Airline passenger reportedly hit with Tasers

[Shadow]

A passenger arriving at Sacramento International Airport on Tuesday was subdued with Tasers after refusing to pass through security screening again in order to retrieve an item left behind on his plane, The Sacramento Bee reports (http://blogs.sacbee.com/crime/archives/2012/01/sacramento-deputies-use-tasers-on-airport-passenger-who-refuses-to-have-bag.html).
The man was taken to a local hospital for evaluation, Sacramento County sheriff's spokesman Deputy Jason Ramos told the newspaper.
The passenger exited his plane around 1:30 p.m., Ramos said, and left the airport's secure area on his way to baggage claim. He then reportedly tried to return to his plane, and at the security checkpoint told Transportation Security Administration agents that he had forgotten an item.
A TSA agent would not allow the man to re-enter the secure area but instead directed him to get a pass at the ticket counter, Ramos said. The passenger reportedly returned to the security checkpoint with a pass but refused to let his bag be screened, and an argument ensued.
The argument escalated into a physical altercation, Ramos said, prompting nearby deputies to use Tasers on the man several times.
No word on the passenger's airline or what item he left behind.

http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/10/10101853-airline-passenger-reportedly-hit-with-tasers

[darin]

hopefully that'll learn him. He got what he deserved. He got justice.

[ConHog]

Please God let there be a video.............:laugh2:

Seriously, another idiot doesn't want to follow the rules, starts a fight then blames the TSA? LOL

[LuvRPgrl]

Please God let there be a video.............:laugh2:

Seriously, another idiot doesn't want to follow the rules, starts a fight then blames the TSA? LOL

TSA was wrong, simply because they are there and shouldnt be.
EPA stops couple from building a home on their lot that is surrounded on three sides by homes, because they declared it a wet land.
They are being fined $37000 a day for a lot that cost less than $100,000 for not complying with EPA protocols.
They went to the EPA and attempted to go through normal EPA channels, but had no success.
So they took it to court, now the SC is hearing it.
EPA claims they never contacted them to discuss the problem

EPA gained its super powers as an agency given the power to do so
Normal govt intervention would be helpless to stop them,
so, in steps the EPA.
WE need more power and control
Lets create an EPA
Give the EPA, by law, power and authority to enforce its own rules, (not laws)
We must save the enviorment, yea, lets give up some of our god given rights so we can protect wetlands.

If it was a law that stopped them from building, then it would have been challenged a long time ago. Its harder to challenge the EPA with its almost unlimited source of funds, than say, a city or county.
Because it has been enforced for so long, a court is always ready to recognize that the status quo, by and in of itself is grounds for allowing it to continue.

Why did they taser this guy?
Were there no other alternatives,
If he were 14 years old, they woulda shot him in the head.

They didnt find anything dangerous in his bag,
so why didnt he want it scanned again,
something smells about this, the whole story hasnt been reported,

[Abbey Marie]

TSA was wrong, simply because they are there and shouldnt be.
...


Ah well, with that premise, there is nothing to debate. Thank goodness that is not the standard applied in real life.

[revelarts]

another TSA incident, local cops backs up TSA
gives Iraq vet beat down for asking questions,

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1kiPuyssrko?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1kiPuyssrko?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[Abbey Marie]

1. The abuses were by police, not TSA
2. We don't know the most crucial information: What was said/happened between the soldier returning to the TSA agents, and the beating.
3. Tazer + beatings = going overboard, potentially police brutality, imo.

Other issues:
4. The soldier didn't need to ask the TSA guy for his military ID, and curse at him about it, too. WTH?
5. Why return to TSA if you miss your flight? Why look for trouble?
6. He travels enough to know that you have to leave extra time for security.

[revelarts]

1. The abuses were by police, not TSA
2. We don't know the most crucial information: What was said/happened between the soldier returning to the TSA agents, and the beating.
3. Tazer + beatings = going overboard, potentially police brutality, imo.

Other issues:
4. The soldier didn't need to ask the TSA guy for his military ID, and curse at him about it, too. WTH?
5. Why return to TSA if you miss your flight? Why look for trouble?
6. He travels enough to know that you have to leave extra time for security.

so the soldier deserved to be beaten ?
talking to cops with a lil bad language means you get a butt kicking? what law is that?
OK Abbey, you say that it may have been some police brutality. right it seems obvious to me, but what i'm trying to point out is a pattern of abuse by airport security for basically nothing. the whole thing started over a Sprite.
As LUV said, If there was no TSA there would be no cop in this situation. the TSA started the sad snowball here.

[Abbey Marie]

so the soldier deserved to be beaten ?
talking to cops mean get a butt kicking?
OK Abbey, you say that it may have been some police brutality. right it seems obvious to me, but what i'm trying to point out is a pattern of abuse by airport security for basically nothing. the whole thing started over a Sprite.
As LUV said, If there was no TSA there would be no cop in this situation. the TSA started the sad snowball here.

Let's be clear: I never said he deserved a beating. What I did say was that we don't know crucial information. Maybe it's my legal training, but I believe we need to know exactly what happened before we judge. Even with that, I did say this seems like it could be police brutality.

Rev, can you admit that the soldier did a few things wrong here? You say no TSA, no problem. I can easily say, no returning to the TSA area, no carrying the clearly disallowed soda, no cursing at the agent, etc., and no problem.

Finally, who's to say a private security force wouldn't behave much the same way in this situation? Or are you proposing no screening security at all?

[Mr. P]

so the soldier deserved to be beaten ?
talking to cops with a lil bad language means you get a butt kicking? what law is that?
OK Abbey, you say that it may have been some police brutality. right it seems obvious to me, but what i'm trying to point out is a pattern of abuse by airport security for basically nothing. the whole thing started over a Sprite.
As LUV said, If there was no TSA there would be no cop in this situation. the TSA started the sad snowball here.

Donno about that, there were always cops at the Atlanta airport way before the TSA.

[ConHog]

so the soldier deserved to be beaten ?
talking to cops with a lil bad language means you get a butt kicking? what law is that?
OK Abbey, you say that it may have been some police brutality. right it seems obvious to me, but what i'm trying to point out is a pattern of abuse by airport security for basically nothing. the whole thing started over a Sprite.
As LUV said, If there was no TSA there would be no cop in this situation. the TSA started the sad snowball here.

Your notion that there should be no airport security is STUPID.

[jimnyc]

Let's be clear: I never said he deserved a beating. What I did say was that we don't know crucial information. Maybe it's my legal training, but I believe we need to know exactly what happened before we judge. Even with that, I did say this seems like it could be police brutality.

Rev, can you admit that the soldier did a few things wrong here? You say no TSA, no problem. I can easily say, no returning to the TSA area, no carrying the clearly disallowed soda, no cursing at the agent, etc., and no problem.

Finally, who's to say a private security force wouldn't behave much the same way in this situation? Or are you proposing no screening security at all?

Like the way words are put in your mouth when your post was rather clear? LOL Why do you want this soldier to get beaten, Abbey? :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Donno about that, there were always cops at the Atlanta airport way before the TSA.

All the airports that I have been to have had security since I've started flying. It's just been increased is all.

[ConHog]

Odd that so many instances occur at McCarron..

Hmm, couldn't be drunks pissed that they lost their asses in the casinos are trying to take it out on TSA agents who are just trying to do their jobs, could it?


so the soldier deserved to be beaten ?
talking to cops with a lil bad language means you get a butt kicking? what law is that?
OK Abbey, you say that it may have been some police brutality. right it seems obvious to me, but what i'm trying to point out is a pattern of abuse by airport security for basically nothing. the whole thing started over a Sprite.
As LUV said, If there was no TSA there would be no cop in this situation. the TSA started the sad snowball here.

The whole thing did NOT start over a sprite. The whole thing started over another selfish dumb fuck thinking the rules didn't apply to him.


When your children break the rules at home do you say "well it was just a __________________?"

so yes, if people are going to act like children, they should be treated like children.

Haven't looked into the soldier story, so I have no opinion on whether it was police brutality or not, if it was , I hope they go to jail.

[revelarts]

Let's be clear: I never said he deserved a beating. What I did say was that we don't know crucial information. Maybe it's my legal training, but I believe we need to know exactly what happened before we judge. Even with that, I did say this seems like it could be police brutality.

Rev, can you admit that the soldier did a few things wrong here? You say no TSA, no problem. I can easily say, no returning to the TSA area, no carrying the clearly disallowed soda, no cursing at the agent, etc., and no problem.

Finally, who's to say a private security force wouldn't behave much the same way in this situation? Or are you proposing no screening security at all?

Abbey, I acknowledged that you said that it might be police brutality.
JIM i did not say that Abbey said that it was Ok for him to get beaten I asked if she thought so? Since she seemed to take the side of the police becuase 4 out of her 5 points blames or questions the the soldiers actions not the cops and based on what we've seen so far here, there is ZERO evidence that the Soldier did anything to deserve a beating. When there's Zero evidence and your watching a video of pretty much everything and the guy never raises a hand against the officers. I tend to assume the officer might be wrong here. And wonder why other find fault with the victem.

As far as admitting that the soldier did a few things wrong, I'm not sure what the soldier did wrong "legally". Was he rude yeah maybe so, after he was dealt with rudely , did he have a soda?, -gasp- uh yes. How dare he!!!! Did he not leave enough time to be harassed about a soft drink, yeah maybe.

ANd it still SOUNDS like, and I'm not saying you are saying this, that you think a private security force beaten you is no better than a gov't police beating you ethier way he should/could have been beaten up.

And I've said many times I think the TSA is Unnecessary and Useless as security (proven in report after report really) and other means are proven to be better.

[ConHog]

Abbey, I acknowledged that you said that it might be police brutality.
Gaffer i did not say that Abbey said that it was Ok for him to get beaten I asked if she thought so? Since she seemed to take the side of the police becuase 4 out of her 5 points blames or questions the the soldiers actions not the cops and based on what we've seen so far here, there is ZERO evidence that the Soldier did anything to deserve a beating. When there's Zero evidence and your watching a video of pretty much everything and the guy never raises a hand against the officers. I tend to assume the officer might be wrong here. And wonder why other find fault with the victem.

As far as admitting that the soldier did a few things wrong what I'm not sure what the soldier did wrong "legally". Was he rude yeah maybe so, after he was dealt with rudely , did he have a soda?, -gasp- uh yes. How dare he!!!! Di he not leave enough time to be harassed about a soft drink, yeah meybe.

ANd it still SOUNDS like I'm not saying you are saying this, that you think a private security force beaten you is no better than a gov't police beating you ethier way he should/could have been beaten up.

And I've said many times I think the TSA is Unnecessary and Useless as security (proven in report after report really) and other means are proven to be better.


Really, because the complete lack of exploding planes, or hijackings indicates they are in fact securing planes.

[pegwinn]

Really, because the complete lack of exploding planes, or hijackings indicates they are in fact securing planes.

C'mon man, I thought you were smart enough not to assert a negative.

For those that don't get it, ConHog is playing politics by allowing TSA to take credit since the planes are not exploding. The fact is that for all we know, people trying to blow up planes are simply not trying as often.

How many bombs have been seized by the TSA?

[ConHog]

C'mon man, I thought you were smart enough not to assert a negative.

For those that don't get it, ConHog is playing politics by allowing TSA to take credit since the planes are not exploding. The fact is that for all we know, people trying to blow up planes are simply not trying as often.

How many bombs have been seized by the TSA?

Of course they are not trying as often, because they know TSA procedures will prevent them from doing so. That's pretty obvious.

[pegwinn]

Of course they are not trying as often, because they know TSA procedures will prevent them from doing so. That's pretty obvious.

Sorry. The previous and this post are both logic fails. You're off your game tonight buddy. :laugh2:

[ConHog]

Sorry. The previous and this post are both logic fails. You're off your game tonight buddy. :laugh2:

they are not logic fails. Do you just explain it as coincidence that AQ hasn't blown up more planes since 9/11. Do you argue that if no security were in place AQ wouldn't try again?

[pegwinn]

they are not logic fails. Do you just explain it as coincidence that AQ hasn't blown up more planes since 9/11. Do you argue that if no security were in place AQ wouldn't try again?

Uh yeah they are logic fails. Most days you would see it, and call others out for it. Today, not so much. Everyone has an off day. It's alright no one thinks any less of you.

[ConHog]

Uh yeah they are logic fails. Most days you would see it, and call others out for it. Today, not so much. Everyone has an off day. It's alright no one thinks any less of you.

Again you're wrong.

You're entire premise is " just because crime has stopped when a security force takes over doesn't mean the security force is the reason for the drop in crime."


It just isn't logical.

[pegwinn]

Again you're wrong.

You're entire premise is " just because crime has stopped when a security force takes over doesn't mean the security force is the reason for the drop in crime."


It just isn't logical.

Actually it is eminently logical. Look, I am not trying to trap you into "revealing" a weakness. You are free to believe what you please.

How many bombs has TSA confiscated?
How many people has TSA apprehended that have been conclusively proven to be terrorists?

You are absent definitive proof that TSA is effective.

[ConHog]

Actually it is eminently logical. Look, I am not trying to trap you into "revealing" a weakness. You are free to believe what you please.

How many bombs has TSA confiscated?
How many people has TSA apprehended that have been conclusively proven to be terrorists?

You are absent definitive proof that TSA is effective.

Actually, they have apprehended a few, but your position is weak.

Let's say you post a police car outside a bar that has had many people drive home drunk from. After a few nights, you realize that NO ONE is trying to drifve home drunk from that bar. Do you not LOGICALLY conclude that no one (and by no one , we mean most ) is stupid enough to choose THAT bar to drive home drunk from?

The lack of attempts is proof itself.

[pegwinn]

Actually, they have apprehended a few, but your position is weak.

Let's say you post a police car outside a bar that has had many people drive home drunk from. After a few nights, you realize that NO ONE is trying to drifve home drunk from that bar. Do you not LOGICALLY conclude that no one (and by no one , we mean most ) is stupid enough to choose THAT bar to drive home drunk from?

The lack of attempts is proof itself.

I will give you credit for effort. But, no matter how weak you feel my position to be your assertion is nothing more than speculation based on a non-provable assumption.

I know all about the MP's parking cars outside the SNCO club. They claimed that drunk driving was down and took credit. Moving the MP's away from the club did not change the stats.

Your standard of proof is what is weak today.

Now, back to the questions that would actually go a ways toward proving your assertion.

How many people? How many bombs? :link:

[ConHog]

I will give you credit for effort. But, no matter how weak you feel my position to be your assertion is nothing more than speculation based on a non-provable assumption.

I know all about the MP's parking cars outside the SNCO club. They claimed that drunk driving was down and took credit. Moving the MP's away from the club did not change the stats.

Your standard of proof is what is weak today.

Now, back to the questions that would actually go a ways toward proving your assertion.

How many people? How many bombs? :link:

LOL@ you setting up the strawman of asking ME to prove that people haven't attacked planes b/c of the TSA.

[gabosaurus]

Tase him bro!!

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8XWijwmvGU4" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

[pegwinn]

LOL@ you setting up the strawman of asking ME to prove that people haven't attacked planes b/c of the TSA.

It's your assertion (see below) and it's yours to prove. I tried to warn you......


Of course they are not trying as often, because they know TSA procedures will prevent them from doing so. That's pretty obvious.


they are not logic fails. Do you just explain it as coincidence that AQ hasn't blown up more planes since 9/11. Do you argue that if no security were in place AQ wouldn't try again?


Again you're wrong.

You're entire premise is " just because crime has stopped when a security force takes over doesn't mean the security force is the reason for the drop in crime."


It just isn't logical.


Actually, they have apprehended a few, but your position is weak.

Let's say you post a police car outside a bar that has had many people drive home drunk from. After a few nights, you realize that NO ONE is trying to drifve home drunk from that bar. Do you not LOGICALLY conclude that no one (and by no one , we mean most ) is stupid enough to choose THAT bar to drive home drunk from?

The lack of attempts is proof itself.

[ConHog]

Tase him bro!!

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8XWijwmvGU4" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

No sound? I was disappointed. I like to hear them scream.


This is one of my favorites



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNxN2ASusvE

[ConHog]

It's your assertion (see below) and it's yours to prove. I tried to warn you......

I'm done letting you play your game. I don't have to prove they are effective, YOU have to prove they are ineffective. Good luck with that.

[pegwinn]

I'm done letting you play your game. I don't have to prove they are effective, YOU have to prove they are ineffective. Good luck with that.

You made the statements and it's your burden of proof. Not my rules, ask Al Gore, after all he did invent the internet.

[ConHog]

You made the statements and it's your burden of proof. Not my rules, ask Al Gore, after all he did invent the internet.

May as well move on because I'm not biting.

Now true or false, you laugh when you see videos of people being tazed?

[pegwinn]

May as well move on because I'm not biting.

Now true or false, you laugh when you see videos of people being tazed?

Not biting? eh ok. But, I can tell you understand exactly what I was trying to convey. That works for me.

I laugh my ass off when I see people getting tazered. I figure I saw at least ten vids and all ten deserved it. Karma is a bitch and upside down mojo will ruin your day.

[ConHog]

Not biting? eh ok. But, I can tell you understand exactly what I was trying to convey. That works for me.

I laugh my ass off when I see people getting tazered. I figure I saw at least ten vids and all ten deserved it. Karma is a bitch and upside down mojo will ruin your day.

Oh, I fully get what you were trying to do.

Ever rode the bull?

[pegwinn]

Oh, I fully get what you were trying to do.

Ever rode the bull?

nope

[ConHog]

nope

It's not fun, and you would think people would not do something that might cause it. But plenty do, and the results are hilarious for the rest of us.



Look at this bitch


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1WCI-GP6bU




:lol:

[pegwinn]

It's not fun, and you would think people would not do something that might cause it. But plenty do, and the results are hilarious for the rest of us.

Look at this bitch

:lol:

Video didn't load. Problem is the internet at my end is protesting the sudden rise in moisture and lowering of temperature.

I cannot see deliberately setting myself up to get my ass kicked, shot, tazered etc.

Once they get a "Slap the bitch" key on keyboards I will be out of the message board business.

[ConHog]

Video didn't load. Problem is the internet at my end is protesting the sudden rise in moisture and lowering of temperature.

I cannot see deliberately setting myself up to get my ass kicked, shot, tazered etc.

Once they get a "Slap the bitch" key on keyboards I will be out of the message board business.

Too bad, video of is of a guy screaming like a little girl when he gets tazered. LOL

[LuvRPgrl]

May as well move on because I'm not biting.

Now true or false, you laugh when you see videos of people being tazed?


he asked you a simple question, you have been dodging it.

[ConHog]

he asked you a simple question, you have been dodging it.

I am dodging it, because it's a fallacy. You can't prove something makes something safer by the lack of crime since it's been instituted , and everyone here knows that.

[fj1200]

I am dodging it, because it's a fallacy. You can't prove something makes something safer by the lack of crime since it's been instituted , and everyone here knows that.

It's the complete basis for your support of the TSA; that we're safe because they're there. On the other hand you argue that if the TSA were NOT there then we would be inundated with terror/hijacking attempts because there would be no security (which no one claims BTW). You can't have it both ways.

[ConHog]

It's the complete basis for your support of the TSA; that we're safe because they're there. On the other hand you argue that if the TSA were NOT there then we would be inundated with terror/hijacking attempts because there would be no security (which no one claims BTW). You can't have it both ways.

You're right and I use the lack of attacks as my evidence that they are doing their designed function. Your case would be stronger (and by stronger I mean even existent at all) if you could show any incidents that have occurred on their watch. You can't , so instead you say "prove some shit would have happened if they weren't here" knowing full well that that is IMPOSSIBLE to prove.

[Noir]

What i find bizarre is how often you guys need to gaze people. You rarely if ever hear of someone in the UK being tazed...

[ConHog]

What i find bizarre is how often you guys need to gaze people. You rarely if ever hear of someone in the UK being tazed...

Well to be fair, we have a bigger population, so it stands to reason we're gonna have more douchebags .

But also, for some reason in the last several years it has seemed to have been made okay to fight the police, resist them, attack them, or just otherwise try cause problems with them in this country. Not sure what that's about.

[Noir]

Well to be fair, we have a bigger population, so it stands to reason we're gonna have more douchebags .

But also, for some reason in the last several years it has seemed to have been made okay to fight the police, resist them, attack them, or just otherwise try cause problems with them in this country. Not sure what that's about.

Yar, looking it up very few police here are trained to use them, seems in the most cases we don't need them.

[ConHog]

Yar, looking it up very few police here are trained to use them, seems in the most cases we don't need them.

The truth is both civilians and cops share some of the blame for how often they are used here. Clearly there are people who just push things and then cry foul when they get tazed, and just as clearly there are some cops who reach for the taser much too often.

Anyone who says it's all one or the other is full of shit.

[fj1200]

You're right and I use the lack of attacks as my evidence that they are doing their designed function. Your case would be stronger (and by stronger I mean even existent at all) if you could show any incidents that have occurred on their watch. You can't , so instead you say "prove some shit would have happened if they weren't here" knowing full well that that is IMPOSSIBLE to prove.

I didn't say it. I'm saying it's disingenuous to use the argument on one side and disallow it on the other. Also, it seems you're still stuck on the argument where everyone opposed to you wants zero security. :rolleyes:

[LuvRPgrl]

I am dodging it, because it's a fallacy. You can't prove something makes something safer by the lack of crime since it's been instituted , and everyone here knows that.


Its not a fallacy, its a statistical answer.
0
1
2
more than 5?

You dont want to answer it cuz its not the answer you would like it to be

[ConHog]

I didn't say it. I'm saying it's disingenuous to use the argument on one side and disallow it on the other. Also, it seems you're still stuck on the argument where everyone opposed to you wants zero security. :rolleyes:

I do agree that YOU don't want zero security. That doesn't mean the argument isn't out there.

[fj1200]

I do agree that YOU don't want zero security. That doesn't mean the argument isn't out there.

Save it for them, whoever that may be, then.

[ConHog]

Save it for them, whoever that may be, then.

Some of them post on this board. Not every comment is geared to you directly. And I'm accused of having an ego... Sheesh.

[pegwinn]

The truth is both civilians and cops share some of the blame for how often they are used here. Clearly there are people who just push things and then cry foul when they get tazed, and just as clearly there are some cops who reach for the taser much too often.

Anyone who says it's all one or the other is full of shit.

Agreed. Besides if the tazer were not in the cops tool box, the alternative is a PR24 or the Glock as the most commonly issued alternative. Both of which would leave the "victim" in a far worse state.

[ConHog]

Agreed. Besides if the tazer were not in the cops tool box, the alternative is a PR24 or the Glock as the most commonly issued alternative. Both of which would leave the "victim" in a far worse state.

A good tazing should be part of the core curriculum in high school. :laugh2:

Im Kidding.

[fj1200]

^Your kid first.

[ConHog]

^Your kid first.

You don't think my kid's rode the bull? Guarantee he has.

[LuvRPgrl]

Ah well, with that premise, there is nothing to debate. Thank goodness that is not the standard applied in real life.

ahhh, but it is the standard when the govt is making the standards.

You dont really understand me much abby, I think you got your view of me clouded somehow because you cant even tell when Im saying something tongue in cheek, or to get a rise out of "someone".

[Abbey Marie]

ahhh, but it is the standard when the govt is making the standards.

You dont really understand me much abby, I think you got your view of me clouded somehow because you cant even tell when Im saying something tongue in cheek, or to get a rise out of "someone".

Sorry, I missed that one. :salute:

[gabosaurus]

Some of you sound like liberals in this argument.
I believe that police officers need to be able to use their best judgement in dealing with situations requiring the use of deadly. When officers shoot people, they are castigated for not using a less lethal method. But when they tase people instead, they are slammed for "police brutality."
My attitude is this: If you fail to follow instructions, or you pull out an object that resembles a weapon, or you run, you take your chances of getting shot or tased. And I don't care if it is a 90 year old or a 10 year old. Either one of them can kill you.

[ConHog]

Some of you sound like liberals in this argument.
I believe that police officers need to be able to use their best judgement in dealing with situations requiring the use of deadly. When officers shoot people, they are castigated for not using a less lethal method. But when they tase people instead, they are slammed for "police brutality."
My attitude is this: If you fail to follow instructions, or you pull out an object that resembles a weapon, or you run, you take your chances of getting shot or tased. And I don't care if it is a 90 year old or a 10 year old. Either one of them can kill you.

You'd be right about judgement, somewhat.

In a shootout situation or similar sure the police involved have to do what they have to do, but in a stand off type situation the police on the ground are trained to do what they are told to do, and any decision to use deadly force comes from above. Police have to know which situations apply where and when and abide.


I don't get the people who watch a situation get initiated by one party and then bitch at the other party for responding, but that isn't just applicable to the police.......

[Gunny]

A passenger arriving at Sacramento International Airport on Tuesday was subdued with Tasers after refusing to pass through security screening again in order to retrieve an item left behind on his plane, The Sacramento Bee reports (http://blogs.sacbee.com/crime/archives/2012/01/sacramento-deputies-use-tasers-on-airport-passenger-who-refuses-to-have-bag.html).
The man was taken to a local hospital for evaluation, Sacramento County sheriff's spokesman Deputy Jason Ramos told the newspaper.
The passenger exited his plane around 1:30 p.m., Ramos said, and left the airport's secure area on his way to baggage claim. He then reportedly tried to return to his plane, and at the security checkpoint told Transportation Security Administration agents that he had forgotten an item.
A TSA agent would not allow the man to re-enter the secure area but instead directed him to get a pass at the ticket counter, Ramos said. The passenger reportedly returned to the security checkpoint with a pass but refused to let his bag be screened, and an argument ensued.
The argument escalated into a physical altercation, Ramos said, prompting nearby deputies to use Tasers on the man several times.
No word on the passenger's airline or what item he left behind.

http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/10/10101853-airline-passenger-reportedly-hit-with-tasers

TSA is out of control. Who screens THEM? They look like a bunch of fat, tick, government slugs to me and I think they should be screened before I'm required to trust the losers.

[ConHog]

TSA is out of control. Who screens THEM? They look like a bunch of fat, tick, government slugs to me and I think they should be screened before I'm required to trust the losers.

What do you mean by screened?

I think they should be federal agents with appropriate training. The ones who interact with passengers I mean.

[Gunny]

What do you mean by screened?

I think they should be federal agents with appropriate training. The ones who interact with passengers I mean.

I think they shouldn't exist. That solves the screening and training thing.

[ConHog]

I think they shouldn't exist. That solves the screening and training thing.

They're not going anywhere, so joining reality and offering ways to improve them would be much more productive.

[Gaffer]

They're not going anywhere, so joining reality and offering ways to improve them would be much more productive.

That's true. They are the start of the national police force. You'll see them at train stations, bus depots, stadiums, on the highways and at voting places making sure there's no voter intimidation and that you vote the right way. Big brother is here, watch how big and fast he grows.

[Gunny]

They're not going anywhere, so joining reality and offering ways to improve them would be much more productive.

Reality?

They Federal Government has NO right to tell me how, when and where I will or won't utilize PRIVATE transportation I pay for. The only thing going for them is when the Feds started dictating, I quit flying/ The one time I did, they were lucky to not get in my way.

You seem willing to accept just more Federal Government interference in private lives. They need to get off their high horses. If they run into me, I'll just be on 48 Hours on ID. I
m not taking ANY shit the US Constitution precludes me from taking.

So, your "reality" is ... some people have the balls to still stand up for what's right. Others cave.

[ConHog]

Reality?

They Federal Government has NO right to tell me how, when and where I will or won't utilize PRIVATE transportation I pay for. The only thing going for them is when the Feds started dictating, I quit flying/ The one time I did, they were lucky to not get in my way.

You seem willing to accept just more Federal Government interference in private lives. They need to get off their high horses. If they run into me, I'll just be on 48 Hours on ID. I
m not taking ANY shit the US Constitution precludes me from taking.

So, your "reality" is ... some people have the balls to still stand up for what's right. Others cave.

What the?

Are you getting ready to climb into a clock tower? Please don't Gunny.

[Gunny]

What the?

Are you getting ready to climb into a clock tower? Please don't Gunny.

Really? You going to vote for Obama? You sound like it with your cave to the Fed gov't attitude. Oddly enough, I read the Constitution verbatim. The Feds don't have anywhere near as much rights as they claim. But you go ahead and let them.

[ConHog]

Really? You going to vote for Obama? You sound like it with your cave to the Fed gov't attitude. Oddly enough, I read the Constitution verbatim. The Feds don't have anywhere near as much rights as they claim. But you go ahead and let them.

Oh , I believe you read the COTUS. I just don't believe you understand it Gunny.

Specifically, you don't understand the tenth amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The word NOR clearly means that the states have to vote not to give a power to the feds, obviously if the states have said yes they can have X power that means the people want them to have that power. IF you truly wanted a constitutional government as you claim, you would except that and either campaign for something different or be zip it. This crying that the COTUS says something it doesn't say is dumb though.

[Gunny]

Oh , I believe you read the COTUS. I just don't believe you understand it Gunny.

Specifically, you don't understand the tenth amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The word NOR clearly means that the states have to vote not to give a power to the feds, obviously if the states have said yes they can have X power that means the people want them to have that power. IF you truly wanted a constitutional government as you claim, you would except that and either campaign for something different or be zip it. This crying that the COTUS says something it doesn't say is dumb though.

Of course you don't. Just like everyone who has an interpretation that suits their agenda. I understand it fine. Verbatim. It's pretty clear and simple when you ain't reading your own agenda into it.

Nowhere does it state the Federal Government has the Right to commandeer and/or regulate private transportation. End of story. You lose.

[ConHog]

Of course you don't. Just like everyone who has an interpretation that suits their agenda. I understand it fine. Verbatim. It's pretty clear and simple when you ain't reading your own agenda into it.

Nowhere does it state the Federal Government has the Right to commandeer and/or regulate private transportation. End of story. You lose.

Gunny, the 10th itself specifically says that the federal government can have powers not specifically mentioned in the COTUS itself. Do you really not see that?

[Gunny]

Gunny, the 10th itself specifically says that the federal government can have powers not specifically mentioned in the COTUS itself. Do you really not see that?

The 10th specifies the States have all the power no specifically granted to the Federal Government. Try again.

[ConHog]

The 10th specifies the States have all the power no specifically granted to the Federal Government. Try again.

How many times do I have to correct you on this?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

100% means that if the feds take a power and the states don't deny it to them, they can have said power, or conversely if the states GIVE the feds a power, they have it. Regardless of whether it's in the COTUS or not. It was SPECIFICALLY included b/c the founders were so brilliant that they knew there was no conceivable way they could plan a federal government that would NEVER need to expand.

Now certainly that doesn't mean there shouldn't be some limit on federal expansion, and just as certainly it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants.

For instance, if the states voted that the Federal government did not have the power to say have an EPA, then the EPA would of course be unconstitutional.

that is in fact the basis for the lawsuit the states are using who are trying to declare Obamacare unconstitutional. Or at least one of them.

[Gunny]

How many times do I have to correct you on this?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

100% means that if the feds take a power and the states don't deny it to them, they can have said power, or conversely if the states GIVE the feds a power, they have it. Regardless of whether it's in the COTUS or not. It was SPECIFICALLY included b/c the founders were so brilliant that they knew there was no conceivable way they could plan a federal government that would NEVER need to expand.

Now certainly that doesn't mean there shouldn't be some limit on federal expansion, and just as certainly it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants.

For instance, if the states voted that the Federal government did not have the power to say have an EPA, then the EPA would of course be unconstitutional.

that is in fact the basis for the lawsuit the states are using who are trying to declare Obamacare unconstitutional. Or at least one of them.

You can't because you are wrong. Each and every time. You're a federal Government suckup. Plain and simple. The 10th is clear. Simple and clear, and not subject to your misinterpretation. You might as well vote for Obama. You both believe in the same shit.

[Gunny]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That's as simple as it gets. Try to stop reading it backwards to suit your Big Government agenda.

[ConHog]

You can't because you are wrong. Each and every time. You're a federal Government suckup. Plain and simple. The 10th is clear. Simple and clear, and not subject to your misinterpretation. You might as well vote for Obama. You both believe in the same shit.

Once again with the "Me Gunny, you wrong." routine? I gave you facts about why you're wrong, why don't you try doing the same?

[Gunny]

Once again with the "Me Gunny, you wrong." routine? I gave you facts about why you're wrong, why don't you try doing the same?

The facts prove you wrong. Doesn't matter who's posting them. I'm just sick and tired of the fact that you can't admit when you've had your ass handed to you and at least just shut up and go away. No response required. You're wrong because the US Constitution says you are. Not Gunny. I'm just the harbinger of your fucking demise, fool.

When you get tired of being a fucking yes man and tool for the federal government, let us know.

[ConHog]

The facts prove you wrong. Doesn't matter who's posting them. I'm just sick and tired of the fact that you can't admit when you've had your ass handed to you and at least just shut up and go away. No response required. You're wrong because the US Constitution says you are. Not Gunny. I'm just the harbinger of your fucking demise, fool.

When you get tired of being a fucking yes man and tool for the federal government, let us know.

Gunny

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Do you REALLY not understand that the 10th does NOT limit the federal government to ONLY those things specifically mentioned in the COTUS?

Just answer the simple yes or no question.

[Missileman]

How many times do I have to correct you on this?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

100% means that if the feds take a power and the states don't deny it to them, they can have said power, or conversely if the states GIVE the feds a power, they have it. Regardless of whether it's in the COTUS or not. It was SPECIFICALLY included b/c the founders were so brilliant that they knew there was no conceivable way they could plan a federal government that would NEVER need to expand.

Now certainly that doesn't mean there shouldn't be some limit on federal expansion, and just as certainly it doesn't mean the federal government can do whatever it wants.

For instance, if the states voted that the Federal government did not have the power to say have an EPA, then the EPA would of course be unconstitutional.

that is in fact the basis for the lawsuit the states are using who are trying to declare Obamacare unconstitutional. Or at least one of them.

Sorry, but you are misreading the 10th...badly. It says, 1. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution and
2. The powers not prohibited by the Constitution to the states are reserved to the states and the people.

[ConHog]

Sorry, but you are misreading the 10th...badly. It says, 1. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution and
2. The powers not prohibited by the Constitution to the states are reserved to the states and the people.

no it doesn't.

it says

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Explain that clause.

[Gunny]

no it doesn't.

it says

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Explain that clause.

Yeah, it does. You're wrong.

[ConHog]

Yeah, it does. You're wrong.

Explain the bolded phrase then Gunny, and "you're wrong" is no explanation. You have to leave out part of the damned Amendment to get YOUR interpretation.

[Gunny]

Explain the bolded phrase then Gunny, and "you're wrong" is no explanation. You have to leave out part of the damned Amendment to get YOUR interpretation.

Can't read? It's rather simple and needs no explanation for anyone who can. My interpretation is simple English reading comprehension. Yours is reading something that isn't there.

[ConHog]

Can't read? It's rather simple and needs no explanation for anyone who can. My interpretation is simple English reading comprehension. Yours is reading something that isn't there.

BLAH BLAH BLAH, YOUR interpretation COMPLETELY ignores the part of the amendment that I bolded, You of course refuse to address this because you know you're wrong.

[Gunny]

Learn to read. You're dismissed.

[ConHog]

Learn to read. You're dismissed.

Won't address the bolded part of the 10th which dismissed your interpretation completely?

Wise move if all you care about is "winning" and not with being right.

[Missileman]

no it doesn't.

it says

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Explain that clause.

I already did with #2. Powers not prohibited to the states by the Constitution

[ConHog]

I already did with #2. Powers not prohibited to the states by the Constitution

That's not what it says because the COTUS only limits states in ONE way and that is the Supremacy Clause.

[Missileman]

That's not what it says because the COTUS only limits states in ONE way and that is the Supremacy Clause.


It says EXACTLY what I wrote in plain English.

[gabosaurus]

This thread has gotten way out of control and needs to be tasered.

[Gunny]

This thread has gotten way out of control and needs to be tasered.

Typical leftwingnut dipshit crap. We can control it. We don't need that fuckwit you voted for to do it. That's the whole point here. Question: How many days would it take for your to see daylight if you tried to pull your head out of your ass?

[ConHog]

Typical leftwingnut dipshit crap. We can control it. We don't need that fuckwit you voted for to do it. That's the whole point here. Question: How many days would it take for your to see daylight if you tried to pull your head out of your ass?

Assuming you're right about who gabby voted for, and I concede th
at you probably are; do you leave any room for the possibility that her post about tapering this thread was a joke?

[fj1200]

Once again with the "Me Gunny, you wrong." routine? I gave you facts about why you're wrong, why don't you try doing the same?

To be fair you're going with the "Me CH, you wrong," argument about now. Neither of you has posted anything other than the 10th and are arguing about one word. And right about now I would go with Gunny, try reading it without the following section:


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That reading should clear it up. If you put the section back in then the power of the states gives them the ability to remove a Federal power previously defined. Your reading grants all power to the Federal level that they want and forces the states to remove powers that they don't want the Feds to have. That's a tough argument to make.

[ConHog]

To be fair you're going with the "Me CH, you wrong," argument about now. Neither of you has posted anything other than the 10th and are arguing about one word. And right about now I would go with Gunny, try reading it without the following section:



That reading should clear it up. If you put the section back in then the power of the states gives them the ability to remove a Federal power previously defined. Your reading grants all power to the Federal level that they want and forces the states to remove powers that they don't want the Feds to have. That's a tough argument to make.

I just don't see how you remove a section from an amendment to get a clearer understanding of the intent FJ, in fact I would say removing a section makes it LESS clear what the intent was.

PS My wife disagrees with me on my interpretation of the 10th as well, she's not often wrong about matters of the law, so I concede that MY interpretation my be wrong.

[Gunny]

I just don't see how you remove a section from an amendment to get a clearer understanding of the intent FJ, in fact I would say removing a section makes it LESS clear what the intent was.

PS My wife disagrees with me on my interpretation of the 10th as well, she's not often wrong about matters of the law, so I concede that MY interpretation my be wrong.

No section removed. The US civil War decided the Federal Government could usurp the 10th at will. Been happening ever since. Donesn't make it right. Nor does it make you right for agreeing with Texas v White 1868. Lincoln fucked the Constitution and you're just a follower of his doing so.

[fj1200]

I just don't see how you remove a section from an amendment to get a clearer understanding of the intent FJ, in fact I would say removing a section makes it LESS clear what the intent was.

PS My wife disagrees with me on my interpretation of the 10th as well, she's not often wrong about matters of the law, so I concede that MY interpretation my be wrong.

Because it would help you understand sentence structure. Others here don't seem to have a problem with it.

[ConHog]

Because it would help you understand sentence structure. Others here don't seem to have a problem with it.

Of course you don't have a problem with removing a part of sentence so the sentence as a whole says what you want it to say.

[fj1200]

Of course you don't have a problem with removing a part of sentence so the sentence as a whole says what you want it to say.

I didn't say leave it out. Take it out, reread it, understand it, put it back in with a new understanding.

Is the Constitution a limiting document?

[ConHog]

I didn't say leave it out. Take it out, reread it, understand it, put it back in with a new understanding.

Is the Constitution a limiting document?

Of course it is, it limits the federal government to having only those powers listed in the document itself OR those not denied it by the States.

[fj1200]

Of course it is, it limits the federal government to having only those powers listed in the document itself OR those not denied it by the States.

Then why insert seven words which grants the Federal government unlimited power.


Amendment 10 — Powers of the States and People under Constitution
Note well this. Anything not expressly granted to the Federal government is reserved for the States or the People. Although this amendment is very liberally interpreted, it is one of the tenets of the Constitution. This amendment is also known as the States' Rights Amendment.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnotes.html#Am10

[Missileman]

Of course it is, it limits the federal government to having only those powers listed in the document itself OR those not denied it by the States.


It doesn't say that.

[fj1200]

It doesn't say that.

Apparently it does in AR.

[Missileman]

Apparently it does in AR.

Oww! Just bit a hole in my lip. :laugh:

[gabosaurus]

Assuming you're right about who gabby voted for, and I concede th
at you probably are; do you leave any room for the possibility that her post about tapering this thread was a joke?

Perhaps Gunny's reply was a joke. Or, more likely, perhaps Gunny is a joke. My daughter even laughs at his responses.

[pegwinn]

Oh , I believe you read the COTUS. I just don't believe you understand it Gunny.

Specifically, you don't understand the tenth amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The word NOR clearly means that the states have to vote not to give a power to the feds, obviously if the states have said yes they can have X power that means the people want them to have that power. IF you truly wanted a constitutional government as you claim, you would except that and either campaign for something different or be zip it. This crying that the COTUS says something it doesn't say is dumb though.

Uh, no. Powers to the State or People include... Anything not delegated to the USA via the constitution or Anything not specifically denied to the states. Article I sections 8, 9, and 10 apply. Don't read into it, just read it.


I just don't see how you remove a section from an amendment to get a clearer understanding of the intent FJ, in fact I would say removing a section makes it LESS clear what the intent was.

PS My wife disagrees with me on my interpretation of the 10th as well, she's not often wrong about matters of the law, so I concede that MY interpretation my be wrong.

Intention is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what was written. Your concession is noted and applied to the good side. We all make a boo boo from time to time :coffee:

[ConHog]

Uh, no. Powers to the State or People include... Anything not delegated to the USA via the constitution or Anything not specifically denied to the states. Article I sections 8, 9, and 10 apply. Don't read into it, just read it.



Intention is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what was written. Your concession is noted and applied to the good side. We all make a boo boo from time to time :coffee:

You misunderstand, I didn't say I changed my mind, I just concede that a lawyer might know more than me on THIS matter.

[pegwinn]

You misunderstand, I didn't say I changed my mind, I just concede that a lawyer might know more than me on THIS matter.

I didn't misunderstand. I merely read what you wrote. Kinda like reading the Constitution instead of trying to divine intent.

[LuvRPgrl]

You misunderstand, I didn't say I changed my mind, I just concede that a lawyer might know more than me on THIS matter.

In other words, you guys are probaby right,
your arguements are better
and some of you know better than I,
BUT I STILL THINK IM RIGHT...

[ConHog]

In other words, you guys are probaby right,
your arguements are better
and some of you know better than I,
BUT I STILL THINK IM RIGHT...

IOW exactly as I wrote. I concede I may be wrong in my opinion. I know those are unusual words to read on a message board..........


Welcome back by the way.

[LuvRPgrl]

IOW exactly as I wrote. I concede I may be wrong in my opinion. I know those are unusual words to read on a message board..........


Welcome back by the way.

Who says I went anywhere.....

[ConHog]

Who says I went anywhere.....

No reason to be a jerk about it, you haven't posted in awhile ( at least that I have noticed) so I welcomed you back. Simple as that.

[LuvRPgrl]

No reason to be a jerk about it, you haven't posted in awhile ( at least that I have noticed) so I welcomed you back. Simple as that.

But I am a jerk.
Just assume that every post of yours that I respond to is finished with the :poke:

[ConHog]

But I am a jerk.
Just assume that every post of yours that I respond to is finished with the :poke:

fair enough . Enjoy the rest of the thread.

[LuvRPgrl]

fair enough . Enjoy the rest of the thread.

who says I enjoy them?:poke:

[Abbey Marie]

who says I enjoy them?:poke:

Good lord. What's next- a round of "I'm rubber and you're glue"?

[LuvRPgrl]

Good lord. What's next- a round of "I'm rubber and you're glue"?

Im not glue !!!!!!!!!!