Nfl Fans Asked To Leave Time For Enhanced Screening

[Coltssouth]

The NFL says fans will undergo an enhanced personal security screening before entering Lucas Oil Stadium Sunday.

The screening will include physical pat-down (above the waist as well as below the knees) and inspection of all items. The enhanced personal security screening is in addition to the process guests have typically experienced at NFL games since 2001.

http://www.wthr.com/story/15470931/2011/09/15/nfl-fans-asked-to-leave-time-for-enhanced-screening

Why is this necessary? They already do an inspection of purses and packages. Now a pat- down?

[Zachris]

I would guess because the guy that walked into the staduim of the Jets/Dallas game with a tazer. And nobody stopped him or saw it. It was attached to his hip.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/jets/2011/09/12/2011-09-12_cowboys_fan_uses_taser_gun_on_jets_crowd_at_metlife_stadium_despite_security_on_.html

One of the many.

[AlaskaColtsFan]

I got patted down last game I went to. I must look shifty.

[ruksak]

As well it is my understanding that small children will be subject to this.

The terrorists haven't blown up any buildings in ten years, but they did blow up our peace of mind and our freedoms.

Another reason to watch at home I guess. Whats next, cavity searches? Rectal probes? Perhaps a full genital massage? I don't mean to be crude but....once on this slippery slope we have to imagine how far things like this go. I would prefer to forgo the searches and take my chances of the one in a billion odds that a crazy person has strapped a bomb in their kids under pants.

We are going too far with this and the trained rats succumb to the government and media induced fear. Terror level red lol stick it in your ear you scared little sheep.

[ruksak]

As well it is my understanding that small children will be subject to this.

The terrorists haven't blown up any buildings in ten years, but they did blow up our peace of mind and our freedoms.

Another reason to watch at home I guess. Whats next, cavity searches? Rectal probes? Perhaps a full genital massage? I don't mean to be crude but....once on this slippery slope we have to imagine how far things like this go. I would prefer to forgo the searches and take my chances of the one in a billion odds that a crazy person has strapped a bomb in their kids under pants.

We are going too far with this and the trained rats succumb to the government and media induced fear. Terror level red lol stick it in your ear you scared little sheep.

[CollieFangirl]

I had a patdown at the jags game. Very professional, barely took any time. I don't see a problem with it at all.

[Susie Q]

As well it is my understanding that small children will be subject to this.

The terrorists haven't blown up any buildings in ten years, but they did blow up our peace of mind and our freedoms.

Another reason to watch at home I guess. Whats next, cavity searches? Rectal probes? Perhaps a full genital massage? I don't mean to be crude but....once on this slippery slope we have to imagine how far things like this go. I would prefer to forgo the searches and take my chances of the one in a billion odds that a crazy person has strapped a bomb in their kids under pants.

We are going too far with this and the trained rats succumb to the government and media induced fear. Terror level red lol stick it in your ear you scared little sheep.

Well I worked as a personal assistant in a correctional facility and you wouldn't believe what girlfriends and mother put in baby's diapers to smuggle in to their fathers. So yes it's possible and probable. For one I personally don't have a problem with the searches at all. After what I have seen anything is possible and better to be safe than sorry. JMO of course. Everyone has their own opinion on that subject which I also respect.

[crazyrob]

If it keeps me safer, I don't have a problem with it. I've been patted down at every home game I've attended, but it's been a pretty quick wipe of the arms. I usually bring in my camera back and it would be VERY easy to sneak something into the stadium. I'm not talking about a tazer, but someone could easily get a gun in or explosive. I'm all for some enhanced security measures, I just hope they've hired more screeners. The lines were long to begin with!

[Balzer40]

I had a patdown at the jags game. Very professional, barely took any time. I don't see a problem with it at all.

I don't either. Of course I never understood the problem people had with the body scanners at airports either. I have flown all over this world and if I have to undergo a few minutes of indignity to ensure that I make it from point A to point B safely then im all for it.

[Susie Q]

I don't either. Of course I never understood the problem people had with the body scanners at airports either. I have flown all over this world and if I have to undergo a few minutes of indignity to ensure that I make it from point A to point B safely then im all for it.

+1 Thanks for the great post and I agree completely.

[ruksak]

I don't like being touched by strangers. All this bogus security has more to do with legal liability and insurance clauses than anything else.

Oh the irony. The man with the taser at the Jets game was assaulted and his taser spared him serious injury. Funny how it works like that, huh? Yet he is painted as a criminal for bearing arms. We let authority strip us of our right to defend ourselves under the pretense that some minimum wage security official will step in and save us.

Not that I think it wise to allow weapons at football games. The point being, you aren't any safer from these searches. It might sooth your mind, but it doesn't keep you safe.

[grmasterb]

The point being, you aren't any safer from these searches. It might sooth your mind, but it doesn't keep you safe.

If airports had been required to scan/search for or prohibit box cutters on 9/11/2001, there might be at least 3,000 more people alive today. Not that I think that NFL games are high-risk events, but let's not underestimate the depravity of some individuals.

[crazyrob]

I don't like being touched by strangers. All this bogus security has more to do with legal liability and insurance clauses than anything else.

You should fly through Israel at some point. Now there's some security!

[ruksak]

If airports had been required to scan/search for or prohibit box cutters on 9/11/2001, there might be at least 3,000 more people alive today. Not that I think that NFL games are high-risk events, but let's not underestimate the depravity of some individuals.

Well of course carrying a razor knife onto an airplane shouldn't be allowed.

I don't like the idea of pat downs. It is wholly overblown. If I wanted to bring a box knife to the game on Sunday and cut me up a Browns fan, I could easily do this, pat down or not.

Go back 15 years ago. In that year I would wager some millions of folks attended sporting events. How many people were hurt by weapon assaults? What ....maybe 3 at the most?

How many were hurt by fists and kicks? Likely far more, many more.

Point being you aren't any safer. It is peace of mind at the expense of your dignity. Good for nothing except relieving the stadium administrators of financial liability when a lawsuit arises.

[ruksak]

You should fly through Israel at some point. Now there's some security!

Anyone that goes to Israel deserves what they get.

[leatherman]

You should fly through Israel at some point. Now there's some security!

this is the united states not israel.....all this "security" is not making you any safer......if somebody wants to harm somebody a pat down at the gates isn't going to stop them.......

i'll go ahead and say it now......those x-ray machines are next and they will make you go through both

[leatherman]

If airports had been required to scan/search for or prohibit box cutters on 9/11/2001, there might be at least 3,000 more people alive today. Not that I think that NFL games are high-risk events, but let's not underestimate the depravity of some individuals.

i don't believe that to be true at all.....they could've got control of those planes with or with out box cutters........

[JoKeR]

You should fly through Israel at some point. Now there's some security!

lol Israel's security is nearly 100% profiling, so why did you look so suspicious? What are you up to? Ever been to a Al qaeda website? Have any drugs or explosives on your person? Are you allergic to latex gloves? Jk

[aavmarine]

Dang, for those of you that have a problem with this, you would never make it where I work. I have to go through 5 security checks before I even get in to do my job. And yes, if the suecurity personnel would do an actual pat down, it would be very hard to get something in.

[Smitto]

All for the sake of safety ppl, you can never be too careful these days.

[Smitto]

All for the sake of safety ppl, you can never be too careful these days.

[JoKeR]

As well it is my understanding that small children will be subject to this.

The terrorists haven't blown up any buildings in ten years, but they did blow up our peace of mind and our freedoms.

Another reason to watch at home I guess. Whats next, cavity searches? Rectal probes? Perhaps a full genital massage? I don't mean to be crude but....once on this slippery slope we have to imagine how far things like this go. I would prefer to forgo the searches and take my chances of the one in a billion odds that a crazy person has strapped a bomb in their kids under pants.

We are going too far with this and the trained rats succumb to the government and media induced fear. Terror level red lol stick it in your ear you scared little sheep.

How dangerous do I need to look to get that genital message? I didn't know the security ladies like the bad boy type.

Seriously though, who really wants to depend on crappy security for protection? There's a baseball fan in San Fran that probably would've wanted a taser.

[Thewholefnshow28]

All for the sake of safety ppl, you can never be too careful these days.

If we start giving up more and more freedom in the name of "safety" then we are letting the terrorist win. Also, if anyone really believes the airport security is any better now with the TSA then they are just kidding themselves.

The cowboy fan who caused all of this was just a giant tool. I am not condoning the Jets fans if they threaten the guy are attacked him, but it is one thing to not stand for the national anthem because of your religious beliefs, but to chat on your phone through taps is just being disrespectful to other people. You know he would get all upset if people would be disrespectful towards his religious beliefs.

This will just be another reason why I enjoy watching the Colts games from the comfort of my own home.

[Coffeedrinker]

I had a patdown at the jags game. Very professional, barely took any time. I don't see a problem with it at all.

Well I worked as a personal assistant in a correctional facility and you wouldn't believe what girlfriends and mother put in baby's diapers to smuggle in to their fathers. So yes it's possible and probable. For one I personally don't have a problem with the searches at all. After what I have seen anything is possible and better to be safe than sorry. JMO of course. Everyone has their own opinion on that subject which I also respect.

If it keeps me safer, I don't have a problem with it. I've been patted down at every home game I've attended, but it's been a pretty quick wipe of the arms. I usually bring in my camera back and it would be VERY easy to sneak something into the stadium. I'm not talking about a tazer, but someone could easily get a gun in or explosive. I'm all for some enhanced security measures, I just hope they've hired more screeners. The lines were long to begin with!

I don't either. Of course I never understood the problem people had with the body scanners at airports either. I have flown all over this world and if I have to undergo a few minutes of indignity to ensure that I make it from point A to point B safely then im all for it.

You guys make me think of the quote from Thomas Jefferson, "“A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither”.

The problem I have with it, is I believe two things very strongly and these kind of searches violate one and does nothing for the other. Those two things are

the idea of innocent until proven guilty. Searches assume you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. The 2nd is prescreening does very little to deter crime, severely punishing those that do commit crimes deters more crime than any other measures.

[ruksak]

How dangerous do I need to look to get that genital message? I didn't know the security ladies like the bad boy type.

Seriously though, who really wants to depend on crappy security for protection? There's a baseball fan in San Fran that probably would've wanted a taser.

You ever hear the term "feelin frisky"? Allow your imagination to run wild my friend.

+1 for truth, and you bolster my point that the best pat downs do not strip one of their fists, nor their cruel intentions, nor their ability to do great harm.

[aavmarine]

So, I guess when a couple of terroist decide to buy a couple of tickets off ticket master and walk into a NFL game with 40 lbs of strapped on c4 and detonate it in the middle of the game, then this might change your mind about pat downs. To me, you can't have enough security at a game.

[JoKeR]

So, I guess when a couple of terroist decide to buy a couple of tickets off ticket master and walk into a NFL game with 40 lbs of strapped on c4 and detonate it in the middle of the game, then this might change your mind about pat downs. To me, you can't have enough security at a game.

They'd probably just blow up the front of the stadium and everyone in line.

[ruksak]

So, I guess when a couple of terroist decide to buy a couple of tickets off ticket master and walk into a NFL game with 40 lbs of strapped on c4 and detonate it in the middle of the game, then this might change your mind about pat downs. To me, you can't have enough security at a game.

Are you scared?

Guess what, they could do this at the mall, the supermarket, Wal-mart or any other public place that doesn't have security. Live your life cowering in fear of an infinitesimally small chance that a terrorist will detonate a bomb at a Colts game.

I'll stay home and away from the panicky crowds.

[crazyrob]

You guys make me think of the quote from Thomas Jefferson, "“A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither”.

I've heard that quote bandied about and it's always misapplied as it is here. Pat down or not there are alredy plenty of restrictions in place. You give up many little liberties to attend a game or even just live in our society. So by definition of this quote we already deserve neither. If you don't believe me try excercising your freedom to carry a cooler full of pop into the game.

[leatherman]

So, I guess when a couple of terroist decide to buy a couple of tickets off ticket master and walk into a NFL game with 40 lbs of strapped on c4 and detonate it in the middle of the game, then this might change your mind about pat downs. To me, you can't have enough security at a game.

I'll take death over chains

[ruksak]

If you don't believe me try excercising your freedom to carry a cooler full of pop into the game.

Well of course we can't allow that. It could be packed full of guns, bombs or even monsters with 6 eyes.

"anything for safety". Isn't that the mantra?

Applying this logic, would we not have a much safer society if the government conducted random home searches? They show up and search through your belongings, your children's dresser drawers (could be hiding contraband in there). Logic says that indeed we would seize countless illegal drugs, weapons and plots 'o' terror doing this. That is unreasonable? Well thats the point I'm driving at. When we succumb to fear, the unreasonable becomes reasonable.

[Balzer40]

You guys make me think of the quote from Thomas Jefferson, "“A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither”.

The problem I have with it, is I believe two things very strongly and these kind of searches violate one and does nothing for the other. Those two things are

the idea of innocent until proven guilty. Searches assume you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. The 2nd is prescreening does very little to deter crime, severely punishing those that do commit crimes deters more crime than any other measures.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a false premise. Just about any crime a person commits will be arrested and held in jail until either bail is made or until they have their trial. How can anyone be held in jail if they are truely "innocent until proven guilty"? That would be considered false inprisenment. I don't disagree with what you are implying, but in reality everybody suspected of something in this country is indeed guilty until proven innocent. It has to be that way because anarchy would ensue if it wasn't, but the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" is just something the fore fathers came up with that sounds good. We do not actually abide by it.

[Coffeedrinker]

So, I guess when a couple of terroist decide to buy a couple of tickets off ticket master and walk into a NFL game with 40 lbs of strapped on c4 and detonate it in the middle of the game, then this might change your mind about pat downs. To me, you can't have enough security at a game.

So, are you guaranteeing these pat downs are going to prevent a terrorists attack? There are dangers in the world, plenty of them, this kind of non sense does nothing to eliminate or even minimize any of them.

[leatherman]

Well of course we can't allow that. It could be packed full of guns, bombs or even monsters with 6 eyes.

"anything for safety". Isn't that the mantra?

Applying this logic, would we not have a much safer society if the government conducted random home searches? They show up and search through your belongings, your children's dresser drawers (could be hiding contraband in there). Logic says that indeed we would seize countless illegal drugs, weapons and plots 'o' terror doing this. That is unreasonable? Well thats the point I'm driving at. When we succumb to fear, the unreasonable becomes reasonable.

it's also worth pointing out.....how many terrorist has any of this security found or stopped......that would be 0.....

remember in the state of indiana they are trying to say that you can not refuse police entry into your home......

[Coffeedrinker]

I've heard that quote bandied about and it's always misapplied as it is here. Pat down or not there are alredy plenty of restrictions in place. You give up many little liberties to attend a game or even just live in our society. So by definition of this quote we already deserve neither. If you don't believe me try excercising your freedom to carry a cooler full of pop into the game.

It's not misapplied at all. And yes we, as a country, are too far down that road. And it's because of attitudes like what have been displayed on this thread, ideas about it doesn't take too much time, if it keeps us safe, if it makes sure.... blah, blah, blah. And we see the result, there are more violent crimes per 1000 people than any time in the history of the U.S., there are more attacks against the US than at any time AND there are more screenings, civil rights violations, laws and pat downs than at any time.

Add to that, the entire mind set, people are giving the responsibility for their safety to someone else. Phooey, people are entrusting their safety to a bunch a people that make just over minimum wage rather than keeping it as their responsibility.

[Coffeedrinker]

Well of course we can't allow that. It could be packed full of guns, bombs or even monsters with 6 eyes.

"anything for safety". Isn't that the mantra?

Applying this logic, would we not have a much safer society if the government conducted random home searches? They show up and search through your belongings, your children's dresser drawers (could be hiding contraband in there). Logic says that indeed we would seize countless illegal drugs, weapons and plots 'o' terror doing this. That is unreasonable? Well thats the point I'm driving at. When we succumb to fear, the unreasonable becomes reasonable.

I knew there was a reason I liked you even though we don't agree on much Colts related.

[Coffeedrinker]

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a false premise. Just about any crime a person commits will be arrested and held in jail until either bail is made or until they have their trial. How can anyone be held in jail if they are truely "innocent until proven guilty"? That would be considered false inprisenment.

That is why it's the "idea" of innocent until proven guilty. (By the way, if you are ever called for jury duty and want to get out of it, just state that "yeah the person must be guilty, why else would they have arrested him. You will be dismissed.) And the situation you presented is a catch 22. Fortunately it is not an idea that is in the Constitution (because of the very scenario you portrayed) but when you read a lot of the papers surrounding the Constitution that is the bases for the US judicial system. And one could argue (not me) that being in jail is not a punishment it is just a way to ensure you show up for your trial. And that no real punishment can happen without that trial to judge guilt. We have gone a longs ways from that as well with plea bargains, etc. But at least that is the alleged criminal's choice. The idea does(for the time being) prevent US citizens from being thrown in jail for no reason and without some sort of due process.

I don't disagree with what you are implying, but in reality everybody suspected of something in this country is indeed guilty until proven innocent. It has to be that way because anarchy would ensue if it wasn't, but the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" is just something the fore fathers came up with that sounds good. We do not actually abide by it.

Innocent until proven guilty is actually something that came down from the French judicial system before we became a country.

[JoKeR]

remember in the state of indiana they are trying to say that you can not refuse police entry into your home......

Anymore info on this?

[ruksak]

Anymore info on this?

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/05/18/the-indiana-supreme-court-guts-the-fourth-amendment/

It was done so quietly, as if they wanted you to be unaware.

A little-noticed Indiana Supreme Court decision late last week overturned long-standing precedent and stripped citizens of the right to resist unlawful police entry to their homes, in a move dissenting justices called "breathtaking" and "unnecessarily broad."

It effectively means that officers may enter any residence without warrant, probable cause or permission of the owner, leaving citizens' only legal recourse against such intrusions in the hands of police review boards or district courts.

[Balzer40]

(By the way, if you are ever called for jury duty and want to get out of it, just state that "yeah the person must be guilty, why else would they have arrested him. You will be dismissed.)

I will certainly keep that in mind if and when it happens. I believe in our justice system, but not necessarily the people involved with it.

Innocent until proven guilty is actually something that came down from the French judicial system before we became a country.

Tells you how much I paid attention in history class(of course its been 23 yrs. since I had one). I honestly either did not know or remember that.