(Yes, it’s from Infowars. Get over it)
Many of us believe the TSA’s body scanners are potentially dangerous, not to mention a privacy infringement. So handing out information at airports about “opting out” of the millimeter-wave machines for a pat-down sounds like a totally reasonable, respectable public awareness activity.
Watch what happens when this Albany airport employee attempts to go Gestapo on these folks.
Wish there were a lot more like him. I’ve been a bit distraught about some thing I’ve seen law enforcement do in the past couple of months and this bumped up my outlook just a bit.
haahahh that old guy with the glasses is a jerk !!
yeah the LEO knew what was up !
Impressive on many levels.
First off that is way beyond a “drunk neighbor in my swimming pool” call. It is security related and can have serious implications if handled wrong given the related problem of terrorism.
That cop had to very quickly determine who was playing the game and what the rules are and he did it in a manner that wasn’t preferential to either party even though one functions as an employer of sorts. No attempts were made to strong arm anyone in spite of the law. Of course he knew who was in the spotlight.
Almost as impressive were the two activists who were not only actually doing something constructive and useful with their activism but we even mindful of presentation and manner of their message and as a consequence they were able to actually inform many, many people and they did it without having to break windows or camp out on the sidewalk.
Yes. I like their approach. Don’t give a loud speech. Don’t get in anyone’s way. Don’t ask them for anything (a signature, an email address). Just hand out information and give a quick concise explanation.
The airport employee with the glasses was a dick right from the start. He didn’t try anything else. Ready, set, dickhead.
NYPD definitely has a certain reputation.
Yeah, the old guy was an ass from the start, but the LEO did a hell of a job. He was constantly trying to deescalate the situation and obtain information.
I agree. The LEOs involved handled the situation very professionally.
On a not totally unrelated note, yesterday the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a ruling by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which had blocked enforcement of an Illinois law prohibiting the audio recording of police officers in public places.
From a second article on HuffPost (yeah, I know, get over it):
[i]The 7th Circuit Court found a specific First Amendment right to record police officers. It’s the second federal appeals court to strike down a conviction for recording police. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that a man wrongly arrested for recording cops could sue the arresting officers for violating his First Amendment rights.
The First and 7th circuit decisions mean that it is now technically legal to record on-duty police officers in every state in the country. Unfortunately, people are still being arrested for it. Police officers who want to make an arrest to intimidate would-be videographers can always use broadly-written laws that prohibit public disorder, interfering with a police officer, or similar ordinances that give law enforcement wide discretion.[/i]
I loved how the old guy kept telling them to do things like he was some type of authority figure and the guy with the camera kept refusing. He started off with an attitude thinking the Sheriff’s deputy would just do what he told him and then was left looking like an impotent fool. Made my day. I fly 70+ times per year and always opt out.
This is why this is relevant:
[b][u]Journalist Tracked, Targeted & Harassed for Filming[/u][/b]
I applaud the officer for his actions and the “protestors” actions, but may I ask a simple question?
Why does everyone get caught up in the Constitutionality of the way airports and air travel does things? To me, they are a private industry that can do what they wish regarding who can fly, who can’t, and what requirements you have to meet to fly. I don’t see where the Constitution applies here. Don’t fly, don’t worry about your rights being “violated”.
Flying isn’t a right.
No. It isn’t. Watchdogging federal employees is perfectly fine though and to do that for TSA, you have to be in the airport.
I get where you’re coming from but the air travel industry is regulated by the federal government, security is provided by federal employees, and most airports are owned and operated (often under private contract) by local/state municipalities.
You don’t check your constitutional rights at the door.
I may be missing something, but from what I understand the private airlines don’t have much say in the matter. No-fly lists, the TSA, and/or its SOP’s are all more or less government mandated.
Kind of like the difference between a restaurant owner banning firearms from his privately-owned business (private-property rights) as opposed to the local government banning firearms from all restaurants (a violation of the second amendment).
ditto the above folks also
they are far from private
airports are full of federal money from FAA to TSA the taxes etc…
regulations up the rear !!!
if they allowed each airline to truly run their gates the way they wanted to and had the main terminal a general area and as soon as you walk out into the airlines terminal area and allow them to do what they wanted as far as security etc… then yes it would be private but its not that way
So if the TSA set up checkpoints on highways where you would need to have your vehicle searched and a thorough search of your person, I am assuming you would be ok with that as well. I mean, driving is not a right. Don’t drive, don’t worry about your rights being “violated”
The TSA is not the airport. It is not a private industry. It is the Federal Government. I fly 130,000+ miles per year for work and have to deal with this weekly. I can not choose not to fly. If people were stopped by the TSA as they drove to work every day, I am sure more people would be concerned about their actions. The problem is that a majority of people don’t fly for their job and only consider the TSA a minor inconvenience the one time a year they get on a plane.
First they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.
Don’t twist it around. I was just asking a simple question. No, I would not be ok with TSA roadblocks on highways. But that is a bit different than what goes on in airports. TSA in airports was a response to 9/11 and the commonality of terrorist attacks via air travel. I’m sure most people that fly would agree that metal detectors and the TSA’s “presence” in general is a “good” thing, for everyone that fly’s safety. I guarantee you there would be planes blowing up every other week if you could just walk through an airport and walk onto a plane.
Yes the TSA can get abusive and overreach their power sometimes, but until they start actually getting onto the highways I think most people put up with their “nuisance” in order to feel safer on commercial flights.
Great job by that Deputy! Seemed like a real guy that was going to stand up for what was right, and to me THAT say’s a lot about his personal character. It is very refreshing to see to say the very least.
The airport guy was a complete asshole and you could tell he was used to having people in uniform do his bidding regardless of wether it was right or wrong. I loved watching him get told to fuck off by the deputy! 
We need a lot more in uniform just like him.
And instead of profiling military aged males with box cutters traveling in groups they are performing visual strip searches on old lady’s with colostomy bags and thorough pat downs on toddlers.
A false since of security is just that.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
One hundred percent agree.
And when you find an officer who is a great one, make sure you let their food chain know. I have written two letters to the local Chief of Police here, and one to the County Sheriff. I saw officers and a deputy that displayed great professionalism and skill. I wanted to make sure that they got some sort of positive record placed in their files.
Way too many cops get bogus complaints. When I see someone like the fine gentleman here, I want to make sure people know it.
I just went through ALB and that very checkpoint a few days ago!
Some points:
Most airport authorities are an extension of local government. As such, they cannot interfere with 1st Amendment rights. Mr. “Public Affairs Director” was absolutely overstepping the scope of his authority.
The Deputies did an awesome job!
The protesters were polite and professional, so kudos to them!
Agree or not, SCOTUS has upheld that screening prior to entering the “Sterile Area” of an airport offering scheduled passenger service is not a violation of the 4th Amendment. All persons entering such are in effect, agreeing that the searches are not unreasonable under the 4th Amendment. Prior to 9/11, the same screening was conducted under contract to the airlines themselves (not the airports). This was required under Public Law 101-604, which was enacted in 1990 in response to the downing of Pan Am Flight 103, a full 13 years before anyone ever heard of TSA.
Current law requires the airport itself to assume responsibility for screening if they want to “Opt-Out” of TSA screening, rather than the airlines themselves. Currently, 14 commercial airports have opted out. Congress passed the The Aviation and Transportation Security Act (Public Law 107-71), and the Century Of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Public Law 108-176), which govern how TSA conducts screening. TSA has to go through an approval process for any significant changes and its Congress who can scale up or scale down what TSA does.
Just some chum for the waters, so carry on!