Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
CPB sets up check point on jetway of SFO-JFK >

CPB sets up check point on jetway of SFO-JFK

Search
Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

CPB sets up check point on jetway of SFO-JFK

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-25-2017, 04:11 PM
  #51  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 375
Default

Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine View Post
For those you who may not be familiar with NMuir, he is a troll with just enough knowledge of aviation to push our buttons.



He throws out inflammatory statements and refuses to support them with any relevant facts. When you supply any contradictory evidence, he responds with this: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

He never is able to engage past basic talking points and lacks any real world experience to support his posts. He is the uninformed yet opinionated facebook "friend," the 17-year-old kid who just discovered Che Guevara, nothing more than a mere fart in the wind.

Uh no, you couldn't be more wrong. And Che was a murderer who should have been executed many years before he was killed.


Oh, and this:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
NMuir is offline  
Old 02-25-2017, 04:32 PM
  #52  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Baron50's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: Cub Cap
Posts: 175
Default

Originally Posted by jcountry View Post
I'd keep right on walking.

Without a warrant or probable cause, they won't touch you-or even stand in your way.

This whole stunt was just drama.
Try that at a DUI checkpoint.

You lost your fourth amendment right to privacy and unreasonable search when the SCOTUS (split decision) allowed an exception for public safety.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint
Baron50 is offline  
Old 02-25-2017, 04:51 PM
  #53  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2014
Posts: 1,681
Default

Originally Posted by Baron50 View Post
Try that at a DUI checkpoint.

You lost your fourth amendment right to privacy and unreasonable search when the SCOTUS (split decision) allowed an exception for public safety.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint


I hate to split hairs-but there is not a "right to privacy." Never has been one.

It is a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The whole "right to privacy" is a modern invention-and an attempt to make the constitution to appear to contain something it doesn't.
jcountry is offline  
Old 02-25-2017, 05:32 PM
  #54  
Banned
 
Joined APC: May 2015
Posts: 201
Default

Originally Posted by NMuir View Post
And the SCOTUS was wrong because their ruling is clearly contrary to the plain text of the Constitution.
The Constitution provides only one entity to interpret the Constitution and that is the SCOTUS. While you may feel your opinion is valid, unless you happen to be one of the 9 justices it isn't.
AC560 is offline  
Old 02-25-2017, 05:49 PM
  #55  
Gets Weekends Off
 
galaxy flyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,177
Default

Originally Posted by NMuir View Post
Laws contrary to the Constitution are actually no law at all.
You can't sat that, only the Supreme Court can for federal law.

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 02-25-2017, 05:53 PM
  #56  
You scratched my anchor
 
Al Czervik's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,876
Default

Originally Posted by Baron50 View Post
Try that at a DUI checkpoint.

You lost your fourth amendment right to privacy and unreasonable search when the SCOTUS (split decision) allowed an exception for public safety.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint
At a dui checkpoint the police have the right to stop your vehicle and ask questions. You are not required to answer. If you're not suspected of a crime they cannot detain you nor search your vehicle. There are idiots on YouTube that know this and push it.
Al Czervik is offline  
Old 02-25-2017, 06:16 PM
  #57  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,673
Default

I don't always seek legal counsel/constitutional scholars. But when I do, I go to Facebook or APC.
John Carr is online now  
Old 02-25-2017, 06:38 PM
  #58  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 498
Default

Originally Posted by jcountry View Post
Requires "reasonable suspicion" hence probable cause.
Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are two very different standards in legal terms. They are not interchangeable.

(Stayed at a holiday inn ...)
Hossharris is offline  
Old 02-25-2017, 08:00 PM
  #59  
Gets Weekends Off
 
tomgoodman's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: 767A (Ret)
Posts: 6,248
Default

Originally Posted by say again View Post
Bingo! A bad troll at that.
But if a troll is bad enough, like a clown with a severe limp, he can be simultaneously too sad and too hilarious to ban.
tomgoodman is offline  
Old 02-25-2017, 08:48 PM
  #60  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,666
Default

Originally Posted by NMuir View Post
And the SCOTUS was wrong because their ruling is clearly contrary to the plain text of the Constitution.
The SCOTUS gets to interpret the Constitution. Since the 4th amendment does not define the word "unreasonable", they have come up with various interpretations to try to define what is reasonable vs unreasonable. Since the US operates on the English-style common law system of precedent-setting case law and since there is no higher legal authority in the US that can overturn their rulings, then their interpretations carry the same weight as the text does, whether you or I like it or not.
Xdashdriver is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
pilatusguy
Aviation Law
25
02-22-2022 01:21 AM
lowflying
Major
0
07-21-2013 01:37 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices