Random searches on the New York Subway

The BBQ Pit
281

We might disagree on the logic, but you’ve been polite, and I believe I’ve been as well; I certainly wouldn’t call you an idiot.

You misunderstand me: this isn’t a matter of an opinion. It’s not an academic subject. There are any number of things that we might disagree on, and obviously I think my opinion is right, or I wouldn’t hold it, but, no, I don’t pity people for disagreeing with me. This is a matter of basic life philosophy. Your first post:

and your subsequent (well-fought) defense of your position seem to me to indicate that you value a feeling of security over basic civil rights to a degree that I find pitiable.

Now that you’ve done a bad job of attempting to read my mind, please answer my question: would you submit to the police searching your house any time they feel like it?

282

Based on the way the press release was written, I am willing to bet there was an admission during the roadside interrogation after the dog alerted. But since you’re curious, I have put in a phone call to Sergeant Martha Lutz of the Shawnee County Sheriff’s Office, and I will follow up with specific information as regards their probable cause.

Wanna bet they have something specific?

283

Are you an idiot?

Do YOU think you have a constitutional right to enter your bank? Do you think that your bank is somehow obligated to admit you because you have a body temperature near 98.6?

News flash: if your bank wants you to submit to a search before you enter, there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION stopping them.

Ditto the post office. Ditto the DMV. Possible exceptions to both of those if they provide some mandated service that you must legally have but cannot obtain without entering.

But why in the world would you toss “bank” into the picture? It’s a private entity. They can mandate that you have to wear a pair of Mickey Mouse ears in order to enter, and not remotely violate any of your rights.

284

If that doesn’t pan, out, there’s always this one.

And perhaps you can make heads or tails out of this mess. They don’t even know how much of whose money they have.

I do realize that the new rules do make it somewhat easier to sue to get your money back, but that takes time. Quite a bit of time, in fact. Would you agree that having money wrongfully seized, even if eventually returned, could have potentially devastating results to some individuals, including ruining their livelihood, relationships, and various other problems?

285

No, but how is that related. I can blow up my house and not hurt a soul.

286

And without the data that I’m advocating obtaining, how do you know they haven’t stopped thousands of attacks?

287

If we can freely search houses, we could randomly search them and hopefully find the terrorists before they even leave for their targets. Are you okay with that?

If not, exactly where do you draw the line, the one where you decide that it becomes better to give up a bit of liberty for a sense of security? Feel free to be as specific as possible.

Can we search you before you go to a restaurant, the mall, an amusement park, a stadium, etc? How intrusive would you allow the search to be? Just large bags, or should we be allowed to search under clothing, to ensure that someone hasn’t strapped explosives to their waist or legs, stuffed them in their bras, etc?

288

New York City had no security checks at subway stations and also had no bombings there. London has security checks (as stated by someone from the area earlier in this thread) and had bombings. Now NYC has security checks, but I don’t know if it’ll be enough to lure terrorists to bomb us. Maybe we should change the name of New York City to New London and post signs outside of subway stations saying, “Terrorists bomb here.” If we’re going to violate the constitution and force people to undergo searches in order to enter public transportation for which their tax money has funded in order to lure terrorists, we might as well go all the way, right?

289

I had already sent an e-mail to the Capitol-Journal, Lutz and Captain Crane this morning asking for more information. I’m interested to see what further information they can provide when they reply.

290

I’m looking to make sure this is still in the Pit before I post this, but I gotta say:

Fuck you, you fucking cowards. Fuck you very much for disrespecting the men and women who died in wars to defend the constitution that framed this great country. Fuck you for so willingly denying their contribution to the survival of America. Fuck you, you pathetic scared sheep. “Land of the free, home of the brave” indeed.

Get this through your head: you cannot and will not ever be safe. Tough shit. It’s a rough world. Get used to it.

You want to live in a world where less people want to kill you? Stop fucking with so many people.

291

Huh? I missed something here. Certainly before the July 7th bombs, London had no security checks. Still now, there’s few checks.

292

Garfield you’re a motherfucking shit-for-brains moron. (Wee I love the pit!)

Two words: voluntary searches. Got that motherfucker? Don’t wanna be searched, say ‘no’ and away you go.

Two more words: incomplete coverage. Do you understand what it means when I say there are 468 subway stations in New York City? And that even if police are conducting searches at one entrance to a station, they probably aren’t at the other entrance a block away?

Judging by everything you’ve written in this thread, you don’t understand this. You fail to realize that this policy is as effective as wandering through the desert wearing nothing but your evidently-too-tight tightie-whities and expecting to be protected from the sun.

If the police decided to block the entrance to EVERY subway station and search EVERYONE getting aboard, then searches might be a useful policy. As it stands, it’s as useful as mosquito netting during a hurricane.

What’s more useful is what I’ve already suggested: detective work. It’s already worked, and it will work again, but wasting an estimated $2 million a week (figure from da Mayor’s Friday radio show) on half-assed futility aimed at only one type of threat is dumb.

fiveyearlurker, I’ve done a conclusive study of the New York subway station for 4 years. No random searches, no terrorist attack, ergo the freedom to get on the subway without being searched has stopped thousands of terrorist attacks.

The only way to prove what you’re asking for is to plan and launch your own terror attack, then see what stops it.

Before 9/11, the worst terrorist attacks on American soil were conducted by Americans against Americans. Unabomber. Oklahoma. Columbine. Abortion clinics.

The only ones who died in their cause were those asshole kids in Columbine, and that’s because they couldn’t be bothered to leave their school after they committed their slaughter.

Hell, nobody died in the first attack on the World Trade Center!

293

Actually, IIRC, six people were killed in the '93 attack.

-Finn
from lawnguyland

294

Almost forgot: since the random search policy was introduced, a middle-aged woman was stabbed and robbed in the Bowery subway station on the J line.

Hurray! Nobody thought crime might happen on Saturday!

295

Your second link is persuasive: there are apparently seizures going on systematically in violation of the law, including a systematic practice of filing criminal charges only when the seizures are contested, suggesting that the practice is retaliatory.

This is state, not federal; and not New York, still, it makes your point very well, and I agree with you now.

296

I could have sworn I read that in this thread somewhere. Maybe I misread the last paragraph of this post the first time. So much for my satirical post. Anyway…

This is obviously wrong. It’s not because it won’t work. Of course it won’t if the searches remain like they are, but that’s irrelevant. Maybe you people are forgetting which country you live in. (I’m speaking to fellow Americans here, no matter how unpatriotic they are.) This is the fucking United States. It was founded with the promise of freedom, not the promise of safety. We are free from unreasonable searches. Are these searches unreasonable? Fuck yeah they are! For one, there is no probable cause. For another, no fucking terrorists have done anything yet! Why has it happened in London but not here? We’re at the top of the terrorists’ most wanted list. I certainly don’t know why, but right now there’s not a problem, so why try to fix it? I’m not saying we shouldn’t try to improve the situation just in case, but this is abridging people’s freedoms for nothing. It’s moronic.

Another thing, let’s examine the numbers as people have been talking about. So far, there have been no bombings or attempted bombings (that we know of) on the New York City subways or any subways in the US for that matter. So what’ll happen if we do this as an experiment and observe the data? Best case scenario: there are still no bombings. That would suggest this security crap has done absolutely nothing but violated rights. Worst case scenario: bombings commence. What then? Morons will probably bitch about how there wasn’t enough security, when everything was fine beforehand. It makes me sick. But as I said before, there’s no problem already, so why create one?

Furthermore, yes people do have a right to ride the subway. It’s not called “public transportation” for nothing. That’s why it’s paid for with tax money. Now airlines are a different beast. They’re privately owned. They can search people all they want, and deny anyone they want from riding on their airplane for whatever reason they want, just like I could demand to strip search someone in order for them to ride in my car. They can refuse if they want, but I make the rules with my property. The subway is public property, ie the general populace’s property. It’s illegal and immoral to keep anyone from riding on it, with the possible exception that you can legally prove they are doing something illegal. I can’t wait until someone sues the local government that decided to instill this bullshit security. I guess living in the sticks of northeast Texas does have its advantages after all.

297

It was question, not a statement of fact. I don’t think I said there was a Constitutional right to certain services, did I?

The question, I was asking was whether or not, “just don’t use their services”, mantra would eventually run out of steam, as more and more agencies reduced or removed certain accomindations. I asked furt at what point HE, would “draw the line”, because I was really intersted to know.

Perhaps I was unclear, and that’s on me, but I fail to see why my post would a. interest you and b. receive not only a personal attack, but a distortion of my intent.

298

The ONLY way? Then you aren’t using your imagination at all. Hire 1000 actors (there are tons of them in NYC) of all sexes, creeds, ages and colors to bring “bombs” onto various subway platforms on various days at various times. You can not only judge the effectiveness, you’ll be able to cross reference it with whether the police are better at catching middle eastern looking men than white women.

You can have some of them act entirely naturally, and some of them act suspiciously. And then judge how good the police are at catching a suspicous acting white woman at the 14th steet A station on Tuesday mornings at 10 AM.

Seriously, I said earlier that this is testable. Of course this is testable.

299

Look, I’m no fan of our foreign policy at the moment, but maybe bombing the people on public transportation is not really the answer. How much power over troop movement do you think people riding the London underground possess? Do you think Rumsfeld rides the 4 train when he comes to New York?

This is actually a decent debate despite being in the pit. You might want to consider context of a discussion before you post something useless.

300

That’s what the TSA does at airports, where every passenger gets searched.

With the half-assed voluntary program currently in place, only a moron would try to smuggle his bomb past police when he can just walk away and enter another subway station that is not being monitored.

If actors carrying ‘bombs’ are ordered to go through searches before getting on subways, then it’s a test that doesn’t reflect reality.

Look at the map. There are just too many holes in the net the police have spread for it to be effective even as a deterrent.