Federal indemnification...Dem's help me out here?

[MOVIN-n-012]

Delanyland,
See what I mean.........?

[Spookmeister]

Wait until you're subjected to the same "random" frisk and search then share your opinion.
For 15 years, I came and went as I pleased at practically EVERY airport around the world. In the past five, I've been subjected to more "random" selection searches than in the previous 15. I'll let you imagine what the reason is...
While I understand the need for vigilance, it's gotten to the point that a six hour drive is preferable to the nonsense at the airport, and I used to have a policy that 100 miles is too far to drive...

[burdell]

Originally Posted by MOVIN-n-012

Delaneyland, My comment was not directed toward you, Burdell obviously hadn't known any of the Emams were not phisicaly in need of extenders and what that request may have meant to the flyers. .

That presents a whole different picture on the situation 'suspicious behavior' wise. And like many law suits I would suspect all this 'grievous harm' arose mostly in the minds of the attorneys.

But tort reform is still a bipartisan failue.

[Delaneyland]

Yup Movin, I sure do see what you mean, I just gave up trying to give some factual information...it appears to me there are some that just don't give a rip about facts, just opinions and the old soapbox thing. I'm guilty of it too on occasionally . You're right burd, it certainly is a failure, my humble opinion is simply that many if not most legislators are lawyers. Gee, go figure? Thanks for the discussion while it lasted, again Movin, I thought it was a great post and I apologize for taking it in another direction, I intended to use facts to discredit any validity to a civil action.

[MOVIN-n-012]

Originally Posted by Delaneyland

Yup Movin, I sure do see what you mean, I just gave up trying to give some factual information...it appears to me there are some that just don't give a rip about facts, just opinions and the old soapbox thing. I'm guilty of it too on occasionally . You're right burd, it certainly is a failure, my humble opinion is simply that many if not most legislators are lawyers. Gee, go figure? Thanks for the discussion while it lasted, again Movin, I thought it was a great post and I apologize for taking it in another direction, I intended to use facts to discredit any validity to a civil action.

Delaneyland,
Please, no apology needed here, when you come in with some additional facts and first hand experiance related to the subject, there is always the chance I might learn something from your experiances as I could only hope.....others would. I will also add to the opinion that government agencies have a very long jestation period before they get anything right. And then when they do, it usualy costs far more than it should. As for the unreasonable searches, you can thank the libs here once again with their utopian idea of non profiling of criminal suspects. The courts have cival libertied you to death in this case of AP security. Clearly, we are the laughing stock of the world when it comes to criminal/cival rights. Iv worked max prisons here in NY, and believe me when I tell you, our justice system has gone way, way to far to the left in the courts. Every part of care custody and control of felons is the result of court mandates, and some here think the system out of whack? You cant prove "common sence" has been excersized in a police action before a grand jury unless you have been specificaly trained in how to have "reason to believe". I will spare you of any further Gov CYA training since I digress my point, but any time you can get Fed indemnification for simply reporting to a "trained police officer" that some AH looks like he has the potencial behavior of hurting someone, What the Hell are the House Dems thinking about????? Lets see how many dopes we have in the senate that vote no on it IF they even put it on the floor for a vote. Gotta be some big BAR money to be had on this fish.