”

Instead people in New York (and soon every other metropolis in the country) have just given away their freedom to take public transportation without police approval. Yippee!

Now let’s talk about the NYPD and their terrific record of respecting the civilians they’re empowered to protect. According to the Times several cops spontaneously decided to get the names and addresses of everyone getting on the subway. Yeah, they were ‘corrected’ later in the day, but that’s still an abuse of power. If you want someone to know exactly where you are at all times, go buy a car with OnStar and an EZ Pass.

Can I make another point about how useless random searches are? Let’s run through some numbers (off the top of my head, but pretty accurate).
There are 30,000 police officers in New York’s 5 boroughs. Lets’ say 1/4 of them are on the job at any given time-- that’s 7500 cops, including beat, traffic, desk duty and detectives.

There are 468 subway stations in New York. Most stations have at least two turnstile entrances, with some having more than half a dozen or stairways leading to those turnstiles.

If we assume there are 2 entrances with just 3 cops apiece, that’s 2800 cops on bag-searching duty. 1/3 of the police force pulled from their normal duties so they can conduct random searches on people entering the train, and there’s no way cops can stop everyone and pat them down. But that’s not what the police are doing. Instead they’re blanketing one subway station with a dozen cops or so-- and ignoring nearby stations. C’mon folks, this is New York, the walking city! Nothing stops a would-be bomber, or even me the guy who refuses to open my bag, from walking six blocks to another train station without any cops.

A whole lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Can I point out more gaping security holes? How about the platform-side kiosks at loads of stations. Does anyone expect police to stop and search all the boxes those vendors are lugging down to their tiny store? How simple would it be to rig a stack of newspapers with the old ‘hollow book’ trick and load the contents with 20 pounds of plastique?

Another hole is the subway exits. Many stations have half a dozen or more exits that are often chained shut with a lock less substantial than what’s on my bike. Anyone equipped with a bolt-cutter could go through them without breaking stride, thereby evading a search. And given this city, all they’d have to do to avoid notice is wear a hard hat and an orange reflective vest.

Eve would like me to come up with something better than feel-good searches in order to ensure her safety. Well, the obvious thing is to use detective work to track down would-be assassins while they’re still in the planning stages. This is, of course, harder investigative work, since you can’t rely on police having a bomber walk into their handy checkpoints. Instead, cops will have to go out and find terrorist groups and infiltrate them. But police in New York have managed to arrest a gang of goofballs who wanted to buy a missile to shoot down Gov. Pataki.

Suiced bombers are just the laziest way to set off an explosion, and something never used by the bright terrorists belonging to ETA or the IRA. If Al Qaeda or some latter-day Timothy McVeigh gets some intelligent members, slipping into the wide-open train yards and planting a bomb on a train overnight will be very simple-- and wouldn’t be stopped by turnstile bag-checking cops.

Oh, and there’s always the old standby. See a cop blocking the entrance to the number 6 train? How about throwing a grenade or three down the steps, then walking through the havoc as your train pulls up and setting off your satchel charge without any police getting in your way.

Oh goodie. Another “Terrorism for Dummies” list.

Why haven’t any of those things happened, if they’re so simple, so easy to do? No sweat, just toss a hand grenade and stroll through the panick. No sweat, just clip a chain. No sweat, just rig a stack of newspapers.

Seems you’ve found the ideal way to be a terrorist. Congrats. Why aren’t you? Well, I’d bet you’re a bit more intelligent than the average terrorist, for one. Maybe smart, logical people don’t become terrorists, for whatever reason. That’s one possibility.

Another is that it isn’t as easy as you think. Another is that it simply hadn’t occurred to them (though the fact that it’s come so easily to a few posters here leads me to believe that isn’t the case. I’m sure you can think of more reasons why none of those things has happened. Please share some more of your “no sweat” wisdom with us all.

Why does anyone become a terrorist? Because they’re pissed off at something. Am I sufficiently pissed off to kill random people who have nothing to do with my anger? Not yet.

Will random searches on the subway catch anyone? Only if they’re a moron. But I wager that anyone determined enough to manufacture homemade plastique and pipe bombs, or who belongs to an organization that can arrange flight training for a dozen people, is smart enough to get a job with a delivery company and bypass half-assed security.

It could be President Bush and his brave leadership. Could be the department of homeland security doing their job. Someone said that they have been masturbating to prevent terrorism. I bet it was that.

Here’s a better question. If it hasn’t happened yet, why are we giving in to these searches?

If the answer is “because it could happen,” then all of the things in Barbarians post come back into play as an argument because they could also happen.

And I still want to know how this isn’t prohibited as an illegal search.

Well, you’d have lost that bet for the past…how many years? The main question I asked in my post, and which you failed to answer, is “if all of those things are so simple to do, why do terrorists consistently rely on suicide bombings, or one step up, car/satchel bombings?”

Try again?