What is Digg?103 Comments
- BlakeEM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27Thing that pisses me off at shows is not the searching for weapons but when they go totally overboard. At one time or another I have been told to remove a wallet chain, necklace, and even my belt so I could enter a concert. This is just nuts. Necklace was very short and couldn’t choke someone with it if you tried. Chain was there so people couldn’t steal my wallet and was tucked into my pocket. Belt had flat square studs on it but it’s a freaking belt. Also never leave stuff with them; it will always be gone when you get out.
They might as well have everyone wear big padded suites so no one can get hurt at all. - rabidjester, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23We've become a nation of cowards, haven't we?
- nwily, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21I don't understand the logic of a lot of the comments.
@merreborn You don't mind the searches since dimebag got shot. Why? Because they worked so well for him? He was killed because they bypassed the security.
People are so quick to act like these make people safe. Guess what, if you wanted to, you could smuggle whatever you want into most stadiums. According to a couple of security sites I read, screeners at airports miss 70% of knives 30% of guns, and 60% of (simulated) bombs. This is at airports. You want to tell me the guys at your local rock concert or football game are more well trained?
It's not a question of if these searches make us safe. They don't. It's a question of if these searches interfere with our lives, and they do. - Butros, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20What if they bomb the mall! We better put bomb search dogs in the mall! What about airport security checkpoints! Ever count the number of people waiting in line to get checked by security, what if someone had a bomb strapped to themselves and set it off while in line! What about the highway at rush hour, someone could set a bomb off at a critical overpass and take out hundreds! Newsflash: someday you are going to die, it sucks, and I sympathize with those that have lost loved ones but we have to stop living in fear and enjoy life while we have it. It's the only sane decision here.
- KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Fact: more people die from food poisioning in this country every year than people who die from terrorism.
- xrisnothing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14who owns the stadium?
- AmishJedi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13They dont even let u bring UMBRELLAS into Eagles games..
- vhold, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I totally agree.. the highly superficial searches are more about profits then safety.
I stopped buying football season tickets the year after they pulled a water bottle out of my pocket during a patdown and threw it in the trash outright. They didn't bother saying I couldn't bring it in so I could finish it, they just grabbed it and threw it away. WATER.
I'm not going to pay $800 a year so I can be treated like a criminal for something that is practically a human right. - rabidjester, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Pussy - man up and grow a set.
- Ottergoose, on 10/12/2007, -17/+27There was a guy who blew himself up last year about 100 yards away from 80,000 fans at an OU football game. I would have been pretty pissed had I been at the game and he had been able to get in without any problem.
- daldredge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The Tampa Sports Authority owns the stadium in question - they appear to be a public/governmental entity.
- cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8And they were still searching all the people going in too. Did it make a difference? No.
- baddriver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I think everyone is missing the point of this ruling, "to stop officials from conducting the "suspicionless" searches". The average person walking into a game these days is searched for a camera, outside food, outside drink, as well as weapons. The ruling is not saying they can't search anyone, it merely says they must only search people who they have a reason to be suspicious about. Bags may be suspicious, or maybe large jackets that may hide weapons. The point being that one doesn't have to trade their fourth amendment rights for security.
- sonicdevo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12I go to school at OU, and am friends with some of the cops here in Norman, OK. My friends on the force told me that that guy tried to walk through every entrance at the stadium, but was turned away or ran away at each, because he refused to be searched.
The searching at that particular game saved lives that afternoon. I am as concerned as the next guy about my civil liberties, but some of you need to get a clue. If you don't want to be searched.... stay home and don't endanger _others'_ lives with your stubborn insistence on _your_ rights (is being patted down before going into a stadium that bad anyway?). - wqwert, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It is a public stadium. "The final cost of the stadium was $168.5 million, publicly financed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_James_Stadium
(previous post was to the wrong place) - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -13/+20They do the same search at rock concerts a lot of the time. It's annoying, but I don't mind it so much, since dimebag got shot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimebag_Darrell#Abbott.27s_murder - kapsar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This would fall under the illegal search and seizure in the fourth amendment probably. And technically most stadiums aren't privately owned. I know all of the stadiums in pittsburgh are publicly financed. Most stadiums are paid with tax payers money. So it's not completely private, nor is it completely public either.
- animecrazy9, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8yeah, it's a shame that some federal judges are trying to protect what they see as constitutional rights. a real shame...
- nwily, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6People wanted to see the source for my stats. The first article I found was on CNN 4 years ago. But considering this was done in the height of paranoia post 9-11, I can't imagine we've gotten MORE vigilant.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/25/airport.security/ - JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8There's other, more effective, more accurate, less invasive ways to test for explosive chemicals.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@Ottergoose, lock yourself in your parents basement, and you won't have to worry about getting blown up.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7totally ***** agree
- GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8%u201CAnyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security%u201D %u2014Benjamin Franklin
As has been mention several times before: THE STADIUM IS NOT PRIVATELY OWNED! - deerhake11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5According to everyone on here, its pretty evident the terrorists won. They hated America because of its freedom and now they've successfully turned Americans against their own freedom.
I bet they had security checks at the WTC.. a lot of good that did them. Security isn't and never will be perfect. Anyone determined enough will find a way. So why bother living in constant fear? - wilf_brim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I think that is what half of these pat downs are all about. They don't want you bringing in your own food, drink and booze. They want you to pay 9 bucks for a crappy hot dog, and 7 bucks for 10 ounces of watered down, warm beer.
I think there was a digg a few days ago about the "beer belly": a way to sneak beer into a game and it just looks like you are a fat ass. - Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -20/+25Sure, let's all get patted down so the one guy out of hundreds of millions of other guys that has a bomb can't get in.
- Nikore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If I remember right, didn’t they smuggle the nuclear bomb in a vending machine? So basically these worthless searches did absolutely nothing to stop that.
PS: Never draw a movie in as a fact or example for something in RL. - crazycracker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5um this would not matter anyways its very easy to get something into the stadium anyways either before when there is almost no security or through a side exits that are never alarmed it stupid to think this would stop terrorists when there are so many ways in
- tmgneuguy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Stupid things I have had confiscated (and the reason I was given):
1. A caribeaner I use as a key chain (the airport security didn't know what it was and thought it could be a weapon)
2. A round spoke wrench that I keep on my key chain. I bike often and it was handy to have (Same as #1)
3. Nalgene water bottle (they can be used to smuggle in alcohol. I offered the security guard a sip to verify it was actually water; he refused)
4. A blanket for lawn seating at an outdoor concert venue (Never given a reason other than they weren't allowed)
Thank God they took all this stuff, I could have done some serious damage. - reed311, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Ok, now its time to make police roadblocks for checking for drunk drivers illegal. It's unreasonable to stop every person the drives through as the vast majority of people on the road are not drunk. The Supreme Court has ruled that the police stopping you for any reason whatsoever is a "seizure". I guess I'm not sure why roadblocks are still allowed.
- SillyDigger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I remember a few years ago (around 2003) a Chechen(?) woman blew up herself while people were standing in line at a security checkpoint in Russia.
These security lines at places like airports, stadiums and government buildings gives a false sense of security, it does not prevent anyone from pulling off an attack while outside the building.
Same goes for those heavly armed police officers who "patrol" subways and buses in large metro cities like New York, they do nothing to prevent anyone from walking onto a bus, train or subway and doing harm. - GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'm fairly certain that the stadium is NOT private property, else they wouldn't have payed for it with my property tax. . . .
- muddo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Will someone please think of the children?
Ah, I can finally brink my weed to the football games. - animecrazy9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3in a movie. with a NUKE.
- reed311, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I have no problem with drunk driving laws, my best friend was killed by a drunk driver and my mom as almost killed and now has permanent injuries because of one. The BAC limit doesn't concern me, only the stopping of innocent citizens that show no suspicion. We don't have cops knocking door to door asking random people if they have illegal drugs. We shouldn't have cops stopping random motorists without suspicion or probably cause.
- muddo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Damn straight. The cops have never done anything for me but take me to jail time and time again. I have been served, but never protected.
- dezmd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4ZOMGZ The terrorists have infiltrated the food supply! Quick! Round up the farmers! Mandatory pat downs and background checks!
;)
Cheers. - HP844182, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4That little to no security has always been there. It's nothing new.
gasp! What if they fly a plane into the stadium!? They'll kill everyone and a whole bunch of celebs. Nothing is going to stop that short of AA guns at all four corners. - thenativeraver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This should be treated just like a concert.
- mabba18, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12But they'd be people who go to football games, so who cares?
- elperroloco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I agree! Hopefully, someone will soon use this ruling to challenge the idiotic searches we are subjected to when entering a concert.
- ytrabbit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I disagree but don't think you should be dugg down. At least your comment is thoughtful.
- misterpony, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The rise in random acts of terrorism has only occured in the past 15 years, with the past 5 years having the highest rate of terrorism. Those types of attacks are what searches prevent. Speaking strictly from the standpoint of the teams and organizations that have the responsibility to provide the fans a safe venue, these searches are absolutely neccessary. If you don't understand that, you are not looking at the big picture or you are naive in thinking it's not possible to prevent violence. I'm not afraid for my life and the organizations who operate these facilities aren't focusing on themselves; the NFL (or any organization) is looking to protect the people who gather in "public" places. It's no different than entering a government building or public airport: the people who provide and maintain the facility have the duty and right to protect the infrastructure and the people therein.
- nogami, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Feel free to give up all your rights and freedoms to make the country a "safer place".
What *****. You want a perfect example of "terrorists win!" then there you have it. One little 9/11 attack and civil rights that took decades to develop are thrown out in a few short years by ***** politicians that don't have a ***** clue...
Do I sound angry? Heck, I don't even live in your country. If I'm mad, then you Americans should be on the brink of blind rage over the erosion of your rights... - cwl157, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2it's because they have switched the pat downs to the park district employees or something and because they are public employees and not privately employed by the team, like many security people are, it goes into the realm of all this. If the team wasnt cheap and would hire their own employees to do the searches there wouldn't be a problem.
- ytrabbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@farmer
The bill of rights protects us from the federal government. It has long been known in the drug culture that you are better off sending drugs by US mail than FedEx. Private corporations are only bound to the constitution in that the Congress was given the authority to regulate commerce. - MasterDwarf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yes, that is going to happen because it happened so many times before security was implemented.
- canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7butros, i get your point, but you appear to have missed mine. setting off bombs in a crowd at an nfl game will have a much higher fatality rate then any of the instances you spoke of. plus, it would happen live on national tv, giving it a much more of a psychological impact to the millions of viewers, tivoers, youtubers, etc. it's too soft a target with too high of a risk factor to ignore.
- MatthewDuke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The BAC limit bothers me when it's based on fear and not science. Lower BAC != safer roads.
- MatthewDuke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Because M.A.D.D. is one of the biggest lobby groups in the country. When congress was enacting DUI laws, they asked the American Medical Association to do research and tell them what the correct blood/alcohol percent for someone to be impaired. They came back with something around .18 - M.A.D.D. has wittled that down to .08 over the years...and will keep whittling. I hope you don't enjoy a beer with dinner when you're out...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 101 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is