unformed 0 #26 December 30, 2005 QuoteQuoteCarrying drugs on a plane does not endanger the lives of others. Drugs aren't dangerous? I didn't say drugs aren't dangerous. I said, "bringing drugs onto a plane do not endanger the lives of others." You can't compare having a condom filled with drugs with waving a toy gun around. The latter should, rightfully, get you shot.This ad space for sale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiver30960 0 #27 December 30, 2005 ...aaaannndd who would I be endangering with my plastic gun? I couldn't REALLY hurt anyone with it, and if anybody on the plane got "scared" or "freaked out" or "absofuckinglutely panicked" then hey, it's just a joke, right? Elvisio "my squirtgun is filled with tequila" Rodriguez Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
unformed 0 #28 December 30, 2005 Quote QuoteFurthermore, how hard is it to tell the difference between coke and flour? (Not hard, in case you don't know) Not so fast. Chemical engineers retained by the cocaine barons have successfully transformed cocaine per se into seemingly benign alkaloid compounds which aren’t readily detectable as a drug but can be chemically reprocessed into saleable coke post screening. Ascertaining the true nature of these compounds when they are mixed with other substances like common baking ingredients may very well occupy a reasonable interval of several weeks time given the busy schedules of the drugs labs. I would argue that the college darling in this case wasn’t uniquely entitled to fast, friendly service given her responses to the field agents’ questioning and the other facts apparent in this case. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! I didn't even think about that. That's a good point. I was only considering actual coke. Even still, I question the actual accuracy of the field tests if flour posts as a positive.This ad space for sale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #29 December 30, 2005 QuoteI would argue that the college darling in this case wasn't uniquely entitled to fast, friendly serviceWell then it's a good thing that the US Constitution enshrines the right to speedy trial. How would you like it if you got to take a 3 week holiday in a cell while disinterested public workers shuffled your paperwork.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #30 December 30, 2005 QuoteWell then it's a good thing that the US Constitution enshrines the right to speedy trial. A right to a “speedy trial” was never at issue in this case. QuoteHow would you like it if you got to take a 3 week holiday in a cell while disinterested public workers shuffled your paperwork. Irrelevant. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #31 December 30, 2005 Quote...aaaannndd who would I be endangering with my plastic gun? I couldn't REALLY hurt anyone with it, and if anybody on the plane got "scared" or "freaked out" or "absofuckinglutely panicked" then hey, it's just a joke, right? People could easily get hurt in the ensuing panic, much like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Your comparison is without merit. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,661 #32 December 30, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteDoes that make any sense? Almost, except for one thing. When did it become the law that one may not carry condoms and flour in one's suitcase? rl It's not illegal to carry condoms and flour in one's suitcase, however common sense says "don't do that". A simple taste test would have proven it was flour, I don't know how they tested it at the airport but obviously someone really screwed the pooch on that on. The 3 weeks she spent in jail (parents wouldn't/couldn't post bail?) more than makes up for the foolishness of her prank. Just because it's legal to do something doesn't mean it's wise to do it.... If being jailed were the penalty for having no common sense, we'd have to spend a whole lot of money building new prisons. As I understand it, she made no threats, wasn't a terrorism suspect, presented no risk to the traveling public, and did not lie about what she was carrying. All she did was poke fun at stupid drug laws. I hope she wins her case.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoop 0 #33 December 30, 2005 If she wins her case wont the money be coming out of your (the taxpayers) money. She thought shed be clever and funny and got caught out. Lesson learnt, will she do it again? I doubt it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #34 December 30, 2005 Then what's all that business about habeus corpus and the 6th amendment about anyway? Is there an exception for bogus drug tests stuck in there that I'm overlooking? Perhaps this lady capable of stuffing condoms with flour is a threat to public safety? Maybe you're thinking of the time of war exception...My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #35 December 30, 2005 QuoteQuoteDoes that make any sense? Almost, except for one thing. When did it become the law that one may not carry condoms and flour in one's suitcase? rl That may be a good point. But I think that there is something in the law about proffering something as though it is drugs -- it's how they can convict drug dealers who are "dealing" fake stuff. I'm not really sure. You'd have to ask a lawyer or prosecutor. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MooChooser 0 #36 December 31, 2005 She obviously wanted the security staff to believe she was smuggling drugs. She didnt think it through and she paid the price. In my opinion 3 weeks isnt a big deal considering that she no doubt took a proportion of airport security away from their duties for fun. What the fuck was she thinking? It is likely that an example was made of her to prevent other dumb shits from trying the same "joke." I hope she loses her case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,661 #37 December 31, 2005 QuoteIf she wins her case wont the money be coming out of your (the taxpayers) money. I'd rather spend it on that than on Senator Blutarsky's porkbarrel projects.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,661 #38 December 31, 2005 QuoteShe obviously wanted the security staff to believe she was smuggling drugs. She didnt think it through and she paid the price. In my opinion 3 weeks isnt a big deal considering that she no doubt took a proportion of airport security away from their duties for fun. What the fuck was she thinking? It is likely that an example was made of her to prevent other dumb shits from trying the same "joke." I hope she loses her case. Even if it had been drugs, how is it a risk to airport security? The security people should stick to security issues, like catching people with fingernail files or old men carrying on their Medals of Honor.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #39 December 31, 2005 QuoteThen what's all that business about habeus corpus and the 6th amendment about anyway? Relevant in theory but not in application according to what I’ve read about the case. QuoteMaybe you're thinking of the time of war exception... Nope, I certainly wasn’t thinking that at all. What legal foundation did you have for believing that I might think that? Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #40 December 31, 2005 QuoteI'd rather spend it on that than on Senator Blutarsky's porkbarrel projects. What can I say, some of my constituents feel that building a PleasureDome on the Hill will eventually lead to reductions in federal spending growth and nuclear disarmament. My esteemed colleague, Ted Kennedy, is with us on this one. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MooChooser 0 #41 December 31, 2005 QuoteQuoteShe obviously wanted the security staff to believe she was smuggling drugs. She didnt think it through and she paid the price. In my opinion 3 weeks isnt a big deal considering that she no doubt took a proportion of airport security away from their duties for fun. What the fuck was she thinking? It is likely that an example was made of her to prevent other dumb shits from trying the same "joke." I hope she loses her case. Even if it had been drugs, how is it a risk to airport security? The security people should stick to security issues, like catching people with fingernail files or old men carrying on their Medals of Honor. Im not saying its a risk to security, but obviously airport security personnel are the ones who have to deal with it. Infact that in itself could be seen as a risk to airport security. Distracting security from their job. If enough people choose to carry fake drugs onto planes at the same time, getting away with the serious shit suddenly becomes a lot easier. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #42 December 31, 2005 QuoteIm not saying its a risk to security, but obviously airport security personnel are the ones who have to deal with it. Infact that in itself could be seen as a risk to airport security. Distracting security from their job. If that were so, they could also criminalize saying "Hi" to a security officer, or for that matter, having a sweet ASS! -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
unformed 0 #43 December 31, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteDoes that make any sense? Almost, except for one thing. When did it become the law that one may not carry condoms and flour in one's suitcase? rl That may be a good point. But I think that there is something in the law about proffering something as though it is drugs -- it's how they can convict drug dealers who are "dealing" fake stuff. I'm not really sure. You'd have to ask a lawyer or prosecutor. -Jeffrey she never said it was drugs, never offered it as drugs ... she had condoms filled with flour.This ad space for sale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yamtx73 0 #44 December 31, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteDoes that make any sense? Almost, except for one thing. When did it become the law that one may not carry condoms and flour in one's suitcase? rl It's not illegal to carry condoms and flour in one's suitcase, however common sense says "don't do that". A simple taste test would have proven it was flour, I don't know how they tested it at the airport but obviously someone really screwed the pooch on that on. The 3 weeks she spent in jail (parents wouldn't/couldn't post bail?) more than makes up for the foolishness of her prank. Just because it's legal to do something doesn't mean it's wise to do it.... If being jailed were the penalty for having no common sense, we'd have to spend a whole lot of money building new prisons. As I understand it, she made no threats, wasn't a terrorism suspect, presented no risk to the traveling public, and did not lie about what she was carrying. All she did was poke fun at stupid drug laws. I hope she wins her case. If you noticed I stated the 3 weeks she spent in jail more than makes up for the foolishness of her prank. She was an adult and knew if/when the condoms were found it would be assumed they contained drugs. Whether the drug laws are stupid or not is irrelevant, until they are repealed or reformed that's what we have to live with. As for her lawsuit, I feel it rates right up there with the woman who sued McDonalds when she spilled her hot coffee spilled on her lap. Sometimes common sense isn't quite so common.The only naturals in this sport shit thru feathers... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #45 December 31, 2005 Quote As for her lawsuit, I feel it rates right up there with the woman who sued McDonalds when she spilled her hot coffee spilled on her lap. Sometimes common sense isn't quite so common. You obviously don't know the details of that lawsuit. Many people don't, but refer to it all the time anyway. Google it, I bet you'll be suprised. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lisamariewillbe 1 #46 December 31, 2005 From what I understand on that lawsuit, she did not cause the spill, and she also only sued for her medical costs... is this correct?Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #47 December 31, 2005 Either way, it's not comparable. This girl, despite her poor (juvenile) judgment, was jailed for 3 weeks for a prank that neither harmed nor threatened to harm anyone. It was stupid, imho, to pull her stunt. But there's NO excuse for keeping her in jail to prove a point, or to teach a lesson to her and others who might question the authority of the authorities????? As much as I hate law suits, and as stupid as I think this little girl has been, I still hope she wins her suit because the powers that be need to be taught their place, imho. linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #48 December 31, 2005 Quote I didn't even think about that. That's a good point. I was only considering actual coke. Even still, I question the actual accuracy of the field tests if flour posts as a positive. Tying two subthreads together...no that can't be a good reason. If the test takes weeks to process, then it is not just to imprison ordinary people till their tests are completed. The fact that a test takes a long time disqualifies the test, not the subject's citizenship. I'm sure we can think of a way to drag a breathalyzer into a 3 week process...private jail contractors will be thrilled when we institute it.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
unformed 0 #49 December 31, 2005 It never said anything about bail. I don't know why bail was never posted. If you can't post bail, they will keep you in jail until a court date, at which point you are found either guilty or innocent. If they plan on pressing charges, they will hold you, unless of course, you can post bail. I know this was said tongue-in-cheek, but If they drag a breathalyzer into a three week process, nobody would ever get DUIs. We'd be sober by then.This ad space for sale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #50 December 31, 2005 From the article Quote She was arrested on Dec. 21, 2003, and was held on $500,000 bail and faced up to 20 years in prison had she been convicted of the drug charges. If it was $500,000 bail for a generic DUI...I'd take a loan from the bank and go into the bondsman business. What's the bond fee on a $500k bail? edit to add: Not to mention...your rights are still curtailed when you are awaiting trial and the outcome of the test. Someone like me, for instance, who travels out of state a lot might not be able to do his job.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
