• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Man With 4th Amendment Written on Chest Sues Over Airport Arrest. With pic.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Did somebody force him to fly? He knew what would happen if he went there, and if he was so opposed to it, why did he?
 
AstroManLuca said:
Uh, I don't get it. Did he do something other than writing the 4th amendment on his chest to warrant being detained? You are allowed to choose a pat-down instead of using a full body scanner if you wish; doing so is not a crime. Writing on yourself is not a crime.

Why was he handcuffed and detained for a long time again? What's wrong with what he did? What if it was a tattoo instead? What if it was the 1st amendment instead? Is the 4th amendment specifically prohibited because it is a protest against that policy? And if that is the case, how can we claim to have free speech? Writing something on your body can't seriously be considered dangerous enough to no longer be protected speech.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
lol @ people saying all the extra screenings aren't unreasonable. please. how many people have blown up air planes? now compare that to the number of people who has flown on an air plane. it's totally insignificant. you want to totally invade and violate peoples personal privacies just because you're a scared little pussy. other measures have been taken and could still be taken to make air travel more secure that don't involve invading everyones personal space.
 
DominionSeraph said:
Stripping to make a pain out of yourself is. Disorderly conduct is a catch-all -- if you're being an ass, unless you are specifically protected, it probably applies.

Disrupting an airport security line to be a whiny little bitch would not fall under "protected."
Click to expand...

You're full of more shit than your ponies. Show us where he disrupted the security line. Read the end of the article.

According to the suit, while under interrogation on December 30, the authorities wanted to know “about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were.”

Two weeks later, Henrico County prosecutors dropped the misdemeanor charge.
Click to expand...

Those prosecuters didn't want to touch that case at all. He did not strip down--he took off his damn shirt and probably his jacket. Hell we have had people show up in swimwear to airports. It's not disorderly conduct. He did not break any law. They abused the law and are going to pay for it. I hope those TSA agents are fired for wasting resources.

1297738153065.gif
 
Dude was trolling for attention and money. He scheduled his striptease protest prank on the way to his grandmother's funeral, thinking that if he missed the flight it would earn him sympathy with the jury for his planned law suit.

Fuckers like this need to be body-slammed by Corey.
 
Paladin3 said:
Dude was trolling for attention and money. He scheduled his striptease protest prank on the way to his grandmother's funeral, thinking that if he missed the flight it would earn him sympathy with the jury for his planned law suit.

Fuckers like this need to be body-slammed by Corey.
Click to expand...

The OP left off the important part of the article. Read the end of the article. Then keep on trolling or being stupid.
 
@mcmilljb:

"According to the suit, while under interrogation on December 30, the authorities wanted to know “about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were.”
---------------
I read the entire article, jackass. The kid knowingly enters the security screening to get on an airline, then starts undressing with a protest message scribbled on his chest and you don't think it would be irresponsible of TSA to just let him continue on without detaining and questioning him? That's ignorant.

The kid initiated the confrontation and did exactly what he knew would get him detained. The TSA were simply doing the best the could to follow the current mandates established to try and ensure the safety of the flying public.

You might want to argue that current TSA policy is inept and not really making us any safer, but that is a COMPLETELY different issue.

What we are talking about here is a guy who caused a disturbance in a public, safety-sensitive area to provoke a response. And he got it. And after being detained (yes, in handcuffs because that is the policy) to answer questions and having a background check run, he still made his plane. But now he wants $250,000 for having his rights "violated".

I hope is grandmother is proud of him.
 
Last edited:
mcmilljb said:
Read the end of the article. The charges were dropped because he didn't break the law.
Click to expand...

They determined he didn't break the law (or at least it wasn't worth prosecuting), but you don't have to break the law to be detained and questioned if reasonable cause exists. What this kid did constituted reasonable cause.

Exactly who's rights were violated to the tune of a quarter million dollars?
 
Paladin3 said:
@mcmilljb:

"According to the suit, while under interrogation on December 30, the authorities wanted to know “about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were.”
---------------
I read the entire article, jackass. The kid knowingly enters the security screening to get on an airline, then starts undressing with a protest message scribbled on his chest and you don't think it would be irresponsible of TSA to just let him continue on without detaining and questioning him? That's ignorant.

The kid initiated the confrontation and did exactly what he knew would get him detained. The TSA were simply doing the best the could to follow the current mandates established to try and ensure the safety of the flying public.

You might want to argue that current TSA policy is inept and not really making us any safer, but that is a COMPLETELY different issue.

What we are talking about here is a guy who caused a disturbance in a public, safety-sensitive area to provoke a response. And he got it. And after being detained (yes, in handcuffs because that is the policy) to answer questions and having a background check run, he still made his plane. But now he wants $250,000 for having his rights "violated".

I hope is grandmother is proud of him.
Click to expand...

Read it again then dumbass.

What disturbance is writing a message on his chest? You can write all you want in your post, but it does not change the fact his detention was unwrranted. He did not do any thing wrong. What if he had the pledge of allegiance on his chest? Would you be ok with them detaining him? Also we have had people dressed in less without any one being arrested. The fact the prosecuters dropped the charges show he was not disturbing anyone and these TSA agents abused their power.
 
Seems like making a t-shirt or just writing on a white t-shirt would probably have been easier and maybe had a better ending with the same desired effect?
 
Paladin3 said:
They determined he didn't break the law (or at least it wasn't worth prosecuting), but you don't have to break the law to be detained and questioned if reasonable cause exists. What this kid did constituted reasonable cause.

Exactly who's rights were violated to the tune of a quarter million dollars?
Click to expand...

Why was he detained? Oh that's right, because he had his rights written on his chest? LOL yeah that's "reasonable cause". It's reasonable suspicion, and they did not meet the standard. Plus his arrest had to be based on probable cause and once again it was not found. So yes, his 4th amendment rights were violated. Monetary value is determined in the courts so he can ask for whatever he wants.
 
drebo said:
A metal detector is not unreasonable.

Forcing a woman to strip to her bra in public and taking naked pictures of and groping kids is unreasonable.

And, as stated a hundred times before, if terrorists wanted to kill people, there are far, far better ways than taking down an airplane. Their goal is to fuck with our daily lives, and we've let them win by giving up our freedom and liberty for the illusion of security.
Click to expand...

I agree with you strip searching is completely useless and grope searching people of white and yellow color is a waste of time. I'll also agree most security measures are illusions.

But this kid's goal was to be an attention whore troll and he succeeded. That's all that I was pointing out.
 
swanysto said:
If he wouldn't have been stupid, he prolly wouldn't have had to go through it anyway. I have been to the airport over a dozen times since they added those and I haven't gone through it once cause I am white. That thing is for profiling. The only people I saw go through it had darker skin than I.

But that is what he gets for being stupid. I hope he is on a list now that requires him to go through it. Some white people just need to shut up before they ruin it for the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Whenever I've seen one, I've had to go through it, and once had the full patdown afterwards - maybe because this new fancy technology is apparently unable to differentiate between a plastic button on a pair of pants and an explosive device? Who knows. Oh, and I'm about as white as they come.
 
JS80 said:
I agree with you strip searching is completely useless and grope searching people of white and yellow color is a waste of time. I'll also agree most security measures are illusions.

But this kid's goal was to be an attention whore troll and he succeeded. That's all that I was pointing out.
Click to expand...

Then don't detain someone because they have their right written on their chest. See how silly that is? This adult was detained because of his display of his right. Where did he break the law? There was no disturbance.
 
mcmilljb said:
Why was he detained? Oh that's right, because he had his rights written on his chest? LOL yeah that's "reasonable cause". It's reasonable suspicion, and they did not meet the standard. Plus his arrest had to be based on probable cause and once again it was not found. So yes, his 4th amendment rights were violated. Monetary value is determined in the courts so he can ask for whatever he wants.
Click to expand...

Where did it say there was no PC? I must have missed that.

mcmilljb said:
Then don't detain someone because they have their right written on their chest. See how silly that is? This adult was detained because of his display of his right. Where did he break the law? There was no disturbance.
Click to expand...

You're assuming that based solely on this article - which is basing most of its content on a telephone interview with the kid's attorney...? That's risky.
 
Last edited:
Sticks and stones may break your bones, but writing bits of the Constitution on your chest will get you sent to Gitmo!
 
jlee said:
Where did it say there was no PC? I must have missed that.
Click to expand...

Because the article mentions he was arrested for disorderly conduct. So there must have been one however we see none displayed in the article. Having a message written on your chest is not probable cause for disorderly conduct in Virginia unless he was intending to cause violence at the airport. I posted the law for you.

*edit* Sorry I posted it in an earlier post.
 
Last edited:
mcmilljb said:
Because the article mentions he was arrested for disorderly conduct. So there must have been one however we see none displayed in the article. Having a message written on your chest is not probable cause for disorderly conduct in Virginia unless he was intending to cause violence at the airport. I posted the law for you.

*edit* Sorry I posted it in an earlier post.
Click to expand...

Because we all know that news articles are written to clearly articulate all the facts and circumstances surrounding an incident, and the last thing they want to do is write sensationalist news stories. Got it.
 
jlee said:
Because we all know that news articles are written to clearly articulate all the facts and circumstances surrounding an incident, and the last thing they want to do is write sensationalist news stories. Got it.
Click to expand...

True. But I guess TSA don't get mad and do their job incorrectly. Got it. I guess they just missed the underwear bomber because they were feeling up white guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top