TJ, "1936 was the starting point of Jews being blamed for many of the problems in Germany and the world." You wrote this and I am an idiot??? I am not the one who needs to read anything. The mere fact that you think that 1936 is any where near the beginning of the Jews being blamed for anything in Germany proves that you are the ignorant moron and to try and tie any of it to the TSA is even more idiotic!!! What a tool!!!
Guess what, since you don't have to use the airport you don't have to go through the checkpoint! Its like when you go to football stadium and they wave the metal detector over you, if you don't want them to do it you don't have to fucking be there, you are the one who doesn't understand the fucking constitution you moron.
@qusha11 exactly. It's not as if this happens in public places all over and frequently. Same as if you're dressed differently, it's your own choice but you have to know they will pick you out of the line just for being different. Don't want that? Be common or stay home.
All the references made by the camera man trying to connect TSA to the same things done by the Nazis is beyond ignorant... 1936 Nazi Germany? It would be funny if it isn't so disgusting... The man insults the memory of all of who suffered at the hands of the Nazis... If he is so right go to court I am sure they would agree with him right away... Riiiigggghhhtttt.... Let's call a spade a spade... This guy is an idiot and an asshole... Drive next time bitch...
@jr94952002 What’s truly ignorant is that you berate the cameraman without even knowing what he is talking about. 1936 was the starting point of Jews being blamed for many of the problems in Germany and the world. The press also attacked the Jews. This began the methodical waning of rights for the Jews and eventually led to what we know as the holocaust. Knowing what lead up to the holocaust is just as important. You have accused the cameraman of things that you proved about yourself.
@EyeinTeaJay Don't presume to lecture me about this subject matter. I have family members who survived the Nazis and others who fought and were wounded fighting them. Also I have flown over half a million miles since 9/11. I even had to deal with wanted criminals who shared my name resulting in additional security screenings. Comparing anything going on with the TSA to what happened to Jews in Nazi Germany is beyond ignorant. Sit down, shut up, get some help...
@jr94952002 What the hell does your family members, and how much you have flown have to do with you lacking the ability to understand the cameramans comments? Nice kid logic; Uhoh, if they find out I dont know what I'm talking about, I'll change the subject. Try reading about 1936 germany. At first I assumed you were an idiot, thanks for removing any doubt I may have had.
@nintendo007 I am talking about the TSA agent who was holding up the bin dip shit.... I am all for the guy who was recording.... so now you look retarded...
I find this to be a bad video example,he provoked the TSA with words and actions,and he was the rude one. I personally dont agree with this level of security because i dont agree with the reasons it was brought in,but i dont like folks producing crap video trying to make others look bad just to state their own case,he was trying to get these TSA to do something,rather then just letting it happen naturally.Thumbs down from me.....and yes i saw the TSA agent with the tray in hand,bunch of kids.
Man if your so against getting searched to fly a public airplane then find some other transportation. If you don't want to be searched then take another form of transportation.
"why are you picking fights you won't win?" Thechuck624: this is said by every weak nation in the planet. you cant not beat life, why live it? We pick fights because we CAN win, the point of this video is to inform us; not to get a rise out of TSA. Good video, keep questioning authority. We were founded by civil disobedience we must challenge the people we put into power.
For being prepared for this all day, you sure picked a shitty way to film it, your wording was poor and you did not achieve the rise from the agents were hoped to get. I don't agree with all this TSA goon behavior but you don't need to be provoking these people either. They also can throw you out of the airport because flying is not a right, it is a privilege as far as the law is concerned. In other words, why are you picking fights you won't win?
stole a brand new flash drive and new book from my computer bag - psy-ops once again. truth is, the best thing we can do is make good choices about where we live. what kind of people live there. alaskans look at things differently here including law enforcement. that is one of the reasons i moved here. broward county (lauderdale) law enforcement is corrupt from the top to the bottom. so i moved here. life is better here. i can choose who i deal with on a daily basis. air travel will be limited.
when i left anchorage a few months ago, no pat down, no x-ray. they used common sense they already knew who i was as they do all of these people. this whole thing is psy-ops, to get you accustomed to loss of your 4th amendment rights. leaving santo domingo in october i got a full pat down by a beautiful young womand, nothing perverted or invasive. as a man it would have felt slimy if a man had done that to me. leaving lauderdale for anchorage in december, the tsa pickpockets.....cont.
I am fairly sure the new pat down procedures are intentionally annoying just so that the radiation machine will sound like a better option. TSA should not be a government job. TSA has ever-changing rules and regs, poor training, and they can't even collectively bargain to improve conditions for themselves or their customers. The responsibility to keep you safe on the plane should belong to the airlines or airports.
Would the camera persons in this video screem "yay freedom!" if their plane was sent into a nose dive due to a terrorist bomb attack? If not, what do they suggest we do for aviation security? Private security screeners? So they would be patted down by XYZ instead of TSA? If airport security shouldn't pat people down, whats to stop someone who'd want to do us harm from walking through a metal detector with plastic explosives on their person? Just asking.
@samael1981 You have been fearmongered, to the point where you believe so called "terrorists" can attack the most powerful nation on earth. Don't be a sheep. I hope you know according to the government all "sovereign citizens" are extremists. You need to wake up. Patriot Act, and the NDAA. Don't listen to corporate media, and do your own research
@samael1981 If you look at the evidence, you might think twice. The CIA had a plane crash that had massive ammounts of cocaine on board. The CIA also orchestrated Fast and Furious. The CIA also gave Al Qaeda money and weapons to fight off the Soviets in the 70's. What makes you think they couldn't pull 9/11 off? Science and common sense agrees with me. You can continue to be a sheep, and give away your essential liberties for security.
@samael1981 Good point but it doesn't matter in this argument. To be fair about 9/11 losses where less then 01% of the NY population hardly a big deal in a so called war. Certainly not justification for the removal of our civil liberties.
THIS IS WHY I DONT FLY. I WAS NOT EVEN THERE AND WANTED TO FREAK OUT ON THESE CREEPS.you are right, it is illegal search. even an fbi agent cannot do them, without consent.let alone a walmart greater with a badge.to think people subject their kids to this shit as well.no thanks not for me and we should all say the same thing. we have rights and we should NEVER give them away
It is first necessary to examine the nature of the alleged right to travel in order to discern whether it rises to a constitutional level. In early common law, “a subject was prohibited from leaving the realm, without leave of Crown, since to do so would deprive the king of the subject’s military or other feudal services.” The Constitution of Clarendon of 1166 forbade clergymen to leave England without the king’s license.
@MajorRick12345 Then came chapter 42 of the Magna Carta, which gave every free man the right to leave the realm at his pleasure in time of peace, thus rescinding the king’s order that his political and religious enemies be confined to the realm.
@MajorRick12345 The U.S. Supreme Court also dealt with the right to travel in the case of Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). In that case, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, held that the United States Constitution protected three separate aspects of the right to travel among the states: the right to enter one state and leave another, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger (protected by the "privileges and immunities"
@MajorRick12345 continued from above::: clause in Article IV, § 2), and (for those who become permanent residents of a state) the right to be treated equally to native born citizens (this is protected by the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause).
As hard as it is for those of us in Law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen "does indeed" have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in "any" manner.Government, in requiring to file for "drivers licenses, vehicle regis, mandatory insurance, and demanding to stop for vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI. without question, are "restricting", and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to travel.Sherrif Mack.
@2wheels88 this ruling only stops the CITY from prohibiting the right. It says nothing about the federal or even state governments. Try again pre-law.
@MrDonkDonkerson I don't give a crap if you are convinced or not I am just using this coversation to plaster the facts all over this place so other people with a brain and capabillity of research will go look at it for themselves,you see people like you are lazy and are happy being a slave and I know you'll remain one but perhaps some young person will see these posts and go find out for themselves and free themselves from the slavery you're under.Oldest case law is the best!!!
@2wheels88 lol you're splitting hairs. The original point (which still stands) is that nowhere in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution is the right to travel granted, guaranteed or otherwise promised. You lose.
@MrDonkDonkerson "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579.
@MrDonkDonkerson "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, 169 NE 22 ("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission,or even registration.
@MrDonkDonkerson It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
@MrDonkDonkerson "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.
@MrDonkDonkerson "...completely within the protection of the Constitution as the... liberty to go when and where one will." Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, at 14, 23-24 (1915). I can show you about another 20 cases if you like? You see i'm not splitting hairs.Your Government is treating you like a moron because you won't stand up for yourself!!!
@2wheels88 And lets say for the sake of argument you're right on this one point. It still doesn't disprove what I said originally which is FLYING is a privilege. All the cases you have quoted specifically say travel by highways, roads etc. None of them say ANYTHING about flying. Again, you lose.
Where a shinny big belt buckle, I would just suppose that the "finger prints" would be all over it, even if gloves are worn, then just do some research and "find" the fingerprint.
The constitution istill in effect at airports--they are part of the United States the last time I checked. Note too that Muslims are exempted from all these security procedures-- Ms. Napolitano assures us "they will pat themselves down." Yet Muslims are responsible for at least 95% of all terror attacks worldwide. So why we might ask are mainstream Americans being subjected to such humiliating procedures? Possibly because the radicals running America today are intentionally demoralizing us.
Hol shit it amazes me at the stupidity of some people. Being allowed into the airport and allowed to fly are a privelage not a right. If you do not want to go through the security procedures, hop in you car and take a drive.
@legendlarry1 i don't know who taught you that travelling is a privellege but it is not.Travelling is in your bill of rights or constitution as a right.It does not matter what vehicle you use to travel it is still a right.Privelleges are given to prisoners and slaves,which one are you? When I fly,I am a customer of an airline,I am hiring them to travel from one place to another,they work for me,I'm no slave!!!
@2wheels88 LOL tell me where in the bill of rights the "right to travel" is expressly stated. In any case, nobody is making the claim travel is a privilege. We're saying FLYING is a privilege. And since you bring it up, driving isn't a right either. This is the reason people lose their licenses for committing too many moving violations.
@2wheels88 The fact you have to pay for the PRIVELAGE of flying on an Airline pretty much speaks for itself. The airports, airlines have every right to institute any security measure that they want to. If you do not want to be subject to those policies and procedures you do not have to fly. Driving is also a PRIVELAGE, if you do not follow the laws in place regarding driving a vehicle that PRIVELAGE may be taken away from you. A RIGHT is something that cannot be taken away from you.
@legendlarry1 I don't pay for a privellege,I pay for use of the vehicle to travel.Travelling is a protected Right,it is unalienable.Travelling in a car is also a right,the fact people are stupid and go apply for a DRIVERS LICENSE is their own fault,they don't need one as DRIVING is a commercial activity whereas travelling in a car is not.Courtcases have been fought and won over this.People are unaware and just follow like sheep.You do to,I do not.
@legendlarry1 You've never heard the truth.A drivers license is a privellege because it allows you to use your car which then becomes a vehicle for commercial purposes and making profit.You may use a car for travelling,without a License as long as it is for private use.This is the little secret.You can get a certificate of competency and just travel.Look up case history on travelling without a drivers license.Thier are many cases where it is proven.
@legendlarry1 "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579. "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
@legendlarry1 "...completely within the protection of the Constitution as the... liberty to go when and where one will." Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, at 14, 23-24 (1915).
@2wheels88 How about one a little more recent. You have cited one case almost 100 years ago, not quite believing you yet. I would like to see a case from after the national highway system was built and the general public really had tha ability to travel. Try 1950 or later and get back to me.
@legendlarry1 "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.
@legendlarry1 It does'nt state the mode you travel with,it does'nt state horses and cart either it PLAINLY states TRAVEL.That means any form of travel.What you are not getting is that a car can be used for travel or DRIVING.DRIVING is a commercial venture it means that you intend to make a profit for your vehicle.Traveling is a private way to use your car and is not unlawful.Lawful and Legal are 2 different things.Now Morons don't get it,so just keep paying,ok!
@2wheels88 "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, 169 NE 22 ("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission
Oh cmon man why don't you submit,conform to the prisoner training program,just bend over and let them fondle your genitals,your government loves you and is keeping you safe!!!
@MrDonkDonkerson They are stting up TSA at Train Stations and all cross country bus stops.Your car will be checked at check points within your borders.I hope you enjoy your servitude,the terrorists and drug dealers won the war.
@2wheels88 Nobody discussing the drug war here which, incidentally, has been a lost cause for some time. Secondly, train station and bus stop security are up to state and local governments, NOT TSA. So unless you can send me a source article for your bullshit claims shut the hell up.
@MrDonkDonkerson TSA has been deploying its so-called VIPR teams, which conduct anti-terror monitoring outside of airports. The program's actual scope is vague and arguably designed to expand, with different government sources and politicians having "differing descriptions of VIPR's exact mission." VIPR teams which do their work at highways ports bus stations tunnels rest areas,etc. Just google it Moron.
@MrDonkDonkerson I can't drive to America from Australia.I will not visit America,it's to strict and your cops are out of control.I want to visit as my Great grandfather and my Grandfather were both born there,I wanted to trace our heritage but I will do it from here.
@2wheels88 Then take a boat or don't come at all. The point here is that flying isn't a right granted to citizens in any country; ergo if you want to fly accept the fact you will have to deal inconvenient security. If it bothers you that much you have a right to not fly.
@MrDonkDonkerson Rights are NEVER granted Moron,Privelleges are granted and can be taken away wheras a right is a right.Your bill of rights does not grant you those rights it merely lists your rights which are God given or Natural Human Rights.One of them is the Right to Travel.
@2wheels88 LOL Then what about the RIGHT to bear arms or the RIGHT to free speech? Pretty sure those are granted expressly in this country. Also pretty sure they're not "God given" (as you call it) in other countries (see: North Korea, China etc.) Also, the "Right to Travel" is not expressly granted anywhere. Get a clue.
@MrDonkDonkersmall The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action.
@MrDonkDonkerson god given rights generally come from much older documents than your constitution they come from the Magna Charta 1215,common law is even older and it is used by judges in your courts.It's also called Judge Law.One thing I want to say is that this is not about winning and losing between you and I,It is about truth and waking the American people to their rights.If America falls to socialism,we're all done for.
You don't own the airline and my safety is top priority. Just stop this nazi germany stuff. Things still get smuggled through that are a potential weapon to everyone. If you don't want to get searched, then take a bus. It's your option.
This guy is an idiot. The 4th Amendment protects against "unreasonable" search and seizure. Searching people before a flight is very reasonable, and will never require a warrant.
@67skypig Under Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968), law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause under certain circumstances. Supreme Court ruled that when a police officer witnesses "unusual conduct" that leads that officer to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot", the officer may conduct a "pat-down search" (or "frisk") to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon.
@gtg309v ...Clearly these pat downs are not a result of observation of "unusual conduct" that would lead an officer to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot".
@gtg309v A search at an airport by TSA doesn't fall under Terry, it falls under the whether the search is reasonable or unreasonable under the 4th amendment. "Unreasonable" was deliberately written into the amendment for a reason. Like the border seach authority used by CBP thousands of times daily, for example. The 4th amendment was purposefully written with the understanding that in certain circumstances, an officer would not be able to seek a warrant.
@67skypig ...being "unreasonable" to require an officer to seek a warrant to pat someone when there may be a weapon was, in fact, why Terry v. Ohio was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court in the first place, as was the Carroll Doctrine (motor vehicle exception). I'll grant you, Carroll and search incident to arrest have had restrictions placed on them recently, but they are still used by officers daily.
@67skypig A search is "reasonable" when there is a level of suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot. It is "unreasonable" when there isn't. It can't just be a vague hunch either.
@gtg309v You are correct, but Terry is only one of numerous "reasonable" searches ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. Searches in an airport have nothing to do with Terry v. Ohio, and if you were to argue it under Terry in court, you would be laughed at by anyone with a modicum of legal training, in fact it probably wouldn't even get heard. The last time I checked, "unreasonable" was written into the 4th amendment almost 200 years before Terry v. Ohio ever happened.
@67skypig We aren't in court... I was pointing it out as an example of when a search could be legal without a warrant. It was meant to illustrate the scope of the meaning of "unreasonable" as demonstrated in the Terry case. One cannot claim that a search is "reasonable" for no particular reason or because of a mere "hunch".
@gtg309v You correctly articulated the scope of Terry, but "unreasonable" isn't limited to Terry. Border search authority, for example, is a search conducted by the government that requires no suspicion at all, only a nexus or functional equivalent to the border. If a cop tows a car, he can search it with no suspicion of criminal activity to ensure the safety of the tow driver. TSA can search for public safety. All these searches are "reasonable", and constitutional, without suspicion.
@67skypig The border of a country is always a point of suspicion if they are not open to limitless immigration. This is why searches can be considered reasonable there. There always has to be a reason and the borders are no exception. If a car is being towed, the car was probably parked illegally. Police cannot stop you and impound your car just to perform a search. There had to have been some illegal activity which caused your car to be towed, which makes the search reasonable.
@gtg309v Actually the legal standing that has been used to justify border searches by Customs officials is only to protect the revenue of the United States, it can be done with no thought at all to criminal activity. It has been considered "reasonable" for over 200 years. The immigration aspect didn't enter into the equation until almost 75 years later. And LEO's needs no prior criminal activity to search a car being towed, in fact many dept's policies require it for liability reason's.
@67skypig Section 482 of Title 19 of the U.S. Code authorizes customs officials to conduct searches for unlawfully imported materials. Federal courts have interpreted this to mean that customs officials are empowered to search vehicles for aliens, as well as contraband. A customs official who exercises this authority to conduct a border search need not have a warrant or probable cause. However, border searches must still be “reasonable” in light of the circumstances.
@gtg309v You just proved my point. They are searches, conducted at will by the government, without warrant, or suspicion of criminal activity, can be conducted on every vehicle, person, train, plane, or ship, are not considered "unreasonable", and therefore are permitted within the 4th amendment. Incidentally, vehicle searches away from the border for aliens would have to have PC, and would fall under Carroll, and of course border search authority would not apply.
@67skypig No I didn't prove your point. You tried to make a point about border searches being justified by a need to protect the revenue of the United States and that there need not be suspicion of criminal activity. I showed that you were incorrect. They are authorized to conduct the searches for unlawfully imported materials, illegal aliens, and contraband. Border searches are reasonable because the mere act of traveling through that area of land is illegal unless authorized by the US.
@67skypig cont... Searches cannot be conducted at will by the government, without warrant. It is only at the border, or the functional equivalent of a border. The one exception is the extended border search, which allows a search to be conducted beyond the border if and only if (1) they have reasonable certainty or "high degree probability" that a border was crossed, (2) no change in the object of the search occurred, and (3) they have reasonable suspicion criminal activity was occurring.
@gtg309v It is not illegal to travel through a port of entry, that's what it's there for. When you arrive you will present yourself for inspection. At that point, the inspector can search your vehicle, ship, plane, etc., without probable cause, which is the standard for a search warrant. Internal policy may require them to have an articulable fact as to why they want to search, but the law does not. The law only requires a nexus with the border to conduct search, not suspicion.
@67skypig I said it is illegal if it is not authorized by the US... Which is why you arrive and present yourself for inspection... You left out part of what I said and then attempted to rebut me by saying the part that you left out of my statement...
And once again, taking a flight from New York to LA or vice versa has nothing to do with border searches and therefore none of this even pertains to the TSA searches at airports.
@gtg309v Originally, you were trying to state that TSA acted improperly because their search didn't fall under Terry; I showed that Terry wasn't the point of law that gives TSA their authority, then listed other searches ruled "reasonable" by the courts to be conducted without warrant, that have nothing to do with Terry, or don't even require a level of suspicion by the Govt (border searches, Carroll, tows, FEB, etc.) Want to take a wild guess at the requirements to search abandoned property?
@67skypig Wrong again. I already told you that I brought up Terry to demonstrate the scope of the meaning of "reasonable" as it is in the Constitution. I never claimed that TSA's search did or did not fall under Terry. You then proceeded to say that border authorities conduct searches without warrants, when in fact the TSA is not a border authority. Tows are a result of illegal parking. TSA searches are done with no illegal activity witnessed and therefore you fail to make a valid point again.
@gtg309v ...and 4th is not limited in scope to Terry, which is the only reason I brought up the other searches. In fact Terry is only a search for a weapon, not for other evidence. A vehicle towed because the driver was a victim of an accident can still be searched by LEO's, no illegal activity there. And the 4th makes no mention of the reason of the govt's search, only that the search can't be "unreasonable". Abandoned property? No suspicion required, it can just be searched at will.
@67skypig A car crash is a result of illegal activity... such as drinking and driving, running a light, not stopping at a stop sign, speeding, etc... you really need to think harder about this before replying. Police cannot search your car if there is no particular reason to be suspicious of illegal activity. Abandoned property becomes the property of whoever finds it and takes possession of it first. The original owner has no reasonable expectation of privacy concerning abandoned property.
@gtg309v But the victim in a car crash is not under investigation, and would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, so 4th would apply. Constitutional protections demand that you must reasonably expect evidence of a crime to be in a place at that time, but the vehicle may be constitutionally searched if it is being towed if the officer has no expectation evidence is in a car. That sound you hear is your argument crashing and burning.
@67skypig Nobody knows who the "victim" is until there is the investigation... There is only the wreckage which gives the suspicion that there was some illegal activity which caused it. That makes the person's car evidence and reasonable to be searched. A car being towed is because of illegal activity once again... I don't hear any sound of my argument crashing and burning.
@gtg309v ...and I'll let the 9th Circuit make my point for me: United States v. Aukai, "airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings." The most anti govt appellate court in the US agrees with me. I WIN!
@67skypig Oh so I guess its your opinion that we should be searched anywhere and at any time as long as it is in the name of preventing a crime? Even without reasonable, articulable suspicion? Bye bye 4th amendment...
@gtg309v Not anywhere at anytime, only where it is necessary, and constitutional. Which is why the 4th amendment is phrased the way it is. "Unreasonable" was written in by better people than us specifically for reasons like this. The 4th not only protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizure, but it is also written to protect society from people with ridiculous expectations of privacy.
@67skypig I didn't see the part about "protecting society from people with ridiculous expectations of privacy" in the Constitution... whatever that means. I did, however, see the part about every subject having a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person and all his possessions... I guess it might sound ridiculous to you to have an expectation of privacy in your person and basically everything you own, but thats what the 4th amendment is about afterall...
@67skypig The only real exceptions to the rule are when society's need is great and no other effective means of meeting the need is available. Supreme Court has allowed immigration checkpoints for just this reason, however discretionary checkpoints or general crime-fighting checkpoints are not allowed.
Now, what is the TSA trying to do with these pat downs that can't be done with a metal detector?
@gtg309v F.E.B. is a different animal, and has different legal requirements. It exists so HSI Special Agents can make controlled deliveries of contraband and arrest other subjects. I'm glad you brought it up, it's another example of a warrantless search, unless it goes into a residence, then a warrant's required. At the POE, it's technically an inspection, and is absolutely to protect the revenue, that's what the former Customs service existed for, they were Dept. of Treasury, after all.
@gtg309v One more note, Customs law regarding inspections limits the inspector to searching only where a commodity can be concealed. Not contraband, drugs, or aliens, but a commodity. That's been the law for over 200 years. If they encounter drugs, aliens, etc., they can act because the inpector was lawfully searching when the criminal activity was discovered. Inspectors only recieved the authority to even make arrests about 15 years ago, maybe even less.
this is all we need lol a bunch of liberal fucks making it seem as if these measures of protection are unnecessary. go hug a tree and ask it to fly you out to wherever you need to go. You are an intelligent idiot. airplanes aren't the only means of transportation. Government security policy is the reason why we can live comfortably knowing that attacks on U.S territory are more unlikely than ever. You wave those "rights" when you decide your flower growing ass is going to fly, drive or float on
@amby0216 haha your one of those sick little individuals who wants to continually give up your rights for supposed safety....sad how many people want the government to babysit them.
the laws put in place are unconstitutional.therefore these laws are invalid.people are gullable.they get confronted with a uniform or a mainsteem media talking head and obey it blindly.this is what happend to the jews in ww2 and it is what is happining to the american people today.Ron Paul 2012
lol the TSA doesn't do anything. I am a frequent flyer and honestly if a terrorist wanted you dead, you would be. The TSA really doesn't make me feel safer, and if you feel safer because of the TSA, well then, keep lying to yourself and enjoy your flight.
The cop said at 8:15, "Fine, than take the bus". Ok, what do we do, Mr. Stalin bootlicker, when "They" TSA bus travel, the highways, the local High school Prom??? Oh crap, they are already doing that.
@Moneyshotdrama7 what does "america is keeping us safe" mean? huh? clearly you have never traveled...the TSA is a joke... like most things run by governments
Sacrificing your LIBERTY for a false sense of security? And, "keeping us safe?" who's gonna keep us safe from them? ...is what you need to ask. You've bought in to the BS fear our gov't sells. THIS is NOT what America was founded on. It's the exact opposite.
Sacrificing your LIBERTY for a false sense of security? And, "keeping us safe?" who's gonna keep us safe from them? ...is what you need to ask. You've bought in to the BS fear our gov't sells. THIS is NOT what America was founded on. It's the exact opposite.
P.S. If you record on old-school film, it cannot be electronicly jammed without adverse effects.
impetusmode 1 week ago
Electromagnetic video scrambler worn on the officer in black. You are showing your hand guys!!!
impetusmode 1 week ago
"This video is unlisted". um no its not, I found it in the sidebar
blackandblue10 1 week ago
TJ, "1936 was the starting point of Jews being blamed for many of the problems in Germany and the world." You wrote this and I am an idiot??? I am not the one who needs to read anything. The mere fact that you think that 1936 is any where near the beginning of the Jews being blamed for anything in Germany proves that you are the ignorant moron and to try and tie any of it to the TSA is even more idiotic!!! What a tool!!!
jr94952002 1 week ago
TSA is Window Dressing that's all
dell1940 1 week ago
Guess what, since you don't have to use the airport you don't have to go through the checkpoint! Its like when you go to football stadium and they wave the metal detector over you, if you don't want them to do it you don't have to fucking be there, you are the one who doesn't understand the fucking constitution you moron.
qusha11 1 week ago
@qusha11 exactly. It's not as if this happens in public places all over and frequently. Same as if you're dressed differently, it's your own choice but you have to know they will pick you out of the line just for being different. Don't want that? Be common or stay home.
Gehenna71 1 week ago
disgusting
sarandro 2 weeks ago
All the references made by the camera man trying to connect TSA to the same things done by the Nazis is beyond ignorant... 1936 Nazi Germany? It would be funny if it isn't so disgusting... The man insults the memory of all of who suffered at the hands of the Nazis... If he is so right go to court I am sure they would agree with him right away... Riiiigggghhhtttt.... Let's call a spade a spade... This guy is an idiot and an asshole... Drive next time bitch...
jr94952002 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
AddAsC0NTACT 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jr94952002
NOT SINCE NAZI GERMANY, HAS A NATION BEEN TAKEN FROM FREEDOM TO FASCISM IN SUCH SHORT-ORDER.
YOU ARE WITNESSING THE SINGLE LARGEST HOSTILE-TAKEOVER OF LIBERTY IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICA.
IN TIME, YOU WILL ALSO UNDERSTAND THIS FACT, BUT FOR NOW, LETS JUST CALL A SPADE A SPADE.
YOU ARE NO EXPERT IN SUCH MATTERS, THEREFORE YOUR PATHETIC OPINION IS WORTHLESS AND MADE NULL.
GO BACK TO YOUR VIDEO GAMES AND GAY ANAL PORN, YOU DUMBED-DOWN TOOL, CLEARLY FREEDOM IS NOT FOR YOU...
AddAsC0NTACT 2 weeks ago
@jr94952002 I agree, what a fucking moron.
qusha11 1 week ago
@jr94952002 What’s truly ignorant is that you berate the cameraman without even knowing what he is talking about. 1936 was the starting point of Jews being blamed for many of the problems in Germany and the world. The press also attacked the Jews. This began the methodical waning of rights for the Jews and eventually led to what we know as the holocaust. Knowing what lead up to the holocaust is just as important. You have accused the cameraman of things that you proved about yourself.
EyeinTeaJay 1 week ago
@EyeinTeaJay Don't presume to lecture me about this subject matter. I have family members who survived the Nazis and others who fought and were wounded fighting them. Also I have flown over half a million miles since 9/11. I even had to deal with wanted criminals who shared my name resulting in additional security screenings. Comparing anything going on with the TSA to what happened to Jews in Nazi Germany is beyond ignorant. Sit down, shut up, get some help...
jr94952002 1 week ago
@jr94952002 What the hell does your family members, and how much you have flown have to do with you lacking the ability to understand the cameramans comments? Nice kid logic; Uhoh, if they find out I dont know what I'm talking about, I'll change the subject. Try reading about 1936 germany. At first I assumed you were an idiot, thanks for removing any doubt I may have had.
EyeinTeaJay 1 week ago
The people you see at the airport don't make the rule.
MrWyatt517 2 weeks ago
should of kicked that dumb fuck in his balls... he would put that fucking bin right down
scottieriz 2 weeks ago
@scottieriz It's legal to film inside so you look retarded
nintendo007 2 weeks ago
@nintendo007 I am talking about the TSA agent who was holding up the bin dip shit.... I am all for the guy who was recording.... so now you look retarded...
scottieriz 1 week ago
@scottieriz You look retarded for not addressing who you were referring to
nintendo007 1 week ago
Comment removed
FootballCardsOnly 2 weeks ago
I find this to be a bad video example,he provoked the TSA with words and actions,and he was the rude one. I personally dont agree with this level of security because i dont agree with the reasons it was brought in,but i dont like folks producing crap video trying to make others look bad just to state their own case,he was trying to get these TSA to do something,rather then just letting it happen naturally.Thumbs down from me.....and yes i saw the TSA agent with the tray in hand,bunch of kids.
VoiceInBlackness 2 weeks ago
@VoiceInBlackness u a speaking from the blackness alright.....
scottieriz 2 weeks ago
These are the requirements to becoming a TSA screaner=
1) Gay/Lesbian
2) Mental Retardation
3) No people skills what so ever
4) No comprehension of the U.S. Constitution
5) RUDE AS HELL!
ihavevideos45 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ihavevideos45 You missed out sexual pervert/deviant and child molester.
Itsmeeman1 2 weeks ago
@ihavevideos45 dont forget no comprehension of the bill of rights either
pammyla66 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is long past time to stand up in this country.
I need 100 million men.
I propose 2 dates:
7/04/2012.
First, peacefully, we will stand up together and state what changes need to be made.
If there is no change, we return
11/11/2012.
And we do not leave.
Pass it on. DC 2012. Be there.
themanningsjdsjjj 2 weeks ago
Man if your so against getting searched to fly a public airplane then find some other transportation. If you don't want to be searched then take another form of transportation.
bdog10123 2 weeks ago
@bdog10123 Many people have. SInce they have the TSA I will never fly again.
Halo2100 2 weeks ago
I would be shaking too.
epohnopulse 3 weeks ago
LOL! "i'm warning you dont touch my private parts!" lmao
Hollowman1985 3 weeks ago
"why are you picking fights you won't win?" Thechuck624: this is said by every weak nation in the planet. you cant not beat life, why live it? We pick fights because we CAN win, the point of this video is to inform us; not to get a rise out of TSA. Good video, keep questioning authority. We were founded by civil disobedience we must challenge the people we put into power.
argueta1999 3 weeks ago
you cannot submit to having INalienable rights violated. That is what inalienable means.
shanidar 3 weeks ago
Good for you standing up for your Constitutional rights!
MrStoneClark 3 weeks ago
For being prepared for this all day, you sure picked a shitty way to film it, your wording was poor and you did not achieve the rise from the agents were hoped to get. I don't agree with all this TSA goon behavior but you don't need to be provoking these people either. They also can throw you out of the airport because flying is not a right, it is a privilege as far as the law is concerned. In other words, why are you picking fights you won't win?
TheChuck624 3 weeks ago
This is why I do NOT fly.
linwooddeaton 3 weeks ago 2
stole a brand new flash drive and new book from my computer bag - psy-ops once again. truth is, the best thing we can do is make good choices about where we live. what kind of people live there. alaskans look at things differently here including law enforcement. that is one of the reasons i moved here. broward county (lauderdale) law enforcement is corrupt from the top to the bottom. so i moved here. life is better here. i can choose who i deal with on a daily basis. air travel will be limited.
antimasonification 3 weeks ago
when i left anchorage a few months ago, no pat down, no x-ray. they used common sense they already knew who i was as they do all of these people. this whole thing is psy-ops, to get you accustomed to loss of your 4th amendment rights. leaving santo domingo in october i got a full pat down by a beautiful young womand, nothing perverted or invasive. as a man it would have felt slimy if a man had done that to me. leaving lauderdale for anchorage in december, the tsa pickpockets.....cont.
antimasonification 3 weeks ago
I am fairly sure the new pat down procedures are intentionally annoying just so that the radiation machine will sound like a better option. TSA should not be a government job. TSA has ever-changing rules and regs, poor training, and they can't even collectively bargain to improve conditions for themselves or their customers. The responsibility to keep you safe on the plane should belong to the airlines or airports.
GreensongOakheart 3 weeks ago
Oh my god! PLEASE stop the presses!!
You can be arrested for saying "Fuck" in a public place because it might offend someone!
Ooooo these poor babies, with their weak minds, who might. be. offended.
Waaa Waaa Waaa this is the loss of our freedom to speak.
We are watching it all fall. Like the seeming slow-motion of an ice shelf collapse.
Be aware.
reAthleteX 3 weeks ago
TSA is a pathetic joke!!! Not even legal. EVerything about them is ass backwards from the United States Constitution. Therefore, they are NOT law.
du24pont70 3 weeks ago
Would the camera persons in this video screem "yay freedom!" if their plane was sent into a nose dive due to a terrorist bomb attack? If not, what do they suggest we do for aviation security? Private security screeners? So they would be patted down by XYZ instead of TSA? If airport security shouldn't pat people down, whats to stop someone who'd want to do us harm from walking through a metal detector with plastic explosives on their person? Just asking.
samael1981 3 weeks ago
@samael1981 keep drinking the kool-aid.
TSA couldn't catch a cold in a hospital.
Giving up liberty for security leads to the loss of both.
reAthleteX 3 weeks ago
@reAthleteX Great...now how about you answer my questions.
samael1981 3 weeks ago
@samael1981 You have been fearmongered, to the point where you believe so called "terrorists" can attack the most powerful nation on earth. Don't be a sheep. I hope you know according to the government all "sovereign citizens" are extremists. You need to wake up. Patriot Act, and the NDAA. Don't listen to corporate media, and do your own research
cfxboxmoh 3 weeks ago
@cfxboxmoh Terrorists did attack America on 9/11/01. Wait let me guess, that was an inside job orchestrated by the FBI, CIA, and Mossad right?
samael1981 3 weeks ago
@samael1981 If you look at the evidence, you might think twice. The CIA had a plane crash that had massive ammounts of cocaine on board. The CIA also orchestrated Fast and Furious. The CIA also gave Al Qaeda money and weapons to fight off the Soviets in the 70's. What makes you think they couldn't pull 9/11 off? Science and common sense agrees with me. You can continue to be a sheep, and give away your essential liberties for security.
cfxboxmoh 3 weeks ago
@cfxboxmoh yawn.....
samael1981 3 weeks ago
@samael1981 Good point but it doesn't matter in this argument. To be fair about 9/11 losses where less then 01% of the NY population hardly a big deal in a so called war. Certainly not justification for the removal of our civil liberties.
GreensongOakheart 3 weeks ago
tsa is proof that the terrorists won.
TheLoneWolf1124 3 weeks ago
Look at the professionalism of this TSA fool
What happen to America ?
I remember when my fellow Americans had balls
impkap 3 weeks ago
THIS IS WHY I DONT FLY. I WAS NOT EVEN THERE AND WANTED TO FREAK OUT ON THESE CREEPS.you are right, it is illegal search. even an fbi agent cannot do them, without consent.let alone a walmart greater with a badge.to think people subject their kids to this shit as well.no thanks not for me and we should all say the same thing. we have rights and we should NEVER give them away
pjbsr1961 3 weeks ago
It is first necessary to examine the nature of the alleged right to travel in order to discern whether it rises to a constitutional level. In early common law, “a subject was prohibited from leaving the realm, without leave of Crown, since to do so would deprive the king of the subject’s military or other feudal services.” The Constitution of Clarendon of 1166 forbade clergymen to leave England without the king’s license.
MajorRick12345 3 weeks ago
@MajorRick12345 Then came chapter 42 of the Magna Carta, which gave every free man the right to leave the realm at his pleasure in time of peace, thus rescinding the king’s order that his political and religious enemies be confined to the realm.
MajorRick12345 3 weeks ago
@MajorRick12345 The U.S. Supreme Court also dealt with the right to travel in the case of Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). In that case, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, held that the United States Constitution protected three separate aspects of the right to travel among the states: the right to enter one state and leave another, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger (protected by the "privileges and immunities"
MajorRick12345 3 weeks ago
@MajorRick12345 continued from above::: clause in Article IV, § 2), and (for those who become permanent residents of a state) the right to be treated equally to native born citizens (this is protected by the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause).
MajorRick12345 3 weeks ago
What a motherfucking joke this country has become. Just like the book 1984.
RayAir1 3 weeks ago
As hard as it is for those of us in Law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen "does indeed" have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in "any" manner.Government, in requiring to file for "drivers licenses, vehicle regis, mandatory insurance, and demanding to stop for vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI. without question, are "restricting", and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to travel.Sherrif Mack.
2wheels88 3 weeks ago
@2wheels88 this ruling only stops the CITY from prohibiting the right. It says nothing about the federal or even state governments. Try again pre-law.
MrDonkDonkerson 3 weeks ago
@MrDonkDonkerson I don't give a crap if you are convinced or not I am just using this coversation to plaster the facts all over this place so other people with a brain and capabillity of research will go look at it for themselves,you see people like you are lazy and are happy being a slave and I know you'll remain one but perhaps some young person will see these posts and go find out for themselves and free themselves from the slavery you're under.Oldest case law is the best!!!
2wheels88 3 weeks ago
Your hand shaking cause your scared or you masterbating with the other hand?
ekm1166 3 weeks ago
Those TSA need there asses kicked!
MontanaPrepper7 3 weeks ago
@2wheels88 lol you're splitting hairs. The original point (which still stands) is that nowhere in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution is the right to travel granted, guaranteed or otherwise promised. You lose.
MrDonkDonkerson 3 weeks ago
@MrDonkDonkerson "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579.
2wheels88 3 weeks ago
@MrDonkDonkerson "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, 169 NE 22 ("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission,or even registration.
2wheels88 3 weeks ago
@MrDonkDonkerson It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
2wheels88 3 weeks ago
@MrDonkDonkerson "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.
2wheels88 3 weeks ago
@MrDonkDonkerson "...completely within the protection of the Constitution as the... liberty to go when and where one will." Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, at 14, 23-24 (1915). I can show you about another 20 cases if you like? You see i'm not splitting hairs.Your Government is treating you like a moron because you won't stand up for yourself!!!
2wheels88 3 weeks ago
@2wheels88 And lets say for the sake of argument you're right on this one point. It still doesn't disprove what I said originally which is FLYING is a privilege. All the cases you have quoted specifically say travel by highways, roads etc. None of them say ANYTHING about flying. Again, you lose.
MrDonkDonkerson 3 weeks ago
Where a shinny big belt buckle, I would just suppose that the "finger prints" would be all over it, even if gloves are worn, then just do some research and "find" the fingerprint.
That just may be the great equalizer
signal44 4 weeks ago
You're a hero. Too talkative, but, hey!
CNN911Fakes 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
truepass2679 4 weeks ago
This is not a good example of standing up to the law. When flying you gave up your rights. Go home and take the bus.
Bruce1949919 1 month ago
You must be kidding me. Just get going and stop the madness. Your 4th amendment doesn't work in an airport
Bruce1949919 1 month ago
Putting on a video that was streamed is poor quality. Fix it
Bruce1949919 1 month ago
This is stupid
Bruce1949919 1 month ago
The constitution istill in effect at airports--they are part of the United States the last time I checked. Note too that Muslims are exempted from all these security procedures-- Ms. Napolitano assures us "they will pat themselves down." Yet Muslims are responsible for at least 95% of all terror attacks worldwide. So why we might ask are mainstream Americans being subjected to such humiliating procedures? Possibly because the radicals running America today are intentionally demoralizing us.
togian755 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrDonkDonkerson 1 month ago
Hol shit it amazes me at the stupidity of some people. Being allowed into the airport and allowed to fly are a privelage not a right. If you do not want to go through the security procedures, hop in you car and take a drive.
legendlarry1 1 month ago
@legendlarry1 i don't know who taught you that travelling is a privellege but it is not.Travelling is in your bill of rights or constitution as a right.It does not matter what vehicle you use to travel it is still a right.Privelleges are given to prisoners and slaves,which one are you? When I fly,I am a customer of an airline,I am hiring them to travel from one place to another,they work for me,I'm no slave!!!
2wheels88 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrDonkDonkerson 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2wheels88 LOL tell me where in the bill of rights the "right to travel" is expressly stated. In any case, nobody is making the claim travel is a privilege. We're saying FLYING is a privilege. And since you bring it up, driving isn't a right either. This is the reason people lose their licenses for committing too many moving violations.
MrDonkDonkerson 1 month ago
@2wheels88 The fact you have to pay for the PRIVELAGE of flying on an Airline pretty much speaks for itself. The airports, airlines have every right to institute any security measure that they want to. If you do not want to be subject to those policies and procedures you do not have to fly. Driving is also a PRIVELAGE, if you do not follow the laws in place regarding driving a vehicle that PRIVELAGE may be taken away from you. A RIGHT is something that cannot be taken away from you.
legendlarry1 1 month ago
@legendlarry1 I don't pay for a privellege,I pay for use of the vehicle to travel.Travelling is a protected Right,it is unalienable.Travelling in a car is also a right,the fact people are stupid and go apply for a DRIVERS LICENSE is their own fault,they don't need one as DRIVING is a commercial activity whereas travelling in a car is not.Courtcases have been fought and won over this.People are unaware and just follow like sheep.You do to,I do not.
2wheels88 1 month ago
@2wheels88 That is the most ridiculous reasoning I have ever heard.
legendlarry1 4 weeks ago
@legendlarry1 You've never heard the truth.A drivers license is a privellege because it allows you to use your car which then becomes a vehicle for commercial purposes and making profit.You may use a car for travelling,without a License as long as it is for private use.This is the little secret.You can get a certificate of competency and just travel.Look up case history on travelling without a drivers license.Thier are many cases where it is proven.
2wheels88 3 weeks ago
@2wheels88 You call it truth, I call it bullshit. List the cases where and individual has won a court case under the circumstances you list.
legendlarry1 3 weeks ago
@legendlarry1 "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579. "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
2wheels88 3 weeks ago
@legendlarry1 "...completely within the protection of the Constitution as the... liberty to go when and where one will." Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, at 14, 23-24 (1915).
2wheels88 3 weeks ago
@2wheels88 How about one a little more recent. You have cited one case almost 100 years ago, not quite believing you yet. I would like to see a case from after the national highway system was built and the general public really had tha ability to travel. Try 1950 or later and get back to me.
legendlarry1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@legendlarry1 "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.
2wheels88 3 weeks ago
@2wheels88 I would love you to show me in the bill or rights where it states specfically the right to travel by automobile or air is unalienable.
legendlarry1 4 weeks ago
@legendlarry1 It does'nt state the mode you travel with,it does'nt state horses and cart either it PLAINLY states TRAVEL.That means any form of travel.What you are not getting is that a car can be used for travel or DRIVING.DRIVING is a commercial venture it means that you intend to make a profit for your vehicle.Traveling is a private way to use your car and is not unlawful.Lawful and Legal are 2 different things.Now Morons don't get it,so just keep paying,ok!
2wheels88 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2wheels88 "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, 169 NE 22 ("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission
2wheels88 3 weeks ago
Oh cmon man why don't you submit,conform to the prisoner training program,just bend over and let them fondle your genitals,your government loves you and is keeping you safe!!!
2wheels88 1 month ago
Flying is a privilege, not a right.
MrDonkDonkerson 1 month ago
@MrDonkDonkerson travelling is a right not a privelege.
2wheels88 1 month ago
@2wheels88 You're correct. And you have the right to take the train or drive if you don't like dealing with airport security.
MrDonkDonkerson 1 month ago
@MrDonkDonkerson They are stting up TSA at Train Stations and all cross country bus stops.Your car will be checked at check points within your borders.I hope you enjoy your servitude,the terrorists and drug dealers won the war.
2wheels88 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2wheels88 Nobody discussing the drug war here which, incidentally, has been a lost cause for some time. Secondly, train station and bus stop security are up to state and local governments, NOT TSA. So unless you can send me a source article for your bullshit claims shut the hell up.
MrDonkDonkerson 1 month ago
@MrDonkDonkerson TSA has been deploying its so-called VIPR teams, which conduct anti-terror monitoring outside of airports. The program's actual scope is vague and arguably designed to expand, with different government sources and politicians having "differing descriptions of VIPR's exact mission." VIPR teams which do their work at highways ports bus stations tunnels rest areas,etc. Just google it Moron.
2wheels88 1 month ago
@MrDonkDonkerson I can't drive to America from Australia.I will not visit America,it's to strict and your cops are out of control.I want to visit as my Great grandfather and my Grandfather were both born there,I wanted to trace our heritage but I will do it from here.
2wheels88 1 month ago
@2wheels88 Then take a boat or don't come at all. The point here is that flying isn't a right granted to citizens in any country; ergo if you want to fly accept the fact you will have to deal inconvenient security. If it bothers you that much you have a right to not fly.
MrDonkDonkerson 1 month ago
@MrDonkDonkerson Rights are NEVER granted Moron,Privelleges are granted and can be taken away wheras a right is a right.Your bill of rights does not grant you those rights it merely lists your rights which are God given or Natural Human Rights.One of them is the Right to Travel.
2wheels88 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrDonkDonkerson 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2wheels88 LOL Then what about the RIGHT to bear arms or the RIGHT to free speech? Pretty sure those are granted expressly in this country. Also pretty sure they're not "God given" (as you call it) in other countries (see: North Korea, China etc.) Also, the "Right to Travel" is not expressly granted anywhere. Get a clue.
MrDonkDonkerson 4 weeks ago
@MrDonkDonkerson They're not granted they're Guaranteed!!!!
2wheels88 3 weeks ago
@MrDonkDonkersmall The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action.
2wheels88 3 weeks ago
@MrDonkDonkerson god given rights generally come from much older documents than your constitution they come from the Magna Charta 1215,common law is even older and it is used by judges in your courts.It's also called Judge Law.One thing I want to say is that this is not about winning and losing between you and I,It is about truth and waking the American people to their rights.If America falls to socialism,we're all done for.
2wheels88 3 weeks ago
Your tape is going round and round and round as your filming
travelplus1 1 month ago
You don't own the airline and my safety is top priority. Just stop this nazi germany stuff. Things still get smuggled through that are a potential weapon to everyone. If you don't want to get searched, then take a bus. It's your option.
runningwolfkenpo 1 month ago
MOM ! SHUT UP ! IM TRYING TO HEAR WHAT THEYRE TALKING ABOUT !
iKlaSiicKoNii 1 month ago
This guy is an idiot. The 4th Amendment protects against "unreasonable" search and seizure. Searching people before a flight is very reasonable, and will never require a warrant.
67skypig 1 month ago
@67skypig Under Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968), law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause under certain circumstances. Supreme Court ruled that when a police officer witnesses "unusual conduct" that leads that officer to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot", the officer may conduct a "pat-down search" (or "frisk") to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon.
gtg309v 1 month ago
@gtg309v ...Clearly these pat downs are not a result of observation of "unusual conduct" that would lead an officer to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot".
gtg309v 1 month ago
@gtg309v A search at an airport by TSA doesn't fall under Terry, it falls under the whether the search is reasonable or unreasonable under the 4th amendment. "Unreasonable" was deliberately written into the amendment for a reason. Like the border seach authority used by CBP thousands of times daily, for example. The 4th amendment was purposefully written with the understanding that in certain circumstances, an officer would not be able to seek a warrant.
67skypig 1 month ago
@67skypig ...being "unreasonable" to require an officer to seek a warrant to pat someone when there may be a weapon was, in fact, why Terry v. Ohio was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court in the first place, as was the Carroll Doctrine (motor vehicle exception). I'll grant you, Carroll and search incident to arrest have had restrictions placed on them recently, but they are still used by officers daily.
67skypig 1 month ago
@67skypig A search is "reasonable" when there is a level of suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot. It is "unreasonable" when there isn't. It can't just be a vague hunch either.
gtg309v 1 month ago
@gtg309v You are correct, but Terry is only one of numerous "reasonable" searches ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. Searches in an airport have nothing to do with Terry v. Ohio, and if you were to argue it under Terry in court, you would be laughed at by anyone with a modicum of legal training, in fact it probably wouldn't even get heard. The last time I checked, "unreasonable" was written into the 4th amendment almost 200 years before Terry v. Ohio ever happened.
67skypig 1 month ago
@67skypig We aren't in court... I was pointing it out as an example of when a search could be legal without a warrant. It was meant to illustrate the scope of the meaning of "unreasonable" as demonstrated in the Terry case. One cannot claim that a search is "reasonable" for no particular reason or because of a mere "hunch".
gtg309v 1 month ago
@gtg309v You correctly articulated the scope of Terry, but "unreasonable" isn't limited to Terry. Border search authority, for example, is a search conducted by the government that requires no suspicion at all, only a nexus or functional equivalent to the border. If a cop tows a car, he can search it with no suspicion of criminal activity to ensure the safety of the tow driver. TSA can search for public safety. All these searches are "reasonable", and constitutional, without suspicion.
67skypig 1 month ago
@67skypig The border of a country is always a point of suspicion if they are not open to limitless immigration. This is why searches can be considered reasonable there. There always has to be a reason and the borders are no exception. If a car is being towed, the car was probably parked illegally. Police cannot stop you and impound your car just to perform a search. There had to have been some illegal activity which caused your car to be towed, which makes the search reasonable.
gtg309v 3 weeks ago
@gtg309v Actually the legal standing that has been used to justify border searches by Customs officials is only to protect the revenue of the United States, it can be done with no thought at all to criminal activity. It has been considered "reasonable" for over 200 years. The immigration aspect didn't enter into the equation until almost 75 years later. And LEO's needs no prior criminal activity to search a car being towed, in fact many dept's policies require it for liability reason's.
67skypig 3 weeks ago
@67skypig Section 482 of Title 19 of the U.S. Code authorizes customs officials to conduct searches for unlawfully imported materials. Federal courts have interpreted this to mean that customs officials are empowered to search vehicles for aliens, as well as contraband. A customs official who exercises this authority to conduct a border search need not have a warrant or probable cause. However, border searches must still be “reasonable” in light of the circumstances.
gtg309v 3 weeks ago
@gtg309v You just proved my point. They are searches, conducted at will by the government, without warrant, or suspicion of criminal activity, can be conducted on every vehicle, person, train, plane, or ship, are not considered "unreasonable", and therefore are permitted within the 4th amendment. Incidentally, vehicle searches away from the border for aliens would have to have PC, and would fall under Carroll, and of course border search authority would not apply.
67skypig 3 weeks ago
@67skypig No I didn't prove your point. You tried to make a point about border searches being justified by a need to protect the revenue of the United States and that there need not be suspicion of criminal activity. I showed that you were incorrect. They are authorized to conduct the searches for unlawfully imported materials, illegal aliens, and contraband. Border searches are reasonable because the mere act of traveling through that area of land is illegal unless authorized by the US.
gtg309v 3 weeks ago
@67skypig cont... Searches cannot be conducted at will by the government, without warrant. It is only at the border, or the functional equivalent of a border. The one exception is the extended border search, which allows a search to be conducted beyond the border if and only if (1) they have reasonable certainty or "high degree probability" that a border was crossed, (2) no change in the object of the search occurred, and (3) they have reasonable suspicion criminal activity was occurring.
gtg309v 3 weeks ago
@gtg309v It is not illegal to travel through a port of entry, that's what it's there for. When you arrive you will present yourself for inspection. At that point, the inspector can search your vehicle, ship, plane, etc., without probable cause, which is the standard for a search warrant. Internal policy may require them to have an articulable fact as to why they want to search, but the law does not. The law only requires a nexus with the border to conduct search, not suspicion.
67skypig 3 weeks ago
@67skypig I said it is illegal if it is not authorized by the US... Which is why you arrive and present yourself for inspection... You left out part of what I said and then attempted to rebut me by saying the part that you left out of my statement...
And once again, taking a flight from New York to LA or vice versa has nothing to do with border searches and therefore none of this even pertains to the TSA searches at airports.
gtg309v 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
67skypig 3 weeks ago
@gtg309v Originally, you were trying to state that TSA acted improperly because their search didn't fall under Terry; I showed that Terry wasn't the point of law that gives TSA their authority, then listed other searches ruled "reasonable" by the courts to be conducted without warrant, that have nothing to do with Terry, or don't even require a level of suspicion by the Govt (border searches, Carroll, tows, FEB, etc.) Want to take a wild guess at the requirements to search abandoned property?
67skypig 3 weeks ago
@67skypig Wrong again. I already told you that I brought up Terry to demonstrate the scope of the meaning of "reasonable" as it is in the Constitution. I never claimed that TSA's search did or did not fall under Terry. You then proceeded to say that border authorities conduct searches without warrants, when in fact the TSA is not a border authority. Tows are a result of illegal parking. TSA searches are done with no illegal activity witnessed and therefore you fail to make a valid point again.
gtg309v 3 weeks ago
@gtg309v ...and 4th is not limited in scope to Terry, which is the only reason I brought up the other searches. In fact Terry is only a search for a weapon, not for other evidence. A vehicle towed because the driver was a victim of an accident can still be searched by LEO's, no illegal activity there. And the 4th makes no mention of the reason of the govt's search, only that the search can't be "unreasonable". Abandoned property? No suspicion required, it can just be searched at will.
67skypig 3 weeks ago
@67skypig A car crash is a result of illegal activity... such as drinking and driving, running a light, not stopping at a stop sign, speeding, etc... you really need to think harder about this before replying. Police cannot search your car if there is no particular reason to be suspicious of illegal activity. Abandoned property becomes the property of whoever finds it and takes possession of it first. The original owner has no reasonable expectation of privacy concerning abandoned property.
gtg309v 3 weeks ago
@gtg309v But the victim in a car crash is not under investigation, and would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, so 4th would apply. Constitutional protections demand that you must reasonably expect evidence of a crime to be in a place at that time, but the vehicle may be constitutionally searched if it is being towed if the officer has no expectation evidence is in a car. That sound you hear is your argument crashing and burning.
67skypig 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@67skypig Nobody knows who the "victim" is until there is the investigation... There is only the wreckage which gives the suspicion that there was some illegal activity which caused it. That makes the person's car evidence and reasonable to be searched. A car being towed is because of illegal activity once again... I don't hear any sound of my argument crashing and burning.
gtg309v 3 weeks ago
@gtg309v ...and I'll let the 9th Circuit make my point for me: United States v. Aukai, "airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings." The most anti govt appellate court in the US agrees with me. I WIN!
67skypig 3 weeks ago
@67skypig Oh so I guess its your opinion that we should be searched anywhere and at any time as long as it is in the name of preventing a crime? Even without reasonable, articulable suspicion? Bye bye 4th amendment...
gtg309v 3 weeks ago
@gtg309v Not anywhere at anytime, only where it is necessary, and constitutional. Which is why the 4th amendment is phrased the way it is. "Unreasonable" was written in by better people than us specifically for reasons like this. The 4th not only protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizure, but it is also written to protect society from people with ridiculous expectations of privacy.
67skypig 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@67skypig I didn't see the part about "protecting society from people with ridiculous expectations of privacy" in the Constitution... whatever that means. I did, however, see the part about every subject having a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person and all his possessions... I guess it might sound ridiculous to you to have an expectation of privacy in your person and basically everything you own, but thats what the 4th amendment is about afterall...
gtg309v 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@67skypig The only real exceptions to the rule are when society's need is great and no other effective means of meeting the need is available. Supreme Court has allowed immigration checkpoints for just this reason, however discretionary checkpoints or general crime-fighting checkpoints are not allowed.
Now, what is the TSA trying to do with these pat downs that can't be done with a metal detector?
gtg309v 3 weeks ago
@gtg309v F.E.B. is a different animal, and has different legal requirements. It exists so HSI Special Agents can make controlled deliveries of contraband and arrest other subjects. I'm glad you brought it up, it's another example of a warrantless search, unless it goes into a residence, then a warrant's required. At the POE, it's technically an inspection, and is absolutely to protect the revenue, that's what the former Customs service existed for, they were Dept. of Treasury, after all.
67skypig 3 weeks ago
@gtg309v One more note, Customs law regarding inspections limits the inspector to searching only where a commodity can be concealed. Not contraband, drugs, or aliens, but a commodity. That's been the law for over 200 years. If they encounter drugs, aliens, etc., they can act because the inpector was lawfully searching when the criminal activity was discovered. Inspectors only recieved the authority to even make arrests about 15 years ago, maybe even less.
67skypig 3 weeks ago
this is all we need lol a bunch of liberal fucks making it seem as if these measures of protection are unnecessary. go hug a tree and ask it to fly you out to wherever you need to go. You are an intelligent idiot. airplanes aren't the only means of transportation. Government security policy is the reason why we can live comfortably knowing that attacks on U.S territory are more unlikely than ever. You wave those "rights" when you decide your flower growing ass is going to fly, drive or float on
amby0216 1 month ago
@amby0216 haha your one of those sick little individuals who wants to continually give up your rights for supposed safety....sad how many people want the government to babysit them.
nikolasramsay 1 month ago
he said "wanna play games", "i play games"... lol
TheFloridaboy86 1 month ago
How does that automatic streaming to YouTube feature work? I didn't know that was possible.
wanderingsalsero 1 month ago
I would have just ripped it out of his hand and say now what you going to do
darkwinglance 1 month ago
While I sort of agree with the guy on the camera, I think he went to the airport looking for trouble.
MrFBCBSALES 1 month ago
we should just storm the airports drag out the TSA strip them naked and tatoo TSA on their chest and butt
YoTommy1 1 month ago
Your adrenaline is pumping.. your hand is shaking...
southernbell091309 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This guy is a moron, if you don't wanna be patted down don't fly idiot.
TheAlexJonesCult 1 month ago
Comment removed
TheAlexJonesCult 1 month ago
the laws put in place are unconstitutional.therefore these laws are invalid.people are gullable.they get confronted with a uniform or a mainsteem media talking head and obey it blindly.this is what happend to the jews in ww2 and it is what is happining to the american people today.Ron Paul 2012
aLocoCooKoo 1 month ago 4
man you just started shaaaakin when buddy got in your face eh?
FetusGaming 2 months ago
I've more afraid cops than terrorists! So what the point to have cops?...
gansursa 2 months ago 3
@gansursa apparently to "preserve" our rights.
clemson7777 1 month ago in playlist More videos from rynomaz111
lol the TSA doesn't do anything. I am a frequent flyer and honestly if a terrorist wanted you dead, you would be. The TSA really doesn't make me feel safer, and if you feel safer because of the TSA, well then, keep lying to yourself and enjoy your flight.
pacoloco70 2 months ago 2
The cop said at 8:15, "Fine, than take the bus". Ok, what do we do, Mr. Stalin bootlicker, when "They" TSA bus travel, the highways, the local High school Prom??? Oh crap, they are already doing that.
Thanks for resisting.
katiatomsk 2 months ago
I hope everyone gets searched. People hide things near their privates. America is keeping us safe. I just hope these people don't grope and molest.
Moneyshotdrama7 2 months ago
@Moneyshotdrama7 what does "america is keeping us safe" mean? huh? clearly you have never traveled...the TSA is a joke... like most things run by governments
wingwaabuddha 2 months ago 2
@Moneyshotdrama7 you are a brainwashed idiot
ivorbigonee 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sacrificing your LIBERTY for a false sense of security? And, "keeping us safe?" who's gonna keep us safe from them? ...is what you need to ask. You've bought in to the BS fear our gov't sells. THIS is NOT what America was founded on. It's the exact opposite.
OmniZ3D 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sacrificing your LIBERTY for a false sense of security? And, "keeping us safe?" who's gonna keep us safe from them? ...is what you need to ask. You've bought in to the BS fear our gov't sells. THIS is NOT what America was founded on. It's the exact opposite.